The paper “ The Relationship between Supervisor and Employee in Determining Job Satisfaction” is an apposite example of a literature review on human resources. 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). Arguably, varied factors affect an employee’ s performance, though he holds the belief that employee performance is dependent on the supervisory relationship. Critics of 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 to determine job satisfaction the paper begins 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 of the proposition that a relationship between supervisor employees determines job satisfaction.
Scholars studying organizational dynamics have recognized that most of the 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, 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, but he would also dread coming to work, resulting in cases of absenteeism.