job satisfaction and teamwork

7/30/2019 Job Satisfaction and Teamwork

1/15

Job Satisfaction and Teamwork: The Role of Supervisor SupportAuthor(s): Mark A. Griffin, Malcolm G. Patterson, Michael A. WestSource: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 5 (Aug., 2001), pp. 537-550Published by: John Wiley & SonsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649557

Accessed: 02/02/2010 23:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jwiley.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

John Wiley & Sons is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Organizational Behavior.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649557?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jwileyhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jwileyhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3649557?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

Journal of Organizational BehaviorJ. Organiz. Behav. 22, 537-550 (2001)DOI: 10.1002/job.101

Job satisfaction and teamwork:the role of supervisor supportMARK A. GRIFFIN1*, MALCOLM G. PATTERSON2 ANDMICHAEL A. WEST31QueenslandUniversityof Technology,Brisbane,Australia2TheUniversityof Sheffield,Sheffield,U.K.3TheUniversityof Aston, Aston, U.K.

Summary The linkbetween teamworkandjob satisfactionwas investigated n a sampleof 48 manufac-turing companies comprising 4708 employees. Two separate research questions wereaddressed.First, it was proposedthat supervisor supportwould be a weaker source of jobsatisfaction in companieswith higher levels of teamworking.Multilevel analysis indicatedthat the extent of teamwork at the company level of analysis moderated the relationshipbetween individualperceptionsof supervisor upportand ob satisfaction.Second,it waspro-posedthatthe extentof teamworkwouldbe positivelyrelatedto perceptionsof job autonomybutnegativelyrelatedto perceptionsof supervisorsupport.Further, t was proposedthat thelink between teamworkandjob autonomywould be explainedby job enrichmentpracticesassociated with teamwork.Analyses of aggregatedcompany data supported hese proposi-tions andprovidedevidence for a complexmediationalpathbetweenteamworkand ob satis-faction. Implicationsfor implementingteamwork n organizationsare discussed. Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

IntroductionTeamwork typically involves groups of interdependent employees who work cooperatively to achievegroup outcomes (Parkerand Wall, 1998). Effective team implementation can enhance the motivationalproperties of work and increase job satisfaction. However, the job satisfaction of team members isdetermined by multiple factors such as the composition of the team, group processes within the team,and the nature of the work itself (Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984). Because these factors operatein combination, there is no simple process through which teamwork influences job satisfaction.Despite the potential advantages of teamwork, the introduction of teams sometimes fails to result inexpected outcomes for individuals and organizations (Hackman, 1990). This paper explores ways inwhich changes in leadership roles influence overall job satisfaction in teams.Within the broad field of leadership, we focus on employee experiences of supervisor support: theextent to which supervisors provide encouragement and support to employees within their work*Correspondenceo: MarkA. Griffin,School of Management,QueenslandUniversityof Technology,Brisbane,4001, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

Received 5 June 1999Accepted 6 November 2000

Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. Published online 26 June 2001


3/15

538 M. A. GRIFFINETAL.

groups.The supportand considerationof supervisors s a strongdeterminantof job satisfaction n awide varietyof worksettings(Yukl,1989).Theoretically,betterunderstandingboutthe roleof leader-ship changesin teamsmay help explainsome inconsistentresearch indingsconcerningthe impactofteamworkon satisfaction.On a practical evel, it is importanto identifyfactors thatwill facilitatetheeffective implementationof teamsin the workplace.Weexplored herelationshipbetween teams andsatisfactionusingdata rom alargeresearchprojectin the U.K. thatinvestigatedmanagementpracticesandemployee attitudes n manufacturing ompa-nies. Data fromtheprojectwere used to assess researchquestionsabout ob satisfactionattwolevels ofanalysis.First,we focused on the individual evel of analysisto investigatethe importanceof super-visor supportfor job satisfaction when teams are introduced n companies. This level of analysisallowed us to assess the degree to which the link between supervisorsupportandjob satisfactionwas influencedby the extent of teamwork n eachcompany.Second,we focused on thecompany evelof analysis to investigatedifferencesin averagesatisfactionlevels across companies.This analysisenabledus to differentiate he role of teamworkfrom more general job enrichmentpracticesand toinvestigatehow these practiceswere linked, via supervisorsupport, o job satisfaction.Analyses atthe differentlevels drawon the strengthsof a multi-organization ample in which informationwasobtainedfrom individualemployees, manager nterviews,andcompanyrecords.

Individual Level: The Changing Impact of Supervisor SupportSupervisorsplay animportant ole in structuringhework environmentandproviding nformationandfeedback to employees.As a consequence, supervisorbehaviorshave animpacton the affectivereac-tions of team members(Durhamet al., 1997). However, ntroducing eamscan resultin a significantchange to the role of supervisorswithin organizations Tannenbaum t al., 1996). Parkerand Wall(1998) identifya numberof optionsfor leadershiproles in teams. These optionsrangefromthe com-plete eliminationof supervisorypositionsto the retentionof supervisorypositionsbut with redefinedrole requirements uch as facilitation.All of these options changethe role of supervisors n teams sothat supervision s a less important ource of supportand direction(Kerret al., 1986).Our firstgoal was to investigatethe impactof supervisorsupporton employee satisfaction underdifferentlevels of team implementation.Little researchhas tested whetherthe impactof leadershipchanges when teams are introduced.One possible consequenceof the changingrole of supervisionwhenteams are introduced s that thetraditional upportprovidedby supervisorsbecomes less impor-tant foremployeesatisfaction.Therefore, hereshouldbe a weaker inkbetweentheperceived suppor-tiveness of supervisorsandthe satisfaction evels of employees in companieswhere teams havebeenintroduced.The companiesin the presentstudydifferedin the degree to which they had introducedteamwork. Some companies had made no change toward the use of teams, some had imple-mented teamwork across the whole organization,and others had introduced minimal elements ofteamworking.

Althoughleadershipmay have less influenceon satisfactionfor employees workingin teams,thisdoes not mean thata supervisor's supporthas no impacton satisfaction.Leadership s consistentlyrecognized as importantfor the initiationand ongoing developmentof teams (Bass, 1997; Manzand Sims, 1987, Tjosvold, 1995) and is often included as an importantdeterminant n models ofteamsatisfaction e.g., Campionet al., 1993;Cohen et al., 1996;Gladstein,1984). Intraditionalworkstructures,supervisorshave long been recognized to play an important part in developing rolesand expectationsof employees (Graenand Scandura,1987). This function is also importantwhen

Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz.Behav.22, 537-550 (2001)


4/15

JOBSATISFACTIONAND TEAMS 539teamworks introducedbecausesupervisors anplay a key role in modellingteamworkandsettingthegroundrules for team membersto engage in team processes (McIntyreand Salas, 1995). Immediatesupervisorsalso providesalient informationaboutthe supportof the broaderorganization or changeand their behaviorsare likely to be interpretedas representativeof wider organizationalprocesses(KozlowskiandDoherty,1989).Therefore,althoughwe proposethatsupervisor upportwill be a lessimportant ourceof satisfactionwhen teams are introduced,we also proposethatsupervisorsupportwill continueto exerta positive influenceon employee satisfaction.Based on the above discussion,hypotheseswere developedto predictthe overallimpactof super-visor supporton job satisfaction,variation n the impactof supervisorsupporton satisfactionacrosscompanies,anda link between the extentof teamworkandthe importanceof supervisor upport.First,we proposedthat the overall linkbetweenjob supervisorsupportandjob satisfactionwill be positiveregardlessof the level of teamwork n an organization.

Hypothesis 1: Supervisor support will have a positive impact on job satisfaction across allcompanies.Next we proposed hattherewouldbe systematicvariationn the link betweenperceptionsof super-visor supportand satisfaction acrossthe rangeof companiesin the study.It is important o establishthis variationbecause it demonstrates hat the link between supervisorsupportand satisfaction s notthe same within differentcompanies.Hypothesis2: Therelationshipbetweenperceptionsof supervisor upportand ob satisfactionwillvary systematicallyacrosscompanies.If hypothesis2 is supported, t allows the possibilitythat variation n the link between supervisorsupportandsatisfactioncan be explainedby companylevel differences.Ourkey hypothesiswas thatthese differences could be explained by the extent of teamwork n each company.Therefore,the fol-lowing hypothesiswas tested.Hypothesis3: Supervisor supportwill be more stronglyrelatedto job satisfaction in companieswith higherlevels of teamworkcompared o companieswith lower levels of teamwork.The studyalso assessed otherorganizational haracteristics hatmightinfluence ob satisfaction.Inparticular, he performanceof the company is likely to influence the level of job satisfactionofemployeesin the company(Ryanet al., 1996). Companieswithhigherlevels of productivityandper-formance are likely to have more resources, greatersecurity,and provide more opportunitiesforemployees.The directionof the effect betweenorganizationalperformanceandemployee satisfactionhasreceived little researchattention Ostroff, 1992).The current tudyusedproductivityas a companylevel control measure o account for otherfactorsnot associatedwith teamwork.Similarly, he size ofthe organizationalunit may have an impacton individual ob satisfactionbecause smaller establish-ments tend to be asociated with more satisfiedworkers(LaRocco, 1985; Steers and Rhodes, 1987).

Analysis by Clark(1996) suggestedthatgreaterprovisionof intrinsicrewards e.g., relationsatwork)fromsmallerorganizations esultsin significantlyraisedsatisfaction n thoseworkerswho value suchcharacteristics.Therefore,organizational ize was also includedas a controlvariable.The followinghypothesestested the role of these two measures at the companylevel of analysis.Hypothesis 4: Companies with higher profit levels will report higher overall levels of jobsatisfaction.Hypothesis5: Companieswith moreemployeeswill report ower overall levels ofjob satisfaction.

Copyright 2001JohnWiley& Sons,Ltd. J. Organiz. ehav. 2, 537-550(2001)


5/15


Figure 1. Hypothesizedcross-level influenceson job satisfaction

Figure1 summarizes he hypotheticalrelationships hatwere investigated.The figuredifferentiatesmeasuresobtainedat the individual evel of analysisfrom thoseobtainedat the company evel of ana-lysis. At the individual evel, perceptionsof supervisorsupportandjob satisfactionwere assessed.Atthe organizationalevel, the extent of teamwork,profitability,andcompanysize were assessed.

Company Level: The Mediational Role of SupervisorSupport and Job AutonomyIn additionto changingthe role of supervisors, he introductionof teams is typicallyaccompaniedbychangesto the designof workroles for employees.We focused onjob enrichmentpracticesas a com-mon practicecarriedout by organizationsaimingto redesignthe workplace. These practices ncludeincreasingthe responsibilitiesof employees, the variety of tasks performed,and the flexibility toimplementtasks.Research n the areaof job enrichmenthas consistentlydemonstratedpositivelinksto employee satisfaction(Hackmanand Oldham, 1980; Neuman et al., 1989). A key outcome foremployees from job enrichmentpractices is the experience of job autonomy:the extent to whichemployees experience a sense of choice and discretion in their work. There is also a long line ofresearchsupporting he positive impactof job autonomyonjob satisfaction(ParkerandWall, 1998).Jobenrichmentpractices,suchas increasing ob variety,canresult n higher ob satisfactionbecauseof higherlevels of perceivedautonomy.The introductionof teamwork s also often undertakenwiththe goal of creatinganenriched workenvironment n which employeescan experience greaterauton-omy (Wallet al., 1986).Evidence suggeststhat teamswith higherlevels of autonomyaremore effec-tive (Beekun, 1989). However,job enrichmentpracticesare not necessarilyimplemented throughateamwork structure.For example, job variety may be increasedthrougha job rotationprogrammeor througha team structure n which team members share all tasks. In both cases we expect thatthe enrichmentpracticeof increased ob varietywill result in higherlevels of job satisfaction.How-ever, wherejob enrichment s partof a teamworkwe expect less direct support or employees fromsupervisors.In this way, supervisorsupportcan be lower when teams are introduced.



6/15

JOBSATISFACTIONNDTEAMS 541Measuresobtained Measuresobtained romfromcompany individuals

Job PathC JobEnrichment + S Autonomy Job.fpa+hPathPa Eath JobPathD PathSp o SatisfactionExtent of / SupervisoryTeamwork 'B Support|I~ ~ PathBControlMeasures

Figure 2. Hypothesizedrelationshipsamongorganizationalevel constructs

We hypothesized that job enrichment associated with the introduction of teams results ingreaterautonomyfor employeesbutthatteam structures hemselvesreduce levels of supervisorsup-port.In this way, teamworkcan indirectly nfluencejob satisfaction n both a positive anda negativedirection.The proposednegative impactof teamson supervisorsupport s implicitin the literatureonteams but has not been tested directly. Support or this negative impactwould provideone explana-tion for the difficulties associated with the introduction of teams and suggest an importantmechanism for managing the transition from more traditionalwork structures to teamwork. Anegative impactof teamwork on supervisorsupportwould highlightthe need to ensure support orthe functional role of leadersparticularlyduringtransition.Overall,if the introductionof teams isnot associated with effective adaptationof supervisoryroles, there may be negative outcomes forteams (Komakiet al., 1989).Figure2 depictstheproposedmediationalroleplayedbyjob autonomyandsupervisor upportat thecompanylevel of analysis.This level of analysisallowedus to investigatethe mediationalprocessesthroughwhich teamworkand leadershipperceptions nfluencejob satisfaction.The model does notproposethat satisfaction is a collective construct but provides an opportunity o investigatefactorsassociated with averagedifferences across companies.The figuredistinguishesbetween the extentof teamworkin an organizationand the degree of job enrichment n the workplace.Althoughthetwo constructs are distinct,teamworkandjob enrichmentwere expected to be correlated(PathA)because the introductionof teams is typicallyassociatedwithchangesinjob design (ParkerandWall,1998).The introduction f teamswas expectedto havea directnegative mpacton levels of supervisorsupport PathB). Thatis, the introductionof teamsitself can reduce the level of supervisor upport norganizations.Jobenrichmentwas expectedto lead to higherlevels of job autonomy(PathC). Therewas expectedto be no directeffectof the extentof teamworkonjob autonomy PathD) as thisrelation-shipis explainedby the correlationwithjob enrichment.Jobenrichment hatprovides greater lexibil-ity and control was expected to have no direct influenceon the levels of supervisorsupportwithinteams (Path E).Jobautonomyhas beenfound to mediatetheimpactofjob enrichmenton teamoutcomes(Janzet al.,1997).Therefore,both supervisorsupportandjob autonomywere expectedto have a positive impacton job satisfaction(PathF and PathG, respectively).In summary,we proposed hattypicalteaminterventionsmayreduce the level of supervisor upportin the workplace by focusing on increasedflexibilityand autonomyfor employees. However,if the

Copyright ? 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz.Behav.22, 537-550 (2001)


7/15


ContextualSidebarThe companiesThecompanieswere spread hroughoutheUnitedKingdon,andweredrawn rom the manufactureof metalgoods and mechanicalengineeringsector,plasticsandrubber ector,and a thirdmiscella-neous category.They were predominantly ingle site andaveragedapproximately260 employees.Almost all the firmsreportedundergoingsignificantchangein structureand workdesign.Over80per cent of companies reported greaterdecentralization.However,when senior managerswereasked to indicatethe lowest hierarchicalevel whereemployeeshadthe authority o makeselecteddecisions, responsesrevealed thatsupervisorsand operatorsmostly had limited opportunities ordecision making.Workers' views of the workplaceOrganizationalclimate surveys conducted across the companies reinforced the perceptionthatchanges in HRM and empowermentwere implementedwith limited effectiveness. Employeesreported ow levels of participation,ack of open communication,and little decentralization.Pres-sure on employees to produceandformalization the use of rulesand formalprocedures o controlactivities)dominatedemployees' perceptionsof theirorganizations.TimeThe studywas conducted between 1994 and 1995.

positive impactof supervisorysupport s reduced,thenthe overallchangein satisfactionmay be lessthanexpectedif the change is not compensated or by otherchangesin the workplace.

MethodSampleandprocedureThe companiesin this study were 48 manufacturing ompaniesin the U.K. thatwere involved in alargerprojectexaminingorganizationaldesign,managementpractices,employeeattitudes,nnovationandeconomicperformance.Thecompaniesranged n size from 60 to 1929employees,withanaverageof 246 employees (SD= 318.8). Teams had been introduced o varyingdegrees across the rangeofcompanies.The companieswere predominantly ingle site and single productoperations.Measuresatthe individual evel of analysiswere obtained hrougha surveyof all staffin eachcom-pany.Data werecollectedon employeejob satisfaction,andemployeeperceptionsof supervisory up-port and work autonomy.In most companies 100 per cent of employees were surveyed but incompanieswith morethan 500 employees (n= 3) a randomsamplewas taken.Responserateswithincompaniesrangedfrom 5-100 per cent with a mean responserate of 52.5 per cent (SD= 26.4 percent). The questionnaire urveyswere eitherdistributed o employees by the organizationor handedto employeeson-siteby a memberof theresearch eam. Listwisedeletion of missingcasesresulted n afinal samplefor analysesof 4708 in 48 companies.Individualmeasures used in the second analysiswere aggregated o the companylevel of analysis.Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz.Behav.22, 537-550 (2001)


8/15

JOB SATISFACTIONAND TEAMS 543Measuresof teamworkingandjob enrichmentwere collected at the companylevel throughon-site,

in-depth,semi-structurednterviewswith senior managersand directors.The interviewinformationformed the basis of researcher atingsof teamworkingandjob enrichment.We did not rely on man-agers' ratingsbecause theirresponseswerenot similarlyanchoredacrosscompanies.Forexample,aninexperiencedmanager n one company mightratea rather imitedimplementationof job enrichmentas disproportionallyubstantial.The field-researchers'had contactwith managersandexperienceofworkconditionsacrossall companiesin the study.Individual level measuresJob satisfactionwas measuredby Warret al. (1979) 15-item measure(alpha= 0.92). The scale wasdevelopedand standardizedn previousresearchon blue-collaremployees (Cook et al., 1981;CookandWall, 1980).Theresponseformatranged romextremelydissatisfied(1) to extremely atisfied(7).Supervisory upportwas measuredby five items (alpha= 0.88) from anindex of organizational li-matedevelopedforuse with blue-collar workers(Lawthomet al., 1997). The responseformatrangedfromdefinitelyalse (1) to definitely rue(4). An exampleitem was 'Supervisorshere arefriendlyandeasy to approach'.Workautonomywas measuredby four items (alpha= 0.68) fromthe same index of organizationalclimate used to assess supervisorysupport Lawthomet al., 1997). The responseformatrangedfromdefinitelyalse (1) to definitely rue(4). An exampleitemwas 'Managementet peoplemaketheir owndecisions most of the time'.

Company level measuresTeamworkThe interviewquestionscovered thedegreeto whichteams,rather han ndividuals,hadresponsibilityfor work, the structureof the teams, how they were managedand how targetswere set. Using thisinformation,researchersrated the degree to which teamworkinghad been implemented. Scoringwas on a 4th-pointscale from 'not at all' to 'extensively'.Job enrichmentThe interview covered the following aspectsof job design: the extent of job rotation;the extent ofmultiskillingof shopflooremployees;thecycle timein thetypicaljob; theextentto whichthemanage-ment of materialsandworkin progresswas delegatedto shopfloorstaff;the amountof responsibilityoperatorshad for dealing the technology, including minor breakdowns,routine maintenanceandmachineset-up;andthe discretionthey had for decidingon when to takebreaksand for the methodsused to completetheirwork.Using thisinformation, omplementedby documentarye.g., job descrip-tions) and observationalevidence (e.g., shopfloorbehaviour and comments), researchersrated thedegreeof job enrichmenton thefollowingdimensions: he extent of skill flexibilityof shopfloorwork-ers, the extent of job variety,and the degree of job responsibility.Scoring was on an appropriatelyworded 7-point scale running,for example, from very low (1) to very high (7). Cronbach'salphaforjob enrichmentwas 0.84.Control measuresControlmeasures ncluded were firmsize andcompanyproductivity.Firmsize was representedby thelogarithm to compensatefor skewness)of totalemployment. Following priorwork(Pritchard,1992,Huselid, 1995), productivitywas measuredby the logarithmof sales per employee.Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. ehav. 2, 537-550(2001)


9/15

544 M.A. GRIFFINTAL.Table 1. Correlationsamongall measurescalculated at the individual evel (n= 4708) andat the companylevel(n = 48)

1 2 3 4 5 6 71. Teamwork 1.00 0.02 0.01 0.50t -0.25* -0.18 0.26*2. Size -0.171 1.00 0.11 -0.03 0.09 0.10 0.073. Profit 0.11t 0.37t 1.00 0.25* 0.07 0.38t 0.204. Job enrichment 0.55* -0.21t 0.21t 1.00 0.01 0.14 0.50t5. Supervisorsupport - 0.101 - 0.02 -0.07t -0.01 1.00 0.34t 0.016. Satisfaction -0.05t 0.07t O.10t 0.04t 0.56t 1.00 0.34t7. Autonomy 0.08t 0.02 0.04t 0.15t 0.22t 0.32T 1.00*p< 0.05;tp< 0.01;tp< 0.001.Note: Individualevel correlationselow the diagonal,aggregateevel correlation bovethe diagonal. ndividualevelcorrelationsomputed y disaggregatingompanyevel measures o each individualn the company ndcompanyevelcorrelationsomputedyaggregatingndividualmeasures ithin ompanies.

Correlationsamong the variablesat both the individual and the aggregatelevel are reported nTable 1.

AnalysisHypotheses nvolvingsatisfactionatthe individual evel requireda cross-levelanalysisin whichorga-nizational characteristics moderaterelationshipsamong individual perceptions (Rousseau, 1985;Hofmann et al., 2000). The hypotheseswere assessed using hierarchical inearmodels (HLM,BrykandRaudenbush,1992). The HLManrocedure s an appropriate rocedure or linking companylevelmeasures and individual measures when the dependent variable is assessed at the individual level ofanalysis.The HLMprocedure s a two stage strategy hat,in the firststage,estimateswithin-companyparameterseparately oreach of thecompaniesusingthe individual evel variables.Specifically, ndi-vidual ob satisfactionwas regressedon supervisor upportwithin each of the 48 companies.This ana-lysis providesestimatesof the interceptandslopeparameters cross all companies.The average slopeof satisfactionregressedon supervisor upportestimates the overall linkbetween these two individualmeasures(Hypothesis1). The variance n the intercept ermrepresentsmeandifferencesin job satis-factionacrosscompaniesaftercontrollingfor individualperceptionsof supervisor upport.Across allcompanies, the variance in the slope of satisfactionregressedon supervisorsupportestimates thedegreeto which therelationshipbetween supervisorsupportandsatisfactionvaries acrosscompanies(Hypothesis2). The secondstageof the analysisinvestigatescompany evel predictorsof the variancein the interceptand slope. If there is significantvariation n the link between supervisorsupportandsatisfaction,the second stage of the analysistests whethercompanylevel measureof teamworkpre-dicts variation in the relationship among the individual variables (Hypothesis 3). The second stage ofthe analysisalso testswhethervariation n the intercept s predictedby the company evel measuresofprofitabilityandcompanysize (Hypotheses4 and5).Structural quationmodeling(SEM)was used to test themediationalmodel incorporatingob satis-factionatthe company evel of analysis.LISRELVIII(JoreskogandSorbom,1993)was usedto esti-mate thepathsdepictedin Figure2 andto estimate theoverallfit of the hypothesizedmodel. Becauseof therelativelysmallsamplesize atthis level, scale scores were used to assess eachconstruct Bentlerand Chou, 1988). For measures based on aggregated ndividualscores, the measurementerror wasestimatedas being equalto thevarianceof thescalemultipliedby one minus thereliabilityof the scale(AndersonandGerbing,1988).Themeasuresof teamworkand ob enrichmentwere assumed o haveareliabilityof 0.9 andcompany profitand size were assumedto have no measurement rror.



10/15

JOB SATISFACTIONAND TEAMS 545

ResultsThe first step in the HLM analysis estimated the impact of supervisorysupporton satisfactionwithin companies. Table 2 reportsthe results for this analysis. The pooled value for the effect ofsupervisorysupportwas significantlypositive, indicating that supervisory supporthad an overallpositive impacton satisfaction acrossall companies (/ )=0.91, p < 0.001). The results of the HLManalysis also estimated varianceof 0.15 in the parameterestimates around the pooled estimate of0.91 indicating hat theimpactof supervisory upportwaspositiveacrossall 48 companies, supportingHypothesis 1.Table 2 also shows the variance n thispooled estimatepotogether with a chi-square est of the statis-tical significanceof the variation.The interceptvaluerepresents he meanlevel of satisfactionacrossthe 48 companiesaftercontrolling orsupervisory upport Hofmannet al., 2000). The variationn theintercepttermdescribes the differences across companiesin mean levels of satisfaction. The HLMresults show that there was significant variation in mean satisfaction across organizations(2(47) = 692.14, p < 0.001) and significantvariation n the slope of satisfactionwhen regressedonsupervisorysupportperceptions n each organization 2(47) = 390.10, p < 0.001). The latterresultsupportsHypothesis2 whichproposed herewould be significantvariationn therelationshipbetweensupervisorysupportandjob satisfaction acrosscompanies.Thenextstepin the HLManalysiswas to introducecompany evel predictorsof the variationacrosscompanies.The extent of teamwork,companysize, andcompany profitabilitywere enteredas predic-tors of variation n mean levels of satisfaction(intercept),and variation n the slope of satisfactionregressedon leadership.Table 3 summarizes he results of this stageof the HLManalysis.In supportof Hypothesis3, the extent of teamworkwas a significantpredictorof the variation n the slope ofsatisfactionregressedon leadership 0= - 0.147, p < 0.05). The directionof the result indicatedthatthe impactof leadershipon job satisfactionwas weakerwhen organizationsreportedhigherlevels ofteamwork.The resultsin Table3 also show thatprofitabilitywas positively associated with averagelevels ofsatisfactionacrosscompanies(0 = 0.238,p < 0.01). SupportingHypothesis4, Companieswithhigherprofit evels reportedhigher evels of job satisfaction.Companysize was notrelated o variation nanyof the within-companymeasures.Therefore,Hypothesis5 was not supported.The results of the HLManalysissupported he proposition hatsupervisory upport s a less impor-tant source of individualjob satisfactionwhen there was greateruse of teams within a company.Although supervisorysupporthad less impacton satisfaction,the resultsalso indicatedthatsupervi-sorysupport emaineda significant nfluenceonjob satisfaction.Therefore,whenteamswereusedto agreaterextent, leadershipbecame less importantbutnot unimportant.

Table . Results f HLManalysis ncludingndividualevelmeasures fjobsatisfaction ndsupervisorupportPredictor Pooled T-value Parameter Chi-squareparameter variance valueestimateIntercept 4.45 84.47* 0.12 692.14*Supervisorupport 0.91 14.23* 0.15 390.10**p < 0.001.

Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz.Behav. 22, 537-550 (2001)


11/15

546 M. A. GRIFFIN TAL.Table3. Resultsof HLManalyses ncorporatingompany evel predictorsPredictor Parameter T-valueestimatePredictionof interceptTeamwork - 0.059 -1.11Size -0.003 - 0.04

Profitability 0.238 2.41tPredictionof relationshipbetweensupervisorysupportand satisfactionTeamwork - 0.147 - 2.14*Size - 0.067 0.79Profitability - 0.080 - 0.68

*p< 0.05;tp< 0.01.

The next partof the study exploredimplicationsof the mediationalprocesses linking teamwork,supervisory support, and job satisfaction. The analysis tested the hypothetical model depicted inFigure 2. The SEM model provided a very good fit to the data (X2(3) = 3.22, p > 0.05, GFI = 0.98).The fit of the model suggested that additionalpaths were not necessary to explain the covariationamongthe measures.The final estimates foreach patharepresented n Figure2. The sign and statis-tical significanceof thepathssupported he hypotheticalmodel. The extent of teamwork n organiza-tions was negatively related to perceptions of supervisory support (3 = - 0.42, p < 0.05) and was notrelated to perceptions of job autonomy (o = 0.04, n.s.). Job enrichment was positively related to jobautonomy(/ = 0.60, p < 0.01) but was not significantlyrelated to perceptionsof supervisorysupport(p = 0.23, n.s.). Bothjob autonomyandsupervisory upportwere significantpredictorsof job satisfac-tion (/ = 0.31, p < 0.01 and 3= 0.36, p < 0.01 respectively).The controlvariable of company profitwas enteredin the model as a predictorof all othermeasures.The results indicated thatprofitwassignificantlyanddirectlyrelatedonly to job satisfaction(P = 0.30, p < 0.05).The results of the SEM analysis support he proposition hat teamworkcan have a complex impactonjob satisfactionbecauseof the differentways thatteamworkrelatesto job autonomyandsupervi-sorysupport.While bothautonomyandsupervisory upportwereimportantpositiveinfluences onjobsatisfaction,the positive association of teamworkonjob autonomywas explained by job enrichmentthataccompaniedteamworkand could not be attributedo teamwork tself.

Figure3. Finalpathestimatesfrom SEM analysis



12/15

JOB SATISFACTIONAND TEAMS 547

DiscussionThe implementation f teamworkhaspotentialbenefitsforemployeeoutcomesin organizationsandislikely to continue as a majorelement of workredesign(Lawleret al., 1992;ParkerandWall, 1998;Tjosvold,1995).However,greateruse of teamsis associatedwithchangesto thefunctionof leadershipin organizations hat can also influenceemployee satisfaction.The presentstudyexploredthe role ofsupervisorysupport n explainingthe link between teamworkandsatisfaction.In the firstpartof the study,greateruse of teams resultedin a weakerlink between individuals'perceptions of supervisory support and their levels of job satisfaction. The implementationofteams typically involves changes to supervision roles but little empirical research has assessedthe way leadershipfunctions when teams are introduced.The study, therefore,provides evidencefor the implicit assumptionthat supervisory supporthas less impact on employees when teamsare introduced.Even though supervisory supportwas less importantin companies where therewas greateruse of teams, this supportwas still positively related to satisfaction.Therefore, it isnot appropriate o conclude that supervisorysupportwas unimportantwhen there was greateruseof teams.The secondpartof the studyexploredfurthermplications or therole of supervisor upportby test-ing mediationalprocesses linkingteamwork ojob satisfaction.The extentof teamwork n a companyhad a negative impacton overalllevels of supervisory upport.Companiesthatreportedhigheruse ofteamworkalso had employees who reported ower levels of supervisory support.At the same time,supervisory supportdisplayed a strong relationshipwith job satisfaction.Therefore,the impact ofteamwork tself can have a negative impacton overalljob satisfactionbecause of the centralrole ofsupervisorysupport.The link between teamworkand satisfaction was partlyexplained by job enrichmentassociatedwith teamwork.Jobenrichmentpracticesin the workplace were associatedwith increasedlevels ofemployee perceptionsof job autonomy.Increasedautonomywas, in turn, associated with higherlevels of job satisfaction.However,on its own, teamworkwas associatedwith a reduction n super-visory support.The resultsuggeststhat the positive benefitsof job enrichmentassociatedwith team-work may be partially offset by the reduction in levels of supervisory supportexperienced byemployees. In this way, the introduction of teamwork can have mixed effects on employee jobsatisfaction.The extentof teamworkwas not uniquelyrelatedto higherlevels of job autonomy.Rather,auton-omy was explained by the degreeto whichemployee jobs were enrichedby increased skill flexibility,responsibility,and workvariety.Thisresultclearlydemonstratesheimportanceof identifyingthepro-cess throughwhich the introductionof teamwork is expected to enhance employee outcomes. Theintroductionof teams without referenceto specificjob enrichmentpracticesis unlikely to influenceemployee perceptionsabout the quality of their work environment.Furthermore, eamworkitselfcan be expectedto decreasethe degree to which supervisorscan be supportive.

Some implicationscan also be derivedby the relationshipswhich were not observed in the aggre-gatedmediationalmodel. Jobenrichmentpracticesreportedby managerswere notuniquelyrelatedtoaverage evels of supervisory upportacross the organizations. t was noted abovethat leadersplay aparticularly mportant olewhen organizationsncrease theiruse of teams(Tjosvold, 1995). It is pos-sible for changes in work structures o be implementedin ways thatcapitalizeon the potentialforsupervisorsandleadersto supportanddevelopnew workingroles in the organization.Forexample,increased ob varietymaybe implementedn anorganizationwhere teamleaders,supervisor,and man-agers encourageand supportskill developmentof employees. Furthermore, upervisorscan play a



13/15


significant partin enhancingthe motivationalcharacteristicsof the work environmentsuch as jobautonomy.Effective leadersprovidefeedback aboutroles and tasks thatincreaseemployees' positiveexperienceof autonomy.The present study was based on a large scale surveyof employees across multiple organizationstogetherwith in-depth managementinterviews. The scope and multiple methodsprovide a strongbasis for exploringthe implicationsof teamwork forjob satisfaction.Some limitationsof the studyalso raise cautions when interpreting he results.First,the cross-sectionalnatureof the studylimitsthe ability to draw causal inferences from the hypotheticalmodel of relationships among the con-structs. For example, the relative orderingof job satisfaction andsupervisory supportcould not betested in the currentsample.Second, despite the scale of the study,therewas a relativelysmallnum-ber of organizationalunitsfor conductingthe aggregate-level analysis.Structural quationmodellingprocedurestypically use largersamplesthanwere availablein the currentstudy.Nevertheless,rela-tively few parameterswere assessed andspecific hypotheticalpathswere tested. Third,the extent ofteamwork was assessed by a single item which limits assessmentof the measure'sreliability.How-ever, responses to the item were obtained as part of a comprehensiveinterview procedurewithdetailed explanation, and single-item measures of practices have been used in major empiricalstudies in the field of human resource management and corporateperformance (e.g., Huselid,1995, Ichniowskiet al., 1997).Futureresearch shouldfurther nvestigatethe processes throughwhich supervisorbehavior influ-ences satisfaction in teams. The type of supervisorbehaviors that are most supportive may bedifferent in a team environmentcompared to an individual based task environment. The mosteffective supervisorbehaviors may also depend on individual differences among team memberswithin the team. Furtherunderstandingof how supervisorsprovide supportwithin teams will havepracticalbenefits for designingandmanagingteamwork.Futureresearchshouldalso investigatethecharacteristicsof job design and teamworkthat enhance the role that supervisorsplay in a teamenvironment as well as characteristicsof supervisorsthat lead to higher levels of supportivenessin teamwork.Overall, heresultsdemonstratedhattheextentof teamworkreducesthelevel of supervisor upport

in the organizationand,to some extent, the importanceof supervisorysupport or individuals.How-ever,theperceptionof supervisory upport emaineda substantialpredictorof job satisfaction or indi-viduals and for the organizationas a whole. The results of the study suggest it is importanttounderstand ob redesign strategiesthat not only increase experiences such as autonomy,but alsoenhance the effectiveness of supervisorroles.

Author biographiesMark A. Griffinis PrincipalResearchFellow attheSchool of Management,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology, Australia. He received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational sychology from thePennslyvaniaState University.His primaryresearchinterest concerns the link between workplacecharacteristics nd bothindividualwell-being andperformance.His researchaddresses he methodo-logical andpractical mplicationsof questionssuch as the impactof organizational limate on indivi-dual affect, andthe impactof individualperformanceon workplace safety outcomes.Malcolm Patterson is a Research Associate at the Institute of Work Psychology, University ofSheffield. He received his master's degree in occupational psychology from the University ofSheffield. His current esearchexamines therelationshipsbetween humanresourcemanagementprac-tices, employee attitudesandbehaviors,andfirmperformance.Copyright 2001 JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd. J. Organiz.Behav.22, 537-550 (2001)


14/15

JOBSATISFACTIONNDTEAMS 549Michael West is Professor of Organizational Psychology at the University of Aston Business School.He has been a memberof the CorporatePerformanceProgrammeof the Centrefor Economic Perfor-mance at the London School of Economics since 1991. He is a Fellow of the British PsychologicalSociety, the American Psychological Association, the APA Society for Industrial / Organizational Psy-chology and the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. His areas of research interestareteam andorganizationalnnovationandeffectiveness,in healthservice andprivatesectorsettings.His first degree was from the University of Wales in Psychology and Statistics and his PhD from theUniversity of Wales on the Psychology of Meditation.

ReferencesAndersonJC,GerbingDW. 1988. Structuralquationmodelingin practice:a review and recommended wo-stepapproach.PsychologicalBulletin 103: 411-423.Bass BM. 1997. Does the transactional-transformationaleadershipparadigmtranscendorganizationalandnational boundaries.AmericanPsychologist52: 130-139.Beekun RI. 1989. Assessing the effectivenessof sociotechnicalinterventions:antidote or fad. HumanRelations42: 877-897.Bentler PM, Chou CP. 1988. Practicalissues in structuralmodeling. In CommonProblems/ProperSolutions:AvoidingError in QuantitativeResearchLong JS. (ed.). Sage:NewburyPark, CA; 161-192.Bryk AS, RaudenbushSW. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models. Sage: NewburyPark,CA.CampionMA, MedskerGJ, Higgs AC. 1993. Relations between work groupcharacteristicsand effectiveness:implicationsfor designingeffective work groups.PersonnelPsychology46: 823-850.ClarkAE. 1996. Job satisfaction n Britain.BritishJournalof IndustrialRelations34: 189-217.CookJD,HepworthSJ,WallTD, WarrPB. 1981. TheExperienceof Work:A Compendium f 249 Measuresandtheir Use. Academic Press: London.CookJ,Wall TD. 1980. New workattitudemeasuresof trust,organizational ommitmentandpersonalneed non-fulfilment.Journalof OccupationalPsychology53: 39-52.Cohen SG, LedfordGE, SpreitzerGM. 1996. A predictivemodel of self-managingwork team effectiveness.HumanRelations 49: 643-678.DurhamCC, KnightD, Locke EA. 1997. Effects of leaderrole, team-setgoal difficulty,efficacy,and tactics onteameffectiveness.OrganizationalBehavior and HumanDecision Processes 72: 203-231.GladsteinDL. 1984.Groups n context:a model of taskgroupeffectiveness.Administrative cience Quarterly29:499-517.GraenG, ScanduraTA. 1987. Towarda psychologyof dyadicorganizing.Research n OrganizationalBehavior9:175-208.HackmanJR. 1990. GroupsThatWork and ThoseThatDon't). Jossey-Bass:San Francisco.HackmanJR,Oldham GR. 1980. WorkRedesign.Addison-Wesley:Reading,MA.HofmannDA, GriffinMA, Gavin M. 2000. The applicationof hiearchicallinear modeling to managementresearch.In MultilevelTheory,Research,and Methods in Organizations.Klein K, Kozlowski S (eds). JosseyBass: San Francisco.HuselidMA. 1995.Theimpactof humanresourcemanagementpracticeson turnover,productivity, ndcorporate

financialperformance.Academyof ManagementJournal38: 635-672.IchniowskiC, ShawK, PrennushiG. 1997. The effects of humanresourcemanagementpracticeson productivity.AmericanEconomic Review87: 291-313.Janz BD, Colquitt JA, Noe RA. 1997. Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy,interdependence,eamdevelopment,andcontextualsupportvariables.PersonnelPsychology50: 877-904.JoreskogKG, SorbomD. 1993. LISRELVIII:User'sReferenceand Guide.ScientificSoftware:Mooresville,IN.Kerr S, Hill KD, Broedling L. 1986. The first line supervisor: phasing out or here to stay? Academy ofManagementReview 11: 103-117.KomakiJL,Desselles ML, Bowman ED. 1989. Definitelynot a breeze:extendingan operantmodel of effectivesupervisionto teams.Journalof Applied Psychology74: 522-529.



15/15

550 M. A. GRIFFIN TAL.Kozlowski SWJ, DohertyML. 1989. Integrationof climate and leadership:examinationof a neglected issue.Journalof AppliedPsychology74: 546-553.LaRoccoJM. 1985. Effects of job conditionson workerperceptions:ambientstimulivs. group nfluence.Journalof AppliedSocial Psychology 15: 735-757.LawlerEE, MohrmanSA, LedfordGE. 1992. EmployeeInvolvementand TotalQuality Management.Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Lawthon R, PattersonM, West MA, Maitlis S. 1997. OrganizationalClimate Indicator. Institute of WorkPsychology:Sheffield.Manz CC,Sims HP.1987.Leadingworkers o lead themselves:the external eadershipof self-managedworkingteams. AdministrativeScience Quarterly32: 106-128.McIntyre RM, Salas E. 1995. Measuring and managing for team performance: lessons from complexenvironments.In Guzzo RA, Salas E. (eds). TeamEffectivenessand Decision Making in Organizations.Jossey-Bass:San Francisco.NeumanG, EdwardsJ, RajuN. 1989. Organizational evelopment nterventions:a meta-analysisof their effectson satisfactionand otherattitudes.PersonnelPsychology48: 747-773.Ostroff C. 1992. The relationshipbetween satisfaction, attitudes, and performance:an organizational-levelanalysis.Journalof Applied Psychology77: 963-974.ParkerSK,Wall TD. 1998.Joband WorkDesign: OrganizingWorko PromoteWell-Being ndEffectivness.Sage:London.PritchardRD. 1992. Organizationalproductivity. n Handbookof Industrialand OrganizationalPsychology,2ded, Vol.3, DunnetteMD, HoughLM. (eds). Consulting PsychologistsPress: Palo Alto, CA; 443-471.Ryan AM, Schmit MJ, Johnson R. 1996. Attitudes and effectiveness:examiningrelations at an organizationallevel. PersonnelPsychology49: 853-882.ShroutPE, Fleiss JL. 1979. Interclass correlations:use in assessing raterreliability.PsychologicalBulletin 86:420-428.Steers RM, Rhodes SR. 1978. Majorinfluences on employee attendance:a process model. Journalof AppliedPsychology63: 391-407.Tannenbaum I, SalasE, Cannon-BowersJA. 1996. Promoting eam effectiveness.In Handbookof WorkGroupPsychology,West MA. (ed.). JohnWiley & Sons. Chichester,UK. 503-529.Tjosvold D. 1995. Cooperationtheory,constructivecontroversy,and effectiveness. In TeamEffectivenessandDecision Makingin Organizations,Guzzo RA, Salas E. (eds). Jossey-Bass:San Francisco.Wall TD, Kemp NJ, JacksonPR, Clegg CW. 1986. Outcomesof autonomouswork groups:a long-termfieldexperiment.Academyof ManagementJournal29: 280-304.WarrPB, Cook JD, Wall TD. 1979. Scales for the measurements of some work attitudes and aspects ofpsychologicalwell-being.Journal of OccupationalPsychology52: 1063-1070.YuklG. 1989. Leadership n Organizations,2nd ed. Prentice-Hall:EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.


job satisfaction and teamwork

Documents