Research Article

The Contribution of Vision

1–14
© 2022 MDI
Communication to Employee
Satisfaction in Service Firms: Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/09722629221101157
A Causal Configurational Analysis journals.sagepub.com/home/vis

Carla Curado1, Paulo Lopes Henriques1 , Helena Mateus Jerónimo1 and

Jéssica Azevedo2

Abstract
Following social exchange theory, which claims that a set of dimensions lead to employee satisfaction, we tested a sample of 163
employees from companies operating in the services sector in Portugal. We used a fsQCA approach to identify the configurations of
conditions that lead to the presence and absence of satisfaction. The results show that there are several paths leading to high satis-
faction, which require the simultaneous existence of three levels of communication: the organization, the leader and peers. Equally,
there are a number of paths that lead to low satisfaction. Our findings enrich social exchange theory as a theoretical background to
understanding the complex nature of satisfaction and to illustrating which conditions promote reciprocity among employees through
higher levels of satisfaction.

Key Words
Human Resource Management, Employee Satisfaction, Social Exchange Theory, Communication, Services Management, fsQCA

Introduction is an individual positive outcome to which several

Social exchange theory claims that a set of three dimensions
lead to employee satisfaction: the organization, the leader
and peers (Wang et al., 2018, 2020). Employees’
relationships with leaders, peers and the organization allow
them to exchange intangible resources through
communication (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Communication is a process of mutual influence and
reciprocity that leads to interdependent exchanges and
contributes to feelings of satisfaction (Mehra & Nickerson,
2019; Men & Yue, 2019). Communication also operates on
three levels: the organization, the leader and peers (Alegre
et al., 2016). Several conditions contribute to individual
positive outcomes (Chiu & Ng, 2013), such as satisfaction
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Yalabik et al., 2017).
Satisfaction is a positive emotion concerned with the
achievement of values associated with work (Locke, 1976).
Organizations recognize that social exchanges with leaders
or peers impact employee satisfaction (Li et al., 2017;
Omilion-Hodges et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2014). Satisfaction
conditions contribute (Baquero et al., 2019; Cruz et al.,
2022; Curado & Santos, 2021; Li et al., 2017; Moslehpour
et al., 2022; Omilion-Hodges et al., 2016; Wu & Zhou,
2020). The literature has addressed social relationships and
communication contributing to feelings of satisfaction
(Mehra & Nickerson, 2019) and the role of communicative
leaders in satisfaction among employees (Men, 2015; Men
& Yue, 2019). However, studies have yet to address the
cumulative contribution of the three dimensions of
communication leading to employee satisfaction. We
suggest that, from a configurational perspective,
satisfaction follows different paths. In this article, we
explore the question of how communication contributes to
employee satisfaction in service firms. We test a sample of
163 employees from the services sector in Portugal to
understand the influence of conditions from the three
dimensions on employee satisfaction.
We identify the causal combinations of conditions that
contribute to the presence and absence of employee
satisfaction in the service sector by examining the

1 ADVANCE/CSG, ISEG Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua do Quelhas, Portugal
2 ISEG—Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua do Quelhas, Portugal

Corresponding author:
Paulo Lopes Henriques, ISEG—Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua do Quelhas, 6, 1200-781, Portugal.
E-mail: lopeshen@iseg.ulisboa.pt
2
contributions of the three dimensions of organization,
leader and peers. The organizational dimension is
concerned with the organizational culture and work–family
balance; the leader dimension involves transactional and
transformational leadership styles and the peer dimension
is represented by peer support. Additionally, we analyse
the contribution of the three levels of communication as
identified by Alegre et al. (2016). This study contributes to
the literature by showing the complex ways to achieve
employee satisfaction, so that managers are cognizant of
the 16 alternatives at their disposal. In addition, we reveal
the ways that lead to the absence of employee satisfaction,
alerting managers to the 15 undesired alternatives that
require the exercise of caution. The paths to satisfaction
show the importance of the four dimensions—organization,
leaders, peers and communication—with special emphasis
on the work–family balance and peer support. In contrast,
the paths that lead to the absence of satisfaction include
communication, but the simultaneous occurrence of the
other conditions is not a requirement.
Our findings carry certain theoretical implications for
social exchange theory with specific reference to the
contribution of the dimensions of the organization, the
leader and peers to employee satisfaction (Wang et al.,
2018, 2020). We address the contribution of four conditions
and communication to employee satisfaction on the three
levels of organization, leader and peers. We offer alternative
paths to satisfaction and its absence, which enrich social
exchange theory by explaining the complex nature of
satisfaction and illustrating which conditions promote the
presence and absence of employee satisfaction. In terms of
its practical implications, this study offers alternative
options for managers to develop employee satisfaction by
underscoring the role of rich communication, such as the
exploration of communication channels that foster
employee relationships with organizations, leaders and
peers. Managers may also pay due regard to employees’
work and family obligations, providing a pleasant working
environment and peer support. Managers may seek to
increase employee satisfaction in order to secure higher
levels of productivity, efficiency, retention and quality of
service. On the other hand, they should avoid configurations
leading to the absence of satisfaction because they tend to
produce delays, absenteeism and increased turnover.
Organization-related Influence
The employee–organization relationship concerns “the
degree to which an organization and its employees trust
one another, to agree on who has the rightful power to
influence, to experience satisfaction with each other and to
commit oneself to the other” (Men & Stacks, 2014, p. 12).
A good relationship between employee and organization is
mutually beneficial (Mignonac & Richebé, 2013).
Consequently, organizational characteristics, such as
perceived mission statement quality, management
Vision
philosophy, psychological ethical climate (Moslehpour et
al., 2022), psychological empowerment (Cruz et al., 2022),
job autonomy and work–family interference (Wu & Zhou,
2020), influence employee satisfaction.
Work–Family Balance
Work–family balance corresponds to the absence of
conflict between professional and personal responsibilities,
with a symmetrical amount of time and effort being
dedicated to each (Turliuc & Buliga, 2014). Therefore,
when organizations provide a balance between work and
personal life, the performance and job satisfaction of
employees increase (Krishnan et al., 2018; Lamane-Harin
et al., 2021). When there is conflict, the level of employee
satisfaction obviously decreases (e.g., Vong & Tang, 2017).
In certain service industries (tourism and hospitality), the
work–family conflict is intensified due to irregular work
hours and, consequently, less hours dedicated to leisure
(Lin et al., 2014, 2015).
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is a set of shared values, norms and
beliefs among members of an organization that affect the
behaviour and decisions of employees (Schein, 1990).
Thus, different values inspire different types of social
exchange (Di Stefano & Gaudiino, 2019). The type of
communication established between employees indicates
the type of organizational culture (Men & Bowen, 2017).
An open and supportive organizational culture increases
the effectiveness of communication practices and creates
the conditions for employees to feel satisfied and committed
(Meng & Berger, 2019).
Leader-related Influence
Leadership is a process “whereby an individual influences
a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”
(Northouse, 2016, p. 6). Leadership influences employee
satisfaction (Baquero et al., 2019). When leaders support
the performance of employees, the latter respond positively
through their dedication to work (Rowold et al., 2014).
Sageer et al. (2012) argue that more democratic leadership
styles promote better relationships and mutual respect,
whereas authoritarian leadership generates lower levels of
satisfaction. Studies often categorize leadership styles by
their focus: either on people and relationships to maximize
employees’ potential through creativity and innovation—
transformational leadership—or on tasks that encourage
performance-based exchanges and rewards—transactional
leadership. Transformational leadership fosters procedural
justice, whereas transactional leadership promotes
distributive justice (Pillai et al., 1999), and both types of
justice increase employee trust. According to Cropanzano
Curado et a/.3
and Mitchell (2005), trust is a critical social exchange
mediator that delivers job satisfaction.
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is associated with exchanges
between leaders and subordinates in which leaders reward
or punish employees for performance and, in return, expect
greater productivity and loyalty (Naidu & Van der Walt,
2005). These leaders demonstrate less involvement in the
employee relationship because, for them, it is merely a
process of exchange whose sole purpose is to influence
their employees’ performance. This focus on organizational
objectives and on punishments or rewards can negatively
affect employees’ commitment and satisfaction (Saleem,
2015).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is driven by the inspiration of
and commitment to organizational values and goals (Bass,
1985). It is a process of stimulating the performance of
subordinates based on values. Charisma and influence are
two key characteristics of such leaders. The literature
shows that there is a strong correlation between
transformational leadership and employee satisfaction
(Abelha et al., 2018; Curado & Santos, 2021; Escortell et
al., 2020; Sayadi, 2016). The leader may improve both the
performance of the team and each individual performance,
fostering feelings of reciprocity and high levels of personal
investment and involvement in the workplace. In specific
terms, employees better understand their jobs, feel safer
and have better access to resources (Burch & Guarana,
2014).
Peer-related Influence
The climate among colleagues is an important source of
satisfaction and involves cooperative work between groups
of interdependent individuals pursuing common goals or
outcomes (Bufquin et al., 2017; Sageer et al., 2012). Social
interaction develops a sense of belonging and knowledge
sharing (Izvercian et al., 2016), which enhances cooperation
and employee satisfaction (Hanaysha, 2016). Social
support occurs in three ways—from colleagues, supervisors
and the organization—and they all exercise a positive
effect on employee satisfaction (Brown et al., 2014).
Peer Support
Employees spend more time with their colleagues than
with their families. Strong supportive relationships among
colleagues enable employees to cope with the stresses of
their professional and family responsibilities (Halbesleben
& Wheeler, 2015). The perception of receiving peer support
enriches work functions and renders an increased level of
involvement and satisfaction (Koseoglu et al., 2018).
However, the lack of support from colleagues is reflected
in a reduced identification with work and stronger feelings
of alienation from work and a greater sense of demotivation
(Charoensukmongkol et al., 2016).
Communication-related Influence
Communication enables employees to share information,
build relationships and absorb organizational culture and
values, while building mutually beneficial relationships
with their organizations (Men & Bowen, 2017). The
framework of social relationships and communication that
employees establish contributes to feelings of satisfaction
and reciprocity towards the organization (Mehra &
Nickerson, 2019; Men & Yue, 2019). Following the three
influences under consideration, communication also
operates on three levels: the organization, the leader and
peers.
Communication with the Organization
Organizational communication involves a flow of messages
through a network of interdependent relationships that
involves people’s attitudes, feelings and skills (Goldhaber,
1999). The employee–organization relationship becomes
stronger through an efficient communication system, and
employees achieve high levels of satisfaction (Berger,
2008). There is a positive relationship between symmetrical
communication and the quality of the employee–
organization relationship (Kang & Sung, 2017).
Organizational communication contributes to a sense of
community (Uysal, 2016) and facilitates social exchanges
and trust between the parties involved in the relationship
(Blau, 1964).
Communication with the Leader
Effective communication with the leader requires
employees to feel greater involvement and to experience a
higher level of satisfaction. Employees value a symmetrical
communication system and feel greater satisfaction when
they are heard and valued (Men & Yue, 2019). The way the
leader communicates influences employee attitudes and
their feelings towards the leader. Leaders who show
sympathy, compassion, understanding and sincerity in
their communication induce greater joy and pride in
employees (Men, 2015; Men & Yue, 2019).
Communication with Peers
Communication with peers, coupled with strong group
dynamics, influences the effectiveness of teamwork. It is
an important dimension of social relations because it
influences the sharing of ideas, fosters ties of cooperation
and trust between team members, develops a better
4
articulation of functions and destroys the barriers inherent
in change processes (Christensen, 2014). Employees
appreciate frequent, open, respectful, sympathetic and
communicative relationships with peers, and they
experience greater satisfaction because they share similar
feelings about tasks in the work environment (Robinson &
Thelen, 2018). In the service sector, the trend towards
specialization and the division of labour requires an
effective communication system and structured group
dynamics to achieve organizational goals (Mohanty &
Mohanty, 2018).
Employee Satisfaction
Satisfaction is a positive emotional state that results from
work experiences (Locke, 1976) and the fulfilment of
needs, wishes and desires (Sageer et al., 2012, p. 32).
Satisfaction involves a sense of pride and accomplishment
when performing a particular function (Saleem, 2015).
Satisfaction can be influenced by the ability of employees
to complete their tasks, the level of communication and the
treatment received from superiors. It can be divided into
two dimensions: affective satisfaction that concerns the
positive emotion associated with work and cognitive
satisfaction that is derived from the evaluative appreciation
of work-related aspects, such as payment, schedules and
benefits (Eyupoglu et al., 2016). Organizations satisfy
employees when their work and tasks meet company
expectations and values (Sahito & Vaisanen, 2017).
Satisfaction leads to positive workplace attitudes, such as
loyalty, remaining with the organization and better
performance. Satisfied employees are more productive and
committed (Oswald et al., 2015; Symitsi et al., 2018; Wen
et al., 2019), whereas dissatisfied employees are
uninterested in the improvement process and deliver poor
quality service that damages the profitability of the
organization (Huang & Rundle-Thiele, 2014). Satisfaction
is negatively related to delays, absenteeism, exit intentions
and turnover (Asrar-ul-Haq & Anwarb, 2018; Eyupoglu et
al., 2016; Harrison et al., 2006; Mount et al., 2006).
Methods
The present exploratory study aims to identify the causal
combinations of the selected conditions that lead to
satisfaction or its absence (represented by the use of a tilde
symbol [~] before satisfaction). We follow a configurational
approach to the data using a fuzzy-set qualitative
comparative analysis (fsQCA) to test our models on
employee satisfaction (Baquero et al., 2019; Moslehpour et
al., 2022; Wu & Zhou, 2020). The fsQCA identifies
configurations of conditions that generate a given outcome
(Fiss, 2011) as opposed to correlational methods that
estimate the net effect of independent variables on a
dependent variable (Alegre et al., 2016). The fsQCA
Vision
delivers advantages over more traditional analyses:
asymmetry (describing solutions that lead to the presence
or the absence of the outcome), equifinity (offering multiple
paths to the outcomes), causal complexity (identifying
causal combinations of an organizational phenomenon)
(Gębczyńska & Kwiotkowska, 2018), and dealing with
ambiguity (in nonlinear relations) (Curado, 2018). The
fsQCA tool is a ‘small N’ and macro-comparative approach
because it is associated with a smaller number of cases.
Consequently, it accepts purposeful samples (Rihoux &
Ragin, 2009), which means the results cannot be generalized
and are valid only for the sample under study. The fsQCA
permits conditions to relate casually to only one
configuration, but there is not necessarily an inverse
relation to other configurations (Meyer et al., 1993). It
accepts the existence of alternative causal, equifinal and
asymmetrical configurations (Fiss, 2011). The fsQCA is a
widely accepted technique (Kraus et al., 2018) that various
fields, such as sociology, political science, environmental
science, medicine, business and economics and
governmental administration, have applied (Roig-Tierno et
al., 2017).
Sampling and Measurement Scales
We used an electronic questionnaire to collect the data. A
link to the questionnaire was sent in May 2021 by email to
6,487 service sector companies in Portugal (corresponding
to the 10,000 largest firms with an active email address). In
order to reduce common method bias, we followed the
recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003) in composing
our letter, which presented the research being undertaken
and introduced the questionnaire for respondents. We
guaranteed that the respondents’ anonymity would be
protected, and we explained that there were no right or
wrong answers. We obtained 225 responses following the
invitation to participate and a reminder 2 weeks later. Of
these, only 163 were considered valid—incomplete
responses and responses that repeated themselves more
than 80% of the time were eliminated (Hair et al., 2010).
Following the procedures suggested by Armstrong and
Overton (1977), we assessed the non-response bias in the
responses by comparing the data in the early responses
(first round of emails) with the data collected from the late
respondents (second round of emails—we used this group
as a proxy for non-responses) (Hair et al., 2017). Data on
the responses from the two groups were tested using
independent sample t-tests on construct means. No
significant difference was found. Therefore, there was no
concern that our study showed a non-response bias. The
questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) to measure the
conditions and outcomes. The measurement scales and
their sources are presented in Table 1. The majority of
respondents were female (59.5%), had children (57.1%),
Curado et a/.5

Table 1.  Conditions and Outcome Scales

Conditions and Outcome Source

Satisfaction
 1 I can decide on my own how I go about doing my work Jensen et al. (2017)
 2 The work I do is meaningful to me
 3 At my work, I am not exposed to excessive stress
 4 I am satisfied with my current work
 5 I am satisfied with my current income from work
Organizational culture
 6 Work should be the primary priority in a person’s life (R) Allen (2001)
 7 Long hours inside the office are the way to achieve advancement (R)
 8 It is best to keep family matters separate from work (R)
 9 It is considered taboo to talk about life outside work (R)
10 Expressing involvement and interest in non-work matters is viewed as healthy
11 Employees who are highly committed to their personal lives cannot be highly committed to their work
(R)
12 Attending to personal needs, such as taking time off for sick children is frowned upon (R)
13 Employees should keep their personal problems at home (R)
14 The way to advance in this company is to keep non-work matters out of the workplace (R)
15 Individuals who take time off to attend to personal matters are not committed to their work (R)
16 It is assumed that the most productive employees are those who put their work before their family life
(R)
17 Employees are given ample opportunity to perform both their job and their personal responsibilities
well
18 Offering employees flexibility in completing their work is viewed as a strategic way of doing business
19 The ideal employee is the one who is available 24 hours a day (R)
Work–family balance
20 There is a good fit between my personal life and work life Wu et al. (2013)
21 There is a good fit between my family life and work life
22 I receive support and recognition from my family members
23 There is a good fit between my job and my personal health
24 I am able to do my job and not burn out
25 This job enables me to continue living where I live now
26 I have sufficient emotional energy for the job
27 My work offers schedule flexibility
Organizational communication
28 At work, communication flows two ways (e.g., from the executive team to me, and from me to the Karanges et al.
executive team) (2014)
29 At work, I exchange ideas and information with the executive team freely and easily
30 At work, open lines of communication between me and the executive team are encouraged
31 Discussions with the executive team go beyond mere direction about how to do my job
32 I often discuss work-related matters with the executive team
33 The executive team regularly discusses organizational issues with me
34 The executive team communicates with me frequently
Transformational leadership
35 Instills pride in me Ismail et al. (2010)
36 Spends time teaching and coaching
37 Considers moral and ethical consequences
38 Views me as having different needs, abilities and aspirations
39 Listens to my concerns
40 Encourages me to perform
41 Increases my motivation
42 Encourages me to think more creatively
43 Sets challenging standards
44 Gets me to rethink never-questioned ideas
45 Instills pride in me
46 Spends time teaching and coaching
Transactional leadership
47 Makes high expectations Ismail et al. (2010)
48 Will take action before problems are chronic
49 Tells us standards to carry out work
(Table 1 continued)
6 Vision

(Table 1 continued)
Conditions and Outcome Source
50 Works out agreements with me
51 Monitors my performance and keeps track of mistakes
Communication with leaders
52 I can be open in bringing up subject matters with my closest leader Christensen (2014)
53 The dialogue between my closest leader and me is good
54 There is tolerance/acceptance in my communication with my leader
55 My closest leader keeps an open-door policy for the employees
56 My closest leader is available if I wish to bring up personal matters
57 My closest leader trusts the employees
58 My closest leader respects me
59 My closest leader and I have a common understanding of responsibility distribution
Peer support
60 My coworkers are supportive of my goals and values Ladd and Henry
61 Help is available from my coworkers when I have a problem (2000)
62 My coworkers really care about my well-being
63 My coworkers are willing to offer assistance to help me perform my job to the best of my ability
64 Even if I did the best job possible, my coworkers would fail to notice
65 My coworkers care about my general satisfaction at work
66 My coworkers show very little concern for me
67 My coworkers care about my opinions
68 My coworkers are complimentary of my accomplishments at work
Communication with Peers
69 The communication between my coworkers and me is good Christensen (2014)
70 I can bring up work-related topics with my coworkers
71 I can bring up personal issues with my coworkers
Source: The authors.

had a college degree (79.8%), and worked at the Calibration

organization for longer than 7 years (65.6%) (Table 2).
As part of the statistical evaluation of common method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we used Harman’s single test.
The factor solution that emerged from the exploratory
factor analysis accounted for 74.13% of the variance in the
data, of which the first factor accounted for less than 50%
of the total variance (32.71%). Additionally, all variance
inflation factor (VIF) test values were under 3.3, thus
indicating there was no common method bias (Kock,
2015).
FsQCA requires the use of calibrated data. Calibrated
conditions assume various gradations from zero to one
(forming a fuzzy database)—that is to say, values are
qualified at different degrees of association from total
exclusion to total inclusion and a middle point for the
maximum ambiguity. The Likert scales are transformed by
using the mean values of the items of each condition after
adjusting for the cut-off values (Woodside, 2016). Data
were calibrated based on theory and their interpretation.

Table 2.  Summary of Demographic Information

Characteristics Descriptives
Gender Female = 59.5%; male = 40.5%
Age (years) 18–25 = 2.5%; 26–35 = 20.2%; 36–45 = 32.5%; 46–55 = 28.2%; 56–65 = 14.7%; >65 = 1.8%
Marital status Single = 24.5%; married = 54%; unmarried couple = 14.1%; widow = 0%; other = 7.4%
Children Yes = 57.1%; no = 42.9%
Number of children 0 = 42.9%; 1 = 21.5%; 2 = 27%; 3 = 6.7%; 4 = 2.5%; 5 = 0.6%
Education level Secondary education = 16%; professional education = 3.7%; graduate = 53.4%; master = 23.3%; PhD =
3.1%; other = 0.6%
Experience (years) <1 = 1.2%; 1–2 = 0.6%; 3–4 = 6.1%; 5–6 = 4.3%; 7–10 = 6.7%; >10 = 81%
Tenure (years) <1 = 6.1%; 1–2 = 12.3%; 3–4 = 8.6%; 5–6 = 7.4%; 7–10 = 18.4%; >10 = 47.2%
Firm size (employees) <10 = 26.4%; 10–49 = 43.6%; 50–99 = 9.8%; 100–250 = 8%; >250 = 13.2%
Source: The authors.
Curado et a/.7

Table 3.  Descriptive Statistics and Calibration Values for Conditions and Outcome

Calibration Cut-off Points

Conditions and Outcome Descriptives (0.95; 0.5; 0.05)
Employees’ satisfaction (SAT) μ = 3.74; σ = 0.65; min = 2; max = 5 (4.9; 3.8; 2.5)
Organizational culture (OCul) μ = 2.68; σ = 0.36; min = 1.79; max = 3.71 (3.4; 2.7; 2.05)
Work–family balance (WFB) μ = 3.92; σ = 0.64; min = 1.75; max = 5 (4.9; 4; 2.9)
Organizational communication (OCom) μ = 3.96; σ = 0.71; min = 1.57; max = 5 (4.9; 4; 2.9)
Transformational leadership (TfL) μ = 3.78; σ = 0.79; min = 1; max = 5 (4.95; 3.85; 2.5)
Transactional leadership (TsL) μ = 3.52; σ = 0.88; min = 1; max = 5 (4.9; 3.6; 2.1)
Communication with leaders (CL) μ = 4.13 σ = 0.73; min = 1; max = 5 (4.95; 4.1; 3.4)
Peer support (PS) μ = 3.53; σ = 0.42; min = 1.89; max = 5 (4.2; 3.5; 2.8)
Communication with peers (CP) μ = 4.08; σ = 0.59; min = 1.67; max = 5 (4.7; 4.1; 3.4)
Source: The authors.

Thus, we defined the three anchors by calibrating the
conditions as fuzzy set values to 0.95 for the total inclusion
limit, 0.5 for the maximum ambiguity point and 0.05 for
the limit of total exclusion (Ragin, 2008) (Table 3).
Fuzzy-AND and Fuzzy-OR Functions
In this study, we considered communication in three
dimensions—organization (OCom), leader (LCom) and
peers (PCom) —grouped into two using fsQCA operations
and following SET theory:
Fuzzy AND corresponds to an intersection associative
logical operation involving the set that corresponds to the
common elements in all subsets. This condition reflects a
degree of rich communication, which demands the presence
of all three dimensions.
Fuzzy OR corresponds to a union associative logical
operation involving the set resulting from all elements in
the subsets. This condition represents poor communication,
which demands a minimum of at least one dimension.
Therefore, we use the three dimensions and the two
logics to create the resulting conditions: Communication
AND (CAND) and Communication OR (COR). The logic
AND identifies the presence of all three dimensions
simultaneously, generating CAND, while the logic OR
identifies the acceptance of the presence of at least a single
dimension, generating COR.
Sufficiency Analysis
In order to identify the different combinations of causal
conditions with the outcome (Fiss, 2011), we use the truth
table analysis, which presents all logically possible
combinations of fuzzy sets. In the sufficiency analysis,
three types of solution are provided—the complex (a less
demanding solution), the parsimonious (a more rigorous
solution) and the intermediate—in which those with a
number of different configurations of causal conditions
lead to a given outcome (Fiss, 2011; Ragin, 2008). In line
with the literature (Fiss, 2011; Ragin, 2008), we report the
intermediate solutions and the parsimonious solutions.
Thus, using this dual approach, we identify the core
conditions that are present in both parsimonious and
intermediate solutions as well as the peripheral conditions,
which are those that are only present in the intermediate
solutions. Our solutions meet the literature’s consistency
thresholds—at least 0.75 according to Ragin (2005, 2009)
—and coverage—values between 0.25 and 0.90, following
Ragin (2008), Woodside and Zhang (2013) and Woodside
(2016). We explore the contribution of communication to
satisfaction in different ways. On the one hand, we
consider the two logical approaches to communication
that have already been presented: CAND and COR. On
the other hand, we consider the two leadership styles that
have already been presented: transformational leadership
(TfL) and transactional leadership (TsL). In addition, we
evaluate the contribution of the conditions, peer support
(PS), work–family balance (WFB) and organizational
culture (OCul). Following best practice (Fiss, 2011), we
additionally explore equivalent models that lead to the
absence of employee satisfaction (~SAT). Tables 4 and 5
present the models’ solutions that are considered
acceptable.
CAND Models
We consider two models for SAT that use CAND. Model
1CAND: SAT = f(CAND, TfL, PS, WFB, OCul) and
Model 2CAND: SAT = f(CAND, TsL, PS, WFB, OCul)
(Table 4).
Based on Table 4, the two solutions meet the literature’s
thresholds of consistency and coverage. Solutions for both
models offer various configurations, which indicate that
there are several alternative paths to SAT regardless of the
leadership style. We also developed models for the ~SAT
that considered the contribution of CAND. Model 3CAND:
~SAT = f(CAND, TfL, PS, WFB, OCul) and Model
4CAND: ~SAT = f(CAND, TsL, PS, WFB, OCul). There
are no solutions that meet the consistency and coverage
requirements in either model. In consequence, there are no
configurations that lead to ~SAT using CAND regardless
of the leadership style. Such results indicate that
8 Vision

Table 4.  Intermediate Solutions for SAT and CAND

Model 1CAND: SAT = f (CAND, TfL, PS, WFB, OCul)
Overall solution coverage: 0.86; Overall solution consistency: 0.753
Causal Conditions Coverage
Configurations CAND TfL PS WFB Ocul Raw Unique Consistency
1 º 0.639 0.014 0.808
2 º 0.652 0.015 0.826
3 0.671 0.034 0.826
4 º 0.483 0.008 0.801
5 0.512 0.017 0.895
6 º º º 0.304 0.000 0.925
7 º º 0.467 0.000 0.878
8 º º 0.518 0.008 0.894
Model 2CAND: SAT = f (CAND, TsL, PS, WFB, OCul)
Overall solution coverage: 0.84; Overall solution consistency: 0.752
Conditions Coverage
Configurations CAND TsL PS WFB Ocul Raw Unique Consistency
1 º 0.642 0.019 0.816
2 º 0.652 0.017 0.826
3 º 0.518 0.007 0.894
4 º 0.483 0.005 0.801
5 º 0.404 0.006 0.892
6 º º º 0.387 0.002 0.850
7 0.611 0.019 0.903
8 0.511 0.002 0.912
Source: The authors.
Notes: SAT = Employees’ Satisfaction; CAND = Organizational Communication (OCom) AND Communication with Leaders (CL) AND
Communication with Peers (CP); TfL = Transformational Leadership; TsL= Transactional Leadership; OCul = Organizational Culture; WFB = Work-
Family Balance; PS = Peer Support
Full black circles ( ) = presence of the condition and blank circles (º) = absence of the condition. Small circles = peripherical conditions; large circles
= core conditions

environments with very rich levels of communication
(CAND) contribute to SAT. These findings are reinforced
by the fact that there are no configurations that lead to
~SAT in such settings.
COR Models
Similarly, we have developed two models for SAT using
COR. Model 1COR: Sat = f(COR, TfL, PS, WFB, OCul)
and Model 2COR: f(Sat = COR, TsL, PS, WFB, OCul).
None of the model solutions meets the suggested thresholds
in the literature. Therefore, there are no configurations
leading to SAT that use COR regardless of the leadership
style. Similarly, we tested models for the ~SAT that
consider the contribution of COR. Regarding the ~SAT, the
two solutions meet the suggested thresholds: Model 3COR:
~Sat = f(COR, TfL, PS, WFB, OCul) and Model 4COR:
~Sat = f(COR, TsL, PS, WFB, OCul) (Table 5).
Based on Table 5, the two solutions meet the thresholds
in the literature, which indicate that there are several
alternative paths to the ~SAT regardless of the leadership
style. Such findings show that, when considering the
contribution of COR, ~SAT occurs. These findings become
more relevant when contrasted with the fact that there are
no configurations that lead to SAT in such settings.
Discussion
Given that fsQCA generates various combinations of
conditions that lead to a given result, we were able to
identify a total of 16 paths that led to SAT and 15 that led
to ~SAT. According to the results, peer support, work–
family balance, organizational culture and leadership
(whether transactional or transformational) contributed to
numerous alternative configurations that led to SAT when
we included the CAND condition in the models. In contrast,
there were various alternative configurations that led to
~SAT when we included the COR condition in the models.
According to Omilion-Hodges et al. (2016), part of the
richness of the communication process is lost when
employees’ relations are studied in isolation. This is
because they are the foundation of the result—namely,
SAT (Men & Yue, 2019; Omilion-Hodges et al., 2016).
Equally noteworthy is the presence of the core condition,
WFB, in Models 1CAND and 2CAND, which is found in
nine of the 16 pathways that led to SAT. Conversely, the
Curado et a/.9

Table 5.  Intermediate Solutions for ~SAT and COR

Model 3COR: ~SAT = f (COR, TfL, PS, WFB, OCul)
Overall solution coverage: 0.84; Overall solution consistency: 0.769
Conditions Coverage
Configurations COR TfL PS WFB OCul Raw Unique Consistency
1 ○ ○ 0.720 0.052 0.890
2 l ○ 0.618 0.037 0.804
3 ○ ○ ○ 0.509 0.007 0.936
4 l l ○  0.513 0.015 0.806
5 ○ l l l 0.294 0.002 0.918
6 l ○ l 0.364 0.004 0.846
7 ○ ○  ○ 0.506 0.001 0.883
8 ○ ○  ○ 0.508 0.000 0.832
Model 4COR: ~SAT = f (COR, TsL, PS, WFB, OCul)
Overall solution coverage: 0.85; Overall solution consistency: 0.770
Conditions Coverage
Configurations COR TsL PS WFB Ocul Raw Unique Consistency
1 ○ ○  0.712 0.062 0.880
2 l ○  0.553 0.022 0.808
3 l ○ 0.638 0.041 0.798
4 ○ ○  l 0.444 0.002 0.932
5 l ○  ○  0.508 0.008 0.832
6 ○  l l 0.420 0.002 0.856
7 l ○ l l 0.364 0.004 0.846
Source: The authors.
Notes: SAT= Employees’ Satisfaction; COR= Organizational Communication (OCom) OR Communication with Leaders (CL) OR Communication
with Peers (CP); TfL= Transformational Leadership; TsL= Transactional Leadership; OCul = Organizational Culture; WFB = Work-Family Balance; PS
= Peer Support
Full black circles (l) = presence of the condition and blank circles (○) = absence of the condition. Small circles = peripherical conditions; large circles
= core conditions

core condition of ~WFB in Models 3COR and 4COR is
present in nine of the 15 pathways that led to ~SAT. Such
results indicate that the employees who are able to balance
their family and professional responsibilities experience
greater satisfaction (Alegre et al., 2016), while the lack of
balance leads to ~SAT (Vong & Tang, 2017). Employing a
comparative analysis of patterns between the two models
for the presence of SAT (Models 1CAND and 2CAND),
we identified three similar configurations with clarifying
evidence:
One based on ~CAND and leadership (regardless of style):
• Model 1CAND—configuration 1: TfL, ~CAND ≈
Model 2CAND—configuration 1: TsL, ~CAND
One based on ~CAND and WFB:
• Model 1CAND—configuration 2 =
2CAND—configuration 2: WFB, ~CAND
One based on ~CAND, PS and OCul:
• Model 1CAND—configuration 4 = Model
2CAND—configuration 4: PS, OCul, ~CAND
These results show that, despite the lack of rich
communication, there are still alternatives that lead to SAT,
and they involve (a) leadership, (b) work–family balance,
(c) peer support and (d) organizational culture.
Using a comparative analysis of patterns between the
two models that led to ~SAT (Models 3COR and 4COR),
we identified two similar configurations with interesting
results:
One based on ~WFB and the absence of leadership:
• Model 3COR—configuration 1: ~TfL, ~WFB ≈
Model 4COR—configuration 1: ~TsL, ~WFB
One based on COR and the absence of leadership:
• Model 3COR—configuration 2: ~ TfL, COR ≈
Model 4COR—configuration 3: ~ TsL, COR
Although the literature shows a differentiating effect
between the two leadership styles on SAT (e.g., Abelha et
al., 2018; Saleem, 2015), the patterns for its presence and
Model
its absence, regardless of style, display similar results.
These results are confirmed by previous evidence (Sayadi,
2016) and are justified by the individual needs and
characteristics of employees. We also highlight the
presence of common conditions—PS and WFB—in
configurations 3, 7 and 8 (Model 2CAND), which lead to
SAT. OCul contributes both to the presence (Model
1CAND—configurations 4 and 5, and Model 2CAND—
Configurations 4, 5 and 8) and to the absence of SAT in
10
different configurations (Model 3COR—configurations 5
and 6; Model 4COR—configurations 4, 6 and 7). Such
findings show that having high OCul is not enough to reach
SAT, indicating therefore the importance of the influences
of both leaders and peers (Meng & Berger, 2019).
Social exchange theory is a relationship grounded
theory. Consequently, our results on the paths leading to
the presence and the absence of satisfaction extend social
exchange theory arguments. Organizational communication
facilitates social exchanges between the parties involved in
the relationship (Blau, 1964). We augment this argument
by following social exchange theory dimensions: the
organization, the leader, and peers (Wang et al., 2018;
Wang et al., 2020) and by exploring the contribution of
several conditions to employee satisfaction, including two
combinations of different communications—namely (a)
organizational communication and communication with
leaders and communication with peers (CAND) and (b)
organizational communication or communication with
leaders or communication with peers (COR). Regarding
the paths leading to higher employee satisfaction levels,
the existence of alternative configurations (Table 4) shows
that communication (CAND), leadership, organizational
culture, work–family balance and peer support contribute
to employee satisfaction. Social exchange occurs when one
party delivers a benefit to the other, and if the exchange is
reciprocal, a series of beneficial interchanges takes place,
thus creating a mutual obligation to engage in favourable
treatment between the parties (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore,
2007; Yalabik et al., 2017). Therefore, our results further
enlarge the literature on social exchange theory. Moreover,
regarding the paths leading to the absence of employee
satisfaction, the existence of alternative configurations
(Table 5) that include the contribution of communication
(COR) shows that employees may not achieve satisfaction.
Therefore, our findings contradict the linearity of previous
studies (Li et al., 2017; Omilion-Hodges et al., 2016; Tang
et al., 2014). As a result, our evidence helps to enrich social
exchange theory by exposing the complexity of the
employee satisfaction phenomenon.
Conclusions, Limitations and
Future Work
We used a sample of 163 employees from the service sector
in Portugal. The evidence from this study shows that, from a
configurational perspective, satisfaction follows different
paths. Our findings augment understanding of how
communication contributes to employee satisfaction in
service firms, showing it to be a socially complex
phenomenon. In consequence, its presence or absence results
from several alternative networks of conditions. Using
fsQCA, we were able to identify 16 paths leading to
satisfaction and 15 other paths leading to its absence.
The paths to satisfaction show the importance of the
Vision
four dimensions—organization, leaders, peers and
communication—with a special emphasis on work–family
balance and peer support. In contrast, the paths that lead to
the absence of satisfaction include the contribution of
communication, yet the simultaneous occurrence of the
other conditions is not a requirement. Concerning leadership,
whether transactional or transformational, the findings show
its contribution to paths that lead to the presence or to the
absence of satisfaction. This is likely related to problems of
asymmetry.
The findings of this research carry certain theoretical and
practical implications. By addressing various conditions, we
identify several alternative paths to both outcomes. Knowing
the existence of these paths enriches social exchange theory
by providing a theoretical background that allows us to
understand its complex nature and to illustrate which
conditions promote the reciprocity of employees through
higher levels of satisfaction. The use of a qualitative
comparative study on satisfaction contributes to broadening
the scope of a research field predominantly developed
through traditional statistical confirmatory methods (e.g.,
Abelha et al., 2018; Meng & Berger, 2019). In terms of its
practical implications, this study offers alternative options
for managers to develop employee satisfaction by placing
the major emphasis on the role of rich communication.
Some options could focus on communication channels
(e.g., the Internet and social networks) that foster employee
relationships with organizations, leaders and peers.
Managers should also develop policies that help employees
to reconcile their work with family obligations (Krishnan
et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2015; Tsaur & Yen,
2018; Vong & Tang, 2017). These conditions, combined
with a pleasant working environment, promote employee
satisfaction (Gębczyńska & Kwiotkowska, 2018). As
employees spend more time with their colleagues than with
their families, peer support should be another priority
(Koseoglu et al., 2018; Yuh & Choi, 2017). Thus, managers
should adopt practices that develop paths leading to
employee satisfaction in order to anticipate higher levels of
productivity, efficiency, retention and quality of service
(Oswald et al., 2015; Symitsi et al., 2018; Wen et al., 2019).
Equally, they should seek to avoid the configurations that
lead to the absence of satisfaction because they tend to
generate delays, absenteeism and increased turnover
(Asrar-ul-Haq & Anwarb, 2018; Eyupoglu et al., 2016;
Harrison et al., 2006; Mount et al., 2006).
Notwithstanding its positive contributions, this study has
certain limitations: (a) the reduced sample size to which
the length of the questionnaire might have contributed;
(b) the impossibility of generalizing the results to other
industries (e.g., manufacture) due to the qualitative essence
of the study (yet the analysis is replicable without restrictions)
and (c) no data on the work environments related to issues
such as available technology. Future studies could, therefore,
expand our findings and add further weight to the literature.
We invite colleagues to follow a configurational approach to
Curado et a/.11
the topic and enlarge the conditions used in this study.
Additionally, the use of confirmatory quantitative studies to
test the models that reflect the configurations for satisfaction
identified in this study are most welcome. In order to develop
the study on the contribution that communication makes to
employee satisfaction, other approaches to communication
may bring new research insights. For example, forthcoming
studies could adopt different approaches to communication
styles between managers and employees. On the one hand,
Norton (1983) argued that the communication style indicates
the degree to which the message should be taken literally, or
how it should be interpreted, filtered and understood. On the
other hand, the communication style itself is a powerful tool
that influences people to form impressions about the
character of others based on their regularity in adopting a
certain communication style. Such cognitive constructions
may impact job satisfaction and are, therefore, worth
exploring. Given the great complexity of the relationship
between specific combinations of lexical, syntactic,
nonverbal and contextual elements and interpretations
(Sanders, 1985), the potential undoubtedly exists to address
other dimensions of communication between managers and
employees.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This work was supported by the FCT- Fundação para a Ciencia e
Tecnologia (Portugal), under Grant UIDB/04521/2020.
ORCID iD
Paulo Lopes Henriques https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7869-
7619
References
Abelha, D. M., Carneiro, P. C., & Cavazotte, F. D. (2018).
Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: Assessing
the influence of organizational contextual factors and individ-
ual characteristics. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios,
20(4), 516–532.
Alegre, I., Mas-Machuca M., & Berbegal-Mirabent J. (2016).
Antecedents of employee job satisfaction: Do they matter?
Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1390–1395.
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The
role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse
bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3),
396–402.
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwarb, S. (2018). The many faces of leader-
ship: Proposing research agenda through a review of literature.
Future Business Journal, 4(2), 179–188.
Baquero, A., Delgado, B., Escortell, R., & Sapena, J. (2019).
Authentic leadership and job satisfaction: A fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). Sustainability,
11(8), 2412. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082412
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expec­
tations. Free Press.
Berger, B. (2008). Employee/organizational communications.
Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/
topics/employee-organizational-communications/
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
Brown, M., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., McNamara, T. K., & Besen,
E. (2014). Returning to the workforce after retiring: A job
demands, job control, social support perspective on job
satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25(22), 3113–3133.
Bufquin, D., DiPietro, R., Orlowski, M., & Partlow, C. (2017).
The influence of restaurant co-workers’ perceived warmth and
competence on employees’ turnover intentions: The mediating
role of job attitudes. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 60, 13–22.
Burch, T. C., & Guarana, C. L. (2014). The comparative influences
of transformational leadership and leader-member exchange
on follower engagement. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3),
6–25.
Charoensukmongkol, P., Moqbel, M., & Gutierrez-Wirsching,
S. (2016). The role of co-worker and supervisor support on
job burnout and job satisfaction. Journal of Advances in
Management Research, 13(1), 4–22.
Chiu, W. Y. B., & Ng, F. F. (2013). Improvement of job
satisfaction and organisational commitment through work
group identification: An examination of the quantity surveyors
in Hong Kong. Construction Economics and Building, 13(3),
80–95.
Christensen, M. (2014). Communication as a strategic tool in change
processes. International Journal of Business Communication,
51(4), 359–385.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee–
organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human
Resource Management Review, 17(2), 166–179.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory:
An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6),
874–900.
Cruz, A. P. C., Frare, A. B., Accadrolli, M. C., & Horz, V. (2022).
Effects of informal controls and psychological empowerment
on job satisfaction. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 33(88),
29–45.
Curado, C. (2018). Human resource management contribution to
innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A mixed
methods approach. Creativity and Innovation Management
Journal, 27(1), 79–90.
Curado, C., & Santos, R. V. (2021). Transformational leadership
and work performance in health care: The mediating role
of job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, Vol.
ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/
LHS-06-2021-0051
Di Stefano, G., & Gaudiino, M. (2019). Workaholism and
work engagement: How are they similar? How are they
different? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(3),
329–347.
Escortell, R., Baquero, A., & Delgado, B. (2020). The impact of
transformational leadership on the job satisfaction of internal
12
employees and outsourced workers. Cogent Business &
Management, 7(1), 1837460. https://doi.org/10.1080/233119
75.2020.1837460
Eyupoglu, S. Z., Gardashova, L. A., Allahverdiyev, R. A., &
Saner, T. (2016). Application of fuzzy logic in job satisfac-
tion performance problem. Procedia Computer Science, 102,
190–197.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set
approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
Gębczyńska, M., & Kwiotkowska, A. (2018). Paths to
explain employee job satisfaction. A fuzzy-set analysis.
Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering, 1(1),
569–576.
Goldhaber, G. M. (1999). Organizational communication in
1976: Present domain and future directions. In P. Salem
(Ed.), Organizational communication and change (pp. 4–30).
Hampton Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.).
Pearson Education.
Hair, J. F., Hult, T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer
on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not?
The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain
spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, 4(16),
628–1650.
Hanaysha, J. (2016). Examining the effects of employee empow-
erment, teamwork, and employee training on organizational
commitment. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
229, 298–306.
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.
Huang, Y. T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2014). The moderating effect
of cultural congruence on the internal marketing practice and
employee satisfaction relationship: An empirical examina-
tion of Australian and Taiwanese born tourism employees.
Tourism Management, 42, 196–206.
Ismail, A., Mohamad, M. H., Mohamed, H. A.-B., Rafiuddin, N.
M., & Zhen, K. W. P. (2010). Transformational and transac-
tional leadership styles as a predictor of individual outcomes.
Theoretical and Applied Economics, 6(547), 89–104.
Izvercian, M., Potra, S., & Ivascu, L. (2016). Job satisfaction
variables: A grounded theory approach. Procedia-Social and
Behavioural Sciences, 221, 86–94.
Jensen, K. W., Liu, Y., & Schøtt, T. (2017). Entrepreneurs innova-
tion bringing job satisfaction, work-family balance, and life
satisfaction: In China and around the world. International
Journal of Innovation Studies, 1, 193–206.
Kang, M., & Sung, M. (2017). How symmetrical employee
communication leads to employee engagement and posi-
tive employee communication behaviors: The media-
tion of employee-organization relationships. Journal of
Communication Management, 21(1), 82–102.
Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A. e Lings, I. (2015). The
influence of internal communication on employee engage-
ment: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 129–131.
Vision
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full col-
linearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Col­
laboration, 11(4), 1–10.
Koseoglu, G., Blum, T. C., & Shalley, C. E. (2018). Gender
similarity, coworker support, and job attitudes: An occupa-
tion’s creative requirement can make a difference. Journal of
Management and Organization, 26(5), 880–898.
Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Schüssler, M. (2018). Fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis (fsqca) in entrepreneurship
and innovation research—The rise of a method. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(1), 15–33.
Krishnan, R., Loon, K. W., & Tan, N. Z. (2018). The effects of
job satisfaction and work-life balance on employee task per-
formance. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 8(3), 652–663.
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping
the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange
ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 30(10), 2028–2049.
Lamane-Harim, J., Cegarra-Leiva, D., & Sánchez-Vidal, M. E.
(2021). Work–life balance supportive culture: A way to retain
employees in Spanish SMEs. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09
585192.2021.187825
Li, J., Kim, W. G., & Zhao, X. (2017). Multilevel model of man-
agement support and casino employee turnover intention.
Tourism Management, 59, 193–204.
Lin, J. H., Wong, J. Y., & Ho, C. H. (2015). The role of work-
to-leisure conflict in promoting frontline employees’ leisure
satisfaction: Examining the job demand-control-support
model. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 27(7), 1539–1555.
Lin, Y. S., Huang, W. S., Yang, C. T., & Chiang, M. J. (2014).
Work-leisure conflict and its associations with well-being:
The roles of social support, leisure participation and job burn-
out. Tourism Management, 45, 244–252.
Locke, E. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction.
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1,
1297–1343.
Mehra, P., & Nickerson, C. (2019). Organizational communica-
tion and job satisfaction: What role do generational differ-
ences play? International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
27(3), 524–547.
Men, L. R. (2015). The internal communication role of the chief
executive officer: Communication channels, style, and effec-
tiveness. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 461–471.
Men, R. L., & Bowen, S. A. (2017). Excellence in internal rela­
tions management. Business Expert Press.
Men, L. R., & Stacks D. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership
on strategic internal communication and employee-organi-
zation relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research,
26(4), 301–324.
Men, L. R., & Yue, C. A. (2019). Creating a positive emotional
culture: Effect of internal communication and impact on
employee supportive behaviors. Public Relations Review, 45,
1–12.
Meng, J., & Berger, B. K. (2019). The impact of organizational
culture and leadership performance on PR professionals’ job
satisfaction: Testing the joint mediating effects of engagement
and trust. Public Relations Review, 45(1), 64–75.
Curado et a/.13
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational
approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of
Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195.
Mignonac, K., & Richebé, N. (2013). ‘No strings attached?’: How
attribution of disinterested support affects employee retention.
Human Resource Management Journal, 231, 72–90.
Mohanty, A., & Mohanty, S. (2018). The impact of communi-
cation and group dynamics on teamwork effectiveness: The
case of service sector organizations. Academy of Strategic
Management Journal, 17(4), 1–14.
Moslehpour, M., Chang, M. L., & Dadvari, A. (2022). Adopting
the configurational approach to the analysis of job satisfac-
tion in Mongolia. European Research on Management and
Business Economics, 28(1), 100179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iedeen.2021.100179
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of per-
sonality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The
mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
59(3), 591–622.
Naidu, J., & Van der Walt, M. S. (2005). An exploration of the rela-
tionship between leadership styles and the implementation of
transformation interventions. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 3(2), 1–10.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications and
measures. SAGE Publications.
Omilion-Hodges, L. M., Ptacek, J. K., & Zerilli, D. H. (2016). A
comprehensive review and communication research agenda
of the contextualized workgroup: The evolution and future of
leader-member exchange, coworker exchange, and team mem-
ber exchange. Annuals of the International Communication
Association, 40(1), 343–377.
Oswald, A. J., Proto, E., & Sgroi, D. (2015). Happiness and pro-
ductivity. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(4), 789–822.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership
and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across
cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30,
763–779.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.
P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Ragin, C. C. (2005). From fuzzy sets to crisp truth tables (Working
Paper). University of Arizona.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and
beyond. University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using
fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.),
Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative compar­
ative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 87–121).
SAGE Publications.
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2009). Configurational compara­
tive methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and
related techniques. SAGE Publications.
Robinson, K. L., & Thelen, P. D. (2018). What makes the
grapevine so effective? An employee perspective on
employee-organization communication and peer-to-peer
communication. Public Relations Journal, 12(2), 1–20.
Roig-Tierno, N., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F., & Llopis-Martinez, J.
(2017). An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A
bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge,
2(1), 15–23.
Rowold, J., Borgmann, L., & Bormann, K. (2014). Which leader-
ship constructs are important for predicting job satisfaction,
affective commitment, and perceived job performance in
profit versus nonprofit organizations? Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 25(2), 147–164.
Sageer, A., Rafat, S., & Agarwal P. (2012). Identification of vari-
ables affecting employee satisfaction and their impact on the
organization. Journal of Business and Management, 5(1),
32–39.
Sahito, Z., & Vaisanen, P. (2017). The diagonal model of job sat-
isfaction and motivation: Extracted from the logical compari-
son of content and process theories. International Journal of
Higher Education, 6(3), 209–230.
Saleem, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on job sat-
isfaction and mediating role of perceived organizational
politics. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 172,
563–569.
Sanders, R. E. (1985). Book review of Norton, R. (1983).
Communicator style: Theory, applications and meas-
ures. SAGE Publications: Beverly Hills, CA. Information
Language in Society, 14(2), 249–252.
Sayadi, Y. (2016). The effect of dimensions of transformational,
transactional, and non-leadership on the job satisfaction and
organizational commitment of teachers in Iran. Management
in Education, 30(2), 57–65.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American
Psychological Association, 45(2), 109–119.
Symitsi, E., Stamolampros, P., & Daskalakis, G. (2018).
Employees’ online reviews and equity prices. Economics
Letters, 162, 53–55.
Tang, S. W., Siu, O. L., & Cheung, F. (2014). A study of work–
family enrichment among Chinese employees: The mediat-
ing role between work support and job satisfaction. Applied
Psychology, 63(1), 130–150.
Tsaur, S. H., & Yen, C. H. (2018). Work–leisure conflict and its
consequences: Do generational differences matter? Tourism
Management, 69, 121–131.
Turliuc, M. N., & Buliga, D. (2014). Job and family satisfac-
tion and work-family enhancement: Mediating processes.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 115–119.
Uysal, N. (2016). Social collaboration in intranets: The impact of
social exchange and group norms on internal communication.
International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2),
181–199.
Vong, L. T. N., & Tang, W. S. L. (2017). The mediating effect
of work-family conflict in the relationship between job stress
and intent to stay: The case of tourism and hospitality work-
ers in Macau. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality &
Tourism, 1(1), 39–55.
Wang, Q., Zhou, X, Bao, J., Zhang, X., & Ju, W. (2020). How
is ethical leadership linked to subordinate taking charge?
A moderated mediation model of social exchange and
power distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 20. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00315
Wang, T., Long, L., Yong, Z., & Wei, H. (2018). A social
exchange perspective of employee–organization relationships
and employee unethical pro-organizational behavior: The
moderating role of individual moral identity. Journal of
Business Ethics, 159, 473–489.
14
Wen, X., Gu, L., & Wen, S. (2019). Job satisfaction and job
engagement: Empirical evidence from food safety regulators
in Guangdong, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208,
999–1008.
Woodside, A. G. (2016). The good practices manifesto:
Overcoming bad practices pervasive in current research in
business. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 365–381.
Woodside, A. G., & Zhang, M. (2013). Cultural diversity and mar-
keting transactions: Are market integration, large community
size, and world religions necessary for fairness in ephemeral
exchanges? Psychology & Marketing, 30(3), 263–276.
Wu, L., Rusyidi, B., Claiborne, N., & McCarthy, M. L. (2013).
Relationships between work–life balance and job-related
factors among child welfare workers. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(9), 1447–1454.
Wu, J., & Zhou, J. (2020). How the configurations of job auton-
omy, work–family interference, and demographics boost job
satisfaction: an empirical study using fsQCA. Asian Business
& Management, 20(1), 1–22.
Yalabik, Z. Y., Rayton, B. A., & Rapti, A. (2017). Facets of job
satisfaction and work engagement. Evidence-based HRM: A
Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 5(3), 248–265.
Yuh, J., & Choi, S. (2017). Sources of social support, job satisfac-
tion, and quality of life among childcare teachers. The Social
Science Journal, 54(4), 450–457.
About the Authors
Carla Curado (cccurado@iseg.ulisboa.pt) is an associate
professor of organizational behavior and human resources
management at ISEG Lisbon School of Economics and
Management, Universidade de Lisboa, and researcher at
Vision
CSG—Advance (Research in Social Sciences and
Management). Her research interests and publications are
in HRM and organizational behavior, knowledge
management, intellectual capital and sustainability.
Paulo Lopes Henriques (lopeshen@iseg.ulisboa.pt) is a
full professor of organizational behavior and human
resources management at ISEG Lisbon School of
Economics and Management, Universidade de Lisboa,
and researcher at CSG—Advance (Research in Social
Sciences and Management). His research interests and
publications are in HRM and organizational
behavior, knowledge management, green HRM and
sustainability, trust and ethics.
Helena Mateus Jerónimo (jeronimo@iseg.ulisboa.pt) is
an assistant professor of organizational behavior and
human resources management at ISEG Lisbon School of
Economics and Management, Universidade de Lisboa,
and researcher at CSG—Advance (Research in Social
Sciences and Management). Her research interests and
publications are in HRM and organizational behavior, risk
and science and technology studies, green HRM and
sustainability.
Jessica Azevedo (jessicazevedo@aln.iseg.ulisboa.pt)
holds a master’s degree in corporate sciences from ISEG
Lisbon School of Economics and Management,
Universidade de Lisboa.