International Journal of Public Sector Management
Followership and Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector: The Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support and Performance-Oriented Culture Myung Jin Bruce McDonald Jaehee Park
Article information:
To cite this document:
Myung Jin Bruce McDonald Jaehee Park , (2016),"Followership and Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector: The Moderating
Role of Perceived Supervisor Support and Performance-Oriented Culture", International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 29 Iss 3 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-05-2015-0101
Downloaded on: 09 March 2016, At: 23:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 39 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lu Lu, Allan Cheng Chieh Lu, Dogan Gursoy, Nathan Robert Neale, (2016),"Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: a comparison between supervisors and line-level employees", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 Iss 4 pp. -
Lu Lu, Allan Cheng Chieh Lu, Dogan Gursoy, Nathan Robert Neale, (2016),"Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: a comparison between supervisors and line-level employees", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 Iss 4 pp. -
Michiel De Vries, Iwona Sobis, (2016),"Increasing transparency is not always the panacea An overview of alternative paths to curb corruption in the public sector", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 29 Iss 3 pp. -
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:380560 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Employee Followership and Job Satisfaction in the Public Sector: The Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support and Performance-Oriented Culture
ABSTRACT
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explicate the role of followership behavior on employee job satisfaction as well as the conditions that may moderate its impact.
Design/methodology/approach
This study uses a large n survey data from federal agencies and investigates an additive moderation model in which two situational factors, perceived supervisor support and performance-oriented culture, interact with followership behavior.
Findings
Employees high on active followership perceived greater job satisfaction when perceived supervisor support was high, rather than low. On the other hand, employees high on active followership perceived greater job satisfaction when performance-oriented culture was low, rather than high.
Research limitations/implications
This is, to our knowledge, the first empirical study based on a cross-sectional survey that tests how the effects of active followership on employee job satisfaction may vary depending on the different types of situational factors. As such, more studies are needed to validate the causal directions of our findings.
Practical implications
The present findings show that active engagement had greater association with job satisfaction when leader involvement was high and performance orientation was low. For highly engaged employees, leaders are encouraged to show higher degree of involvement in their work but with less emphasis on the performance orientation of the organization.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the broader literature in public sector leadership in two ways. First, research on the relationship between followership and job satisfaction has been sparse. Second, and most importantly, this study is the first empirical study that tests the moderating roles of situational (organizational) factors on the relationship between followership and employee attitude (job satisfaction).
INTRODUCTION
Today’s work environment in which followers and leaders interact has become more complex and dynamic. This is in part due to the rapidly changing and constantly adapting organizational missions, technological developments and different priorities and values catching up with the multiple realities facing the organizations (Küpers, 2007).
Followers play an active role in the leadership process for at least two reasons: first, without followers, no one can be a leader; second, all leaders are followers at times (Yukl, 2010). Consequently, organizational scholars have increasingly focused not only on the leader, but also on followers (Blanchard et al., 2009; Shamir, 2007; Gilbert & Hyde, 1988) and on work setting/context (Somech & Wenderow, 2006; Vroom & Jago, 1998; Shamir, 2007; Grissom, 2012) that may have moderating impact on the relationship between followership and work attitudes.
What, then, is active followership? Howell and Costly (2006) define it as an interactive role that individuals play that complements the leadership for achieving group and organizational performance. It was not until Kelley’s (1988) pioneering work on followership theory in which a follower-centered view took the center stage in the leadership literature. He defined active followers as people with vision and the social capacity to work well with others, have the strength of character to flourish without heroic status, and the desire to participate in a team effort for the accomplishment of some greater common purpose.
We focus on the interaction effects of active followership and two situational factors, supervisor support and performance-oriented culture, on employee job satisfaction and seek to add to previous research in two ways. Our primary contribution is to test the role of active followership on employee job satisfaction in the public sector. We have long known that followers and followership are essential to both employee and organizational outcomes (Yukl, 2012). However, despite calls in early management and leadership research to focus on followers and followership (Hollander and Julian, 1969; Sanford, 1950), little attention has been paid to it until recently (Baker, 2007; Kelley, 2008; Bligh, 2011). This lack of attention has been evidenced in Bligh’s (2011) study that over the 19-year period from 1990 to 2008 in The Leadership Quarterly, only 14% of the articles had some version of the word follower in the abstract or title, which is reduced even more to a handful of articles when the search is narrowed to include the word “followership.” To our knowledge, there has been only one study in the public sector in which Kim and Schachter (2015) found positive association between active followership and organizational performance. As such, our knowledge in leadership and its impact will remain incomplete without further understanding of the role that followership plays in the workplace (Kim, 2011).
Studying followership in the federal government is of particular importance because previously the overall federal personnel system has been more restrictive and cumbersome than has been the case in most other organizations (Gilbert and Hyde, 1988). For example, jobs were often narrowly defined; less flexibility existed in work assignments, training, and job enrichment opportunities; and performance appraisal often seemed to inhibit, rather than facilitate, the supervisor-subordinate relations on the job (Federal Register, 1987). Consequently, these rules and procedures were seen as barriers, rather than facilitators, to enhancing followership skills of federal workers (Gilbert and Hyde, 1988). The federal system, however, has recently undergone changes in work patterns which require for more active followership roles (Kim and Schachter, 2015). For example, in following the trends with private sector organizations, many public organizations have flattened their hierarchies and empowered employees by using new electronic technologies to provide them with more information, which led to more opportunities in decision-making (Kellerman, 2007). These initiatives changed the perception of followers as “unquestioningly and blindly obeying sheep” which would not work in today’s “complex and fast-paced mobile society” (Dixon and Westbrook, 2003, p. 20). Despite the active and newly invigorated roles given to followers, however, there is a dearth of study that focuses on this topic, and it is critical to discover their impact on various employee outcomes.
As a first step in linking followership to employee outcomes, we focus on job satisfaction, because it is one of the most important workplace attitudes (Yang and Kassekert, 2009), which reflects “the congruence between what employees want from their jobs and what employees feel they receive” (Wright and Kim, 2004, 19). While job satisfaction on performance or productivity has received relatively mixed reviews (Yang and Kassekert, 2009), its effect on turnover, absenteeism, citizenship behavior, and other organizational attitudes and behaviors is well established (Harrison et al., 2006; Wright and Kim, 2004). Studying job satisfaction is of particular importance because many studies have reported that the federal civil service is losing high-quality employees due to their dissatisfaction with the workplace (Light, 2008). Thus, building a satisfying workplace remains a critical issue and is a vital element of maintaining strong federal workforce. Despite the aforementioned critical role of both followership and job satisfaction in the public sector, our knowledge is limited by lack of empirical studies that examine the relationship between followership and job satisfaction. Trottier et al. (2008) argue that because followers are so critical to the success of contemporary organizations, their satisfaction is both a vital process measure for an organization, as well as an end result in itself. Vroom’s (1964) study reports that high job satisfaction results in lower turnover, fewer unexcused absences, and slightly lower accident rates and has been shown to lead to a better quality of output and to a healthier workforce (Kearney & Hays, 1994).
Our second main contribution is to investigate two situational factors conditioning the effect of followership. Based on the previous research and theory, we consider perceived supervisor support (PSS) and performance-oriented culture (POC). Applying the situational leadership theory, the former is expected to weaken the links between followership and job satisfaction as strong support from supervisors or managers is expected to partially alleviate the need for subordinates to demonstrate characteristics of active followership. On the other hand, we hypothesize that strong performance-oriented culture increases the magnitude of followership’s impact on job satisfaction, because employees who are actively participating and thinking independently will attribute greater variance in their satisfaction to their followership behaviors.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Followership and Job Satisfaction
What is a followership? According to Kelley’s (1992) pioneering work on this topic, he views followers as active courageous individuals who can formulate their own meaning of life and whose main goals are to cooperate for organizational success. The major premise in his theory is that organizational success is not solely dependent on dynamic leaders but that followers are active rather than passive who contribute to the betterment of employee and organizational well-being. The theoretical root of followership has been found in several extant theories (e.g., Leroy 2012; Ward 2010; Vondey 2008). For example, using self-determination theory (SDT) as a guiding framework, which posits that individuals have inherent growth tendencies and are motivated behind the choices that they make without any external influence and interference, Leroy (2012) describes that “good followers” (Sergiovanni 2007) find a reason and strength to complete a task, without influence from other people or situations.
The most prominent scholar in bringing the theory of followership into leadership literature was Kelley (1992) who operationalized followership based on two dimensions: active engagement and independent critical thinking. Critical thinking has recently gained attention as a desirable employee characteristic (Blanchard et al., 2009). Followers who engage in independent critical thinking analyze the information given to them, meticulously evaluate situations and actions, and make judgments independent of the political consequences of decisions (Kelley, 1992; Latour & Rast, 2004). Dowd and Bolus (1998) argue that critical thinking can improve health outcomes of employees in stressful situations. According to Blanchard and her colleagues (2009), engaging in critical thought is effortful and involves extra work on the part of the follower, which should lead to cognitive dissonance and subsequent effort justification.
The second characteristic of followership is active engagement (Kelley, 1992). Followers who are actively engaged take initiative, assume ownership, and actively participate in performing their job. These individuals assume responsibilities beyond their minimum job requirements and exert considerable effort to accomplish goals (Kahn, 1990; Romano, 1995). Individuals who demonstrate active engagement go above and beyond expectations, proactively participate in activities, and provide high-quality work. Active engagement has also attracted a substantial amount of attention recently (Macey and Schneider, 2008). It is considered highly motivational (Schaufeli et al., 2002) and has been linked to increases in health outcomes (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) as well as increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and decreased turnover (Salanova et al., 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Based on these characteristics of followership behaviors, Howell and Costley (2006) theorize how active followership may increase employee job satisfaction. First, they note that followership role fulfills important personal needs for individuals, because it provides for comradeship with valued others by serving them, and thus helps satisfy one’s social needs and confirms a favorable self-concept for many people. Subsequently, fulfilling active followership roles satisfies individual needs for self-esteem as it provides for personal growth by helping them become more mature and effective performers (Vondey, 2008).
While a paucity of empirical studies exists that directly link followership to job satisfaction, several scholars suggest that followership behaviors will result in increased motivation, satisfaction, and feelings of empowerment (Gilbert & Hyde, 1988; Howell & Costley, 2006). Most recently, based on a survey of 331 faculty members at a large public university, Blanchard and her colleagues found empirical evidence that effective followership has positive influence on job satisfaction. Using cognitive dissonance theory, which suggests that employees seek effort justification (Aronson & Mills, 1959) by changing their attitudes to justify their behavior, they concluded that followers who are actively engaging in their work more likely to justify their behavior by believing that their jobs are “really good” and worth their extra effort. Thus, the following hypothesis is examined in this study:
Hypothesis 1: Active followership is positively related to employee job satisfaction.
Conditions Influencing the Effects of Active Followership
Research on the effects of followership has not given much attention to moderating influences. The present study considers the influence of two situational factors, perceived supervisor support and performance-oriented culture, which are often conceptualized as a theoretical extension of perceived organizational support (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Our choice of perceived supervisor support as a conditioning factor in the public sector is important given the distinction between public and private organizations. For example, the environments in which government supervisors, as compared to private sector supervisors, operate can make motivating their employees more difficult, due to (1) frequent changes in leadership as elected or politically-appointed leaders often have brief tenures; (2) having goals that are often difficult to translate into units that are objectively measurable; (3) strong employee protections, which makes it difficult for supervisors to deal with even the poor performers; and (4) constraints put on the use of financial incentives. Although many studies show that strong managerial support increases job satisfaction of government employees in spite of the aforementioned challenges that public sector managers face (Ting, 1997; Cho & Perry, 201; Yang & Kassekert, 2009), how it moderates the effect of active followership has not been investigated. Our choice of performance-oriented culture as a moderator also has demonstrable relevance to public sector organizations. For example, the theory that reforming performance-based pay systems would improve government operations and employee satisfaction has been a hallmark of the new public management (NPM) movement (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). For public agencies long known for their struggles with classical bureaucracies, such as red tape (DeHart-Davis & Paney, 2005) and procedural constraints and routines (Wright & Davis, 2003), promoting the culture of performance orientation has important implications for employee job satisfaction. Thus, the current research explores how perceived supervisor support and performance-oriented culture moderate the effect of active followership.
Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS)
Perceived supervisor support (PSS) is defined as the beliefs employees hold regarding the extent to which supervisors provide emotional and instrumental (work-related) assistance (Thoits, 1985). Although benefits of PSS are widely recognized (Ng & Sorensen, 2008), most of the existing studies prior to Kelley’s publication on followership in 1998 were based on leader-centric approach (Hollander, 1993; Meindl et al., 1985), which viewed managers as superior and employees inferior and passive (Taylor, 1911).
Research shows that PSS creates “enabling relationships with others that make it easier for employees to learn” (Mink, Owen, & Mink, 1993), and thus is considered to facilitate employees’ learning and development (Ellinger et al., 2003). However, for active followers who demonstrate independent critical thinking and show high degree of job competence, and thus require less supervision and direction, strong employee perceptions of supervisor support may undermine the effect of active followership. For example, medical doctors, airline pilots, accountants, electricians, and other professionals do not require much supervision and often do not want it (Yukl, 2010). Likewise, professionals who are internally motivated by their values and ethics do not need to be encouraged by the leader to do high-quality work. This phenomenon is theoretically explained in Hersey and Blanchard’s (1977) situational leadership theory, which specifies the appropriate type of leadership behavior for different levels of subordinate maturity, a composite of diverse elements such as subordinate confidence, ability, and motivation, in relation to the work. The major proposition of their theory is that when followers have low competence and/or low commitment, the leader should act supportive, consult with the subordinate, and provide both support and direction. On the other hand, for followers who demonstrate high commitment and high job competence, leaders should use a low level of task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors.
Therefore, for effective followers who are self-motivated, supervisor support has little, if any, effect (Yukl, 2010). Moreover, in this situation, if subordinates perceive close supervision and direction to be an unnecessary imposition of leader control, satisfaction may actually decline (Yukl, 2010). Although there is no research data on the moderating effect of PSS on active followership, proponents of role-based followership approaches have recently called for “reversing the lens” in leadership research (Shamir, 2007) by identifying followers as the causal agents (i.e., follower characteristics and behaviors), the independent variables, and testing the role of leader behavior as a moderator on the effects of active followership.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between active followership and employee job satisfaction will be stronger under low levels of perceived supervisor support.
Moderating Role of Performance-Oriented Culture (POC) Performance-oriented culture (POC) measures perceptions about performance-based accountability and performance incentives such as pay for performance, two of which symbolize the hallmark of the managing-for-results (MFR) movement that had started from the Clinton Administration (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Yang & Kassekert, 2009). Although its implementation in government often faces considerable challenges, the performance orientation is advocated to break these characteristics (Barzelay, 1992) and has shown empirical evidence that it not only improves government operation but also employee satisfaction and motivation (e.g., Hays, 2004; Yang & Kassekert, 2009). For example, referencing Lee et al. (2006), Yang and Kassekert (2009) report that performance-based pay has a positive impact on job satisfaction in four of the seven surveys conducted between 1979 and 2002 in federal government.
According to Bjugstad et al. (2006), a follower’s motivation is a function of environmental and internal factors. They argue that to increase follower motivation, an organization needs to create a results-oriented environment with genuine concern for its followers and provide performancerelated reward. Although active followers motivate themselves primarily by their own ambition (Hughes, 1998; Kelley, 1988; Bjudgstad et al., 2006), Strebel (1996) notes that followers also determine their motivation by reflecting on matching the level of their work effort to what type of recognition or reward they might receive, and whether that reward will be worth it. This is consistent with Kelley’s (1992) conceptualization of active followers who are not only exemplary but are also pragmatic in terms of having clear expectations and needing satisfaction with the outcome(s) they receive (Green, 2000). Thus, we hypothesize that for active followers, the motivation and thus job satisfaction will be felt more strongly when they perceive a high level of performance-oriented culture (i.e., distributive justice) in their organization. Our research framework appears in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between active followership and employee job satisfaction will be stronger under high levels of performance-oriented culture.
[Insert Figure 1: Research Framework]
Method
To test the hypotheses, we compiled a pooled, cross-sectional data set consisting of the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys (N = 1,723,392) (U.S. Office of Personnel Management) representing permanent full- and part-time civilian government employees in all 82 Federal agencies and covering all federal occupations. The purpose of this survey was to assess the degree to which federal agencies are using human capital management practices that characterize high-performing organizations, and to provide managers and supervisors with information on workforce issues that deserve specific attention such as employees’ satisfaction with their jobs, pay, and organization to improve agency-specific services. To control for agency-level characteristics, data from FedScope Employment Cube (2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014), under OPM’s centralized data warehouse system, were used.
[Insert Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Variables]
Measures
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the study variables. Full list of the questions associated with each scaled variable is shown in the appendix. All primary independent variables are measured by multiple items. They have acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values, ranging from .80 to .94. We integrate the multiple measurements into a single indicator by using a mean value. Except for demographic factors, all items are ordinal-based on 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The only exception was on employee job satisfaction where two of the four items were measured using satisfaction scale (very dissatisfied=1, very satisfied=5). Because the scales have the same 5-point ordinal structure and show high degree of internal consistencies, we concluded it was reasonable to integrate the measures (Cho & Perry, 2012).
The dependent variable was measured using four items capturing satisfaction with the nature of the job and organization. It captures two of the three measures used in Cook et al.’s (1981) job satisfaction scale (e.g., satisfaction with job and the organization). The four items were averaged to calculate the composite job satisfaction score (Cronbach’s α = 0.89).
Followership is measured with an index of four items (Cronbach’s α = 0.80). Two items tap employees’ level of active engagement in the workplace: “My talents are used well in the workplace” and “I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.” These items are equivalent to followers’ ability to take initiative and to contribute at a high level (Blanchard et al., 2009). And two items measure employees’ critical, independent thinking: “I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things” and “I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.” Perceived supervisor support is measured with an index of six items (Cronbach’s α = 0.94). It captures employees’ perception that their supervisor values their contribution and cares about their well-being (e.g., Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988; Hutchison, 1997; Rhoades et al., 2001). A sample item includes “my supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.” Performance-oriented culture was measured with an index of six items (Cronbach’s α = 0.91). A sample item includes “awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs.” Several demographic (years worked, age, managerial status, minority status, and gender) and agency-level characteristics (institutional location, percentage of professional staff, organizational tenure, and organizational size) were used as control variables in the model. The natural logarithm of organizational size was used to transform the distribution into a normal distribution.
Assessment of Measures and Common Method Bias
The construct reliabilities, consistent with the aforementioned Cronbach’s alphas, all exceeded .80 (minimum cut-off value is .70; Nunnally, 1978). To test whether these variables are properly measured as differentiated concepts, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis for the focal constructs included in the model. The analysis yielded an excellent fit (Standardized RMR was 0.03 for which the upper threshold is 0.05; RMSEA was 0.07 which is within the range of acceptable fit of 0.08; CFI, NFI, and GFI all showed acceptable fit at 0.95, 0.95, and 0.92, respectively). The convergent validity of the scales was affirmed by the presence of significant factor loadings (all t values exceeded the critical t of 3.29 for p < .001; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988) and in a range between 0.609 and 0.889. The AVE estimates were all greater than .50 as recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Bagozzi and Yi (1988).
Additional evidence of discriminant validity was found as AVE estimates of the constructs were all greater than the squared correlations between corresponding pairs of constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), except for the AVE estimate of followership with job satisfaction (our dependent variable). This was expected given the high correlation between them (Table 2). Since AVE estimates are often considered to be “quite conservative” (Hatcher, 1994, p. 331), we also performed a confidence interval test to assess the discriminant validity of the two constructs (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). This test involves calculating a confidence interval of plus or minus 2 standard errors around the correlation between the factors, and determining whether this interval includes 1.0. If it does not include 1.0, discriminant validity is demonstrated (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The confidence interval for the relationship between followership and job satisfaction ranged from 0.901 to 0.903, meaning that it is very unlikely that the actual population correlation between them is 1.0, and thus supports the discriminant validity of the measures.
Because the constructs were measured at the same point in time and come from a single source for all the data (OPM), we estimated a CFA model in which all their corresponding indicator variables loaded on one general method factor to test the seriousness of common method bias. This alternative one-factor model yielded very poor fit (RMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.14, GFI = 0.61, CFI = 0.76, NFI = 0.76). While the results of these analyses do not preclude the possibility of common method variance, they do suggest that it is unlikely to confound the interpretation of our results.
[Insert Table 2: Correlations]
Analysis
We used hierarchical OLS regression analysis to test the hypotheses. To test the moderating effects in Hypotheses 2 and 3, we calculated the mean-centered values of the interacting variables before multiplying them, to minimize multicollinearity and to make the regression coefficients more meaningful (Aiken & West, 1991).
Results
In Table 3, we provide the regression results. The control model (Step 1) accounted for 2.7% of the variance in employee job satisfaction and differed significantly from a null model (p < .001). Step 2 showed significant improvement in that it explained 67.6% of the total variance in employee job satisfaction (p < .001). Adding the interaction terms, the full model (Step 3) explained an additional 0.1% of the total variance explained in employee job satisfaction (p < .001). In our full model, an analysis of variance inflation factors (VIFs) (Bowerman and O’Connell 1990) and tolerance values (Menard, 1995) indicated that the multicollinearity was not a serious problem in this study
[Insert Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Model]
In support of Hypothesis 1, we found a positive direct relationship between followership and job satisfaction, β = .58, p < .001 (Step 2). Also statistically significant was the conditional effect of followership (Step 3). Among the employees average in their perceptions of supervisor support and performance orientation of their organization (because these were both mean centered in the analysis) but equal in supervisory status, gender, minority status, age, and tenure (because these are statistically being held constant), two individuals who differed by one unit in their followership were estimated to differ by β = .57 units in their job satisfaction.
The expectations for interaction terms were partially confirmed by the analysis. In partial support of Hypothesis 2, the regression coefficient for the product of followership and PSS was statistically significant (β = -.01), meaning that the effect of active followership on job satisfaction depends on employees’ perceived supervisor support, but the direction of its impact was the opposite. More specifically, as positive perceptions of supervisor support increased by one unit, the difference in job satisfaction between two individuals who differed by one unit in their followership increased by .02 units. Figure 2 shows the interaction, which reflects that fulfilling active followership had more positive effect on job satisfaction among those who perceived that supervisor support was high than it did among those who perceived that supervisor support was low. Hypothesis 3 was also partially supported as the interaction effect was statistically significant (β = - .03, p < .001, Step 3). However, the direction of its proposed impact was reversed. Figure 3 further demonstrates the nature of the interaction. The positive relationship between followership and job satisfaction was more pronounced among employees whose perceptions of their agency’s performance-oriented culture were low rather than high.
[Figure 2: Interaction of followership and perceived supervisor support for employee job satisfaction]
[Figure 3: Interaction of followership and performance-oriented culture for employee job satisfaction]
Discussion
In this inquiry, we have sought to achieve a better understanding of the relationship between followership role and one important employee outcome, job satisfaction, by considering the moderating role of perceived supervisor support and performance-oriented culture. We find that fulfilling active followership role has significant positive influence on employee job satisfaction. Findings also show that the demonstrated influence of active followership on job satisfaction is contingent on the types and the degree of situational factors. However, contrary to our hypotheses, active followership had more positive effect on job satisfaction under conditions of relatively high, as opposed to low, perceived supervisor support. Similarly, the relationship was more positive under conditions of low, as opposed to high, performance orientation.
Two primary theoretical contributions emerge from this research. First, drawing from Kelley’s followership research and other theories in organizational psychology, our study demonstrates that active followership has significant positive influence on job satisfaction. Although this relationship has been theoretically argued in a few number of studies (e.g., Howell & Costley, 2006; Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2009), there has been a dearth of empirical evidence. The only empirical evidence prior to our findings has been Blanchard et al.’s (2009) study of followership styles and their effects on employee attachment to their organization in a university setting. Thus, our findings add to the substantially under-researched aspect of the literature on the followership by establishing a positive relationship between followership and job satisfaction.
More importantly, the findings of the interaction effects were shown to be contrary to our theoretical reasoning. For example, our study shows that perceived supervisor support enhances, rather than decreases, the favorable effects of active followership on job satisfaction. This suggests that high degree of support and supervision may still be beneficial for even the highly engaged employees. The conflicting evidence on the moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between followership and job satisfaction can be, in part, explained by the conceptual work of Anderson and Oliver (1987) on supervisory control. They argued that there are two types of behavioral mechanisms that supervisors use to support their followers—activity control and capability control. Activity control refers to “the specification of the activities a person is expected to perform on a regular basis, the monitoring of actual behavior, and the administering of rewards on the basis of the performance of specified activities” (Challagala and Shervani, 1996, p. 90). Capability control, on the other hand, emphasizes the development of individual skills and abilities. It involves providing guidance for improvement if needed. Research shows that while activity control is negatively associated with job satisfaction, capability control by supervisors is positively associated job satisfaction. As our measure of perceived supervisor support includes items that relate to supporting employee development and providing opportunities for leadership skills, these factors may increase their intrinsic motivation.
In addition, our findings show that employees highly engaged in their work expressed stronger job satisfaction when the perceptions of performance orientation of their organization were low, rather than high. We suspect that this is, in part, because followership roles are performed mostly voluntarily. High emphasis on performance alone by the organization may undermine the many aspects of activities that active followers perform that are not part of the performance appraisals. These results are important because until now, the role of situational factors has not been given much consideration in the followership-employee outcomes equation.
Practical Implications
For managers in the public sector, the finding that fulfilling active followership role brings positive emotional effect to subordinates’ job satisfaction is particularly insightful in light of the challenges associated with public organizations. For example, studies show that federal civil service is losing high-quality employees due to their dissatisfaction with their job (Yang & Kassekert, 2009). Although recent trends in flattening of government organization structures have given a wider range of public sector employees the opportunity to share power and responsibility, research was previously lacking on whether these new challenges were considered as risks to be avoided or as potential opportunities for structural empowerment. While further studies are needed to validate our findings, the fact that our evidence shows strong positive affiliation between active followership and job satisfaction can be used as a testament that taking on more vocal and more leadership roles is not a stressful work for subordinates, and it instead increases emotional attachment to their work and the organization. Thus, managers may devote more resources to help develop and sustain their followership skills, which can increase career satisfaction (Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2009), and subsequently reduce turnover intention (Choi, 2008; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
More importantly, supervisors need to be made aware that not everybody demonstrates followership at a high level. Consequently, knowing who their followers are and what their levels of followership skills are will be critical to ensuring the success of managerial actors in terms of keeping job satisfaction of followers at an optimal level. Employees who demonstrate active followership are those who take initiatives and derive satisfaction through their own motivation and action (Bjugstad et al., 2006), and their actions can lead to even greater impact on their emotional attachment to the organization when supervisors provide job broadening opportunities. By identifying those whose followership skills are low, supervisors will be better able to focus on those who need such guidance and supervision. Finally, in a similar vein, it is important that government agencies are seen as providing justice in terms of the decisions to distribute resources fairly (performance orientation) as it invigorates the favorable effects of active followership. Overall, this empirical analysis provides public managers with a unique understanding of the preferred working style of active followers: less supervision is preferred but while making sure that their hard work is recognized fairly by the agency.
Conclusion
Our study is not without limitations. First, although some of the threats to validity in this study are controlled through its large sample size, drawing causal relationships should be performed cautiously due to the cross-sectional nature of the data (Bobko & Stone-Romero, 1998). Second, the survey items did not contain a tested scale for some of the constructs, so proxies were used. Although our assessment of the measures provided support for the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity in our study, future research could investigate these constructs using instruments originally designed specifically for them.
Third, our use of single source of data might raise some concerns about common method variance. Although our test shows that the potential common method bias is not serious, future studies could greatly benefit by utilizing other sources for evaluating job satisfaction to reduce the likelihood of common method variance (Lovelace et al., 2001).
The main objective of this study was to deepen our understanding of the relationship between the level of active followership and job satisfaction through the potential moderating role of perceived supervisor support and performance-oriented culture. We have shown that strong supervisor support enhances the relationship between active engagement and job satisfaction, while performance emphasis may buffer the favorable effects of active followership on job satisfaction. We hope that this study prompts further investigations of the ways different situational factors including leadership styles may interact with followership.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korean Government (NRF2013S1A3A2055108)
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 33-52. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. Anderson, E., & Oliver, R. L. (1987). Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome-based sales force control systems. Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 76-88. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181. Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(2): 274-84. Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Bertelli, A. M. (2006). Determinants of bureaucratic turnover intention: Evidence from the Department of the Treasury. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17: 235-258. Bjugstad, K., Thach, E.C., Thompson, K.J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavior and Applied Management, 7, 304-319. Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 12: 111-131. Bligh, M.C. (2011). Followership and follower-centered approaches. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 393-403). London: SAGE Publications. Bobko, P., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1998). Meta-analysis may be another useful research tool, but it is not a panacea. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 359-397). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Brockner et al., (1997) Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial trustworthiness, goal directedness, and extrinsic reward expectancy. Review of Public Personnel Administration 32(4): 382-406. Challagalla, G. N., Shervani T. A. (1996). Dimensions and types of supervisory control: Effects on salesperson performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(1): 89-103. Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management in employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review 70(1): 109-121. DeHart-Davis, L. & Pandey, S.K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate mangers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133-149. Dixon, G., & Westbrook, J. (2003). Followers revealed. Engineering Management Journal, 15(1), 19-25. Dowd, S. B., & Bolus, N. E. (1998). Stress resulting from change and restructuring: A cognitive approach. Family and Community Health 21(2): 70-78. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Proposed Demonstration Project- Pacer Share: A Federal Productivity Enhancement Program; Notice, Federal Register, Part IV, vol.52 (July 17, 1987). Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39-50. Gilbert, G. R., & Hyde, A.C. (1988). Followership and the federal worker. Public Administration Review, 48(5), 962-968. Green, T. (2000). Motivation management, Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. Grissom, J. A. (2012). Revisiting the impact of participative decision making on public employee retention: The moderating influence of effective managers. American Review of Public Administration 42(4): 400-418. Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time consequences. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1977). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resource, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hollander, E.P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 71-74. Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall. Hughes, M.L. (1998). Keeping your job while your bosses are losing theirs. Binghamton, NY: William Neil Publishing. Hurwitz, M. & Hurwitz, S. (2009). Romance of the follower part I. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(2), 80-86. Hutchison, S. (1997). A path model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 159-174. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal 33: 692-724. Kearney, R. C., & Hayes, S. W. (1994). Labor-management relations and participative decision making: Toward a new paradigm. Public Administration Review 54(1): 44-51. Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 84-91. Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff & J.R. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: how great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 5-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review 8896): 142-148. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow, and followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday. Kim, S. (2005). Factors affecting state government information technology employee turnover intentions. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 137-156. Kim, C. (2011). Followership in the U.S. federal government: a missing link between participative leadership and organizational performance, dissertation submitted to the Graduate SchoolNewark-Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2013). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and managerial trustworthiness on work attitudes: integrated understanding based on social exchange theory. Public Administration Review. doi: 10.1111/puar.12160.
Kottke, J.L., & Sharafinski, C.E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48: 1075-1079. Küpers, W. (2007). Perspectives on integrating leadership and followership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 Iss. 3, pp. 194-221. Latour, S. M, & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership. Air & Space Power Journal 18(4): 1-7. Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W.L., & Sels, L. (2012). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management, doi: 10.1177/0149206312457822. Light, P.C. (2008). A government ill executed: The depletion of the federal service. Public Administration Review, 68, 413-419. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., and Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraints adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-794. Macey, W.H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30. Meindl, J.R., Erlich, S.B., & Dukerich, J.M.(1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102. Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mink, O. g., Owen, K. Q., & Mink, B. P. (1993). Developing high-performance people: the art of coaching. MA: Addison-Wesley. Moynihan, D.P., & Pandey, S.K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 1, 40-53. Ng, T.W.H., & Sorensen, K. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33, 243-268. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw Hill. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinvening government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Park, S.M., & Rainey, H.G. (2007). Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment: Empirical Tests of Commitment Effects in Federal Agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 197-226. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 698-714. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-836. Romano, C. (1995). A star is made. Management Review 84(2): 6. Salanova, M., Lorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Groups Research 34: 43-73. Sanford, F. (1950). Authoritarianism and Leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Research in Human Relations. Schaufeli, W. B, & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 293-315. Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., Marques-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 33(5): 46 Sergiovanni, Thomas J. (2007). Extraordinary Results. Rethinking Leadership: A Collection of Articles, p. 65.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active coproducers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl, ed. B. Shamir, R.Pillai, MC Bligh, M. Uhl-Bien. Greenwich, CT: Inform. Age Simons, T.L., & Peterson, R.S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111. Somech, A., & Wenderow, M. (2006). The impact of participative and directive leadership on teachers’ performance: The intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and leader-member exchange. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(5): 746-772. Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74, 86-92. Taylor, F.W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Bros. Thoits, P.A. (1985). Social support processes and psychological well-being: Theoretical possibilities. In I.G. Sarason & B. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 51-72). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhof. Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government employees. Public Personnel Management, 26(3), 313-334. Trottier, T., Van Wart, M., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review 68(2): 319-33. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2013). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 2012: Results from the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. Vondey, M. (2008). Follower-focused leadership: Effects of follower self-concepts and selfdeterminantion on organizational citizenship behavior. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1): 52- 61. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. J. (1998). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leader participation. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (pp. 145-159). London: JAI. Walumba, F., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly 16(2). Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Hudy, M. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 247-252. Ward, P., Lundberg, N., Ellis, G., & Berrett, K. (2010). Adolescent peer followership: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 28(2), 20-35. Wright, B., & Davis, B. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment. American Review of Public Administration 33: 70-90. Wright, B., & Kim, S. (2004). Participation’s influence on job satisfaction: The importance of job characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration 24(1): 18-40. Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2009). Transformational leadership in the public sector: does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Yang, K, & Kassekert, A. (2009). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20: 413- 436. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations, 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85.
gambar 1
gambar 2
gambar 3
gambar 4
gambar 5
gambar 6
gambar 7
APPENDIX: MEASUREMENT AND SCALE PROPERTIES
Job Satisfaction (JS, α = 0.895)
• My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.
• I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
• Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
• Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? Followership (α = 0.805)
• My talents are used well in the workplace. (AE)
• I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities. (AE)
• I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things. (CIT)
• I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal. (CIT) Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS, α = 0.940)
• My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.
• My supervisor/team leader provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.
• My supervisor/team leader is committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society. • Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development.
• My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have to say.
• My supervisor/team leader treats me with respect. Performance-Oriented Culture (POC, α = 0.912)
• Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.
• In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve.
• In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.
• Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs.
• Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services.
• Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. Note: All answers are permitted along the five-point agreement scale in which each question is coded in such a way that higher values are associated conceptually with greater (more positive) levels of either agreement or satisfaction. Each construct was developed using confirmatory factor analysis in SAS.
