EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB

SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA:
THE CENTRALITY OF DIRECT
VOICE
PETER HOLLAND, AMANDA PYMAN,
BRIAN K. COOPER, AND JULIAN TEICHER

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

Keywords: job involvement, communication, unions, employee participa-

tion, employee relations, organizational effectiveness and satisfaction, em-
ployee voice

Introduction
1997; Wright, 2006). Neglecting a potential
his study extends research on em- relationship between these two variables is

T ployee voice and job satisfaction by

examining the relationship between
these two variables. While both em-
ployee voice and job satisfaction
have been the subject of considerable re-
search, the potential link between voice ar-
rangements and job satisfaction has largely
been neglected (Cox, Zagelmeyer, & March-
ington, 2006; Oshagbemi, 1999; Spector,
surprising for three reasons. First, employee
voice has been shown to be positively related
to other work behaviors, attitudes, job out-
comes, and organizational performance (Cox
et al., 2006; Jones, Jones, Latreille, & Sloane,
2009; Wood & Wall 2007). Second, the effect
of employee involvement on job satisfaction
is well established from the contemporary
psychology literature. This has led to the

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

Human Resource Management, January–February 2011, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 95 – 111
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20406
96 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
advocacy of “job enrichment” initiatives,
and, more recently, a call for employee in-
volvement practices to promote organiza-
tional commitment and perfor-
mance (Green & Tsitsianis, 2005,
The paper also p. 412). Third, job satisfaction is
known to be a significant attitudi-
makes important
nal variable associated with em-
contributions to both ployee commitment and both job
and organizational performance.
theory and practice. For example, reviews of interna-
tional research reveal considerable
First, it contributes
meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Har-
to theory because ter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002) that
job satisfaction reliably predicts a
employee voice range of organizational-level
outcomes, including customer
arrangements and
satisfaction, productivity, em-
job satisfaction ployee turnover and absenteeism,
service quality, and financial per-
are both pivotal formance (e.g., Fulmer, Gerhant,
& Scott, 2003; Hammer & Avgar,
to individual and 2007; Harrison, Newman, & Roth,
organizational 2006; Jones et al., 2009; Saari &
Judge, 2004; Wang & Lee, 2009).
performance. In this study, we focus on the
relationship between employee
Likewise, it voice arrangements and job satis-
faction for two additional reasons.
contributes to
First, the contours of employee
practice because voice in advanced market econo-
mies have changed significantly,
employer agency with a relentless decline in repre-
sentative, participatory structures
and human resource
through trade unions (Charlwood
management & Terry, 2007), and an increase in
alternative representative and par-
strategy play a key ticipatory arrangements, including
non-union employee representa-
role in formulating,
tion and direct two-way
implementing, and communication (direct voice; e.g.,
Charlwood & Terry, 2007; Holland,
operating employee Pyman, Cooper, & Teicher, 2009).
Australia is no exception in this
voice arrangements regard, as the results presented in
and their this paper demonstrate. Second,
job satisfaction is of particular in-
subsequent impact terest in view of systematic and
significant workplace changes in
on job satisfaction. the late 20th and early 21st centu-
ries, which have likely altered the
balance between work-role inputs and work-
role outputs, both with attendant impacts on
job satisfaction (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza,
2000). Important changes to work-role inputs
and work-role outputs include: changing lev-
els of task discretion and employee involve-
ment; increased job-risk; the increased skills of
jobs and workers; and widespread evidence of
work intensification, increased stress, and de-
teriorating work-life balance (Green, 2006;
Green & Tsitsianis, 2005; Sousa-Poza & Sousa-
Poza, 2000).
In this article, we investigate two main
questions. The first question relates to the
relationship between discrete employee
voice arrangements and job satisfaction: To
what extent do employee voice arrange-
ments affect job satisfaction? The second
question relates to complementarity: Do
employees with multiple voice arrangements
in their workplace have higher job satisfac-
tion? Based on Cox et al. (2006), we define
complementarity as the co-existence and
reinforcement of employee voice arrange-
ments; that is, dual-channel employee voice
arrangements that depend on one another
for successful operation. The present study
contributes to the literature by examining
empirically how employee voice regimes are
linked with job satisfaction using cross-sec-
tional data from a large, representative sam-
ple of Australian employees. The paper also
makes important contributions to both the-
ory and practice. First, it contributes to the-
ory because employee voice arrangements
and job satisfaction are both pivotal to indi-
vidual and organizational performance.
Likewise, it contributes to practice because
employer agency and human resource man-
agement strategy play a key role in formulat-
ing, implementing, and operating employee
voice arrangements and their subsequent
impact on job satisfaction.
Employee Voice and Job Satisfaction
As Danford, Durbin, Richardson, Tailby, and
Stewart (2009) note, the concepts of worker
participation and employee voice remain
highly imprecise, too often underpinned by
the nebulous idea of “participation in
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

management decision making” (p. 338). Aca-
demics have given considerable scrutiny to
the principles and practice of employee par-
ticipation in recent years, with much of this
research seeking to establish or refute pro-
posed links between participation processes
and better organizational governance and
performance (Danford et al., 2009, p. 337).
Within the human resource management
(HRM) literature, researchers have increas-
ingly advocated employee voice as a means
to engender employee commitment and en-
hance organizational performance and com-
petitiveness (e.g., Boxall, Purcell, & Wright,
2007; Wood & Wall, 2007). In this way, it
parallels the trajectory of the employee par-
ticipation literature in the 1970s and 1980s,
with employers advocating the contribution
of participation to performance in response
to union rights based on advocacy for indus-
trial democracy (Vaughan, 1986, pp. 33–37).
Employee voice originated in due process,
employee rights, and justice in the employ-
ment relationship (McCabe & Lewin, 1992)
and is inextricably linked to the purposes of
unions (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). As March-
ington (2007) argued:
Voice is probably the area in HRM
where tensions between the organisa-
tion and workers’ goals and between
shareholders’ and stakeholders’ views
are the most apparent, because it con-
nects with the question of managerial
prerogatives and social legitimacy.
(p. 142)
Voice arrangements can be direct or rep-
resentative and can be delivered in several
ways: via a union, through management ini-
tiatives, or as part of a dual channel where
management-led voice and union representa-
tion are both present (Bryson, Gomez,
Kretschmer, & Willman, 2007, p. 395). The
degree of influence or power attached to each
voice arrangement varies significantly (Cox
et al., 2006). In practice, it has been observed
that the decline in collective voice in Austra-
lia and other Anglo-American countries has
been accompanied by the diffusion of direct
voice, with priority being placed on voice as
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 97
a means to enhance productivity and em-
ployee commitment to the organization
(Boxall et al., 2007; Wood & Wall, 2007).
Understanding Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction has been developed more
extensively—both theoretically and empiri-
cally— than employee voice within the liter-
atures of sociology, industrial psychology,
and organizational behaviour
(e.g., Hoste, Sevatos, & Cooper,
2006; Oshagbemi, 1999; Spence Voice arrangements
Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian,
can be direct or
2001; Wright, 2006). At its sim-
plest level, job satisfaction is an representative and
attitudinal variable that describes
the extent to which people like or can be delivered in
dislike their work (Saari & Judge,
several ways.
2004; Spector, 1997). Lok and
Crawford (2001) extended this
argument, suggesting that job satisfaction is a
person’s perception or appraisal of the degree
of fit between that individual and the organi-
zation. This is consistent with Locke’s (1976,
p. 1299) classic definition of job satisfaction
as a pleasurable or positive emotional state,
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or
job experience. Implicit in this definition of
job satisfaction as an employee attitude is the
importance and interdependence of both af-
fect (feeling) and cognition (thinking) (Locke,
1976; Saari & Judge, 2004).
Empirical research has shown that orga-
nizational variables are more strongly related
to job satisfaction than are personal attri-
butes (Blegen, 1993). Several researchers have
identified significant relationships between
individual empowerment (as an organiza-
tional practice) and job satisfaction; therefore,
information sharing and autonomy are
central HRM practices underpinning empow-
erment (e.g., Seibert, Silver & Randolph,
2004; Spence Laschinger et al., 2001; Ugboro
& Obeng, 2000; Wang & Lee, 2009). Workers’
who enjoy more autonomy have been found
to have a greater preference for participation
(Gardell, 1977), but the two concepts (au-
tonomy and voice/participation) are concep-
tually different (Wood & Wall, 2007). Draw-
ing on prior theory and research, therefore,
98 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
we examine the relationship between
employee voice arrangements as an organiza-
tional variable and job satisfaction.
Recognizing that employee voice may have
a positive impact on various
dimensions of organizational per-
Direct voice formance has led to a wider
can therefore conceptualization of voice that
extends beyond union activity.
elicit positive In the absence of statutory
regulation (e.g., laws relating to
benefits for the European Works Councils and In-
formation and Consultation and
firm by promoting
co-determination in Germany),
or instilling employers can choose from a vari-
ety of employee voice arrange-
organizational ments (Willman, Bryson, & Gomez,
2006). Both internal and external
values and
influences to the firm, therefore,
corporate culture shape employers’ choices of voice
arrangements. Brewster, Croucher,
that facilitate Wood, and Brookes (2007, p. 1251)
argued that the changing contours
employee motivation
of the external environment,
and commitment and including national governments’
moves toward labor-market dereg-
potentially enhance ulation, increased competition, the
global decline of organized labor,
satisfaction, quality, and the spread of neo-liberal ide-
loyalty, productivity, ologies have provided a favorable
environment for the spreading of
and organizational HRM. This has led to gradually
supplanting collective voice
performance. arrangements with individual
arrangements geared toward
enhancing productivity rather than workplace
democracy. Management has used this oppor-
tunity to develop a new style of HRM that
features high commitment, high involvement
management, or high performance work
systems in which direct communication and
employee involvement in productivity or qual-
ity enhancing innovations play a central role
(Cox et al., 2006). Involvement or voice is seen
as a means to secure workers’ consent to ex-
pend discretionary effort (Edwards, 2003). This
discretion can be harnessed in three ways: (1)
through providing for employee participation
in substantive “shopfloor” decisions; (2) pro-
viding the necessary skills to make employees’
efforts meaningful; and (3) ensuring that
employees have the appropriate motivation
(Applebaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000 as
cited in Wood & Wall, 2007, p. 1340).
Consistent with these developments, the
human relations school of thought has linked
employee voice to efficiency arguments,
which present employee involvement largely
as the motivational effects of enhancing em-
ployees’ perceptions of the firm as a commu-
nity (Brewster et al., 2007). These themes
have been echoed in subsequent HRM litera-
ture, in which direct employee voice
arrangements—defined here as two-way
communication channels between employ-
ees and management—have been linked to
empowerment. In this context, information
sharing, task discretion, and autonomy are
key practices that underpin empowerment
and are positively related to job satisfaction
(e.g., Ackers, Marchington, Wilkinson, &
Dundon, 2005; Green & Tsitsianis, 2005).
From a theoretical viewpoint, the HRM
literature has argued that the employer, in ex-
change for granting employees’ direct voice,
can more effectively engage employees by fa-
cilitating communication between manage-
ment and workers in the absence of a “distant”
intermediary (Bryson, 2004). It has been fur-
ther argued that treating employees as indi-
viduals rather than as a collective may mean
managers can better understand employees
and respond to their diverse needs and inter-
ests (Bryson, 2004). Direct voice can therefore
elicit positive benefits for the firm by promot-
ing or instilling organizational values and
corporate culture that facilitate employee mo-
tivation and commitment (Flood & Toner,
1997, as cited in Verma, 2005) and potentially
enhance satisfaction, quality, loyalty, produc-
tivity, and organizational performance. These
benefits may accrue to the firm through in-
creased information flows to and from man-
agement, which promote better solutions to
problems and lower quit rates (Willman et al.,
2006). Empirical support exists for these argu-
ments; for example, Bryson (2004) found that
direct voice was more effective in eliciting (per-
ceived) managerial responsiveness than repre-
sentative voice. Based on the theoretical argu-
ments and prior research, therefore, we expect
a positive relationship between direct employee
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

voice and job satisfaction, and present our first
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Direct voice will be positively as-
sociated with job satisfaction.
Union Voice and Job Satisfaction
Despite the assumed benefits of direct em-
ployee voice in the HRM literature, the
industrial relations literature has argued
that for voice to be effective in influencing
management behavior it must be a union
voice (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). The
assumption is that trade unions, as a “third
party” or external voice, are best placed to
jointly regulate the employment relation-
ship, to deliver organizational justice, and
to provide a balance between equity and
efficiency. These effects are supposed to
occur because unions are “independent”
representatives of employee interests and
are accountable democratically to their
members (Brewster et al., 2007; Charlwood
& Terry, 2007; Tailby, Richardson, Upchurch,
Danford, & Stewart, 2007; Wood & Fenton-
O’Creevy, 2005). Because of the inherent
character of unions, they have collective
resources and sanctions for non-compli-
ance, making them less susceptible to man-
agerial influence and control (Tailby et al.,
2007; Wilkinson, Dundon, Marchington, &
Ackers, 2004). Relatedly, union voice allows
employees greater freedom to raise concerns
without fear of being victimized; as a means
to ensure fair treatment from management
(Verma, 2005). Freeman and Medoff (1984)
also recognized this strength of union voice,
arguing that unions have a positive effect
on organizational performance by reducing
grievances, which in turn promotes em-
ployee satisfaction and reduces labor turn-
over and absenteeism. Importantly, union
voice may also provide an avenue through
which workers can suggest improvements
to working practices, such as training and
health and safety, and may provide greater
job security. Such factors enhance employee
discretionary effort (Freeman & Medoff,
1984; Kroumova & Lazarova, 2009). Em-
pirics showing that union settings positively
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 99
influence the number of voice arrangements
available and the number of employees in-
volved in participation programs also pro-
vide a strong case for the efficacy of union
voice (e.g., Benson, 2000; Goll, 1991; Verma,
2005). The presence of a union, however,
does not guarantee bargaining; thus, a union
cannot ensure that workers have the oppor-
tunity to voice their concerns (Verma, 2005;
Wood & Wall, 2007).
Empirical research has examined the
relationship between union voice and job
satisfaction with mixed results, partly
because different researchers have used dif-
ferent proxies for union voice (e.g., pres-
ence, membership) and job satisfaction. For
example, Renaud (2002) found that union
membership had a negative relationship
with job satisfaction. Several theoretical
arguments have been advanced to explain
the negative relationship between unions
and job satisfaction. First, employees with
lower job satisfaction are more likely to join
a union to try to improve their employment
terms and conditions (Charlwood, 2002;
Freeman & Medoff, 1984). Second and
related, unionized workers are more likely
to be dissatisfied than their non-union
counterparts. This is because for unions,
giving workers a voice in workplace matters
is a primary goal. Unions thus raise aware-
ness of management inadequacies and man-
agement failure, which can adversely affect
job satisfaction (Gallie, White, Cheng &
Tomlinson, 1998; Garcia-Serrano, 2009;
Guest & Conway, 1999; Verma, 2005).
A third argument is that unionized jobs
tend to be inherently less pleasant than non-
union jobs; thus, workers become primed to
look for improvements (Garcia-Serrano, 2009;
Hammer & Avgar, 2007). While this proposi-
tion is debatable with the rise of unorganized,
low-skilled work in Anglo-American countries,
it is important that any empirical investiga-
tion of the impact of unions on job satisfac-
tion includes measures for working conditions
and job attributes such as employee autonomy
in the workplace. This leads to a fourth argu-
ment that Bryson (2004) and others (e.g.,
Bryson & McKay, 1997) have advanced: that
unions increase the number of dissatisfied
100 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
employees by encouraging them to express a
voice rather than quitting, because this is less
costly than leaving the organization. This ex-
pression of voice may then lead to a poorer
industrial relations climate and adversely af-
fect job satisfaction. Garcia-Serrano (2009) ar-
gued, however, that this dissatisfaction is not
genuine; that there is a distinction between
true and voiced dissatisfaction and voiced dis-
satisfaction is a device unions use to demand
more in bargaining. By implication, Guest and
Conway (2004) and Kochan (1979) argued
that unions must sustain expectations of fu-
ture benefits to retain members, because dis-
satisfaction in itself will not necessarily per-
suade employees to join unions. Employees
also need to believe that unionization will re-
duce their level of dissatisfaction.
A final argument is that unions, by their
nature, protect jobs by restricting job classifi-
cations and maintaining demarcations. These
stringencies reduce autonomy and challenge,
which are key determinants of job satisfaction
(Hammer & Avgar, 2007). As Bryson, Cappel-
lari, and Lucifora (2004) noted, however, the
role of a union is to increase job satisfaction.
Thus, findings that identify a negative rela-
tionship may be linked to spurious correla-
tions. For example, people predisposed to
joining unions may have higher expectations
at the outset, or sorting—the notion that job
dissatisfaction, generated by the heterogeneity
of jobs or individuals—causes unionization
(Bryson, Cappellari, & Lucifora 2004; Garcia-
Serrano, 2009). Despite inconsistent empirical
findings regarding the impact of union voice
on job satisfaction, on the basis of the theo-
retical propositions discussed we propose our
second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Union voice will be negatively
associated with job satisfaction.
Voice Complementarity and Job
Satisfaction
At a practical level, given the changing con-
tours of employee voice in advanced market
economies, including Australia, and docu-
mented trends of the increased use of multi-
ple (“dual-channel”) voice arrangements,1 it
is clear that employers have a choice regard-
ing the employee voice arrangements they
adopt. As Willman et al. (2006) explained,
this can be thought of as an employer deci-
sion regarding workplace governance under
conditions of uncertainty and risk. As Hyman
(2004) argued, however, the relative efficacy
and sustainability of voice arrangements is
tied closely to other systemic social and eco-
nomic features, including the national busi-
ness system. Recognizing both employer
agency and the influence of national busi-
ness systems on governance within and be-
yond the firm has led to an argument that
mutually reinforcing voice arrangements may
coexist, optimizing employee wages and
working conditions, productivity, and orga-
nizational performance (Brewster et al., 2007).
Cox et al. (2006) referred to this as the
breadth of participatory practices, assuming
that combinations of direct and indirect
voice arrangements can generate positive
synergies that enable workers and their repre-
sentatives to assemble information and en-
gage more confidently with management.
Importantly, employers’ constrained choices
in adopting certain configurations of partici-
patory arrangements are connected with the
presence of employee voice in the workplace,
though these relationships have not been
precisely determined.
The notion that employee voice arrange-
ments are complementary challenges earlier
theoretical arguments of “union substitution,”
which assumed that firms used substitution
tactics to make union organization unviable
or undesirable for employees (Fiorito, 2001;
Kochan, 1980). Indeed, at the core of the mu-
tual gains model is the idea that unions can
exist alongside other institutions, and through
these institutions and their own enhanced
involvement in strategic and production deci-
sions, employee voice will increase (Bryson,
2004; Kochan & Osterman 1994; Bryson
2004). Even without a significant extension in
the union role, employees will gain by having
a direct voice in areas traditionally outside the
union’s remit (Cox et al., 2006, ). In addition,
mutual gains organizations2 are deemed to
provide the best results for employers and em-
ployees when combined in bundles: a coher-
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

ent, complementary, and mutually reinforcing
combination of HRM practices, including em-
ployee involvement (Kauhanen, 2009). Con-
sistent with this notion, it is argued that the
simultaneous multiple voice arrangements are
strengthened by one another and better reflect
the heterogeneous qualities of a modern work-
force across a diverse spectrum of workplace
issues (Bryson, 2004; Storey 1992). Further,
they provide the potential for employees to be
involved in different ways and for cross-fertil-
izing ideas. This, therefore, generates employee
autonomy and power-sharing between man-
agement and unions (Bryson, 2004; Bryson
et al., 2007; Cox et al., 2006; Pfeffer, 1994).
The net result is that the employees’ discre-
tionary effort translates into higher productiv-
ity (Kauhanen, 2009). Considering all of these
factors together, employee job satisfaction is
expected to be greater.
An increasing number of empirical studies
have addressed the question of voice comple-
mentarity. As Cox et al. (2006) noted, while
some conflicting evidence exists on the impact
of employee voice arrangements operating sin-
gly and in combination, on balance, research
has found that combinations of voice arrange-
ments appear to have a stronger positive im-
pact than negative impact. For example, Bryson
(2004) found that the most effective voice ar-
rangements combined direct and non-union
representative participation. Similarly, Charl-
wood and Terry’s (2007) analysis of the 2004
United Kingdom Workplace Employment Re-
lations Survey (WERS) data revealed that com-
plementary voice arrangements were most
effective for employers and employees in rela-
tion to wage dispersion, organizational justice,
and productivity. In Australia, multiple voice
arrangements were also found to be most effec-
tive for employees themselves, as measured by
perceived managerial responsiveness to
employee needs, job control, and influence
over job rewards (Pyman, Cooper, Teicher, &
Holland, 2006). Similarly, in the European car
components industry, Sako (1998) found that
a combination of direct and consultative par-
ticipation was more effective in improving
quality and the contribution of employees’
ideas; although the extent of union involve-
ment in joint consultative committees was not
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 101
considered. In this vein, evidence suggests that
union support of joint consultation is associ-
ated with better outcomes for employers and
employees (Eaton & Voos, 1992).
Unions are assumed to have a posi-
tive impact on the effectiveness of The data reported
participation programs because
in this study
they provide greater job security,
protect employees against arbitrary were drawn from
managerial decisions (Strauss,
1998), and increase opportunities responses to the
for collectively engaging with man-
2007 Australian
agement. Empirical evidence indi-
cating that union and direct voice Workplace
arrangements coexist in the
majority of unionized workplaces Representation
also supports the notion of the
Survey (AWRPS),
complementary of voice (e.g.,
Bryson, 2004). On the basis of the a representative,
theoretical propositions and em-
pirical research discussed, we pro- national survey
pose the following hypothesis:
that investigated
Hypothesis 3: A complementary workers’ responses
interaction will be observed be-
tween union and direct voice, such and attitudes
that job satisfaction will be higher
where both voice arrangements are to workplace
present.
participation,
Method representation, and
Sample and Procedure influence.
The data reported in this study
were drawn from responses to the 2007 Aus-
tralian Workplace Representation Survey
(AWRPS), a representative, national survey
that investigated workers’ responses and at-
titudes to workplace participation, represen-
tation, and influence. The survey instrument
was based on the 1994–1995 Worker Repre-
sentation and Participation Survey conducted
in the United States (Freeman & Rogers,
1999), the 2001 British Worker Representa-
tion and Participation Survey (Diamond &
Freeman, 2002), the 2003 New Zealand
Worker Representation and Participation Sur-
vey (Haynes, Boxall & Macky, 2003), and a
previous 2004 AWRPS (see Teicher, Holland,
Pyman, & Cooper 2007). Questions from
other country surveys were adapted to con-
102 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
form to the institutional and demographic
contexts in Australia and questions from the
original AWRPS (2004) were revised and up-
dated.
A total of 1,022 employees sampled ran-
domly from residential telephone directories
were surveyed nationally. Respondents were
given the option to complete the survey by
telephone interview (using computer-assisted
telephone interviewing [CATI]) or online
(a web-based survey). Potential respondents
were contacted between October and
November 2007. The sample was limited to
Australian residents engaged in paid employ-
ment for more than 10 hours3 per week who
had left secondary school. Self-employed per-
sons and company owners were excluded
from the survey. The sample was stratified by
Australian state/territory to reflect the geo-
graphical distribution of the population as
reported in the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) Census of Population and Housing.
Fifty percent of the respondents were fe-
male and the mean age of the sample was
40.8 years (SD ⫽ 12.19). The mean number of
hours worked per week was 35.65 (SD ⫽
12.68), with 62.1% working full-time (de-
fined as 35 hours or more per week). The
majority of respondents (78.2%) were non-
manual workers, and 68% were employed in
the private sector. Just under a third of re-
spondents (32.2%) reported that they worked
in organizations with 500 or more employees
and a quarter worked in organizations with
less than 20 employees. The mean number of
years employees had worked for their current
employer was 6.09 with a median of 3 (SD =
7.27). Of the respondents, 18% were union
members, a figure consistent with the official
national estimate of 18.9% (ABS, 2008).
Measures
Job Satisfaction
Our dependent variable was based on re-
sponses to the statement: “Overall, I am satis-
fied with my job.” Responses were rated on a
5-point scale ranging from 1 ⫽ strongly dis-
agree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree, with a neutral
midpoint. Our measure is an indicator of
global job satisfaction. Measures of global job
satisfaction are commonly used in large-scale
survey research in which an overall assess-
ment of employee attitudes is desired (Saari &
Judge, 2004; Spector, 1997). In this case, our
rationale for using a single-item measure of
global job satisfaction was to keep the survey
instrument relatively brief to minimize both
respondent load and non-response. We also
note, however, that a large body of research
has used single-item measures of overall job
satisfaction. This research has found that
such measures have excellent test-retest reli-
ability and show convergent validity with
multi-item measures of job satisfaction (Saari
& Judge, 2004; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy,
1997). For example, Wanous et al. (1997)
demonstrated that single-item measures of
overall job satisfaction converge quite strongly
with multi-item measures of overall job satis-
faction (r corrected for reliability ⫽ .67).
Employee Voice Arrangements
Our measures of voice were adapted from
Bryson (2004). Union voice was operational-
ized as collective representation and manage-
rial recognition, referring to the presence of a
union (of any kind) at the workplace. Forty
percent of respondents reported their work-
place had a union voice. Direct voice was pres-
ent where one of the following two-way com-
munication channels existed: (1) regular
meetings between senior management and
all staff (reported by 54.6% of the sample); (2)
a formal employee involvement program,
such as quality circles (11.5% of the sample);
or (3) a semi-autonomous workgroup (14.9%
of the sample). Sixty percent of respondents
reported the presence of direct voice in the
workplace, with 41.5% reporting the pres-
ence of one direct voice channel; 14.5% re-
porting the presence of two; and 3.5% report-
ing the presence of all three direct voice
channels. To examine whether the effect of
direct voice on job satisfaction was additive,
following Bryson (2004), we constructed an
index measuring the number of direct voice
arrangements reported as present in the
workplace. This index has a potential range
from 0 to 3 (M ⫽ 0.81, Mdn ⫽ 1, SD = 0.81).
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Control Variables
Consistent with Bryson’s (2004) recommenda-
tions, we controlled for a range of individual,
job, and workplace characteristics in the re-
gression analyses. Specifically, the analyses
controlled for gender, age in years, occupation
(manual versus non-manual), hours worked
each week, organizational size (as measured by
the estimated number of employees in the or-
ganization), sector (private versus non-private),
gross weekly wage, organizational tenure
(years), and individual union membership.
Job Autonomy
We also included job autonomy as a covariate,
because voice is conceptually different from
job autonomy, yet overlaps with voice (see
Wood & Wall, 2007). Job autonomy refers to
the amount of freedom an employee has in
carrying out his or her work (Humphrey, Nah-
rgang, & Morgeson, 2007). As a motivating
work characteristic, job autonomy has been
found to be strongly correlated with job satis-
faction (Humphrey et al., 2007; Saari & Judge,
2004; Spector, 1997). Employee perceptions of
job autonomy could act, therefore, as a con-
founding variable in the voice-job satisfaction
relationship. In our survey, employees were
asked to rate their level of influence and in-
volvement over selected aspects of their job
on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 ⫽ none to
3 ⫽ a lot, across four items: (1) deciding when
and how to do your job and organize your
work; (2) setting working hours; (3) the pace
of work; and, (4) deciding how to work with
new equipment or software. A principal com-
ponents analysis of the four items supported a
single-factor, with a Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient of .79. The scores on the four items were
averaged to form a composite measure (the
possible range of scores is 0 to 3), with higher
scores indicating greater perceived job auton-
omy. The mean score on our measure of job
autonomy was 1.73 (SD = 0.84).
Methods of Analysis
Because our dependent variable was ordinal in
nature, we used ordered probit regression. To
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 103
disentangle whether the presence of direct
voice and union voice has an interactive rela-
tionship with job satisfaction, we conducted a
moderated regression analysis. Specifically, we
ran a regression model with the presence of
union voice, the presence of direct voice, and
a product (multiplicative) term,
representing the interaction of the
two dummy coded voice arrange- We also included
ments. We also examined whether
job autonomy
the relationships between em-
ployee voice and job satisfaction as a covariate,
were contingent on the number of
employees in an organization and because voice
whether the organization was pri-
is conceptually
vate (for profit) versus non-private
(public and not-for-profit/volun- different from job
tary). We tested these relationships
by examining the interaction of autonomy, yet
voice arrangements with organiza-
overlaps with voice.
tional size and sector variables.
These relationships were tested for
two reasons. First, organizational size and sec-
tor are known to be important determinants
of employers’ choices and hence the adoption
of voice arrangements (Bryson et al., 2007;
Willman et al., 2006). Second, empirical re-
search has shown that these contextual vari-
ables also affect the viability and effectiveness
of different voice arrangements (Brewster
et al., 2007; Haynes, Boxall, & Macky, 2005).
Finally, prior to the analysis, the data were
screened for outliers and multicollinearity
among the predictors. The results were ade-
quate.
Results
As Table I illustrates, the majority of employ-
ees (70%) were satisfied with their job, a find-
ing consistent with much of the previous
research on job satisfaction (e.g., Saari &
Judge, 2004; Spector, 1997). Approximately
12% of respondents were dissatisfied with
their job and another 16.8% were neutral.
Interestingly, our reported levels of job dissat-
isfaction (95% confidence limits: 10.9% to
15.1%) are higher than the 7.6% reported by
Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza (2000) in their
study of job satisfaction in 21 countries
(N ⫽ 15,324).
104 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011

TABLE I Distribution of Job Satisfaction

Employees’ Responses Percent
Strongly disagree 4.2
Disagree 8.2
Neither agree nor disagree 16.8
Agree 48.6
Strongly agree 21.4
No answer 0.7
Note: N = 1,022.

TABLE II Results of Ordered Probit Regression Predicting Job Satisfaction

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Male –0.12 (0.11) –0.11 (0.11) –0.12 (0.11)
Age 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (0.01)
Hours worked –0.01 (0.01) –0.01 (0.01) –0.01 (0.01)
Non-manual work –0.07 (0.13) –0.04 (0.13) –0.08 (0.13)
Gross weekly wage –0.01 (0.02) –0.01 (0.02) –0.01 (0.02)

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

Private sector 0.07 (0.12) 0.09 (0.12) 0.06 (0.12)
Union member 0.06 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15)
Organizational size 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.00) 0.01 (0.01)
Job autonomy 0.66* (0.07) 0.64* (0.07) 0.66* (0.07)
Union voice 0.01 (0.13) –0.01 (0.13) –0.22 (0.18)
Direct voice 0.52* (0.10) 0.37* (0.06)
Index of direct voice 0.29* (0.06)
Union * direct 0.37 (0.20)
Nagelkerke Pseudo-R2 0.25 0.24 0.25
Note: *p < .05. Probit regression coefficients reported. Standard errors in parentheses.

The results of the ordered probit regres-
sion analyses predicting job satisfaction are
shown in Table II. Following Bryson (2004),
we included managerial and professional
employees in the analyses because they are
likely to be managed by other senior people
in an organization. The effect on results is
negligible if managerial and professional
employees are excluded from the analysis.
Although not central to the present study, it
is of interest to note that of the control
variables, job autonomy was the stron-
gest predictor of job satisfaction. This is con-
sistent with research that has identified a lack
of reliable socio-demographic predictors of
job satisfaction and confirms that job auton-
omy is a strong correlate of employee atti-
tudes (Spector, 1997).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that direct voice
would be positively associated with job
satisfaction. As shown in Table II, Model 1,
the probability of an employee being satisfied

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


with his or her job increased when direct
voice was present in the workplace (B = 0.52,
p < 0.05). Hypothesis 1, therefore, was sup-
ported. There were no statistically significant
interactions of organizational size or sector
(private versus non-private organizations)
with direct voice and job satisfaction.
As shown in Table II, Model 2, the additive
direct voice index was statistically significant
and positive (B = 0.29, p < 0.05), indicating that
as the number of reported direct voice arrange-
ments in the workplace increases, job satisfac-
tion increases. This additive effect of direct
voice provides further support for Hypothesis 1
and suggests employers and employees can
gain benefits from investing in multiple chan-
nels of direct voice arrangements.
Having established that direct voice was
positively associated with job satisfaction, we
examined which of the three direct voice
arrangements was most influential. With all
controls included in the model, regular meet-
ings between management and staff (B = 0.35,
p < .05) and semi-autonomous workgroups (B
= 0.47, p < 0.05) were associated with higher
job satisfaction. There was no statistically sig-
nificant relationship between the presence of
a formal employee involvement program and
job satisfaction (B = 0.10, p > 0.05).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that union voice
will be negatively associated with job satisfac-
tion. As shown in Table II, Model 1, the
regression coefficient for union voice was not
statistically significant (B = 0.01, p > 0.05).
We also tested whether union voice was re-
lated to job satisfaction without direct voice
included in the model. Again, the coefficient
for union voice was not significantly different
from zero (B = 0.07, p > 0.05). Hence,
Hypothesis 2 was not supported. We found
no statistically significant interactions of
organizational size or sector with union voice
and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3 states that complementar-
ity will be observed between union and
direct voice, such that job satisfaction will be
higher in workplaces with complementary
voice arrangements. This hypothesis implies
that the sign of the interaction term will be
positive. The interaction of direct voice and
union voice was positive (see Table II, Model
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 105
3), but just failed to reach statistical signifi-
cance at the 95% level of confidence (B =
0.37, p = .064). Given the well known diffi-
culties in detecting interaction effects, even
in relatively large samples (Agui-
nis, 1995), we interpret this evi-
dence as providing partial support In addition, additive
for Hypothesis 3. combinations
of direct voice
Discussion
This study intended to answer arrangements were
two questions: (1) to what extent
positively associated
employee voice arrangements af-
fect job satisfaction and (2) with job satisfaction,
whether employees with comple-
mentary voice arrangements re- implying that having
port higher job satisfaction. Con-
more direct voice
sistent with our expectations, the
relationship between direct voice arrangements has a
and job satisfaction was positive
(even after controlling for job au- greater influence on
tonomy). This finding supports
job satisfaction.
the notion that such arrange-
ments can induce management
and employees to interact and cooperate. By
breaking down barriers, employees and man-
agement may be more willing to share knowl-
edge and engage more effectively in joint
problem solving, thereby improving organi-
zational effectiveness and efficiency (Tailby
et al., 2007). In addition, and consistent with
the literature (Bryson, 2004; Storey, 1992),
direct voice may result in managers respond-
ing better to the heterogeneous needs of the
workforce, thus generating higher levels of
employee engagement and job satisfaction.
Further analyses of the data showed that
regular meetings between management and
staff and the existence of semi-autonomous
workgroups were positively associated with
job satisfaction. In addition, additive combi-
nations of direct voice arrangements were
positively associated with job satisfaction,
implying that having more direct voice
arrangements has a greater influence on job
satisfaction (cf. Bryson, 2004).
Contrary to our expectations, we found
no evidence that union voice was negatively
associated with job satisfaction, despite con-
trolling for personal, job, and workplace
106 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
characteristics, including job autonomy.
This finding is not entirely surprising given
the plethora of empirical studies that have
reported inconclusive findings regarding the
impact of union voice on job satisfaction.
One explanation for our finding lies in mea-
surement problems. Our measure of union
voice captures the presence of a
union only. We did not measure
This highlights the
union voice using other proxies
important role of such as the presence of union del-
egates at the workplace, union
the human resource membership and density rates, or
union efficacy. These additional
manager, who is
proxies of union voice, particu-
potentially the focal larly the degree to which unions’
are perceived to be effective, may
point for establishing directly influence job satisfaction.
We found some evidence that
and implementing
complementary voice arrange-
direct voice in the ments had a positive relationship
with job satisfaction. This pro-
workplace and vides some support for previous
research that has identified the
disseminating this benefits of dual-channel voice,
among not only the such as participating in and con-
tributing to organizational deci-
managerial ranks, sion making (e.g., Bryson, 2004;
Charlwood & Terry, 2007; Pyman
but employees at et al., 2006; Sako, 1998). Our evi-
dence for complementarity sup-
lower levels.
ports the thesis in the HRM litera-
ture—in particular the notion of
mutual gains—that unions can coexist along-
side direct voice arrangements. Further re-
search is needed, however, to understand the
dynamics of reinforcement where comple-
mentary voice arrangements co-exist; that is,
how unions and management engage and
establish bundles of voice arrangements that
have desirable outcomes for both parties.
Such an investigation should be undertaken
at the organizational level using matched
employer-employee data to determine
whether the presence of unions makes a dif-
ference to job satisfaction or whether the
presence of direct voice in the workplace
drives job satisfaction. This issue is an impor-
tant one, particularly in view of the ongoing
debates about the impact of unions on man-
agerial practices and HRM policies (see
Verma, 2005). This study’s results also rein-
force the importance of further analysing the
relationship between employee voice ar-
rangements and job satisfaction given that
this relationship has been largely neglected
in the literature. Our results reveal that this
relationship is important because only some
types of voice arrangements appear to influ-
ence job satisfaction.
Implications for Practitioners
Our findings have several implications for HR
practitioners given that employee voice and
job satisfaction in the workplace are both fun-
damental to the employment relationship.
Our results indicate that direct employee voice
was positively related to job satisfaction. This
highlights the important role of the human
resource manager, who is potentially the focal
point for establishing and implementing direct
voice in the workplace and disseminating this
among not only the managerial ranks, but em-
ployees at lower levels.
Although employee voice arrangements
can be costly and time consuming to develop
and implement, our results show that direct
voice has tangible intrinsic benefits and is
therefore worthy of investment. Intrinsic ben-
efits include enhanced employee job satisfac-
tion through increased involvement and par-
ticipation in the workplace. These intrinsic
benefits will then be manifest in extrinsic
benefits, including enhanced task and organi-
zational performance and lower turnover.
These issues are fundamental to practicing
human resource managers.
Limitations
Despite this study’s theoretical and practi-
cal contributions, we acknowledge that our
research design has some limitations and
raises questions for future research. First,
the cross-sectional nature of our data does
not allow us to make causal inferences. The
use of panel data would strengthen causal
inferences. Second, as Cox et al. (2006) ar-
gued, there is a need to investigate the
subtleties of employee voice in practice; in
particular to examine how embedded (the
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

depth and breadth) employee voice ar-
rangements are at the workplace level. This
is particularly pertinent in light of this pa-
per’s analyses, which measure the presence
of voice arrangements only. Indeed, pres-
ence does not guarantee the quality, legiti-
macy, effectiveness, or application of voice.
For example, we cannot determine from
our direct voice measure the frequency,
quality, or impact of regular staff meetings,
a formal employee involvement program,
and semi-autonomous workgroups on indi-
vidual-level and organizational-level out-
comes. The depth and breadth of direct
voice practices and managers’ underlying
motives in introducing such arrangements
are important issues, particularly in light of
empirical evidence that suggests direct
voice arrangements are often co-opted by
management (Freeman, Boxall, & Haynes,
2007). Thus, future research should further
investigate the depth and breadth of direct
voice arrangements in the workplace, par-
ticularly the extent to which they provide
for effective communication, grievance
systems, and organizational justice, rather
than serving as a channel to legitimate
managerial actions and decisions. In addi-
tion, we acknowledge that we did not ex-
amine non-union representative voice ar-
rangements in this study. Given our
findings that direct and multiple voice ar-
rangements are associated with job satis-
faction, it is reasonable to assume that
non-union representative voice arrange-
ments might also be associated with job
satisfaction, either in isolation or when
combined with union and direct voice ar-
rangements.
A plausible explanation for the overall
pattern of our results is that the impact of
employee voice arrangements on job satis-
faction varies, depending on the degree to
which employee voice arrangements are
embedded at the workplace level. In this
light, further case study research is needed
to understand under what conditions em-
bedding employee voice arrangements en-
hances employees’ job satisfaction in addi-
tion to other individual-level and
organizational-level outcomes.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 107
Third, we acknowledge that our data are
self-report. These data are useful in identify-
ing employees’ attitudes and per-
ceptions, but can be subject to
error such as incomplete knowl- The findings support
edge of organizational practices.
the proposition
Related to this is the potential
for common method variance, a that direct voice is
frequently identified problem
with self-report data (Podsakoff, positively associated
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
with job satisfaction.
2003). Spector (2006) argued,
however, that it is incorrect to
assume that using a single method auto-
matically introduces systematic bias; rather,
the potential for bias must be assessed given
the nature of the data at hand. Conse-
quently, we believe that our measures of
voice arrangements reflect objectively mea-
sured characteristics of involvement, par-
ticipation, and representation in the work-
place (e.g., the presence of a union, regular
meetings with staff, formal employee in-
volvement program). Thus, they are less
likely to be influenced by potential response
biases such as social desirability, which are
more commonly associated with subjective
measures of voice. Nevertheless, we cannot
rule out such biases and the possibility ex-
ists that satisfied workers are more likely to
perceive the presence of voice arrangements
in the workplace or have greater awareness
of what happens in the workplace.
Conclusion
This paper has examined the relationship be-
tween employee voice arrangements and job
satisfaction using data from the AWRPS (2007).
The hypotheses tested draw on the HRM and
industrial relations literatures. The findings
support the proposition that direct voice is
positively associated with job satisfaction. In
addition, this study found some support for,
and a need for further investigation of, the link
between complementary voice arrangements
and job satisfaction. It is unclear in previous
research, whether the benefits of complemen-
tary voice arrangements are due to union pres-
ence or progressive HRM practices encouraging
direct voice (Guest & Conway, 1999). Our
108 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011

findings contribute significantly to this debate Notes

by demonstrating that although the presence
of both union and direct voice arrangements
in the workplace may be positively associated
with job satisfaction, direct voice appears to be
the central mechanism underpinning employ-
ees’ job satisfaction. The role union voice ar-
rangements play in this relationship remains
unclear. Confirming a relationship between
employee voice arrangements and job satisfac-
tion, as a subset of wider organizational perfor-
mance, makes an important contribution to
the literature and raises implications for HRM
theory and practice. HR managers must be
cognizant of the relationship between em-
ployee voice arrangements and job satisfac-
tion, not only in seeking to build organizations
that have committed, loyal, and high-perform-
ing employees, but in developing and imple-
menting arrangements that allow employees
to meaningfully and formally exercise an influ-
ence over, and participate in, a wide range of
task-related and organizational issues.
1. The following studies all identify the trend of an
increased use of multiple voice arrangements:
Brewster et al. (2007); Bryson, (2004); Bryson,
Gomez & Willman, (2004); Charlwood & Terry,
(2007); Cox et al. (2006); Dundon, Wilkinson,
Marchington, & Ackers, (2004); Gollan & Wilkinson
(2007); Holland et al. (2009); McCabe & Lewin
(1992); Wilkinson et al. (2004); Willman et al.
(2006); Wood & Fenton-O’Creevy (2005).
2. A range of terminology has been used within the
literature, including mutual gains, high perfor-
mance work systems, high involvement manage-
ment, and high commitment management.
3. The rationale for using a minimum of 10 hours a
week in paid employment as the baseline was to
ensure that the employees’ sampled worked
more than one day per week (>8 hours). This, we
believed, was the minimum requirement to en-
sure that the employee had sufficient experi-
ences within the workplace to be able to assess
work patterns and processes.

PETER HOLLAND, MA (Kent) PhD (Tas) is an associate professor in Human Resource

Management and Employee Relations in the Department of Management at Monash
University, Australia. Peter has worked in the finance industry and consulted with private
and public sector organizations in a variety of areas. His current research interests include
talent management, employee voice and monitoring, and surveillance in the workplace.
He has co-authored seven books and numerous journal articles, monographs, and book
chapters on a variety of human resource management and employee relations issues.

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

BRIAN K. COOPER is a senior lecturer in the Department of Management at Monash Uni-

versity, Australia. Dr. Cooper lectures in research methods and has extensive experience
in qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. His research interests include
employee well-being and multivariate modelling.

JULIAN TEICHER is a professor in the Department of Management at Monash University,

Australia. His research spans the fields of human resource management and public man-
agement, though his particular interest lies in employee participation and the democra-
tization of work.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


References
ABS. (2008). Employee earnings, benefits and trade
union membership Australia (Australian Bureau
of Statistics Cat. No. 6310.0). Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Ackers, P., Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., & Dundon,
T. (2005). Partnership and voice, with or without
trade unions: Changing UK management approach-
es to organizational participation. In M. Stewart, &
M. Martinez-Lucio, (Eds.), Partnership and mod-
ernisation in employment relations (pp. 23–45).
London: Routledge.
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with
moderated multiple regression in management
research. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1141–1158.
Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000).
Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance
work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Benson, J. (2000). Employee voice in union and
nonunion Australian workplaces. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 38(3), 453–459.
Blegen, M. (1993). Nurse job satisfaction: A meta-
analysis of related variables. Nursing Research,
42(1), 36–41.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. (Eds.). (2007). The
Oxford handbook of human resource management.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brewster, C., Croucher, R., Wood, G., & Brookes, M.
(2007). Collective and individual voice: Conver-
gence in Europe? International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(7), 1246–1262.
Bryson, A. (2004). Managerial responsiveness to union
and non-union worker voice in Britain. Industrial
Relations, 43(1), 213–241.
Bryson, A., & McKay, S. (1997). What about the work-
ers? In R. Jowell, J. Curtice, A. Park, L. Brook, K.
Thomson, & C. Bryson (Eds.), British social at-
titudes: The 14th report: The end of conservative
values? (pp. 23–48). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Bryson, A., Cappellari, L., & Lucifora, C (2004). Does
union membership really reduce job satisfac-
tion? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(3),
439–459.
Bryson, A., Gomez, R., Kretschmer, T., & Willman, P.
(2007). The diffusion of workplace voice and high-
commitment management practices in Britain,
1984–1998. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3),
395–426.
Bryson, A., Gomez, R., & Willman, P. (2004). The end
of the affair? The decline in employers’ propensity
to unionise. In J. Kelly & P. Willman (Eds.), Union
organisation and activity (pp. 129–149). London:
Routledge.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 109
Charlwood, A. (2002). Why do non-union employees
want to unionize? Evidence from Britain. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 40(3), 463–491.
Charlwood, A., & Terry, M. (2007). 21st-century models
of employee representation: Structures, processes
and outcomes. Industrial Relations Journal, 38(4),
320–337.
Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S., & Marchington, M. (2006).
Embedding employee involvement and participa-
tion at work. Human Resource Management Jour-
nal, 16(3), 250–267.
Danford, A., Durbin, S., Richardson, M., Tailby, S., &
Stewart, P. (2009). Everybody’s talking at me: The
dynamics of information disclosure and consulta-
tion in high-skill workplaces in the UK. Human
Resource Management Journal, 19(4), 337–354.
Diamond, W., & Freeman, R. (2002). What workers
want from workplace organisations: A report to
the TUC’s promoting trade unionism task group.
London: Trades Union Congress.
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A. Marchington, M., & Ackers,
P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee
voice. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(6), 1149–1170.
Eaton, A. E., & Voos, P. (1992). Union and contempo-
rary innovations in work organization, compen-
sation, and employee participation. In L. Mishel
& P. B. Voos (Eds.) Unions and the economic
competitiveness (pp. 175–215). Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.
Edwards, P. K. (2003). The employment relationship
and the field of industrial relations. In P. K. Ed-
wards (Ed.), Routledge companion to strategic
human resource management (pp. 1–36). London:
Routledge.
Fiorito, J. (2001). Human resource management prac-
tices and worker desires for union representation.
Journal of Labor Research, 22, 335–354.
Flood, P. C., & Toner, B. (1997). Large non-union
companies: How do they avoid a catch 22? British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(2), 257–277.
Freeman, R. B., Boxall, P., & Haynes, P. (Eds.). (2007).
What workers say: Employee voice in the Anglo
American workplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions
do? New York: Basic Books.
Freeman, R. B., & Rogers, J. (1999). What workers
want. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Fulmer, I. S., Gerhant, B. S., & Scott, K. S. (2003). Are
the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of
the relationships between being a “Great Place to
Work” and firm performance. Personnel Psychol-
ogy 56(4), 965–993.
110 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2011
Gallie, D., White, M., Cheng, Y., & Tomlinson, M. (1998).
Restructuring the employment relationship. Ox-
ford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Garcia-Serrano, C. (2009). Job satisfaction, union
membership and collective bargaining. European
Journal of Industrial Relations, 15(1), 91–111.
Gardell, B. (1977). Autonomy and participation at
work. Human Relations, 30(6), 515–533.
Goll, I. (1991). Environment, corporate ideology and
employee involvement programs. Industrial Rela-
tions, 30(3), 138–149.
Gollan, P., & Wilkinson, M. (2007). Contemporary
developments in information and consultation.
International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 18(7), 1133–1144.
Green, F. (2006). Demanding work: The paradox of
job quality in the affluent economy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Green, F., & Tsitsianis, N. (2005). An investigation of
national trends in job satisfaction in Britain and
Germany. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
43(3), 401–429.
Guest, D., & Conway, N. (1999). Peering into the black
hole: The downside of the new employment rela-
tions in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Rela-
tions, 37(3), 367–389.
Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2004). Exploring the paradox
of unionised worker dissatisfaction. Industrial Rela-
tions Journal, 35(2), 102–121.
Hammer, T. H., & Avgar, A. (2007). The impact
of unions on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and turnover. In J. T. Bennett &
B. E. Kaufman (Eds.), What do unions do? (pp.
346–372). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006).
How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic
comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes
and time sequences. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(2), 305–325.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Busi-
ness-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
Haynes, P., Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2003, May). New
Zealanders’ Influence at work: Report to the Minis-
ter of Labour on the New Zealand Worker Repre-
sentation and Participation Survey. Auckland, New
Zealand: University of Auckland.
Haynes, P., Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2005). Non-union
voice and the effectiveness of joint consultation in
New Zealand. Economic and Industrial Democracy,
26(2), 229–256.
Holland, P., Pyman, A., Cooper, B., & Teicher, J. (2009).
The development of alternate voice mechanisms in
Australia: The case of joint consultation. Economic
and Industrial Democracy, 30(1), 67–92.
Hoste, P., Sevatos, P., & Cooper, C. (2006). Happy-per-
forming managers: The impact of affective wellbe-
ing and intrinsic job satisfaction in the workplace.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P.
(2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contex-
tual work design features: A meta-analytic sum-
mary and theoretical extension of the work design
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5),
1332–1356.
Hyman, R. (2004), Where next for partnership? In M.
Stuart & M. Martinez Lucio (Eds.), Partnership and
modernization in employment relations. London:
Routledge.
Jones, M. K., Jones, R. J., Latreille, P. L., & Sloane, P.
J. (2009). Training, job satisfaction and workplace
performance in Britain: Evidence from WERS 2004.
LABOUR [special issue] 23(1), 139–175.
Kauhanen, A. (2009). The incidence of high-perform-
ance work systems: Evidence from a nationally
representative employee survey. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 30(3), 454–480.
Kochan, T. A. (1979). How American employees view
labor unions. Monthly Labor Review, 102(4), 23–31.
Kochan, T. A. (1980). Collective bargaining and indus-
trial relations. Homewood, IL: Richard. D. Irwin.
Kochan, T. A., & Osterman, P. (1994). The mutual gains
enterprise. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Kroumova, M. K., & Lazarova, M. B. (2009). Broad-
based incentive plans, HR practices and company
performance. Human Resource Management Jour-
nal, 19(4), 355–374.
Locke. E. A. (1976). The nature and cause of job satis-
faction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industri-
al and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organi-
zational commitment and the mediating role of job
satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
16(8), 594–613.
Marchington, M. (2007). Employee voice systems. In
P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of human resource management (pp.
231–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCabe, D., & Lewin, D. (1992). Employee voice: A hu-
man resource management perspective. California
Management Review, 34(3), 95–111.
Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: How
good are single versus multiple-item measures?
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 388–403.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through peo-
ple. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsa-
koff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in be-
havioral research: A critical review of the literature
and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Pyman, A., Cooper, B., Teicher, J., & Holland, P. (2006).
A comparison of the effectiveness of employee
voice arrangements in Australia. Industrial Rela-
tions Journal, 37(5), 543–559.
Renaud, S. (2002). Rethinking the union membership/
job satisfaction relationship. International Journal
of Manpower, 23(2),137–150.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes
and job satisfaction. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 43(4), 395–407.
Sako, M. (1998). The nature and impact of employee
“Voice” in the European car components industry.
Human Resource Management Journal, 8(2), 5–13.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Tak-
ing empowerment to the next level: A multiple level
model of empowerment, performance and satisfac-
tion, Academy of Management, 47(3), 332–349.
Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2000). Well-being
at work: A cross-national analysis of the levels and
determinants of job satisfaction. Journal of Socio-
Economics, 29(6), 517–538.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application,
assessment, cause, and consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organization-
al research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational
Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232.
Spence Laschinger, H. K., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J.
(2001). The impact of workplace empowerment,
organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment. Health Care
Management Review, 26(3), 7–23.
Storey, J. (1992). Developments in the management of
human resources. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Strauss, G. (1998). Collective bargaining, unions and
participation. In F. Heller, E. Pusic, G. Strauss, & B.
Wilpert (Eds.), Organisational participation: Myth
and reality (pp. 97–143). Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Tailby, S., Richardson, M., Upchurch, M., Danford, A.,
& Stewart, P. (2007). Partnership with and without
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
EMPLOYEE VOICE AND JOB SATISFACTION IN AUSTRALIA 111
trace unions in the UK financial services: Filling or
fuelling the gap? Industrial Relations Journal, 38(3),
210–228.
Teicher, J., Holland, P., Pyman, A., & Cooper, B. (2007).
Employee voice in Australia. In R. Freeman, P.
Boxall, & P. Haynes (Eds.), What workers say:
Employee voice in the Anglo-American world (pp.
125–144). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Ugboro, I. O., & Obeng, K. (2000). Top management
leadership, employee empowerment, job satis-
faction and customer satisfaction in TQM organi-
zations: An empirical study. Journal of Quality
Management, 5(2), 247–272.
Vaughan, E. (1986). Industrial democracy in Australia:
Some day too far away. In E. Davis & R. Lansbury
(Eds.), Democracy and control in the workplace (pp.
30–52). Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire.
Verma, A. (2005). What do unions do to the work-
place? Union effects on management and HRM
policies. Journal of Labor Research, 16(3), 415–449.
Wang, G., & Lee, P. (2009). Psychological empower-
ment and job satisfaction: An analysis of interactive
effects. Group & Organization Management, 34(3),
271–296.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997).
Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item
measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2),
247–252.
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M., & Ackers,
P. (2004). Changing patterns of employee voice:
Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland.
Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), 298–322.
Willman, P., Bryson, A., & Gomez, R. (2006). The sound
of silence: Which employers choose no employee
voice and why? Socio-Economic Review, 4(2),
283–299.
Wood, S. J., & Fenton-O’Creevy, M. P. (2005). Direct
involvement, representation and employee voice in
UK multinationals in Europe. European Journal of
Industrial Relations, 11(1), 27–50.
Wood, S. J., & Wall, T. D. (2007). Work enrichment
and employee voice in human resource man-
agement-performance studies. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7),
1335–1372.
Wright, T. A. (2006). The emergence of job satisfaction
in organizational behavior. Journal of Managerial
History, 12(3), 262–277.