You are on page 1of 15

Job Satisfaction and Teamwork: The Role of Supervisor Support Author(s): Mark A. Griffin, Malcolm G. Patterson, Michael A.

West Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 5 (Aug., 2001), pp. 537-550 Published by: John Wiley & Sons Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649557 Accessed: 02/02/2010 23:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jwiley. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

John Wiley & Sons is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Organizational Behavior.

http://www.jstor.org

Journal of Organizational Behavior J.Second. GRIFFIN1*. there is no simple process through which teamwork influences job satisfaction.Sheffield. 1990).K. it was proposed that supervisor supportwould be a weaker source of job satisfaction in companies with higher levels of teamworking.Brisbane. This paper explores ways in which changes in leadership roles influence overall job satisfaction in teams. Behav. WEST3 1QueenslandUniversityof Technology. and the nature of the work itself (Campion et al. we focus on employee experiences of supervisor support: the extent to which supervisors provide encouragement and support to employees within their work * to: MarkA.First. 1993. Within the broad field of leadership. 3The Universityof Aston.Multilevel analysis indicated that the extent of teamwork at the company level of analysis moderated the relationship between individualperceptionsof supervisorsupportandjob satisfaction.101 Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support MARK A. MALCOLM G. Two separate research questions were addressed.edu. However.griffin@qut. Griffin.Brisbane. Organiz.Analyses of aggregatedcompany data supportedthese propositions andprovidedevidence for a complex mediationalpathbetween teamworkandjob satisfaction. PATTERSON2 AND MICHAEL A. Australia 2The Universityof Sheffield. Ltd.1002/job. Australia. Aston. Implicationsfor implementingteamworkin organizationsare discussed. Correspondence E-mail: m. group processes within the team.QueenslandUniversityof Technology. 1998). 22. Introduction Teamwork typically involves groups of interdependent employees who work cooperatively to achieve group outcomes (Parker and Wall. it was proposed thatthe extent of teamworkwould be positively relatedto perceptionsof job autonomy but negatively related to perceptionsof supervisorsupport. 1984). the job satisfaction of team members is determined by multiple factors such as the composition of the team..au Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. Because these factors operate in combination.4001.it was proposedthat the link between teamworkand job autonomy would be explained by job enrichmentpractices associated with teamwork. Summary The link between teamworkandjob satisfactionwas investigatedin a sample of 48 manufacturing companies comprising 4708 employees. Effective team implementation can enhance the motivational properties of work and increase job satisfaction. Received 5 June 1999 Accepted 6 November 2000 Published online 26 June 2001 . Despite the potential advantages of teamwork. Gladstein.School of Management. 537-550 (2001) DOI: 10. U. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons.Further. U. Ltd. the introduction of teams sometimes fails to result in expected outcomes for individuals and organizations (Hackman.K.

This function is also importantwhen Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. 1997.Second. and company records.g. Leadershipis consistently recognized as importantfor the initiation and ongoing development of teams (Bass.Behav. this does not mean that a supervisor'ssupporthas no impact on satisfaction. Cohen et al. Tjosvold.there shouldbe a weakerlink between the perceivedsupportiveness of supervisorsand the satisfactionlevels of employees in companies where teams have been introduced. J. Some companies had made no change toward the use of teams.One possible consequence of the changing role of supervision when teams are introducedis thatthe traditionalsupportprovidedby supervisorsbecomes less importantfor employee satisfaction. 22. First..betterunderstanding in teams some research inconsistent may help explain findingsconcerningthe impact of ship changes teamworkon satisfaction. These options range from the complete elimination of supervisorypositions to the retentionof supervisorypositions but with redefined role requirementssuch as facilitation.Analyses at the different levels draw on the strengthsof a multi-organizationsample in which informationwas obtained from individualemployees. Campionet al. supervisorbehaviorshave an impact on the affective reactions of team members (Durhamet al. that investigatedmanagementpractices and employee attitudesin manufacturing companies. 1997). 1987). A. Data from the projectwere used to assess researchquestionsaboutjob satisfactionat two levels of analysis.. groups. 1993.On a practicallevel. This analysis enabled us to differentiatethe role of teamworkfrom more generaljob enrichmentpractices and to investigate how these practices were linked.. 1986). All of these options change the role of supervisorsin teams so that supervisionis a less importantsource of supportand direction (Kerret al.The companies in the present study differed in the degree to which they had introduced teamwork.introducingteams can result in a significant et al. In traditionalwork structures. Parkerand Wall change to the role of supervisorswithin organizations(Tannenbaum (1998) identify a numberof options for leadershiproles in teams. We exploredthe relationshipbetween teams andsatisfactionusing datafrom a large researchproject in the U. 1996). via supervisorsupport. Ltd. Organiz.to job satisfaction. some had implemented teamwork across the whole organization.. Although leadershipmay have less influence on satisfactionfor employees working in teams.. However. 1996.supervisors have long been recognized to play an importantpart in developing roles and expectations of employees (Graen and Scandura. Individual Level: The Changing Impact of Supervisor Support role in structuring the work environmentand providinginformationand Supervisorsplay an important feedback to employees. 1987.K. we focused on the individuallevel of analysis to investigate the importanceof supervisor support for job satisfaction when teams are introducedin companies.538 M. we focused on the companylevel of analysis to investigate differences in average satisfaction levels across companies. it is importantto identify factors that will facilitate the effective implementationof teams in the work place. 1984). 1989). Our first goal was to investigate the impact of supervisorsupporton employee satisfactionunder different levels of team implementation.Therefore. GRIFFINETAL. Theoretically. The supportand considerationof supervisorsis a strong determinantof job satisfactionin a aboutthe role of leaderwide varietyof work settings(Yukl. managerinterviews. and others had introducedminimal elements of teamworking. As a consequence. 1995) and is often included as an importantdeterminantin models of team satisfaction(e. Manz and Sims. Gladstein. This level of analysis allowed us to assess the degree to which the link between supervisor support and job satisfaction was influencedby the extent of teamworkin each company.. 537-550 (2001) .Little researchhas tested whether the impact of leadership changes when teams are introduced.

The study also assessed otherorganizationalcharacteristics that might influencejob satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: Supervisorsupportwill be more strongly related to job satisfaction in companies with higher levels of teamworkcomparedto companies with lower levels of teamwork. Hypothesis5: Companieswith more employees will reportlower overall levels of job satisfaction. Analysis by Clark(1996) suggested thatgreaterprovision of intrinsicrewards(e.it allows the possibility that variationin the link between supervisor supportand satisfactioncan be explained by company level differences.. If hypothesis 2 is supported. relationsat work) from smallerorganizationsresults in significantlyraised satisfactionin those workerswho value such characteristics.First.Therefore. Hypothesis 1: Supervisor support will have a positive impact on job satisfaction across all companies. Steers and Rhodes. Our key hypothesis was that these differences could be explained by the extent of teamworkin each company.Similarly. The directionof the effect between organizational performanceand employee satisfaction has received little researchattention(Ostroff. Organiz. we proposedthat the overall link betweenjob supervisorsupportandjob satisfactionwill be positive regardlessof the level of teamworkin an organization. Immediate supervisorsalso provide salient informationabout the supportof the broaderorganizationfor change and their behaviors are likely to be interpretedas representativeof wider organizationalprocesses (Kozlowski and Doherty. Based on the above discussion.The following hypotheses tested the role of these two measures at the company level of analysis. and provide more opportunitiesfor employees. 1985.g.althoughwe proposethat supervisorsupportwill be a less importantsource of satisfactionwhen teams are introduced. 1987). greater security.and a link between the extent of teamworkand the importanceof supervisorsupport.1992).AND TEAMS JOB SATISFACTION 539 teamworkis introducedbecause supervisorscan play a key role in modelling teamworkand setting the groundrules for team membersto engage in team processes (McIntyreand Salas.the size of the organizationalunit may have an impact on individualjob satisfactionbecause smaller establishments tend to be asociated with more satisfied workers (LaRocco. The currentstudyused productivityas a company level controlmeasureto accountfor otherfactors not associated with teamwork. ? 2001 JohnWiley& Sons. Therefore..the performanceof the company is likely to influence the level of job satisfaction of employees in the company (Ryan et al. Next we proposedthattherewould be systematicvariationin the link between perceptionsof supervisor supportand satisfactionacross the range of companies in the study.Ltd. Companieswith higher levels of productivityand performance are likely to have more resources.organizationalsize was also included as a control variable. Copyright J. Therefore. 1989). It is importantto establish this variationbecause it demonstratesthat the link between supervisorsupportand satisfactionis not the same within differentcompanies.we also propose that supervisorsupport will continue to exert a positive influence on employee satisfaction.In particular. 22. Hypothesis 4: Companies with higher profit levels will report higher overall levels of job satisfaction. 1996). 1995). hypotheses were developed to predict the overall impact of supervisor supporton job satisfaction.variationin the impact of supervisorsupporton satisfactionacross companies.the following hypothesis was tested. Hypothesis2: The relationshipbetween perceptionsof supervisorsupportandjob satisfactionwill vary systematically across companies. Behav. 537-550 (2001) .

Company Level: The Mediational Role of Supervisor Support and Job Autonomy In additionto changing the role of supervisors.. We focused on job enrichmentpracticesas a common practicecarriedout by organizationsaiming to redesign the work place. where job enrichmentis part of a teamworkwe expect less direct supportfor employees from supervisors. At the organizationallevel.job enrichmentpractices are not necessarily implementedthrougha teamwork structure. A. In both cases we expect that the enrichmentpractice of increasedjob variety will result in higher levels of job satisfaction. Job enrichmentpractices. job variety may be increased through a job rotation programme or through a team structurein which team members share all tasks. 537-550 (2001) . Neuman et al.The introductionof teamworkis also often undertakenwith the goal of creating an enrichedwork environmentin which employees can experience greaterautonomy (Wall et al.However. 22. At the individuallevel. 1980. There is also a long line of researchsupportingthe positive impact of job autonomyon job satisfaction(Parkerand Wall. GRIFFINETAL. the extent of teamwork. 1998). Ltd.Behav. Researchin the area of job enrichmenthas consistently demonstrated positive links to employee satisfaction (Hackman and Oldham. perceptionsof supervisorsupportandjob satisfactionwere assessed.In this way. J. 1986). 1989).540 M. Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. the variety of tasks performed.such as increasingjob variety.and company size were assessed. Figure 1. These practicesinclude increasing the responsibilities of employees.profitability. supervisorsupportcan be lower when teams are introduced. 1989). Evidence suggests that teams with higher levels of autonomyare more effective (Beekun. and the flexibility to implementtasks.For example.the introductionof teams is typically accompaniedby changes to the design of work roles for employees.. Hypothesizedcross-level influences on job satisfaction Figure 1 summarizesthe hypotheticalrelationshipsthat were investigated.can resultin higherjob satisfactionbecause of higher levels of perceived autonomy.The figuredifferentiates measuresobtainedat the individuallevel of analysis from those obtainedat the companylevel of analysis. Organiz. A key outcome for employees from job enrichmentpractices is the experience of job autonomy: the extent to which employees experience a sense of choice and discretion in their work. However.

The model does not propose that satisfaction is a collective constructbut provides an opportunityto investigate factors associated with average differences across companies.fpa+ PathD Extent of / ' Teamwork B Path B |I~ ~ Control Measures Eath S Autonomy PathSp o Job Job Satisfaction Supervisory Support Figure 2.Job enrichmentwas expected to lead to higher levels of job autonomy(Path C). 22. Ltd.The proposednegative impact of teams on supervisorsupportis implicit in the literatureon teams but has not been tested directly.both supervisorsupportandjob autonomywere expected to have a positive impact on job satisfaction(Path F and Path G. we proposedthattypical team interventionsmay reducethe level of supervisorsupport in the work place by focusing on increased flexibility and autonomy for employees.Behav. The introduction support(PathB)..Job enrichmentthatprovidesgreaterflexibility and control was expected to have no direct influence on the levels of supervisorsupportwithin teams (PathE). Therefore. Although the two constructs are distinct. There was expectedto be no directeffect of the extent of teamworkon job autonomy(PathD) as this relationship is explainedby the correlationwithjob enrichment. teamworkcan indirectlyinfluencejob satisfactionin both a positive and a negative direction. 1997). respectively). Job autonomyhas been found to mediatethe impactof job enrichmenton team outcomes (Janzet al. However.. teamwork and job enrichmentwere expected to be correlated(Path A) because the introductionof teams is typically associatedwith changes in job design (Parkerand Wall. A negative impact of teamworkon supervisorsupportwould highlight the need to ensure supportfor the functional role of leaders particularlyduring transition. if the introductionof teams is not associated with effective adaptationof supervisoryroles. In this way. Organiz. Hypothesizedrelationshipsamong organizationallevel constructs We hypothesized that job enrichment associated with the introduction of teams results in greaterautonomyfor employees but that team structuresthemselves reduce levels of supervisorsupport.ANDTEAMS JOBSATISFACTION 541 Measuresobtained fromcompany Job PathC Measuresobtainedfrom individuals Job Enrichment + thPathPa . J. The figure distinguishes between the extent of teamwork in an organizationand the degree of job enrichmentin the workplace. That is. This level of analysis allowed us to investigate the mediationalprocesses throughwhich teamworkand leadershipperceptionsinfluence job satisfaction. there may be negative outcomes for teams (Komakiet al. 537-550 (2001) . Supportfor this negative impact would provide one explanation for the difficulties associated with the introduction of teams and suggest an important mechanism for managing the transition from more traditional work structures to teamwork. the introductionof teams itself can reduce the level of supervisorsupportin organizations. of teams was expected to have a directnegativeimpact on levels of supervisor 1998).Overall. Figure2 depicts the proposedmediationalrole played by job autonomyand supervisorsupportat the company level of analysis. if the Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. 1989). In summary.

The questionnairesurveys were either distributedto employees by the organizationor handed to employees on-site by a memberof the researchteam. 22.lack of open communication. Individualmeasuresused in the second analysis were aggregatedto the company level of analysis.innovation andeconomic performance. Time The study was conductedbetween 1994 and 1995.and little decentralization. that were involved in a largerprojectexaminingorganizational design.K.8). managementpractices. Teams had been introducedto varying degrees across the range of companies.They were predominantlysingle site and averagedapproximately260 employees.However.5 per cent (SD = 26. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons.plastics and rubbersector. In most companies 100 per cent of employees were surveyed but in companies with more than 500 employees (n = 3) a randomsample was taken. Workers' views of the workplace Organizationalclimate surveys conducted across the companies reinforced the perception that changes in HRM and empowerment were implemented with limited effectiveness.Behav.and were drawnfrom the manufacture of metal goods and mechanicalengineeringsector. with an average of 246 employees (SD = 318. positive impact of supervisorysupportis reduced.Data were collected on employee job satisfaction. sure on employees to produceand formalization(the use of rules and formalproceduresto control activities) dominatedemployees' perceptionsof their organizations. Response rates within companies ranged from 5-100 per cent with a mean response rate of 52. Almost all the firmsreportedundergoingsignificantchange in structureand work design.employee attitudes.then the overall change in satisfactionmay be less than expected if the change is not compensatedfor by other changes in the workplace. Employees Presreportedlow levels of participation. The companies were predominantlysingle site and single productoperations. ContextualSidebar The companies The companieswere spreadthroughout the United Kingdon.4 per cent). Organiz.542 M. Over 80 per cent of companies reported greater decentralization. and a thirdmiscellaneous category. 537-550 (2001) . when senior managers were asked to indicate the lowest hierarchicallevel where employees had the authorityto make selected decisions. The companiesrangedin size from 60 to 1929 employees. A. GRIFFINETAL. responses revealed that supervisorsand operatorsmostly had limited opportunitiesfor decision making. Listwise deletion of missing cases resultedin a final sample for analyses of 4708 in 48 companies. J. Ltd. Measuresat the individuallevel of analysis were obtainedthrougha survey of all staff in each company. Method Sample and procedure The companies in this study were 48 manufacturingcompanies in the U.and employee perceptionsof supervisorysupport and work autonomy.

had responsibility for work.68) from the same index of organizational climate used to assess supervisorysupport(Lawthomet al. The response formatranged from definitely false (1) to definitelytrue (4). job descriptions) and observationalevidence (e. Organiz.. Cronbach'salpha for job enrichmentwas 0.g. from very low (1) to very high (7). Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons.The field-researchers' had contact with managersand experience of work conditions across all companies in the study.1992. researchersrated the degree of job enrichmenton the following dimensions:the extent of skill flexibility of shopfloorworkers. the extent to which the management of materialsand work in progresswas delegated to shopfloorstaff. Firm size was representedby the logarithm(to compensatefor skewness) of total employment. 1997). for example.JOB SATISFACTION AND TEAMS 543 Measuresof teamworkingandjob enrichmentwere collected at the company level throughon-site. how they were managed and how targets were set. The scale was in previous researchon blue-collar employees (Cook et al. 537-550 (2001) . Company level measures Teamwork The interviewquestionscovered the degree to which teams. the cycle time in the typicaljob.For example. J.. Control measures Controlmeasuresincludedwere firmsize and companyproductivity. researchersrated the degree to which teamworking had been implemented. Behav. Cook developed and standardized and Wall.We did not rely on managers' ratingsbecause theirresponseswere not similarlyanchoredacross companies. the amountof responsibility operatorshad for dealing the technology. 1981.g. and the discretionthey had for deciding on when to take breaksand for the methods used to complete theirwork.84.the extent of multiskillingof shopflooremployees.. the structureof the teams. and the degree of job responsibility. Workautonomywas measuredby four items (alpha= 0.The interview information in-depth.88) from an index of organizational mate developed for use with blue-collarworkers(Lawthomet al.complementedby documentary(e. The responseformatrangedfrom extremelydissatisfied(1) to extremelysatisfied (7). Individual level measures Job satisfaction was measuredby Warret al. Using this information. 1995). 22. An example item was 'Managementlet people make theirown decisions most of the time'. productivitywas measuredby the logarithmof sales per employee.. Huselid. interviews with senior managersand directors. including minor breakdowns.Using this information.Following priorwork (Pritchard. 1997). ratherthanindividuals. Scoring was on a 4th-point scale from 'not at all' to 'extensively'. an inexperiencedmanagerin one companymight rate a ratherlimited implementationof job enrichment as disproportionally substantial. The response formatrangedfrom definitely false (1) to definitelytrue (4). the extent of job variety. semi-structured formed the basis of researcherratings of teamworkingand job enrichment.. Ltd. cliSupervisorysupportwas measuredby five items (alpha= 0. 1980).Scoring was on an appropriately worded 7-point scale running. Job enrichment The interview covered the following aspects of job design: the extent of job rotation. routine maintenance and machine set-up. shopfloor behaviour and comments). (1979) 15-item measure (alpha= 0. An example item was 'Supervisorshere are friendly and to easy approach'.92).

The averageslope lysis providesestimates of the interceptand slope parameters of satisfactionregressedon supervisorsupportestimatesthe overall link between these two individual measures (Hypothesis 1).Individual level correlations in the company level measures and company to each individual level by disaggregating computed company correlations individual measures within by aggregating computed companies.55* . The measuresof teamworkandjob enrichmentwere assumedto have a reliability of 0.34t 1. 537-550 (2001) . Structural equationmodeling (SEM) was used to test the mediationalmodel incorporating job satisfaction at the companylevel of analysis. Teamwork 2.50t 0. estimates within-company parameters separatelyfor each of the companiesusing the individuallevel variables. 22. A. Satisfaction 7. Job enrichment 5.10t 0.32T 7 0. Bryk and Raudenbush.00 0.18 0.56t 0. The HLM procedureis a two stage strategythat.07t O. The second stage of the analysis also tests whethervariationin the interceptis predictedby the companylevel measuresof profitabilityand company size (Hypotheses 4 and 5). Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons.1992).the second stage of the analysis tests whethercompany level measureof teamworkpredicts variation in the relationship among the individual variables (Hypothesis 3). LISRELVIII (Joreskogand Sorbom. 1993) was used to estimate the paths depicted in Figure 2 and to estimate the overall fit of the hypothesizedmodel.10 0. Analysis Hypothesesinvolving satisfactionat the individuallevel requireda cross-level analysis in which organizational characteristics moderate relationships among individual perceptions (Rousseau.544 M.tp< 0. 1988).00 0. Note: Individual level correlations below the diagonal.25* 1.00 -0. the variance in the slope of satisfaction regressed on supervisor supportestimates the degree to which the relationshipbetween supervisorsupportand satisfactionvaries across companies (Hypothesis2).09 0.02 0. For measures based on aggregatedindividual scores.03 0.07t 0. J.101 -0.37t -0. Hofmann et al.02 3 0.04t 0.00 -0.individualjob satisfactionwas regressedon supervisorsupportwithin each of the 48 companies.07 0. The hypotheses were assessed using hierarchicallinear models (HLM.15t 5 -0.171 0. The variancein the interceptterm representsmean differences in job satisfaction across companies after controllingfor individualperceptionsof supervisorsupport.04t 4 0. The second stage of the analysis investigatescompanylevel predictorsof the variance in the interceptand slope. Autonomy 1.38t 0. Organiz.08t 2 0.aggregate level correlation above the diagonal. scale scores were used to assess each construct(Bentler and Chou.50t -0. GRIFFIN ETAL.01 0.Behav.1988).11t 0.26* 0.05.01 1.01 0..11 1. Profit 4. the measurementerrorwas estimatedas being equal to the varianceof the scale multipliedby one minus the reliabilityof the scale (Andersonand Gerbing.25* 0.05t 0.01. Table 1.22t 6 -0.00 0.34t 1. in the first stage. Size 3.20 0.0.001. If there is significantvariationin the link between supervisorsupportand satisfaction. Supervisorsupport 6.21t .Across all companies.00 0. 1985.Specifically. The HLMan procedureis an appropriate procedurefor linking company level measures and individual measures when the dependent variable is assessed at the individual level of analysis.01 0.02 1.tp< 0. Because of the relatively small sample size at this level. Ltd.This anaacross all companies. 2000).14 0.00 *p< 0. Correlationsamong all measurescalculated at the individuallevel (n = 4708) and at the company level (n = 48) 1 1.9 and company profit and size were assumed to have no measurementerror.0.21t -0. Correlationsamong the variables at both the individual and the aggregate level are reportedin Table 1.07 0.

SupportingHypothesis4.15 692.15 in the parameterestimates around the pooled estimate of 0. Results of HLManalysis individual levelmeasures of including andsupervisor job satisfaction support Predictor Pooled T-value parameter estimate 84. J.The extent of teamwork.and variationin the slope of satisfaction regressedon leadership.12 0. In support of Hypothesis 3. Table 2.10. The directionof the result indicatedthat the impact of leadershipon job satisfactionwas weaker when organizationsreportedhigher levels of teamwork.Table 3 summarizesthe results of this stage of the HLM analysis.JOB SATISFACTION AND TEAMS 545 Results The first step in the HLM analysis estimated the impact of supervisory support on satisfaction within companies. The HLM results show that there was significant variation in mean satisfaction across organizations (2(47) = 692. Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. indicating that supervisory support had an overall positive impact on satisfaction across all companies (/ )= 0.001.05).Therefore.45 Intercept Supervisor support 0.47* 14. The results in Table 3 also show that profitabilitywas positively associated with average levels of satisfactionacross companies (0 = 0. The latter result supportsHypothesis2 which proposedtherewould be significantvariationin the relationshipbetween supervisorysupportand job satisfactionacross companies.14* 390. p < 0..Companysize was not relatedto variationin any of the within-companymeasures. The pooled value for the effect of supervisory support was significantly positive.The interceptvalue representsthe mean level of satisfactionacross the 48 companiesaftercontrollingfor supervisorysupport(Hofmannet al.10* 4.0.91 indicatingthatthe impactof supervisorysupportwas positive across all 48 companies.23* Parameter Chi-square variance value 0.238.14.91. Companieswith higher profitlevels reportedhigherlevels of job satisfaction. Table 2 reports the results for this analysis. The variationin the interceptterm describes the differences across companies in mean levels of satisfaction.001). Table 2 also shows the variancein this pooled estimate with a chi-squaretest of the statisipotogether tical significanceof the variation.the results also indicated that supervisory supportremaineda significantinfluenceon job satisfaction.company size. 2000). The next step in the HLM analysis was to introducecompanylevel predictorsof the variationacross companies.Hypothesis 5 was not supported.001). leadershipbecame less importantbut not unimportant.supporting Hypothesis 1. p < 0.when teams were used to a greaterextent. p < 0. 22.Behav.001) and significantvariationin the slope of satisfactionwhen regressed on supervisorysupportperceptionsin each organization(2(47) = 390.91 *p < 0. The results of the HLM analysis also estimated variance of 0. p < 0.147. Organiz. Ltd. Although supervisorysupporthad less impact on satisfaction. and companyprofitabilitywere enteredas predictors of variationin mean levels of satisfaction (intercept). the extent of teamworkwas a significantpredictorof the variationin the slope of satisfactionregressedon leadership(0= . 537-550 (2001) . p < 0.Therefore.01). The results of the HLM analysis supportedthe propositionthat supervisorysupportis a less important source of individualjob satisfaction when there was greater use of teams within a company.

GFI = 0.23. A.42. Parameter estimate .05).the positive association of teamworkon job autonomywas explained by job enrichment that accompaniedteamworkand could not be attributed to teamworkitself.s.41t . p < 0. Job enrichment was positively related to job autonomy(/ = 0.0.01) but was not significantlyrelatedto perceptionsof supervisorysupport (p = 0.05.68 The next part of the study explored implications of the mediationalprocesses linking teamwork.tp< 0. The analysis tested the hypothetical model depicted in Figure 2.05) and was not related to perceptions of job autonomy (o = 0. The sign and statistical significanceof the paths supportedthe hypotheticalmodel.0.79 .0.The final estimates for each path are presentedin Figure 2.05. The extent of teamworkin organizations was negatively related to perceptions of supervisory support (3 = . p > 0.059 -0.0. p < 0.003 0. p < 0.While both autonomyand supervisorysupportwere important positive influenceson job satisfaction. Both job autonomyand supervisorysupportwere significantpredictorsof job satisfaction (/ = 0. n.98). The results indicated that profit was significantlyand directly related only to job satisfaction (P = 0.22.36.546 ETAL.01 and 3= 0. The results of the SEM analysis supportthe propositionthat teamworkcan have a complex impact on job satisfactionbecause of the differentways that teamworkrelates to job autonomyand supervisory support. p < 0.31. Figure 3. 537-550 (2001) .147 .080 T-value -1.30. M.14* 0. Results of HLM analyses incorporating companylevel predictors Predictor Predictionof intercept Teamwork Size Profitability Predictionof relationshipbetween supervisorysupportand satisfaction Teamwork Size Profitability *p< 0. GRIFFIN Table3. Organiz. supervisory support.).).11 .0. and job satisfaction. Ltd.01.2.067 .238 . Final path estimates from SEM analysis Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. J. The fit of the model suggested that additional paths were not necessary to explain the covariation among the measures.0.04 2. n. The SEM model provided a very good fit to the data (X2(3) = 3.s.01 respectively).60. The control variableof company profit was entered in the model as a predictorof all other measures.04.Behav. p < 0.0. 22.

the importanceof identifyingthe proresponsibility.Furthermore. 1992.autonomy was explainedby the degree to which employee jobs were enrichedby increasedskill flexibility. it is not appropriateto conclude that supervisory supportwas unimportantwhen there was greater use of teams.supervisor. supervisory supportdisplayed a strong relationshipwith job satisfaction.teamwork itself can be expected to decrease the degree to which supervisorscan be supportive.AND TEAMS JOB SATISFACTION 547 Discussion of teamworkhas potentialbenefitsfor employee outcomes in organizationsand is The implementation likely to continue as a major element of work redesign (Lawler et al. in turn. Even though supervisory support was less important in companies where there was greater use of teams.It was noted above that leaders play a particularly importantrole when organizationsincrease their use of teams (Tjosvold. The link between teamwork and satisfaction was partly explained by job enrichment associated with teamwork. The second partof the study exploredfurtherimplicationsfor the role of supervisorsupportby testing mediationalprocesses linking teamworkto job satisfaction.andmanagers encourage and supportskill development of employees. Some implicationscan also be derivedby the relationshipswhich were not observed in the aggregated mediationalmodel. Parkerand Wall. 22.The study. Job enrichmentpracticesreportedby managerswere not uniquelyrelatedto averagelevels of supervisorysupportacross the organizations. teamworkwas associated with a reductionin supervisory support. Organiz. The extent of teamworkwas not uniquely related to higher levels of job autonomy.The result suggests that the positive benefits of job enrichmentassociated with teamwork may be partially offset by the reduction in levels of supervisory support experienced by employees. The implementation of teams typically involves changes to supervision roles but little empirical research has assessed the way leadership functions when teams are introduced. Ltd.Rather. In the first part of the study.For example. Furthermore.The extent of teamworkin a company had a negative impact on overall levels of supervisorysupport. Therefore. 1995).andwork variety.Job enrichmentpractices in the work place were associated with increased levels of employee perceptions of job autonomy. Tjosvold. on its own.supervisorscan play a Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. the impact of teamworkitself can have a negative impact on overall job satisfactionbecause of the central role of supervisorysupport. this support was still positively related to satisfaction. greateruse of teams resulted in a weaker link between individuals' perceptions of supervisory support and their levels of job satisfaction. Increased autonomy was.This resultclearly demonstrates cess throughwhich the introductionof teamwork is expected to enhance employee outcomes. 1995). It is possible for changes in work structuresto be implemented in ways that capitalize on the potential for supervisorsand leaders to supportand develop new working roles in the organization.The present study explored the role of supervisorysupportin explaining the link between teamworkand satisfaction. 1998.greateruse of teams is associatedwith changes to the functionof leadership in organizationsthat can also influence employee satisfaction. increasedjob varietymay be implementedin an organizationwhere team leaders. provides evidence for the implicit assumption that supervisory support has less impact on employees when teams are introduced.Companiesthatreportedhigher use of teamworkalso had employees who reportedlower levels of supervisorysupport. However. therefore. 537-550 (2001) . associated with higher levels of job satisfaction.. the introduction of teamwork can have mixed effects on employee job satisfaction.At the same time. However. Therefore.Behav. The introductionof teams without reference to specific job enrichmentpractices is unlikely to influence employee perceptions about the quality of their work environment. J. In this way.

Author biographies Mark A. responses to the item were obtained as part of a comprehensive interview procedure with detailed explanation. but also enhance the effectiveness of supervisorroles. and single-item measures of practices have been used in major empirical studies in the field of human resource management and corporate performance (e. and the impact of individualperformanceon workplace safety outcomes.QueenslandUniversityof Technology.. ? 2001 JohnWiley& Sons. Some limitations of the study also raise cautions when interpretingthe results. Second. Ichniowski et al. the importanceof supervisorysupportfor individuals. employee attitudesand behaviors. the relative ordering of job satisfaction and supervisory supportcould not be tested in the currentsample. the perceptionof supervisorysupportremaineda substantial predictorof job satisfactionfor individuals and for the organization as a whole.the resultsdemonstrated in the organizationand.Futureresearch should also investigate the characteristicsof job design and teamwork that enhance the role that supervisors play in a team environment as well as characteristicsof supervisors that lead to higher levels of supportiveness in teamwork. Third. Furtherunderstandingof how supervisorsprovide supportwithin teams will have practicalbenefits for designing and managing teamwork. the cross-sectional natureof the study limits the ability to draw causal inferences from the hypothetical model of relationships among the constructs. Nevertheless. 537-550 (2001) .there was a relatively small number of organizationalunits for conductingthe aggregate-levelanalysis. The scope and multiple methods provide a strong basis for exploring the implications of teamworkfor job satisfaction. despite the scale of the study. 1997).His researchaddressesthe methodological and practicalimplicationsof questions such as the impact of organizationalclimate on individual affect.Effective leaders provide feedback aboutroles and tasks that increase employees' positive experience of autonomy. Copyright J. First. Organiz. Malcolm Patterson is a Research Associate at the Institute of Work Psychology. Huselid. Futureresearch should furtherinvestigate the processes throughwhich supervisorbehavior influences satisfaction in teams. A. relatively few parameterswere assessed and specific hypotheticalpaths were tested. thatthe extent of teamworkreducesthe level of supervisorsupport Overall. Structural equationmodelling procedurestypically use larger samples than were available in the currentstudy. significant part in enhancing the motivational characteristicsof the work environmentsuch as job autonomy. University of Sheffield. 22.g. to some extent. He received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the Pennslyvania State University.Ltd.His currentresearchexamines the relationshipsbetween humanresourcemanagementpractices.However. The most effective supervisor behaviors may also depend on individual differences among team members within the team. He received his master's degree in occupational psychology from the University of Sheffield.548 M. For example. and firm performance. His primaryresearch interest concerns the link between workplace characteristicsand both individualwell-being and performance. However. The results of the study suggest it is importantto understandjob redesign strategies that not only increase experiences such as autonomy. 1995. GRIFFINETAL. Griffin is PrincipalResearchFellow at the School of Management. Australia.the extent of teamworkwas assessed by a single item which limits assessment of the measure's reliability. The type of supervisor behaviors that are most supportive may be different in a team environment compared to an individual based task environment.. The present study was based on a large scale survey of employees across multiple organizations together with in-depth management interviews.Behav.

Job satisfactionin Britain. He has been a memberof the CorporatePerformanceProgrammeof the Centrefor Economic Performance at the London School of Economics since 1991. Human Relations 42: 877-897. Effects of leader role. 1997. VIII:User's Referenceand Guide.AmericanPsychologist 52: 130-139. 1997. 1996. Chou CP. Assessing the effectiveness of sociotechnical interventions:antidoteor fad. interdependence. team-set goal difficulty. Organiz. Personnel Psychology 46: 823-850. Gavin M. Definitely not a breeze: extending an operantmodel of effective supervisionto teams. Ltd. Sage: Newbury Park. Hill KD.Academyof ManagementJournal 38: 635-672. Scientific Software:Mooresville. Wall TD. JoreskogKG. 1995.CA. MA.Administrative Science Quarterly29: 499-517. Knight D. Beekun RI. Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and nationalboundaries. 1980. PrennushiG. Hofmann DA. Practical issues in structuralmodeling. Scandura TA. Addison-Wesley:Reading. 161-192. WarrPB. 1993. J. HuselidMA. Bowman ED. 1980. IchniowskiC.CA.efficacy. (ed.Journal of OccupationalPsychology 53: 39-52. 1993. 537-550 (2001) . KomakiJL. Ledford GE. HierarchicalLinear Models.In Multilevel Theory. Shaw K. SorbomD. His areas of research interest are team and organizational innovationand effectiveness. Cook JD. Broedling L. Griffin MA.Klein K. Manufactures and Commerce. The application of hiearchical linear modeling to management research.ANDTEAMS JOBSATISFACTION 549 Michael West is Professor of Organizational Psychology at the University of Aston Business School. 1996. His first degree was from the University of Wales in Psychology and Statistics and his PhD from the University of Wales on the Psychology of Meditation. Groupsin context:a model of task groupeffectiveness. GladsteinDL. OldhamGR. team development. 1988. 1988. 1997. 1992. GroupsThat Work(and Those ThatDon't). References AndersonJC. Cohen SG. Spreitzer GM. and corporate productivity. New work attitudemeasuresof trust. Campion MA. Medsker GJ.Personnel Psychology 50: 877-904. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness.British Journal of IndustrialRelations 34: 189-217. 2000. Bryk AS. GerbingDW. 1986. Wall TD. Higgs AC. IN. Sage: Newbury Park. Colquitt JA. The effects of humanresourcemanagementpracticeson productivity. HackmanJR.Psychological Bulletin 103: 411-423. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 522-529. Desselles ML. the American Psychological Association. Bentler PM. financialperformance. Janz BD. ClarkAE. Copyright? 2001 John Wiley & Sons.and contextual supportvariables. AmericanEconomic Review 87: 291-313. The Experienceof Work: A Compendium of 249 Measuresand their Use. the APA Society for Industrial / Organizational Psychology and the Royal Society for Arts. and tactics on team effectiveness. Locke EA. The first line supervisor: phasing out or here to stay? Academy of ManagementReview 11: 103-117. DurhamCC. 1981. LISREL Kerr S.organizational commitmentand personalneed nonfulfilment. 1989. HackmanJR. He is a Fellow of the British Psychological Society. Structural equationmodeling in practice:a review and recommendedtwo-step approach. OrganizationalBehavior and HumanDecision Processes 72: 203-231.Research. GraenG. 1984. 1989.Researchin OrganizationalBehavior9: 175-208. Cook J. RaudenbushSW. 1997. Relations between work group characteristicsand effectiveness: implicationsfor designing effective work groups. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. In CommonProblems/ProperSolutions: Avoiding Error in QuantitativeResearchLong JS. 22. Jossey Bass: San Francisco. and Methods in Organizations. 1987. Towarda psychology of dyadic organizing.). Academic Press: London. HepworthSJ. Noe RA.Behav. 1990. in health service and privatesector settings. HumanRelations 49: 643-678. Work Redesign. Bass BM. Kozlowski S (eds). The impactof humanresourcemanagementpracticeson turnover.

1995. Organizational developmentinterventions:a meta-analysisof their effects on satisfactionand other attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 546-553. Measuring and managing for team performance: lessons from complex environments. Fleiss JL. Organizational productivity. Promotingteam effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 63: 391-407. Salas E. 1992. 1997. Leading workersto lead themselves: the externalleadershipof self-managedworking Science Quarterly32: 106-128. groupinfluence. Rhodes SR. John Wiley & Sons. Schmit MJ. 537-550 (2001) .Journal of Applied Social Psychology 15: 735-757. Wall TD. Sims HP. CA. Salas E. teams. 1989. West MA. 1987. Cannon-BowersJA. (eds). Wall TD. In TeamEffectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. Cook JD. Yukl G. Ryan AM. Interclasscorrelations:use in assessing raterreliability. Employee Involvementand Total Quality Management. NJ. 1985.550 M.JosseyBass: San Francisco.3. Ledford GE. attitudes. (eds). PritchardRD. Job and Work to PromoteWell-Being and Effectivness.Behav. Vol. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons. Neuman G. 503-529. Institute of Work Psychology: Sheffield. Cooperationtheory. 22. Hough LM. Tannenbaum SI. Kemp NJ. ConsultingPsychologists Press: Palo Alto. 1978. Lawthon R. Doherty ML. Organizational Climate Indicator. A. 443-471. 1979. MohrmanSA.). (eds). 1986.Academy of ManagementJournal 29: 280-304. Prentice-Hall:Englewood Cliffs. ShroutPE. LaRocco JM. 1989.Personnel Psychology 48: 747-773. Integrationof climate and leadership:examinationof a neglected issue. Warr PB. Effects of job conditionson workerperceptions:ambientstimuli vs. 1992. Outcomes of autonomouswork groups: a long-term field experiment. J. In Guzzo RA. 1996. Major influences on employee attendance:a process model. Johnson R. Lawler EE. Patterson M. constructive controversy. In Handbookof WorkGroup Psychology. ParkerSK. EdwardsJ.In Handbookof Industrialand OrganizationalPsychology.Guzzo RA. 1992. The relationship between satisfaction. Attitudes and effectiveness: examining relations at an organizational level. Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. GRIFFIN ETAL.Sage: Design: OrganizingWork London. Raju N. Journal of OccupationalPsychology 52: 1063-1070.2nd ed. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Ltd. Salas E. 1989. Wall TD. Steers RM. Administrative McIntyre RM. 2d ed.Psychological Bulletin 86: 420-428. 1995.and effectiveness. Kozlowski SWJ. Scales for the measurements of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Personnel Psychology 49: 853-882. (ed. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Leadershipin Organizations. Jackson PR. DunnetteMD. West MA. Maitlis S. and performance:an organizational-level analysis. Ostroff C. 1996.UK. 1998. 1979. Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 963-974. Organiz. Tjosvold D. Clegg CW. Manz CC. Salas E. Chichester.