The Relationship between Supervisor and Employee in Determining Job Satisfaction - Literature review Example

Management & Organisational Behaviour GSBS6020 Trimester 2, 2010 The relationship between supervisor and employee will determine job satisfaction: By: ABDULRAHMAN ALQASIR Student No: 3083545 Introduction The relationship between supervisor and employee and job satisfaction is a subject of debate in organizations and this leads to studies being done to measure the exact influence of the relationship and how it affects the organizations (Petersitzke 2008). In organizational settings, employees work under supervision. The kind of relationship between the supervisor and subordinate inevitably affects the employee’s performance. The way an employee feels about his job determines how he does it (Hosie, Sevastos, Cooper, 2006). Dissatisfied employees find no enjoyment in their work (Callaway, 2007). Agruably, varied factors affect an employee’s performance, at though sowe hold the belief that employee performance is depended on to the supervisory relationship. Critics or this view claim that job satisfaction is not wholly determined by the employee-supervisory relationship but by other factors (Srivastva, 1975). This paper reviews the arguments supporting and opposing the proposition that there is the relationship between supervisor and employee determine job satisfaction the paper begin with the introduction, background, literature review, theories on job satisfaction and finally the conclusion. The articles reviewed for this paper reveal the following key arguments in favor to the proposition that a relationship between supervisor employees determines job satisfaction. Scholars studying organizational dynamics have recognized that most of employees’ difficulties are an outcome of the relationship between employee and supervisor. Their findings reveal a telling but distressing twist, that the majority of the supervisors are not aware of the impact of the relationship on the effectiveness of a subordinate (Childress & Childress, 2007, p23). A consistent finding confirms that employees are very dexterous at reading the signals of their supervisors. Thus they hastily learn the supervisor’s negative attitude toward them. This inevitably strains the relationship between the employee and the supervisor. In such an environment, the affected employee will hardly derive satisfaction from his job as he would be suffering from low self esteem and morale. Unfortunately, the supervisor may not be aware of her own unintentional culpability (Lussier 1989). Further studies reveal that supervisors classify their subordinates as either good or not good at what they do in the first days on the job (Callaway 2007). Once a subordinate has been classified in a group, it is unlikely that the supervisor will reclassify him regardless of how much better he becomes. If the supposedly poor employee is actually indicating positive performance abilities that go unrecognized, he will feel frustrated and he will not be able to derive satisfaction from his job. The set up to fail syndrome to depict the outcome of connection between the employee and the supervisor (Saari & Judge 2004). At the outset of this relationship, the two have a cordial relationship. However, an insignificant by the employee triggers increased vigilance and supervision. The supervisor acquires an amplified attentiveness to errors the subordinate make albeit the majority are unimportant. Consequently the employee recognizes the absence of trust and abhors the heightened supervision. The one time amiable working relationship grows strained with the outcome invariably being an excessively callous or aloof supervisor and a subordinate who is discouraged, apprehensive and tottering around quitting. Such a subordinate will not only never derive any satisfaction in his work, he would dread coming to work, resulting in cases of absenteeism. Contrary to the above arguments, others argue that there is no relationship between supervisor and employee and job satisfaction. The literature suggests the following in support of this contention. Hackman and Oldham argue that job satisfaction is determined by the employee’s job expectations, the things that individuals looks for or need from a job such as security, remuneration, status and autonomy. They argue that some employees have more heightened expectations for jobs than others. This they claim leads to dissatisfaction in the job (Lussier 1989, p155). The Hawthorne studies demonstrated that new changes in work environment provisionally enhanced productivity. These studies further established that the enhanced productivity was not a consequence of the new environment, but from the workers knowledge that they were under observation, that is supervision. This led to low morale and less job satisfaction (Childress & Childress, 2007 p25) Locke’s ‘range of affect’ theory hypotheses that satisfaction is influenced by inconsistency between the perks employees wish for in a job and the actual extras employees have in a job (Saari & Judge, 2004 p396). In addition, Range of affect Theory argues that the degree with which an employee values a particular perk of a job, for instance, the status that comes with a particular position, influences how satisfied/or dissatisfied the employee is when anticipations are not met or dashed. If the employee principles are a section of the satisfaction of the job, it significantly influenced both positively if anticipations are met and negatively if hopes are dashed, contrasted to an employee who does not value that perk. To demonstrate the range of affect theory, if one subordinate values status in the place of work and anther subordinate is unconcerned about status, the former subordinate would be further satisfied in a position that proffers an elevated degree of status and would be less contented with a situation with limited or no status compared to the latter subordinate. The range of affect theory also argues that large amounts of a given perk will generate stronger feelings of dissatisfaction the more an employee values that perk. A different but familiar job satisfaction hypothesis is the dispositional theory. Dispositional theory is a very broad hypothesis that suggests that individuals posses intrinsic temperaments that influences them to have a penchant for a definite level of satisfaction, in spite of his or her job. This advance became a prominent clarification of job satisfaction in light of proof that job satisfaction is inclined to be unwavering at the end of the day, across careers and jobs (Childress & Childress, 2007, p27). An important representation which saw the introduction and expansion of the theory of dispositional is the model of basic self-appraisal (Lussier, 1989). He asserted that there are some basic self-appraisals which influence an employee’s temperament towards job satisfaction: locus of control, sense of worth, neuroticism and common self-efficacy. This representation suggests that heightened stages of self-esteem and well known self-efficacy gave rise to rising of the levels of job satisfaction. Obtaining an intrinsic point of power brings about an elevated satisfaction in the job place. Still, points of neuroticism gave rise to high levels of satisfaction in the job place. Herzberg’s two factor theory hypothesis seeks to explain motivation and job satisfaction as elements which are important in the job place. This theory further explains that dissatisfaction and satisfaction in the job place is influenced by several dynamics namely hygiene dynamics and hygiene motivation dynamics. This theory explains that a motivating factor which impacts the success of employees is related positively and strongly to the satisfaction of the employees. Motivation in this case is considered an inner power which makes individuals to achieve the set goals and targets that they have in mind about the organization. Motivating dynamics are those facets of the job that trigger employees to want to perform, and proffers employees with satisfaction such as accomplishment in work, appreciation and prospects for promotion. These motivating dynamics are thought to be innate to the job, or the work done. Hygiene dynamics comprise facets of the working environment for example compensation, supervisory practices, organizational strategies and other conditions of work (Hosie et al, 2006). Even as Hertzberg's model roused many investigations into this subject, scholars have not been able to dependably practically verify the model, with Hackman & Oldham arguing that Hertzberg's creative idea of the representation may have been a practical piece. In addition, the hypothesis does not reflect on individual disparities, equally expecting all subordinates to respond in a similar way to alterations in motivational or hygiene dynamics. Finally, the representation has the disadvantages that it does not quantify the hygiene dynamics and motivational factors (Srivastva, 1975). Hackman and Oldham proposed job characteristics model which suggests five important characteristics of the job place need to be put into consideration. These characteristics are task importance, task distinctiveness, expertise diversity, response and independence. These characteristics are further thought to influence the three psychological conditions which take place in the working environment. These conditions are accountability for results experiences, experienced significance, in turn influencing work outcomes such as absenteeism, job satisfaction, work motivation (Sias, 2009). In conclusion, the relationship between supervisor-employee and job satisfaction is remarkably complex and entails numerous determining dynamics. It is argued that an affable relationship between supervisor and employee leads to job satisfaction. On the other hand it also argued that job satisfaction has no direct correlation to the supervisor-employee relationship but is dependent on varied dynamics including the expectations the employee has about the job and what the job actually proffers him or her. It is common, however that an amiable supervisor-employee relationship builds the employee’s morale, and makes him to feel positive about his job, especially when his efforts are recognized and rewarded. This increases him satisfaction in the job as employees strives to achieve both organizational and personal goals. Though merely one of the dynamics that determines job satisfaction, nevertheless valid, it would then be misguiding to argue against the existence of a correlation between supervisor-employee relationship and job satisfaction. This paper has introduced, given the background, the literature review and theories concerning supervision at work. Bibliography Petersitzke, M. Supervisor Psychological Contracts Management. Gabler Verlag, 2008 pp 7-33 Patricia M. Sias. (2009). Relationship organization: Traditional and upcoming Perspectives on relationhips in the workplace, pp26-34 Peter Hosie, Peter Sevastos, Cary L. Cooper. (2006). Happy-performing managers: the impact of affective wellbeing and intrinsic job satisfaction in the workplace. New horizons in management, pp 9-44 Phuong L. Callaway. (2007). The Relationship of Organizational Trust and Job Satisfaction: An Analysis in the U.S. Federal Work Force, pp 17-22 Quin Childress, Pat Childress. (2007). 4-Square Human Development System: A Comprehensive Process for Human Behavior and Performance Development, pp23-37 Robert N. Lussier.(1989). Supervision: A skill-building approach, Irwin series in management and the behavioral sciences, Irwin, pp 154-162 Judge, T. A. and Saari, L. M. (2004). Attitudes of employees and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43(8), 395-407. Srivastva, S.( 1975) Job productivity and satisfaction: an appraisal of policy related research on industrial organization, productivity, and job satisfaction, policy development and implementation, Dept. of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University, pp 34-36, 329. Read More