Employee voice : the influence of employee voice behavior on the job and team satisfaction, with the basic need satisfaction as a starting point

Employee voice

The influence of employee voice behavior on the job and team satisfaction,

with the basic need satisfaction as a starting point

Master thesis Business Studies, Leadership & Organization (6314M0222)

Name: A.L.C.M. Snijders (10631550) Supervisor: R. Van Geffen

Date: June, 2014 Version: Final version

Abstract

All employees want to be heard. They have many ideas and suggestions about improvements or critical implications for the organization. However, not every employee speaks up (i.e. voice). Organizations and managers need the ideas and suggestions in order to survive in this competing market. Little attention has been given in the academic literature to the relationship between the basic need satisfaction, voice and job and team satisfaction. The aim of this study is to address this gap empirically. A sample of 214 participants in 36 meetings was collected.

Conducting a regression analysis, a positive significant relation was found between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the job en team satisfaction. The study failed to support a mediation effect of the quantity of voice between those variables. Moreover, no significant effect was found between the quantity of voice and the job and team member satisfaction. Furthermore, in this study there was no moderating effect of the behavior of the manager on the relationship between the basic need satisfaction and the quantity of voice of employees.

In the light of these findings, a point of interest in organizations should be on the basic need satisfaction of employees. Although some results were not significant, these findings are an important starting point for further research on the current ambiguity in the literature on voice constructs within teams.

Key words: voice, basic need satisfaction, job satisfaction, team satisfaction,

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people who contributed to this thesis by their input – professionally or privately:

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Renske van Geffen for allowing me to follow a research internship at ABN AMRO, for her dedicated mentoring, and for her advice and support at any time of my thesis.

Furthermore, I would like to thank Sjoerdtje Anne Porte for the opportunity and educational experience at ABN AMRO.

I would also like to thank my sisters Romee en Nadie who have been a helping friend during my whole study.

Finally, I want to thank my parents for their patient and emotional support at any time during this thesis and my study.

Content

2.2 The basic need satisfaction (independent variable) ... 9

2.2.1 Autonomy ... 10

2.2.2 Competence ... 10

2.2.3 Relatedness ... 11

2.3 Job and team satisfaction (dependent variable) ...12

2.4 Leadership behavior (moderator) ...13

2.5 Voice (mediator) ...14

2.6 Proposed research model ...16

3.0 Method ... 18

3.1 Sample and procedure ...18

3.2 Measures ...20 3.2.1 Independent variable ... 20 3.2.2 Dependent variable ... 20 3.2.3 Mediating variable ... 21 3.2.4 Moderating variable ... 21 3.2.5 Control variables... 22 4.0 Results... 23

4.1 Pearson correlation matrix ...23

4.2 Regression Analysis ...24

4.2.1 Basic needs satisfaction theory and job and team satisfaction ... 24

4.2.2 Quantity of voice on job and team satisfaction ... 26

4.2.3 Moderation effect ... 27

4.2.4 Mediation effect... 29

5.0 Discussion ... 32

5.1 Research findings and theoretical implications ...32

5.1.1 Hypotheses 1 ... 32

5.1.2 Hypothesis 2 ... 32

5.1.3 Hypothesis 3 ... 33

5.1.4 Hypothesis 4 ... 34

5.2 Managerial implications ...35

5.3 Limitations of current research and implications for further research ...36

6.0 Conclusion ... 40 7.0 References ... 42 8.0 Appendix ... 48 Annex A ... 48 Annex B ... 51 Annex C ... 54

1.0 Introduction

The environment organizations are operating in is becoming more complex and dynamic (Gao, Janssen & Shi, 2011; Grant, Parker & Collins, 2009). At the same time, organizations face internal pressures for technological, social and economic change. As a result, it is becoming a big challenge for managers to maintain an overview on all the processes, possible opportunities and problems inside and outside the organization. Employees have been acknowledged as a valuable source of information, suggestions and for pointing out critical issues (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). The amount employees and managers share their suggestions and critical issues (i.e. voice) within an organization have tremendous implications for an organizations’ performance and even its survival (Detert & Buris, 2007; Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea & Frey, 2007). Managers need the information that employees have in order to make good business decisions and solve problems when they occur (Detert & Buris, 2007; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

As a result of an increasing complexity of tasks and a fast changing environment, organizations strive to organize their work around teams (Gordon, 1992; Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1995; Salas, Cooke & Rosen, 2008). Teams need input from individuals as well, if they want to respond appropriately to dynamic organizational decisions and problems (LePine & van Dyne, 1998; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). One of the core aspects of teamwork is communication between co-workers (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). Communication of employees with each other leads to new ideas and results in continuous improvement within organizations (Le Pine & Van Dyne, 1998). Voicing is a way of communication with each other. It is proactive behavior with the intention to improve the organization through expressing suggestions or opinions about

process or work related issues (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).

Over the past decades a lot of research has been done on concepts, determinants and relations of voice (Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence & Miner-Rubino, 2002; Kish-Gephart, Detert, Treviño & Edmondson, 2009; Miceli, Near & Dworkin, 2008; Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). The predominant focus of much of the empirical research has been on the different concepts of voice and understanding the factors influencing the choice of employees to speak up (i.e., voice) or remain silent (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003).

If employees choose to speak up, positive effects of voice can be seen on the organizational and individual level. On the organizational level voice is positively influencing effective organizational decision-making, organizational learning and improves error detection (Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). On the individual level voice enhances employees’ feelings of control, and being able to express one’s view and concerns. This will ultimately lead to increased satisfaction, commitment and engagement (Farndale et al., 2011; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Rees, Alfes & Gatenby, 2013).

Recognizing the critical role of voice and its effectiveness is important for managers as well as for researchers. Voice is a way of improving the organizational performance therefore it is important for organizations and managers to know and understand which factors have an impact on the motivation of the employee to speak up when he has potentially important information to share. When managers and researchers understand the phenomenon of voice properly they can bend the positive effects and outcomes more in their advantage and decline the possible negative outcomes of voice.

Despite the relevance of this topic, there is a dearth of empirical research that focuses on the effects of voice between co-workers and within teams. In this study an integrative perspective will be applied in order to yield better insights regarding how employees are intrinsically motivated to engage in voice and what the effect of this voicing has on the job and team satisfaction. An integrative perspective may yield insights for researchers and managers on how voicing could be enhanced, stimulated and facilitated within teams and in team-meetings. From a managerial perspective, evaluating the impact of voice within teams on the satisfaction is interesting as managers gain a profound and deeper understanding of how to manage the relationships and inner processes within the team. As research has shown, employees who are satisfied with their work and their team will perform better (Judge, Thoreson, Bono & Patton, 2001; Politis, 2006). Knowing when voice will hamper the satisfaction of employees and through that way influencing the performance of the team is essential for managers to know. Organizations increasingly dependent on their teams’ success, therefore it is critical to address this gap. Furthermore, this study will contribute to the existing theoretical frameworks concerning the basic need satisfaction, transformational behavior of the leader and job and team satisfaction.

2.0 Literature review

2.1 Voice

Proactive behavior of employees is becoming more important for organizations in these challenging times (Grant & Ashford, 2008). The advantage of proactive people is that they actively seek and identify opportunities to improve processes or regulations, they challenge the status quo and create favourable conditions (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Proactively employees can behave in different ways. One way of doing this is through voicing. Morrison (2011) presumes that people voice because they want to make positive changes for the collective and to improve the performance of their team or organization.

There are varying conceptualizations of voice, which has created ambiguity about the meaning and the scope of this phenomenon. In the literature one can see three commonalities of employee voice. First of all, the consideration that voice is an act of verbal expression. This entails that a message is conveyed from a sender to a receiver. Secondly, voice is seen as discretionary behavior. Different factors have an influence on the employee’s decision whether to voice or not to voice. A third commonality is that voice is seen as constructive in its intent (Morrison, 2011). It is the desire of an employee to improve the organization. This means that information or suggestions (i.e., voice) should be about improvement and positive change (Liang, Farh & Farh, 2012; Morrison, 2011). Thus, voice can be identified as a type of change oriented behavior.

Morrison (2011) defined voice as: ‘discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning’ (p. 375). In this study the same definition will be used to define voice behavior. Two types of voice can be identified: prohibitive and promotive

voice. Prohibitive voice describes employees’ concerns about work processes and practices that are harmful to an organization. In contrast, promotive voice is a challenging way of expressing suggestions to improve the functioning and procedures of the work unit or organization (Liang, Farh & Farh, 2012). Prohibitive voice focuses on detecting problems and expresses concerns about existing factors, whereas promotive voice focuses on possibilities on how to improve practices and processes in the future (van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). Prohibitive and promotive voice vary in their behavioural content nevertheless they are both constructive and challenging in their intent (Liang, Farh & Farhm, 2012). Therefore, they both are a way of employees to show their proactive behavior. In this study the quantity of voice (promotive + prohibitive) for each participant within a meeting is included as a variable.

2.2 The basic need satisfaction (independent variable)

Proactive behavior will occur when people feel intrinsicly or extrinsicly motivated. Over the past decades there has been a clear shift from the traditional theories of motivation and performance such as goal setting theory, towards a modern theory focusing on the intrinsic motivation and proactive behavior of employees such as the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Parker, Bindle & Strauss, 2010). The SDT comprises five mini-theories. One of these mini-theories, the basic need satisfaction, elaborates that people have three basic needs which when satisfied will lead to personal growth and optimal performance. These three basic needs are: autonomy (empowering of a person’s own choices), competence (mastering new skills in the process), and relatedness (to feel connected with others) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon et al., 2003).

2.2.1 Autonomy

The basic need satisfaction conceptualize autonomy ‘as the experience of feeling that one’s behavior is self-chosen and endorsed’ (Sheldon et al., 2003, p. 366). Autonomy is not total freedom to do whatever one wants, it is the freedom to be the maker or at least the owner of one’s choices and to experience a sense of volition (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, de Witte, Soenens & Lens, 2010). Research indicate that workplaces that give employees more autonomy will have higher levels of job satisfaction, which could ultimately lead to higher work motivation and organizational performance (Carr & Mellizo, 2013; Stewart, 2006; van Mierlo, Rutte, Kompier & Doorewaard, 2005). In line with this reasoning, this study proposes that autonomy stimulates job and team satisfaction because people will feel more motivated and satisfied when they have the feeling that they are accountable and owner of one’s choices. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1a: Satisfaction of the need for autonomy is positively related to job and team satisfaction.

2.2.2 Competence

Competence is defined as the inherent desire of an individual to feel effective in what one does and in interacting with their environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When employees perceive that they have the necessary resources and capabilities they are more likely to perceive a high degree of control over their own behavior and are therefore more motivated to perform and feel good about it (Liang, Farh & Farh, 2012; Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). Competent people believe that they are able to perform their job properly. When employees believe in their own capabilities, opportunities and abilities they will feel effective in what they do and experience higher levels of emotional well-being and job satisfaction (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser & Ryan, 1993;

Sheldon, Ryan & Reis, 1996). In line with this reasoning, this study proposes that a feeling of high competence stimulates the degree of job and team satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1b: Satisfaction of the need for competence is positively related to job and team satisfaction.

2.2.3 Relatedness

Van den Broeck et al. (2010) defined relatedness as the desire to feel connected with people, feeling loved and cared for in a group. This need is satisfied when people experience intimate relationships with others (Deci & Ryan, 2000). As the fulfilment of the need of relatedness is at a satisfied level meaning that an individual feels connect and loved by his co-workers the employee’s well-being will be higher (Ilardi, Leone, Kasser & Ryan, 1993). In line with this reasoning, this study proposes that a high feeling of relatedness stimulates the degree of job and team satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1c: Satisfaction of the need for relatedness is positively related to team satisfaction.

The basic need satisfaction indicates that all the three needs are necessary conditions. One cannot compensate the neglection of one need with the fulfilment of one of the other two. All the three needs have to be partially satisfied in order for people to be intrinsically motivated and show proactive behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The components of the basic needs theory will be included in this study as independent variables.

2.3 Job and team satisfaction (dependent variable)

Job and team satisfaction will be included in this study as dependent variables. Proactivity of employees is related to job satisfaction (Whanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Research of Kirkman & Rosen (1999) highlighted that more empowered teams showed more proactive behavior and team-member satisfaction. As Whiting and colleagues (2012) proposes in their study we might expect teams that are high in voice (i.e. proactive behavior) have higher team-level performance, given that they are more likely to find (innovative) solutions or suggestions. Nevertheless, researchers argue that voice behavior can have detrimental effects on interpersonal relationship within a team. Whether voice has negative or positive effect on the social effects of team-members depends on how the target perceives the message (Whiting et al., 2012). Teams with higher levels of voice behavior may experience lower levels of solidarity. This relationship between higher levels of voice behavior and lower levels of solidarity can decrease team performance (LePine & van Dyne, 1998; Whiting et al., 2012).

Despite the growing attention and the different relations and concepts of voice that have been clarified few attention has been paid to the relationship between voice and the social constructs within meetings. Despite the fact that meetings appear to be an important part of an employee’s experience of his organization (Rogelberg, Scott & Kello, 2007). It is important to investigate this relationship in more depth foremost because research has shown that job and team satisfaction have a positive relationship with performance (Judge, Thoreson, Bono & Patton, 2001; Politis, 2006).

This study suggests that voicing is positively related to job satisfaction, as employees are likely to be more satisfied when they are able to express their ideas and suggestions. However, the team satisfaction will decline through the quantity of voicing,

as team members may experience lower levels of solidarity when the voicing quantity is high. The following hypothesis will be tested:

Hypothesis 2a: The quantity of voice behavior is positively related to job satisfaction Hypothesis 2b: The quantity of voice behavior is negatively related with team

satisfaction

2.4 Leadership behavior (moderator)

Contextual factors can have an important effect on the extent in which employees are able and willing to voice (Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine& van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne, Craham & Dienesch, 1994). An organizational structure that is less hierarchical and bureaucratic provides cues that encourage voice behavior. Research showed that individuals voice more in a self-managing team compared to a traditional team (LePine & van Dyne, 1998). Self-managing teams have a higher job complexity and employees in complex jobs voice relatively more (Van Dyne, Craham & Dienesch, 1994). Particularly in self-managing teams were egalitarian practices such as rotated leadership and peer evaluations are being used (Erez, LePine & Elms, 2002). One of the most important factors that influence the extent in which employees decide to voice or remain silent is the behavior and leadership style of one’s manager (Detert & Burris, 2007; Detert & Trevino, 2010; Saunders et al., 1992; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). The research of Liu, Zhu and Yang (2010) found that a lot of characteristics of transformational leadership have a positive influence on the quantity of voice behavior of employees.

Transformational leaders are able to move their followers through (a) inspirational motivation, (b) individualized consideration, (c) idealized influence, and (d) intellectual stimulation. The first dimension, inspirational motivation, is the leader’s

capacity to act as a role model for subordinates. The second dimension, individualized consideration, refers to the coaching and mentoring skills that a transformational leader has. The third dimension, idealized influence (charisma), means that a transformational leader inspires his subordinates through a clear vision and mission. The fourth dimension, intellectual stimulation, refers to the manager’s capability of providing his subordinates with challenging new ideas (Bass, 1985; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

A manager should encourage participation by all employees, is easy to approach, is interested in their input and is not retributive to employees who voice (Detert & Burris, 2007; Gao et al., 2011; Saunders et al., 1992). An employee’s perception of the way that their immediate manages perceives employee voice is an important determinant of the employees’ likelihood to voice (Saunders et al., 1992). Thus, the behavior of the manager is a relevant variable to consider when looking at the social process of employees voicing within a meeting and will therefore be included as a moderator in this study. The following hypothesis will be tested:

Hypothesis 3: The behavior of the manager has a moderating effect on the relationship between the basic need satisfaction and the quantity of voice of employees in a meeting. A

moderating effect would imply a stronger relationship for higher values of transformational leadership behavior of the manager.

2.5 Voice (mediator)

Research showed that employees experience higher levels of job satisfaction when they have more autonomy and opportunities to voice. This could ultimately lead to higher work motivation and organizational performance (Carr & Mellizo, 2013; Stewart, 2006; van Mierlo, Rutte, Kompier & Doorewaard, 2005). Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt,

Lengnick-Hall & Jennings (1988) also state that employee voice is most effective in increasing employee satisfaction and performance when employees have a substantial amount of empowerment. Nonetheless research of Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) indicated that the amount of voicing was higher when autonomy was low and employees felt dissatisfied with the lack of influence over their work activities. This study of my proposes that the quantity of voice is a mediator in the relation between autonomy and job and team satisfaction.

Another important influencer of voicing or remain silent is the employee’ feeling whether the outcome of the voicing will be positive or negative. A lot of research is focussing on the extent to which people speak up (i.e., voice) or don’t (i.e., silence) (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003; Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). Employees continually have the choice whether to voice or remain silent about ideas, information or opinions. Multiple aspects influence this decision. First of all, the target where the voice is being directed to. Secondly, the content, which can differ in addressing organizational work related problems, or an opinion (Morrison, 2011). The employee considers the potential negative and positive consequences of the voicing and its content (Morrison, 2011). Voicing can lead to negative repercussions for example; damaged public image (being seen as a complainer), disrupt interpersonal relationships or to formal sanctions (a lower performance evaluation) (LePine & van Dyne, 1998; Milliken et al., 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Voice is challenging and can upset interpersonal relationships between co-workers or between a manager and his employee. This study proposes that the quantity of voice is a mediator in the relation between relatedness and job and team satisfaction.

Finally, this study proposes that employees will be more motivated and willing to voice when they believe in their own capabilities, opportunities and abilities. In sum,

this study proposes that a high feeling of autonomy, competence and relatedness will stimulate people in the right environment to voice which will ultimately lead to job and team satisfaction. In this study voice is conceptualized as a mediator between the basic need satisfaction (autonomy, relatedness and competence) and the job and team satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: The quantity of voice partially mediates the relationship between autonomy, competence, relatedness and the job and team satisfaction such that the quantity of voice

will have a positive relation to job and team satisfaction, as it is often associated with a higher feeling of proactive behavior.

2.6 Proposed research model

First of all, this study proposes that people within self-managing teams will have a high feeling of autonomy, competence and relatedness (basic need satisfaction), which will have a positive influence on the job and team satisfaction. Secondly, this study implicates that the voice quantity has a mediated effect on that relationship. Thirdly, the behavior of the manager will have a moderated effect on the extent of employees voicing in meetings (figure 1).

Overall, this study aims to contribute to the literature by understanding what the impact is of the three components of the basic need satisfaction on the job and team satisfaction. Furthermore, the voice behavior in meetings and the influence of the behavior of a manager will be analysed in more depth. In order to conduct this research, the following research question will be leading in this paper:

In which way does voice have an impact on the job and team satisfaction when members of a team feel intrinsically motivated to voice proactively in a meeting? And to which extent does the behavior of the manager moderate this relationship?

Figure 1. Research model

Basic needs satisfaction: -Autonomy -Competence -Relatedness Quantity of voice behavior

Job en team satisfaction

3.0 Method

3.1 Sample and procedure

For this study a mixed method is used for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of the understanding and corroboration of voice. Data for this study was gathered through surveys (quantitative) and observations (qualitative) of employees’ behavior during meetings. The sample consisted of 212 employees and 36 meetings, with an average team size of 6. Of those 212 respondents, 160 respondents’ answers can be used. This study is done in conjunction with two other students’ studies. The distributed survey is part of a larger overall collaboration of research and will include variables not mentioned in this study. A request for research access was sent to a group of managers within different companies. This letter contained briefly: the purpose of this study, how the person being contacted might be able to help, the demands being made of the participants, guarantee of confidentiality, and our contact details.

Out of the 212 employees who participated in the experiment, in the sample, 42.9 % were men and 57.1 % were women. The average age of the participants was 39.3 years (SD = 10.82) and the average company tenure was 10.3 years (SD= 8.85). Employees from different sectors (governmental and non-governmental), different divisions (HR, accounting, consultant, finance, processing, and technical specialists), and from different hierarchical levels participated in this study.

The quantitative part of this study was executed through surveys. Participants received a hardcopy with questionnaires right before the meeting started (pre-test) and right after the meeting ended (post-test). They were told to return the questionnaires to the researcher directly after the meeting. The questionnaire consisted of a set: one

(annex A, B & C). The survey questions were in Dutch so that the risk of misinterpretations was minimal. Multiple parties checked the translation of the originally English questions.

The qualitative part of this study was executed through observations. During the meeting I observed and coded the quantity and the type of voice employees produced. Beforehand I was trained how to code that behavior. The advantage of this choice of measurement is that the internal team processes will be observed as well. The independent observer develops in that way a more holistic understanding of the voice phenomena (DeWalt &DeWalt, 2002). Anther advantage is the objective measurement of the observer. Employees have sometimes different ideas in the way they perceive things and in contrast what actually happens.

Statistical analyses were done with SPSS 21.0. Prior to using the data, the data was checked for errors and if so, they were deleted from the dataset. This was done by using descriptive and frequency analyses. When a participant refused to fill in the survey or when they didn’t fill in a question, a 0 would show up in the data set. This data can therefore not be used in this study.

The relationship between the variables of the basic need satisfaction, voice behavior and the job and team satisfaction will be analysed through linear regression analyses. The mediator and moderator effect of voice and leadership will be measured with the process tool developed by Hayes (2012). After the data have been checked for errors, the psychometric analysis was conducted through evaluating the reliability of the scales. In general, internal consistency is tested through the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. The Cronbach’s Alpha should be equal to or higher than 0.70 (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson 2010). Furthermore, normality was met for all variables examined and were correct.

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Independent variable

The basic need satisfaction (9 times: α= .698) has been differentiated to the three

psychological needs for autonomy (3 items: α= .553), relatedness (3 items: α= .492) and

competence (3 items: α= .477). The scales concern the degree to which participants feel

support for their autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman & Deci, 2000). The Cronbach’s Alpha’s of the three scales are below 0.7. Deleting the counter inductive items will increase (≈0.2) the Cronbach’s Alpha’s however this will result in scales of two items. The three items are necessary to provide minimum coverage of the constructs theoretical domain and to provide adequate identification for the construct (Hair et al., 2010). In this study scales with a lower Cronbach’s Alpha are used but with a coverage of three items. A few example items are “I feel free to be who I am” (autonomy), “I feel very capable and effective” (competence), “ I feel loved and cared about” (relatedness). Three of the nine items are formulated as counter indicatives. Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strong disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and were measured in the pre-test. A recoding of the counter indicative items was altered in SPSS.

3.2.2 Dependent variable

Team satisfaction (3 items; α= .868) and job satisfaction (3 items; α= .784). The first

corresponds to satisfaction with being a team member and the second to satisfaction with the job (Gladstein, 1984). Example items are “I am satisfied with my team” and “ I am satisfied with my job”. Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and was measured in the post-test.

3.2.3 Mediating variable

Voice has been differentiated into two types. First of all, promotive voice as an

expression of ways to improve existing work practices and procedures to benefit the organization. Secondly, prohibitive voice as the expression of individuals’ concern about existing or impending practices, incidents, or behaviors that may harm their organization (Liang, Farh& Farh, 2012). The type and quantity of voice was observed and counted during the team meeting. The quantity of voice was used as the mediating variable.

3.2.4 Moderating variable

Transformational leadership (11 items; α= .779). Transformational leadership was

assessed by means of the CLIO scale of De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman (2004). This scale reflects the articulation of an attractive vision, providing meaning to follower’s work, power sharing, intellectual stimulation, role modelling, and consideration (De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2005). An example item of De Hoogh et al. (2004) scale is “My immediate supervisor encourages subordinates to develop their potential”. Deleting the item: ‘My immediate supervisor delegates challenging responsibilities to employees’, led to a relevant increase in Cronbach’s alpha to .906. So the scale that was used in this study contained 10 items. Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strong disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and were measured in de pre-test. The items were explicitly directed to the person who was leading the meeting. So before the pre-test the participants were informed that the immediate meeting facilitator was in this situation the manager.

3.2.5 Control variables

In this study education level, age, gender and organizational tenure are included as control variables because of their potential impact on voice. Employees with higher levels of education have in general more suggestions to voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Gender has an impact on voice because men are confronting fewer psychological obstacles in asserting their viewpoint (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1997; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Based on the findings of Warr and Fay (2001) it is possible that results will show a negative correlation between age and women. Their study showed that there is a decrement in job initiative for women at a certain age. Meaning that the older the woman the less proactive behavior will be exhibited at work. Another important factor to consider is that employees who have been working longer within an organization and are more experienced, as reflected in their age, feel possible more comfortable to speak up (e.g. voice) (Luchak, 2003; Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001). Education level was measured with four categories: secondary high school, mbo, hbo, university; age (years); gender (0=male, 1=female) and organizational tenure was measured as the number of years worked in the organization.

4.0 Results

4.1 Pearson correlation matrix

The Pearson correlation matrix shows the strength of the linear relationship between two variables (Cohen, 1988). Table 4.1 shows several significant correlations when using a p < .01 threshold. A positive correlation means that if the value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable increases as well and visa versa. A positive significant correlation is seen between age and organization tenure (r = .644). Showing that when the value of age increases by one, the value of organization tenure increases by .644. Furthermore, education is negatively related to organization tenure (r= -.285). The components of the basic need satisfaction and the job and team satisfaction show for all positive significant correlations. A positive significant correlation is also shown between the basic need satisfaction and the behavior of the manager(r= .342;r=.161;r=.265) and between the behavior of the manager and the job and team satisfaction (r=.346; r=.385). Indicating that when a manager shows more transformational behavior, employees will feel more satisfied with their job and team. Voice is not correlated to any of the other variables tested because the variable of voice is nominal.

Correlations Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Age - Gender -.002 - Eduction -.162* -.026 - Tenure .644** -.020 -.285** - Autonomy .043 -.111 .039 .043 - Competence .028 -.140 .192** .055 .446** - Relatedness -.015 -.107 -.042 .016 .414** .251** - Jobsat .188** .004 -104 .164* .413** .250** .346** - Teamsat .095 .026 -.144* .129 .408** .169* .452** .697** - Leader .027 .077 .022 .176* .342** .161* .265** .346** .385** Table 4.1 N= 209 respondents

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.2 Regression Analysis

Regression analyses are performed to test hypotheses 1 and 2. Prior to the SPSS analysis, variables where computed in variable means. Furthermore, control variables were used in the regression, which ensured the significance of the outcomes and to rule out any explanations related to socio-demographics.

4.2.1 Basic needs satisfaction theory and job and team satisfaction

In the first step, a regression analysis was performed with the components of the basic need satisfaction as the independent variable and satisfaction as the dependent variable. In the first model the control variables were taken into account but showed no significant effect.

Job satisfaction

Basic need satisfaction Beta Sig

H1: Autonomy .417 .000

H2: Competence .258 .000

H3: Relatedness .350 .000

Team satisfaction

Basic need satisfaction Beta Sig

H1: Autonomy .413 .000

H2: Competence .177 .010

H3: Relatedness .454 .000

Table 4.2 Regression components BNS on job and team performance

The table (4.2) shows that there is a significant positive relationship between all the components of the basic need satisfaction and the job and team satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1a: Satisfaction of the need for autonomy is positively related to job and team satisfaction.

There is a statistical positive significant relationship between these variables. The adjusted R square was .170 (job satisfaction) and .166 (team satisfaction), meaning that the overall model explains 17.0% and 16.6% of the variance. When an employee is more satisfied with his level of autonomy he will feel more satisfied with his job (β=.417) and team (β=.413). Therefore, hypothesis 1a is supported.

Hypothesis 1b: Satisfaction of the need for competence is positively related to job and team satisfaction.

There is a statistical positive significant relationship between these variables. The adjusted R square was .062 (job satisfaction) and .027 (team satisfaction), meaning that

the overall model explains 6,2% and 2,7% of the variance. There is a positive relationship between feeling competent and the job (β=.258) and team (β=.177) satisfaction. Meaning that when an employee is more satisfied with his level of competence he will feel more satisfied with his job and team as well. Therefore, hypothesis 1b is supported.

Hypothesis 1c: Satisfaction of the need for relatedness is positively related to job and team satisfaction.

There is a statistical positive significant relationship between these variables. The adjusted R square was .118 (job satisfaction) and .202 (team satisfaction), meaning that the overall model explains 11.8% and 20.2% of the variance. There is a positive relationship between feeling related and the job (β=.350) and team (β=.454)satisfaction. Thus, when an employee is more satisfied with his level of relatedness he will feel more satisfied whit his job and team. Therefore, hypotheses 1c is supported.

4.2.2 Quantity of voice on job and team satisfaction

Hypothesis 2a: The quantity of voice behavior is positively related with job satisfaction Hypothesis 2b: The quantity of voice behavior is negatively related with team satisfaction

The second hypothesis was tested using a regression analyses (table 4.3). When adding the control variables, the R square was .018 meaning that the overall model explains 1,8% of the variance. When taking out the control variables, the R square changed to .023, meaning that the overall model explained 2,3% of the variance for hypothesis 2a and 2b. Both models were not significant (p=.599; p=.614). When they were significant employees would feel less satisfied with their job (β=-.014) and team (β=-.102) when

there is more voicing within a meeting. Because of the non-significant effect hypothesis 2a and 2b are not supported.

Job satisfaction Beta Sig Quantity of voice -.014 .599 Team satisfaction Beta Sig Quantity of voice -.102 .614

Table 4.3 Regression quantity of voice behavior on job and team performance

4.2.3 Moderation effect

Hypothesis 3: The behavior of the manager has a moderating effect on the relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the quantity of voice of employees in a meeting. A moderating effect would imply a stronger relationship for higher values of transformational leadership behavior of the manager.

With the process tool developed by Hayes (2012) the analysis were executed in SPSS (table 4.4). Three relations are in this model measured: (1) the effect of one of the components of the basic need satisfaction on voice quantity (2) the effect of leadership behavior on voice quantity and (3) the last measurement estimates how much the effect of one of the components of the basic need satisfaction on voice quantity changes as leadership behavior changes. Meaning that if the added interaction term increases the variance explained, transformational leadership can be seen as a moderator between the basic need satisfaction and the quantity of voice.

The model shows that there is a positive effect (β=.4346) between the behavior of the manager and the quantity of voice. That is, if a manager is more transformational, his employees will voice more. However, this effect is statistically not significant (p=.1132). There is also a positive effect (β=.2490) between autonomy and the quantity of voice. Meaning that when an employee is more satisfied with his level of autonomy he will show more voice behavior. Though, this effect is also not significant (p=.4870). A negative effect is shown (β=-.1494) in de latest facet of the model, the interaction effect. The more a manager shows transformational leadership the lower the coherence between autonomy and the quantity of voice. However, this effect is also not significant (p=.6670). The adding interaction term didn’t significant increase the variance explained (R-square increase = .0011, p=.6714). In sum, there is no significant moderation effect from the behavior of the manager on autonomy and the quantity of voice of employees in meetings.

This was also done with the variable competence as independent variable. There was no significant interaction effect (p=.9375). And the R-square increase due to the interaction was .000 and non significant (p=.9424). Meaning that there is no significant moderation effect from the behavior of the manger on competence and the quantity of voice of employees in meetings.

The third component of the basic need satisfaction, relatedness had also no significant interaction effect (p=. 1728). And the R-square increase due to the interaction was .0106 and non significant (p=.1180). Meaning that there is no significant moderation effect from the behavior of the manager on relatedness and the quantity of voice of employees in meetings. Therefore the moderation proposed by hypothesis 3 was not confirmed.

Quantity of voice behavior

Coeff Sig Coeff Sig

H3a: Autonomy .2490 .4870 H3a: Behavior of manager .4346 .1132 H3b: Competence -.1443 .6969 H3b: Behavior of manager .5631 .0990 H3c: Relatedness -.4742 .1329 H3c: Behavior of manager .7654 .0379

Interaction effect components of basic need satisfaction with behavior of manager Coeff Sig

H3a: Autonomy -.1494 .6670 H3b: Competence -.0276 .9375 H3c: Relatedness -.4498 .1728

Table 4.4 Moderation Process analyses, model 1

4.2.4 Mediation effect

Hypothesis 4: The quantity of voice partially mediates the relationship between autonomy, competence, relatedness and the team and job satisfaction such that the quantity of voice will have a positive relation to team and job satisfaction, as it is often associated with a higher feeling of involvement.

With the process tool developed by Hayes (2012) analysis were executed in SPSS. In this analyse, the effect of the components of the basic need satisfaction on job and team satisfaction was tested, while adding a mediator of voice quantity and seeing if this will decrease or increase the relation. To test a mediation effect three relations are in this model measured: (1) the effect of one of the components of the basic need satisfaction on voice quantity (2) the effect of the quantity of voice on the job and team satisfaction, both are indirect effects, and (3) the direct effect of one of the components of the basic

need satisfaction on the job and team satisfaction, as already have been done in hypothesis 1.

The results (table 4.5) of the analysis indicate that there is only a positive statistical significant relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the job and team satisfaction. The statistical effect of autonomy on job (β=.3111) and team satisfaction (β=.4120) is positive. The effect coefficient between autonomy and voice behavior is .3925, showing a positive relationship but this relationship is not significant. The effect coefficient between voice behavior and job satisfaction is -.0035, showing a negative relationship but this is also not significant. Therefore one can conclude that there is no mediation effect of the quantity of voice between autonomy and the job and team satisfaction.

For the competence variable there is also only a positive significant relation between competence and job satisfaction (β=.1567). And the relationship between competence and team satisfaction is almost significant (p=.0557, β=.1816).

For the relatedness variable there is also only a positive significant relation in the direct effect. Employees feel more satisfied with their job and team when they feel loved and cared about (β=.2997, β=. 4526). For all the components of the basic need satisfaction there was no significant mediation effect through the quantity of voice in a meeting. Therefore the mediation proposed by hypothesis 4 was not confirmed.

Quantity of voice behavior

Basic need satisfaction Coeff Sig

A1 Autonomy .3925 -.2029

A2 Competence -.0437 -.7647

A3 Relatedness -.2372 .4149

Job satisfaction

Basic need satisfaction Coeff Sig Coeff Sig

B1: Autonomy .3111 .000 C1Quantity of voice -.0035 .8278 B2: Competence .1567 .0462 C2Quantity of voice .0052 .7605 B3: Relatedness .2927 .000 C3Quantity of voice .0100 .5324

Team satisfaction

Basic need satisfaction Coeff Sig Coeff Sig

B1: Autonomy .4120 .000 C1Quantity of voice -.0297 .1177 B2: Competence .1816 .0557 C2Quantity of voice -.0184 .3691 B3: Relatedness .4526 .000 C3Quantity of voice -.0108 .5541

5.0 Discussion

5.1 Research findings and theoretical implications

5.1.1 Hypotheses 1

The first hypotheses (1a+1b+1c) in this study are concerned with the relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the job and team satisfaction. This study predicted that there would be a positive relationship between autonomy, competence and relatedness, and the job and team satisfaction. The three sub-hypothesises can be accepted as they were positive and significant. This means that when an employee is satisfied with his level of autonomy, he is more likely to perceive a high degree of control over his own work. Which in turn results in a higher feeling of job en team satisfaction. Furthermore, when employees feel more satisfied with their level of competence and relatedness they will feel more satisfied with their job and team. Carr & Mellizo (2013), and Kirkman & Rosen (1999) indicated that employees will have higher levels of job and team member satisfaction when organizations give employees more autonomy. These findings are in line with this study.

5.1.2 Hypothesis 2

The second hypotheses (2a+2b) are concerned with the relationship between the quantity of voice and the job and team satisfaction. These hypotheses cannot be accepted, as they were not significant. This study predicted that there would be a positive relationship between the quantity of voice and job satisfaction and a negative relationship between the quantity of voice and team satisfaction. However, the results showed that there was a negative effect for both job and team satisfaction. When the results were significant, employees would feel less satisfied with their job and team when there was a higher quantity of voicing within a meeting. These results are partly

supported by different research. Rockmann and Northcraft (2010) found that what team members say and how team members say it, is decisive for both team satisfaction and team performance. Research of Carr and Melizzo (2013) and Wood (2008) did find significant effects that employees were more satisfied when having more autonomy and voice. These voicing constructs were measured using different scales and measurement techniques. In those articles the availability of voice was measured through the extent to which managers at the workplace consult employees on their representatives using a survey measurement scale. In this study voice (promotive and prohibitive) was measured through objective observations during the meetings. These differences in measurement instruments, scales and interpretations could have resulted in different outcomes.

5.1.3 Hypothesis 3

The third hypothesis in this study is concerned with the relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the quantity of voicing of employees within meetings. With the behavior of the manager as a moderator in this relationship. I predicted that there would be a positive relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the quantity of voicing of an employee. This relationship was indeed positive for autonomy and competence but negative for the relation between relatedness and the quantity of voice. However, the relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the quantity of voice of an employee were not significant in this study.

Significant correlations were found in the Pearson correlation matrix between the behavior of the manager and the components of the basic need satisfaction. The coefficient of the Process analyse showed a positive effect between the behavior of the manager and the quantity of voice. That is, if a manager were more transformational, his

employees would voice more. These findings are in line with past research that support the idea that transformational leadership is positively associated with the voice behavior of employees. Detert and Buris (2007) and Liu, Zhu and Yang (2010), indicated that employees would voice more when they perceived their immediate manager as transformational. However, this study did not have a significant effect (p=.1132) on either of these relationships.

An explanation for the insignificance could be that in a lot of the participated meetings rotated leadership was applied. The leadership qualities of the members who facilitated the meeting could have had an influence on the results. Meaning that the possible transformational manager in some situations was not the one who was leading the meeting. Further research could address this phenomenon of social constructs and outcomes that appear within teams when rotated leadership is applied. Especially now, this is very important because organizations are striving to organize their work around self-managing teams (Gallie, Zhou, Felstead & Green, 2012). Triggering employees to be a leader in a meeting could translate into a greater ability and motivation to generate and express suggestions for change. For future research, it might be interesting to see what the advantages and disadvantages are of rotated leadership within team meetings.

5.1.4 Hypothesis 4

The last hypothesis of this research is concerned with the partially mediation effect of voice quantity between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the job and team satisfaction. The hypothesis could not be accepted, as the mediation was not significant. The relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction with the quantity of voice in a meeting was positive for autonomy and negative for competence and relatedness. The relationship between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the job and team satisfaction was both positive and significant

(hypotheses 1). All the relationships turned negative when the variable quantity of voice as a mediator was added. Unfortunately, these effects were not significant. Research of Hall and Jennings (1988) and Carr and Mellizo (2013) did found significant effects in the relation between satisfaction, performance and the amount of empowerment and opportunities to voice. This study only supports the theory of the basic need satisfaction. However, due to the interesting positive and negative relations that are shown around voice behavior further research is needed to fill the gap of this voice phenomenon.

5.2 Managerial implications

This study adds a nuance to the current knowledge on the social constructs within teams. Organizations cannot have a direct influence on the intrinsic motivation of employees but they can stimulate and facilitate resources that will trigger the intrinsic motivation and satisfaction of employees.

Although this study did not have significant results for the main hypotheses, one can conclude that paying attention to the intrinsic motivation of employees and the social constructs within teams have tremendous implications. The three components of the basic satisfaction need have an influence on the intrinsic motivation and satisfaction of employees. Organizations should give employees a certain level of empowerness in order to achieve a high level of job and team satisfaction. Creating and thinking about the right job designs is crucial. Besides that, organizations should facilitate opportunities for employees to learn en develop their skills. They should also stimulate people to practice their talent in order to stimulate their level of competence. In that way employees can experience higher levels of autonomy, competence and relatedness, which will result in higher satisfaction with their job and team. This intrinsic motivation

and satisfaction could eventually lead to better team and organizational performance and commitment (Carr & Mellizo, 2013; Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002; Ostroff, 1992).

5.3 Limitations of current research and implications for further research For this study convenience sampling (i.e. contacts in our own network) was used in order to find organizations and managers in the first place. Furthermore, request emails were send resulting in a self-selection of managers and their team. Although these sampling techniques are widely used, they are also prone to bias. Nonetheless, the population of the sample was quite heterogeneous (ea. governmental and non-governmental organizations). However, one can conclude that employees who have meetings are employees that have a sufficient amount of autonomy in their job description. So in this study employees operating in self-managing teams with mainly a higher level of autonomy participated.

Furthermore, a difference can occur in the complexity of the team meeting. A team meeting in which the monthly activities are discussed will be less complex than a meeting were (strategically) changing decisions are made. The complexity of the content of meetings is an interesting construct for future research. Differences in feelings of competence, willingness to voice and satisfaction could occur through the complexity of the content of meetings.

This study measured team meetings at one point in time. A longitudinal study would show a different perspective, as team meetings will differ each time depending on the situational and contextual factors. This survey was not conducted in a controlled environment. The time, length, place, agenda points and mood of the employees can be of influence on their answers. The respondents were sometimes, for example, in a hurry

or entered the meeting a bit late. Because of this non-experimental design and one point in time measuring, it was not possible to control for these external factors and this may have influenced the data. Although, experimental designs also have limitations. They do not measure participants in their real workplace, but in an imaginary situation.

In this study voice is measured through observations during team meetings. The variable voice did not have significant effects. The measurement of the quantity of voice was possible to high over. As Liang et al (2012) stated in their research, the variables of promotive and prohibitive voice have different antecedents, and should not be pooled together into a single ‘voice’ construct. They vary in their behavioral content and each type of voice can be perceived differently by surrounding stakeholders. Nevertheless, both types of voice implicate pro-active behavior (Morisson, 2011). Further research could focus on comparing different voice scales and measurements. For example the measurement scale of Van Dyne and LePine (1998) of a 6-item scale of voice had a very high reliability in previous research and resulted in significant effects around the concept of voice. Further research could consider studying the phenomenon of voice from different perspective levels which will give a more comprehensive overview of what is occurring in team meetings (Burris, Detert & Romney, 2013). It could be interesting to see if employees or managers have the same opinions on whether they exhibit voice behaviors using a mixed voice measurement of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (observation). It is important to include situational factors as well. For example, when there is room for discussion or if a brainstorm session is included in de agenda, more naturally opportunities are created for people to voice. Using a mixed method of measuring could result in a more transparent overview on the phenomenon of voicing.

Employees were asked to fill in their feelings and opinions about their manager in the pre-test. However, the quantity of voice and the satisfaction were measured during and after the meeting (post-test). A discrepancy could evolve because the manager or rotated leader could have acted differently in the observed meeting than normally. This could have resulted in the non-significant moderation relationship with the variable of leadership behavior. A pre and post-test are more reliably when you want to measure differences between two points. With the rotated leadership in mind it would be better to ask the leadership questions in the end of the meeting as well.

The three components of the basic need satisfaction had a low Cronbach’s alpha. Running the analyses showed that deleting the counter indicative items resulted in a high increase of the reliability. Suggesting that a lot of respondents did not correctly interpret the question when it was a counter indicative item. Besides that, a short version of the questions around the basic need satisfaction was used. A suggestion would be to leave out any counter indicative items and use the extended version of the BNS scale to establish a higher Cronbach’s alpha.

In the theoretical framework, I discussed the situation regarding the positive and negative effects of voicing. Voice is challenging and can upset interpersonal relationships between co-workers or between manager and employee (Bolino, Valcea & Harvey, 2010; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Nevertheless, research also indicates that workplaces that give employees more autonomy and employees the opportunity to voice, will have higher levels of job satisfaction, which could ultimately lead to higher work motivation and organizational performance (Carr & Mellizo, 2013; Stewart, 2006; van Mierlo, Rutte, Kompier & Doorewaard, 2005).

I proposed that voice could be interpreted as mainly positive and pro-active. In this study negative and positive relationships were found around the construct of voice,

however, no significant effect was established. I analysed negative relations around the construct of voice in relation with job and team satisfaction. From my own experience as an observer I noticed that voicing of employees within a meeting depended on the setting of the meeting. An overloaded and structured agenda was a far less enjoyable meeting than one without or one in which there was room for an open discussion, which resulted in a more open and positive environment to voice. I still propose that voice is a way of proactive behavior and that it can have positive influences on job and organizational results. However, contextual factors, as environment, opportunities and how employees perceive the effect of voice, are through my experience during this study the most influential on the motivation to produce and accept voice. Mostly, these are important features because organizations have a direct influence on them. Further research is necessary to analyse these aspects statistically.

To conclude, there is still ambiguity to state if voice can be seen as mainly a positive or a negative concept of pro-active behavior in teams. Although they were not significant, these findings are an important starting point for further research on the current ambiguity in the literature on voice constructs in teams.

6.0 Conclusion

Although a lot of research has been done on the concepts and determinants of voice, little has been studied so far about the social effects of employees who speak up (i.e. voice) to their co-workers. The aim of this study was to explore the gap in the literature between the social processes of voice within teams. Through theoretical and empirical understanding of the different constructs related to voice, four different hypotheses were tested.

In sum, this study showed a positive and significant relation between autonomy, relatedness and competence with job and team satisfaction. For example, when an employee feels that he is more competent in doing his tasks he will experience higher levels of job and team satisfaction. The basic need satisfaction should be a point of interest in organizations. It could be helpful in assessing and designing the motivational impact of organizational aspects such as job design. Paying attention to employees’ need satisfaction might enhance employees’ functioning and therefore, help to reduce costs associated with stress or turnover and increase productivity.

The proposed research model was extended through voice behavior as a possible mediator in the above-mentioned relationship and the behavior of the immediate manager as a moderator. A positive relationship was found between leadership behavior and the quantity of voice behavior. However no significant moderation effect of the behavior of the manager was found between the basic needs satisfaction and the voice quantity of employees in a meeting. Besides, this study did not find a significant mediation effect of the quantity of voice behavior between the components of the basic need satisfaction and the job and team satisfaction.

In the light of these findings, researchers and practitioners should acknowledge that there is still an ambiguity around the phenomenon of voice. Organizations need the

suggestions and ideas of its employees to be an innovative and agile organization. It is therefore very important to research, in more depth, the possible synergies that may arise as a result of voicing within teams.

7.0 References

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. New York: Free Press.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1997). Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York, NY: HarperCollins/Basic Books. Bolino, M. C., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, Manage Thyself: The Potentially Negative Implications of Expecting Employees to Behave Proactively. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 2, pp. 325-345.

Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness at Work: Construction and Initial Validation of the Work-Related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 83, 4, pp. 981-1002.

Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Romney, A. C. (2013). Speaking Up vs. Being Heard: The Disagreement Around and Outcomes of Employee Voice. Organization Science, 24, 1, pp. 22-38.

Carr, M.D., & Mellizo, P. (2013). The Relative Effect of Voice, Autonomy, and the Wage on Satisfaction with Work. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 6, pp. 1186-1201.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Lengnick-Hall, M.K., & Jennings, K.R. (1988). Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes. Academy of

Management Review, 13, pp. 8-22.

Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 3, pp. 435-462.

De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P,L. (2004). De Ontwikkeling van de CLIO: een Vragenlijst voor Charismatisch Leiderschap in Organisaties. Gedrag en

Organisatie, 17, pp. 354-382.

De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P,L. (2005). Linking the Big Five-Factors of Personality to Charismatic and Transactional Leadership; Perceived Dynamic Work Environment as a Moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, pp. 839-865.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, pp. 227-268.

Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P.L. (2001). Leadership in Organizations. Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology, 2, pp. 166-187.

Detert, J.R., & Buris, E.R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door really Open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 869-884.

Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking Up to Higher-Ups: How Supervisors and Skip-Level Leaders Influence Employee Voice. Organization Science, 21, 1, pp. 249–270. DeWalt, Kathleen M. & DeWalt, Billie R. (2002). Participant observation: a guide for

fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., Lawrence, K.A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red Light, Green Light: Making Sense of the Organizational Context for Issue Selling. Organization Science, 13, pp. 335-369.

Erez, A., LePine, J.A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects on Rotated Leadership and Peer Evaluation on the Functioning and Effectiveness of Self-Managed Teams: A Quasi-Experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, pp. 929-948.

Farndale, E., Van Ruiten, J., Kelliher, C., & Hope-Hailey, V. (2011). The Influence of Perceived Employee Voice on Organisational Commitment: An Exchange Perspective.

Human Resource Management, 50, 1, pp. 113–129.

Fuller, J.B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. (2007). An Exploratory Examination of Voice Behavior From an Impression Management Perspective. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 19, 1, pp. 134-151.

Gallie, D., Zhou, Y., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2012). Teamwork, Skill Development and Employee Welfare. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 50, 1, pp. 23-46.

Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader Trust and Employee Voice: The Moderating Role of Empowering Leader Behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, pp. 787-798.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 29,4, pp. 499-517.

Gordon, J. (1992). Work Teams: How Far Have They Come? Training, 10, pp. 59-65. Grant, A.M., & Ashford, S.J. (2008). The Dynamics of Proactivity at Work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 3-34.

Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting Credit for Proactive Behavior: Supervisor Reactions Depend on What You Value and How You Feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, pp. 31-55.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariatie Data Analysis. A

global perspective. Seventh Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: a Meta-Analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87, 2, pp. 268.