They don't know how to use it, don't like it and may even consider it a threat, writes Marc Ohan

Ohana, Marc

LSE Research Online

5/19/2016Having a voice in team decisions may not be a good idea forneurotic employeesblogs.lse.ac.uk /businessreview/2016/05/19/having-a-voice-in-team-decisions-may-not-be-a-good-idea-for-neurotic-employees/Being involved in decisions regarding one’s organisation has many benefits for both the employees and theorganisation. Among these: stress reduction, improved motivation, higher quality of decisions… However, little isknown on the consequences of such participation in the decision-making process within teams. Indeed, in themodern workplace, teamwork in flat organisations has become increasingly frequent. Interactions between co-workers are more common and sustained than ever. Teams can now make their own decisions on resources,processes, relationships…In my recent study, I tried to establish whether and how the opportunity to express one’s personal opinionconcerning the team’s decisions increased team citizenship behaviours, i.e. all positive behaviours directedtowards the group, which are not explicitly mentioned in the contract, like helping co-workers who have been absent.Not surprisingly, the baseline result suggests that there is a positive link between the opportunity of participating inwork group decisions and team citizenship behaviour.More interestingly still, this link can be explained in terms of social exchange. People may be attracted by theprospect of being part of the team decision-making process because they see it as a gift from their group of co-workers. Participating in team decisions is worthwhile for three reasons. First, this allows to better control the futureof the group, thus providing some predictability. Second, this means that team members have a status as they canparticipate in discussions within and about the group. Finally, this proves that the team has some morality andvalues through shared decision-making. Once they are offered this gift, employees might feel obliged to reciprocatewith a counter-gift: their commitment to the team. As they are attached to the team, they will try and contribute to itssuccess, by displaying citizenship behaviours in order to maximize its operational efficiency.However, the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process within teams may not be always consideredpositive. Indeed, if the underlying mechanism is a gift exchange, not all employees might see such participation as agift. Two individual variables were tested: intrinsic motivation and neuroticism.1/3Intrinsic motivation refers to the extent to which an individual is inner-directed, interested in or fascinated with atask, and engages in it for the sake of the task itself. A person with a high level of intrinsic motivation is focused onthe task itself because of the satisfaction they get from it. Hence, she/he pays less attention to outside forces likework conditions in general, and opportunities to participate in the decision making-process of the team in particular.Thus, being part of the decision-making process is no more considered as a gift that needs to be returned.Neuroticism is a non-pathological personality trait that refers to the tendency to experience negative feelings andemotions. Highly neurotic individuals tend to experience anxiety, embarrassment, anger, mood swings, and low self-esteem. They may not consider it important to be involved in the decision-making process in teams insofar as theydo not know how to best use it. Worse, as they are irritable and prone to interpersonal conflicts, giving them a voiceto express their opinions may be considered a threat. As they are not comfortable expressing themselves, the fact ofvoicing their views may not be considered a gift or favour that needs to be reciprocated.This study reinforces the assertion that organisations should create work environments in which employees areinvolved in the decision-making process within teams. There are several practical ways to foster participativedecision making. For example, one possibility would be to use the extent to which employees encourage co-workers’participation as a parameter of their performance evaluations or 360-degree performance feedback processes(Cropanzano, Li, and Benson, 2011).Furthermore, employees and leaders’ trainings should deal with the benefits of participative decision techniquessuch as the nominal group or the stepladder techniques, applied to team decisions. Finally, supervisors should actas role models by allowing their subordinates to express views. Given that the conduct of leaders may encouragefair behaviours among employees, the opportunity for the latter to express their views should be spread at thedecision-making level within teams.The present study’s findings go further and provide a number of quite precise indications on individuals who feelconcerned with decision-making opportunities. Specifically, those with low levels of neuroticism or intrinsicmotivation are more receptive to participative decision-making. They are thus more willing to take part in socialexchanges. Therefore, organisations and supervisors should target this type of individuals.For instance, work groups with boring and repetitive tasks (i.e. presumably with low levels of intrinsic motivation)should become priority recipients of group decision-making training courses. Supervisors should also pay moreattention to subordinates with low levels of neuroticism, thereby guaranteeing their appropriate participation in thedecision-making process within the team.♣♣♣Notes:This post is based on the author’s paper Voice, Affective Commitment and Citizenship Behavior inTeams: The Moderating Role of Neuroticism and Intrinsic Motivation, in British Journal of Management, Vol.27, 97–115 (2016) DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12146The post gives the views of its author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School ofEconomics.Featured image credit: Public DomainBefore commenting, please read our Comment Policy2/3Marc Ohana is Professor of organisational behaviour at KEDGE Business School, where he hasbeen since 2010. He received his Ph.D from the University of Aix-Marseille and his HDR(accreditation to supervise thesis) from Dauphine University. He teaches courses in leadership,organisational behaviour and human resources management. His research interests centre onimproving people management, mainly through a quantitative methodology. Within that domain, hehas investigated topics such as organisational justice, commitment, citizenship behaviours, socialexchange and social identity. His research has appeared in journals such as British Journal ofManagement, Personnel Review, European Management Journal and Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Quarterly. Copyright © 2015 London School of Economics3/3

Having a voice in team decisions may not be a good idea for neurotic employees

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online