Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Path Model of Workplace Solidarity, Satisfaction, Burnout, and Motivation

    Uploaded by

    Antonio
    18 views19 pages

    Original Title

    A Path Model of Workplace Solidarity, Satisfaction, Burnout, And Motivation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    18 views19 pages

    A Path Model of Workplace Solidarity, Satisfaction, Burnout, and Motivation

    Uploaded by

    Antonio

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    ® checktor updates Article icerasona ural of A Path Model of Workplace ore ver But) 3-49 Solidarity, Satisfaction, roc rese pene Burnout, and Motivation STs ene @SAGE Patrick MacDonald!, Stephanie Kelly?, and Scott Christen? Abstract Communication dynamics within the business world dictate that the formality of interaction between supervisor and subordinate is determined by the supervisor. The present study investigates the influence of negotiated formality and closeness via supervisor-subordinate solidarity on subordinates’ burnout, motivation, and job satisfaction. An online questionnaire was administered to subjects across various ‘occupations and organizations in the United States. The data are consistent with a mediated model in which job satisfaction mediates the relationships between solidarity-motivation and solidarity-burnout, These results are novel in that, first, job satisfaction is identified as an input of motivation and burnout rather than outputs of a shared induction, And, second, the results place renewed emphasis on the role of supervisor communication in the workplace as subordinates are unable to initiate solidarity. Keywords solidarity, motivation, burnout, satisfaction, communication ‘The present study secks to investigate a unique form of rapport in the workplace via communication: interpersonal solidarity. Interpersonal solidarity is both the perceived synchronicity and closeness established through communication in a relationship 'Wese Virginia University, Whitsett, NC, USA 2North Carolina AKT State University, Greensboro, NC, USA *Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN, USA Corresponding Author: Patrick MacDonald, West Virginia University, 6862 Derby Run Drive, Whitsett, NC 27377, USA. Email: patricksmacdonald@gmail.com 32 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1) (Wheeless, 1978). Solidarity is a unique variable within the workplace, because though both members of the supervisor-subordinate relationship must be willing to build soli- darity for it to exist, rules of communication dynamics in the business world dictate that only the supervisor has the authority to change the formality of workplace com- munication such that solidarity can be formed (Newman & Ober, 2013; Sanders & Schyns, 2006). The supervisor’s legitimate authority over the subordinate confers more control on relational outcomes and influence (Dunbar, 2004). When subordi- nates feel a lack of closeness or unsupportiveness from their supervisor, they are more likely to remain silent because of anticipated negative outcomes (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003), eliminating all chances to build solidarity. So, unlike solidarity formed in any other context, only one party within the supervisor-subordinate dyad has the power to most effectively initiate solidarity regardless of participant willing- ness (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). For this reason (implicit power differences), supervi- sors must put forth more effort than their subordinates to build solidarity (Willemyns, Gallois, & Callan, 2003). As such, the present study seeks to better understand the influence of supervisor communication, as it contributes to perceived interpersonal solidarity, on internalized subordinate variables related to productivity, including job satisfaction, motivation, and burnout. Interpersonal Solidarity As a communication variable, solidarity has been identified as the best measurement of relationship intimacy (Baus & Allen, 1996; Wheeless, Wheeless, & Baus, 1984) Solidarity represents psychological and social closeness between persons generated through trust and self-disclosure (Wheeless, 1978). In their meta-analysis of customer- employee rapport, Gremler and Gwinner (2000) identified six studies that defined rapport with the same terminology that Wheeless (1976, 1978) used to describe soli- darity: perceived closeness, quality of relationship, harmony, and trust. Like solidarity, rapport is built through verbal communication and self-disclosure (Gfeller, Lynn, & Pribble, 1987), blurring the distinction between these variables. Because of this, soli- darity can be conceptualized as an assessment of perceived rapport based on past com- municative experiences, especially those experiences involving self-disclosure. As communication within a relationship increases or decreases, so will the per- ceived solidarity (Wheeless et al., 1984). Communication frequency has been found to relate positively to solidarity in both friend and family relationships (Patterson, 1995). Within high solidarity relationships, social comparison, perceived similarity, and feel- ings of positivity are also high (Locke, 2003). Yet, solidarity is prevalent in interper- sonal relationships across all contexts, including the workplace context. Organizational culture dictates levels of solidarity (Bourgeois & Friedkin, 2001). It is strongest when leaders promote informal communication and when employees are invested long term in the organization (Sanders & Emmerik, 2004; Sanders, Flache, van der Vegt, & van de Vliert, 2006). Additionally, organizations that encourage upward and downward communication among its members increase positive relations within that is conducive to solidarity (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). As such, solidarity is MacDonald et al. 33 positively related to perceived closeness among organizational members (Myers & Johnson, 2004), Solidarity is a prevalent variable in team dynamics. Coworkers who are mutually dependent, formally and informally, within an organization perceive higher solidarity with cach other (Koster, Stokman, Hodson, & Sanders, 2007). Organizational teams that share responsibility of tasks among all team members have higher intermember solidarity than teams that do not promote a culture of mutual dependence (Koster et al., 2007). Though how well team members work together does not equate work- place solidarity (Sanders & Schyns, 2006), putting in additional hours at work posi- tively relates to employees’ perceived vertical solidarity (Sanders & Emmerik, 2004), and high-solidarity coworkers relate better to their supervisors (Hodson, 1997) Moreover, solidarity has an impact beyond employees. Organizational success is contingent upon the solidarity between supervisors and subordinates, specific to the solidarity perceived by the subordinate, because solidarity dictates the openness of communication (Sanders et al., 2006). Supervisors are the influencers/power sources for solidarity in supervisor-subordinate relationships (Sanders & Schyns, 2006), When a person is interacting with high power, low solidarity leads subordinates to withhold negatively perceived emotions such as anger, whereas high-solidarity subordinates feel encouraged to openly display positively perceived emotions such as happiness (Diefendorff, Morehart, & Gabriel, 2010). This openness and comfort of communica- tion is likely related to subordinates’ job satisfaction Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is an employee’s level of positive emotional orientation toward their job (Price, 1997), or “the feelings a worker has about his [or her] job” (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1996, p. 6). Job satisfaction is, generally, the overall sentiment that one has for their job. It is of importance to organizations in that job satisfaction is a strong predictor of productivity (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Malik, Ahmed, Saif, & Safwan, 2010; Politis, 2006; Rose, Kumar, & Pak, 2009; Yousef, 2002). In fact, job satisfaction is a stronger predictor of productivity than organizational com- mitment (Malik et al., 2010). Organizations must be continually cognizant of their employee's job satisfaction because it is a fluid variable, fluctuating throughout a career because of a number of known and unknown influences (Jusoh, Simun, & Chong, 2011). Job satisfaction is linked with employee turnover, absenteeism (Lawler & Porter, 1969), and desire to withdraw from an organization (Yousef, 2002), A meta-analysis substantiated Lawler and Porter’s (1969) finding by concluding that job satisfaction strongly contributed to turnover intentions and withdrawal among employees (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Research has further demonstrated that job satisfaction is negatively related to mental and physi- cal ill health (Holdsworth & Cartwright, 2003) as well as stress (Yousef, 2002). It is also positively related to life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993), perceived gate- keeping of pertinent information (Muchinsky, 1977), and job security (Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles, & Kénig, 2010) 34 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1) sfaction has also been attributed to organizational communication. It decreases when expectations for workplace communication, decision making, and motivation fall short (Jusoh et al., 2011). Conversely, job satisfaction has been found to relate positively to communication satisfaction, perceived summarization (high- lighting relevant portions and minimizing nonrelevant portions in communication; Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010; Muchinsky, 1977), involvement in organiza- tional learning (Rose et al., 2009), self-actualization (Watson, 2008), and perceived organizational quality (Orpen, 1997). Within the supervisor-subordinate dyad, subordinate trust, perceived influence of supervisor, and mobility aspirations are positively correlated with job satisfaction of the subordinates (Muchinsky, 1977). Furthermore, supervisor temperament is posi- tively related to subordinates’ job satisfaction (Porter, Wrench, & Hoskinson, 2007) Supervisors who are perceived to be more supportive of employees either directly or indirectly through non-work demands (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and supervisors who are perceived as competent communicators (Madlock, 2008) gamer increased job sat- isfaction in their subordinates. Notably, supervisors’ use of negative communication behaviors, such as verbal aggression, has a greater effect on subordinate job satisfac- tion than does the use of positive communication behaviors (Madlock & Kennedy- Lightsey, 2010), Because supervisor-subordinate communication has been linked to the success of an organization, it likely relates to organizational productivity. The more satisfied a person is at work, the more productive that person is (Judge et al., 2001; Malik et al., 2010; Politis, 2006; Rose et al., 2009; Yousef, 2002). Given the positive social out- comes associated with solidarity, it is reasonable that supervisor-subordinate solidarity influences job satisfaction. As such, it is predicted that perceived supervisor solidarity induces subordinate job satisfaction, which in turn induces subordinate predictors of productivity, namely, motivation and burnout. Motivation Motivation, the force that prompts an individual (Martin, 2004), is a variable key to organizational productivity. Initial theories on work motivation lacked complexity and were characterized by basic reward and punishment systems (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). It was thought that rewards for productive behaviors and punishment for non- productive behaviors were sufficient for producing motivation in employees. Current motivational theories have expanded beyond simplistic models, separating intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, recognizing that motivation is derived from both internal self-determined factors (expectancies, attitudes, etc.) and external factors (organiza- tional rewards, bonuses, time off, ete.; Katzell & Thompson; Porter & Lawler, 1968). A ich, work motivation is the sum of both internal and external motivation factors ich as feelings of competency (Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002), economic influence (Kolonoski, 2011), and age (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004) There are a number of variables associated with change in employee motivation. Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand (2002) found that low motivation and emotional MacDonald et al. 35 exhaustion produce increased turnover intentions and actual turnover behaviors. Contrariwise, highly intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to have higher commitment to the organization (Barbuto & Story, 2011; Chak & Gurland, 2008) Quality of communication within an organization relates positively to work motiva- tion (Orpen, 1997). Within the supervisor-subordinate dyad, perceptions of a supervisor’s temperament are positively related to subordinates’ motivation (Porter et al., 2007). Immediate supervisors have strong influence on generating subordinate motivation (Caldwell, 1978). Additionally, supervisors that exert lesser control and greater autonomy can increase employees’ motivation (Caldwell; Chak & Gurland, 2008; Richer et al., 2002; Richer & Vallerand, 1995), Employees who are satisfied with their jobs have higher desires to keep those jobs (Barbuto & Story, 2011; Chak & Gurland, 2008). Because performance dictates job security and placement (Bernhardt, 1995) motivation to keep one’s job should be higher in satisfied workers than unsatisfied workers. Therefore, it is predicted that subordinate job satisfaction is positively related to subordinate motivation, such that satisfaction induces motivation. Burnout Burnout is defined as a state of emotional exhaustion derived from interpersonal inter actions (Jackson, Schuler, & Schwab, 1986). Depersonalization and feelings of low personal accomplishment also contribute to burnout (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Malach-Pines, 2005; Maslach, 1982; Maslach & Jackson, 1981: Pines & Maslach, 1980). Most individuals report experiencing burnout as emotional exhaustion (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). A number of factors contribute to burnout. Younger employees early in their careers are more likely to experience burnout without the support garnered from past experi- ence; likewise, single individuals are more likely to feel burnout without interpersonal support at home (Maslach et al., 2001). Negative life events such as illness and inter personal breakup increase the likelihood or severity of burnout, whereas positive events decrease it (Justice, Gold, & Klein, 1981; Omdahl & Fritz, 2006). Experience with defensive communication from supervisors also contributes to subordinate bum- out (Becker, Halbesleben, & O’Hair, 2005). Employees experiencing burnout behave differently than those who are not. Employees who reported higher levels of burnout also reported complaining less to coworkers or supervisors and demonstrating a sense of apathy toward their job (Avtgis, Thomas-Maddox, Taylor, & Patterson, 2007). Experiencing bumout increases work- ers’ thoughts of leaving their organization, absenteeism, and employee tumover (lackson, Schuler, & Schwab, 1986; Maslach et al., 2001). Additionally, burnout has. been linked to lower productivity, decreased job satisfaction, and decreased OCBs (Maslach et al., 2001), Increased emotional awareness and control helps individuals resist burnout (Snyder, 2012). Furthermore, organizational engagement and job satisfaction decrease burnout 36 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1) a Motivation + Job Satisfaction Me Bumout Solidarity Figure |. Proposed model. (Hoeven, Jong, & Peper, 2006). Overall, employees who are satisfied with their jobs are unlikely to experience burnout (Reisel et al., 2010; Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers, 2010). Thus, satisfaction at work may alleviate emotional exhaustion. Given this, there is likely a negative relationship between subordinate job satisfaction and subordinate burnout, where satisfaction influences burnout. Proposed Model Little research has investigated the impact of perceived supervisor solidarity on subor- dinate work outcomes. Previous research has established that supervisors, as the empowered half of the supervisor-subordinate dyad, are the communicators who can most effectively establish solidarity within this type of relationship (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). Furthermore, subordinates have been observed to be more emotionally trans- parent in the presence of supervisors with whom they perceive solidarity (Diefendorff et al., 2010), From this, the literature concludes that supervisor solidarity is related to workplace comfort for subordinates. The present study seeks to expand understanding of supervisor communication on subordinates, by specifically investigating the relationships between perceived super- visor solidarity, subordinate job satisfaction, subordinate motivation, and subordinate burnout. To reiterate, it has been predicted that increased perceived supervisor solidar- ity will positively change subordinates’ view of their work, thereby increasing their job satisfaction. This increase in subordinate job satisfaction will then increase their motivation while also enabling them to better cope with work situations that could lead to burnout. As such, the present study predicts that job satisfaction mediates the solidarity-motivation and solidarity-burnout relationships. The proposed model can be found in Figure 1. To reiterate, the model specifically tests the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of supervisor solidarity will directly, positively influ- ence subordinate job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: Subordinates’ job satisfaction will directly, positively influence their motivation Hypothesis 3: Subordinates’ job satisfaction will directly, negatively influence their bumout, MacDonald et al. 37 Method Subjects A total of n = 343 subjects participated in this study. Among those participants, 149 were male and 194 were female. The breakdown of occupations was as fol- lows: 18.4% sales, 16.4 % skilled labor, 16.4% clerical, 8.5% professional/mana- gerial, 7% education, 2.5% transportation, 2% factory, 1% nonfarm labor, and 27.9% other. On average, subjects were M = 26.8 (SD = 9.3) years old and had worked at their job for M = 3.3 (SD = 3.6) years. Of all participants, 54.8% responded regarding their past supervisor and 45.2% responded in reference to their present supervisor. Procedure Participants received a hyperlink via the researchers’ social network status on facebook. This method of solicitation resulted in a 23% response rate. The link took each participant to a welcome screen containing the informed consent Participants were informed that by clicking next to continue to the survey, they were giving their consent. The survey was described to participants as an attempt to understand communication in the workplace. Participants spent approximately 15 minutes completing the questionnaire and received no incentive for their participation. Instrumentation Wheeless’s (1976) revised Solidarity Scale was used to assess interpersonal solidarity. The measure consisted of 20 items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from disagree to agree. Reliability of this measure was a= .93, Rubin, Palmgreen, and Sypher (2009) report that the measure has good concurrent validity. Lawler and Hall’s (1970) Job Motivation Scale was used to asses job motivation. The measure consisted of four items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from disagree to agree. Reliability of this measure was a .93 Andrews and Withey’s (1976) Satisfaction Scale was used to assess the partici- pant’s level of job satisfaction. This section contained five items that were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from terrible to delighted. Reliability of the measure was a = .81. Rentsch and Steel (1992) report that the mea- sure has good convergent validity. Malach-Pines’s (2005) Burnout Measure: Short Version (BMS) was used to assess subjects’ job burnout. The measure consisted of 10 items with a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from never to always. Reliability of this measure was a =.91. Malach-Pines found the BMS to have good face and construct validity. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for all measures. ibordinates 38 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1) Table I. Descriptive Statistics. Minimum— Measure Mean SD Maximum Skew —_Kurtosis_ Cronbach's & Job satisfaction 5.05 116 1.00-7.00 -0.54 0.36 al Motivation 5.64 10 1,00-7.00 Lo 165 B Burnout 2.73 135 1,00-7.00 O71 0.16 at Solidarity 24.07 141 1.00-7.00 0.15 -0.79 93 Results Measurement Models Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess each unidimensional measure- ment model. Items were tested for both internal consistency and parallelism. The inter- nal consistency within a construct is the extent to which each indicator correlates systematically with other indicators in that set. Interitem correlation matrices for each measure were examined for signs of obvious internal consistency issues. The mea- sures were then tested for parallelism issues, where parallelism is the extent to which indicators purported to measure the same construct correlate systematically with indi- cators purported to measure a different construct. Each measurement model was tested with the AMOS maximum likelihood param- eter estimation algorithm, which estimates factor loadings for items based on an a priori hypothesized measurement model. ‘These factor loadings were used to generate a predicted interitem correlation matrix to compare with the observed interitem cor- relation matrix so that items displaying less obvious evidence of invalidity could be removed. Each time an item was removed, the model was respecified without the problematic item. This process was repeated until the remaining items demonstrated fit with the hypothesized measurement models. All problematic items were removed from all subsequent analyses. The final measurement models for motivation and job satisfaction are as originally proposed. Nine items were removed from the solidarity measure and three from the burnout measure. Notably, this study marks the first examination of the solidarity mea- sure through CFA. The solidarity measure was refined in 1976, before CFA was a com- mon practice to test for content validity. As such, the removal of nearly half of the original items presents an opportunity to refine and shorten the measure through the statistical tools available more than three decades after its publication. The final model yielded acceptable fit statistics, 72(318, N = 367) = 794.80; goodness-of-fit index (GF) .86; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06. Fit statistics are listed in Table 2. Finally, the appendix contains the finalized solidarity and burnout measures Moderator Check To collect subjects with greater ease, the solicitation asked for participation from any- one who had ever held a job, not just individuals who held a job at the time the MacDonald et al. 39 Table 2. Fit Statistics. x GFl RMSEA Job Satisfaction 4G, N = 367) = 25.43, p <.05 97 ul Motivation 7.22, N = 367) = 0.81, p <.05 99 0.00 Burnout 7, (14, N = 367) = 52.61, p <.05 96 09 Solidarity 7.4154, N = 367) = 193.00, p < 05 9 08 Note: GFi = goodness-ofefit index: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation Table 3. Correlations: Observed and Corrected for Attenuation due to Measurement Error. Factor Correlations Correlations observed Solidarity Motivation o3l* Satisfaction 0.40" 0.49* Burnout 0.24" -0.26+ -0.59* Correlations corrected for attenuation due to measurement error Solidarity Motivation 0.33" Satisfaction 0.46* 0.56 Burnout 0.26" 0.28" 0.69" sp .05; motivation, 1(3365) =—.21, p > .05; bumout, (365) = .60, p > .05; or satisfaction, (341) =—95, p> .05, were moderated between these groups. The results support that responding to the questionnaire in reference to a past or present supervisor did not moderate the data. Hypothesis Testing ‘The first hypothesis predicted that perceived solidarity between the supervisor and subordinate would be positively related to subordinate satisfaction. A Pearson correla~ tion was run to test this hypothesis. Data supported a moderate positive relationship between solidarity and satisfaction: r= 40, P(.31

    You might also like