Supportive and Unsupportive Managerial Behaviors

SUPPORTIVE AND UNSUPPORTIVE MANAGERIAL BEHAVIORS: TYPOLOGY,
VALIDATION, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON SUBORDINATES
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Graduate Studies
of
The University of Guelph
by
JEN NIFER A. ROONEY
In partial fulfilm ent of requirements
for the degree of
D octor of Philosophy
April, 2004
Jennifer A. Rooney, 2004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1*1 National Library
of Canada
Bibliotheque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisisitons et

Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 W ellington Street 395, rue W ellington

Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4
Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference

ISBN: 0-612-92915-9
Our file Notre reference
ISBN: 0-612-92915-9
The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la
National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, preter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
electronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these.
thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes
reproduced without the author's ou aturement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne

Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee,
forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires
from this dissertation. ont ete enleves de ce manuscrit.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires

in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination,
their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
any loss of content from the
dissertation.
Canada
A BSTRA CT
SUPPO RTIV E AND UNSUPPORTIVE M A N A G ER IA L BEHAVIORS: TYPOLOGY,
V ALIDA TIO N, AND PSYCH O LO GICA L EFFECTSO N SUBORDINATES
Jennifer A. Rooney Advisor:

U niversity of Guelph, 2004 Professor Benjam in Gottlieb
Studies docum enting the positive im pact of supervisor support have continued
unabated, despite considerable conceptual am biguity surrounding the nature o f this
construct, and the adoption of measures that lack detail and dom ain specificity.
Furtherm ore, although there is strong evidence that perceptions of supervisor support
have a positive effect on job-related attitudes and well-being, very little is known about
the psychological processes through which support influences these outcomes. Equally
im portant, whereas previous studies have mainly focused on the beneficial effects of
supportive managers, the adverse effects of m anagers unsupportive behaviours have
been overlooked.
One purpose of the current dissertation is to docum ent the expressions of support
that are specific to the managerial role, as well as subtle and overt behaviors that
subordinates deem to be unsupportive. Study 1 was a qualitative investigation of 25
em ployees from two different organizations. Content analysis was em ployed to develop
a classification scheme of perceived supportive and unsupportive behaviors. The analysis
yielded 64 supportive behaviors classified into eight broad classes (e.g., fosters open
com m unication; encourages decisional discretion and creative expression) and 54
unsupportive behaviors, grouped into six classes (e.g., underm ining behaviors;
dem onstrates apathy).
In Study 2, the Inventory of Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
(ISUM B) was developed from the classification scheme and was adm inistered to 100
em ployees from different organizations, reflecting diverse occupations. The
m easurem ent instrum ent showed strong convergent validity, internal reliability, and
incremental validity over a com m only adm inistered global m easure of perceived
supervisor support.
Study 3 tested the factor structure of the Inventory of Supportive and
Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors (ISUM B) with a sample o f 247 em ployees. The
results supported a tw o-dim ensional model of support, one dim ension labeled Personal
and Esteem Support and the second dim ension labeled Enabling Job Support . The
unsupportive item s collapsed into one dimension, labeled M icrom anaging Behaviors.
Using path analysis, perceived jo b autonomy, jo b self-efficacy, and perceived manager
sentiment were tested as psychological mediators through which supportive and
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors respectively influenced em ployees w ork-related
attitudes and jo b strain. The results confirm ed perceived jo b autonom y and perceived
manager sentim ent as m ediators, but not jo b self-efficacy. The findings offer new insight
into the nature and dim ensional structure of supportive and unsupportive m anagerial
behaviors and the processes through which they operate. The theoretical and
organizational im plications of the study are discussed.
Acknowledgem ents
There are many people who have enriched my learning experiences during the last
few years and who have m otivated me to this final stage of com pletion. I would like to
express my deep appreciation to my thesis advisor, Ben Gottlieb, who has been a trusted
mentor. His detailed feedback and breadth of know ledge in the social support domain
greatly enhanced the quality of my thesis. In addition to playing an active role in my
academic development, he was em otionally supportive during times when I faced
personal challenges. M y thesis com mittee members, com posed of D onna Lero, Peter
Hausdorf, and Steven Cronshaw, were also an invaluable resource. O ur discussions
throughout the process were helpful in terms of stim ulating ideas, clarifying statistical
issues, and keeping my thesis focused.
I would also like to thank the employees who took time away from their w ork
schedules to participate in my dissertation. Special thanks to the several organizations
that allowed me access to their em ployees and who also provided me with access to other
resources.
I would like to thank my husband Jordan for encouraging me to purse m y doctoral
studies, even when it m eant significant sacrifices, including years of com m uting between
Ottawa and Guelph. M y friends, with special mention to Holly and M elissa, were a
source of moral support. M y parents also deserve special recognition for their continued
confidence in my abilities.
Finally, I would like to dedicate my thesis to my sister Karyn. Although you were
not here to see this to com pletion, you remain a continual source of inspiration in my life.
Table of Contents
A cknow ledgem ents............................................................................................................................... i

Table of C ontents..................................................................................................................................ii
List of T ab les..........................................................................................................................................v
List of F igures...................................................................................................................................... vi
List of A ppendices............................................................................................................................. vii
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................1
Literature R eview ..................................................................................................................................3
The Nature of Social Support............................................................................................... 3
D im ensions of Social S upport..............................................................................................4
Contributions of the Leadership Literature to the Study of Social S upport.............. 6
M easurem ent of M anagerial Support and Lim itations................................................... 8
The Impact of M anagerial Support on Em ployees Job-R elated Attitudes and
W ell-being: Identifying M ediating M echanism s...........................................................13
The Influence of Perceived Job Autonom y on W ork Attitudes and
W ell-being.................................................................................................................14
The M anager as a Facilitator or Inhibitor of Job A utonom y......................... 16
The Influence of Self-Efficacy Beliefs on Attitudes and W ell-being 18
Supervisor Support as a Determ inant of Job Self-efficacy_.......................... 19
The Role of Reflected Appraisals in the Social Support Process............... 22
U nsupportive Behaviors D isplayed by M anagers......................................................... 24
The Consequences of U nsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors.......................................28
Lim itations of Prior Research on U nsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors..................30
The Effects of Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors:
A n Integrated Fram ew ork..................................................................................................32
Overview of Studies...........................................................................................................................34
STUDY 1: D evelopm ent of a Typology of Supportive and Unsupportive

M anagerial B ehaviors....................................................................................................................... 36
Study A im s............................................................................................................................. 36
M ethod.................................................................................................................................... 36
Participants............................................................................................................... 36
Procedure...................................................................................................................36
D evelopm ent of Interview Schedule...................................................................37
R esults..................................................................................................................................... 38
Analysis of Interview Protocols...........................................................................38
Coding R eliability...................................................................................................39
Classification Scheme of Supportive B ehaviors..............................................39
M anager Behaviors that Enhance E m ployees Self-Efficacy...................... 46
Classification Scheme of Unsupportive B ehaviors......................................... 49
STUDY 2: D evelopm ent and Validation of a New Instrument A ssessing Supportive

and Unsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors.....................................................................................54
Study A im s............................................................................................................................ 54
H ypotheses............................................................................................................................. 54
ii
M ethod....................................................................................................................................55
Participants....................................................................................................................55
Procedure...................................................................................................................56
M easures....................................................................................................................56
Instrum ent D evelopm ent.......................................................................................59
R esults..................................................................................................................................... 60
D ata C leaning.......................................................................................................... 60
Reduction of Item s................................................................................................. 61
D escriptive Statistics..............................................................................................64
Internal R eliability.................................................................................................. 66
Demographic Correlates of M anagerial Supportive and U nsupportive
B ehaviors...................................................................................................................66
Construct V alidity...................................................................................................66
Increm ental V alidity............................................................................................... 69
Correlations Between F actors..............................................................................76
STUDY 3: The Psychological Effects of Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial

Behaviors and The M ediating Role of W ork Autonomy, and Job Self-efficacy, and
Perceived M anager Sentim ent......................................................................................................... 77
Study A im s.............................................................................................................................77
Secondary A im s....................................................................................................................77
H ypotheses............................................................................................................................. 77
M ethod....................................................................................................................................78
Participants............................................................................................................... 78
Procedure...................................................................................................................81
M easures....................................................................................................................83
R esults..................................................................................................................................... 87
Plan of A nalysis...................................................................................................... 87
D ata Screening For Factor Analysis of Supportive and U nsupportive
M anagerial B eh a v io rs...........................................................................................88
Exploratory Factor Analysis: Dim ensions of Supportive B ehaviors 93
Exploratory Factor Analysis: Dim ensions of U nsupportive B eh av io rs.. ..96
Confirm atory Factor Analysis of the Three-Factor M odel of
Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors.................................. 100
Testing the M ediational Model Using Observed Variable Path
A nalysis................................................................................................................... 106
A ssessm ent of Overall F it..................................................................... I l l
Interpretation of Structural C oefficients............................................112
Model Respecification............................................................................ 114
Does the Relationship Between Supervisory Support and Job-R elated
Outcom es D iffer for D ifferent Types of W orkers?....................................... 120
Do O ngoing Expressions of Supervisor Support M itigate the A dverse
Consequences of Highly Demanding Jo b s?....................................................122
iii
D iscussion.......................................................................................................................................... 127
The N ature of Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors......................127
The Factor Structure of Supportive M anagerial B ehaviors......................................132
The Factor Structure of Unsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors................................. 135
A New B ehaviorally-Based Inventory of Supportive and Unsupportive
M anagerial B ehaviors........................................................................................................136
The M ediating R ole of Job Autonomy, Job Self-efficacy, and Perceived
M anager S e n tim e n t........................................................................................................... 138
Job A utonom y........................................................................................................139
Perceived M anager Sentim ent............................................................................ 141
Job Self-Efficacy................ 143
The Relationship Between Supervisor Support and Job-Related Attitudes:
The M oderating Role of Occupational C ategory........................................................ 144
The M ain Effects of Supervisor Support...................................................................... 146
Study Lim itations................................................................................................................147
Directions for Future R esearch........................................................................................150
Organizational Im plications............................................................................................. 153
Concluding R em arks.......................................................................................................... 154
R eferences.......................................................................................................................................... 157
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Classification Scheme of Supportive M anagerial B e h a v io rs.............................. 41

Table 2. Classification Scheme of Unsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors........................... 50
Table 3. M eans and Internal Consistency for Supportive Subscales................................... 63
Table 4. M eans and Internal Consistency for Unsupportive S ubscales.............................. 65
Table 5. Correlations Between The Inventory of Supportive and Unsupportive
M anagerial Behaviors and Job-Related Attitudes and S train...............................67
Table 6. Hierarchical Regression Predicting W ork-Related Attitudes and Strain from
Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial B e h a v io rs............................................ 70
Table 7. Standard Regression Predicting W ork-Related Attitudes and Strain from
Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors............................................. 72
Table 8. Hierarchical Regression Predicting W ork-Related Attitudes and Strain from
the Inventory of Supportive Behaviors and Perceived S u p p o rt..........................74
Table 9. Standard Regression Predicting W ork-Related Attitudes and Strain
From the Inventory of Supportive Behaviors and
Perceived Support............................................................................................................75
Table 10. D em ographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Com pared to
D em ographics of Organization as a W hole...............................................................80
Table 11. M eans and Standard D eviations of Supportive Item s............................................ 90
Table 12. M eans and Standard Deviations of U nsupportive Item s........................................91
Table 13. Factor Structure for Supportive Behaviors Using Principal Axis
Extraction and Oblique R otation................................................................................ 94
Table 14. Factor Structure for U nsupportive Behaviors Using Principal Axis Extraction
and Oblique R otation...................................................................................................... 97
Table 15. Factor Structure of Supportive and U nsupportive Items using Principal
Axis Extraction and Oblique R otation........................................................................ 99
Table 16. Fit Indices of Competing M odels.............................................................................. 104
Table 17. Standardized Param eter Estim ates for the Three-Factor M o d el......................... 105
Table 18. Interfactor C orrelations........................................................................................ 107
Table 19. M ean, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Inter-correlations Between
V ariables.......................................................................................................................... 109
Table 20. Fit Indices of Revised Model Com pared to Form er M odel................................. 117
Table 21. Difference in Correlation Coefficients Between Supervisor Support
and Job-Related Outcomes for Em ployees in D ifferent Occupational
C ategories........................................................................................................................121
Table 22. M oderated Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Job
Strain from Job Demands and Supervisor Support................................................ 124
Table 23. M oderated Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Job
Strain from Job Demands, Job Control, and Supervisor S upport.......................126
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Figures
Figure 1. The M ediational Processes By W hich Supportive and U nsupportive

M anagerial Behaviors Influence Em ployees Attitudes and
S train..................................................................................................................................33
Figure 2. A Three-Factor M odel of Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial
B ehaviors.........................................................................................................................101
Figure 3. A Tw o-Factor Model of Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial
B ehaviors.........................................................................................................................102
Figure 4. A One-Factor M odel of Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial
B ehaviors.........................................................................................................................103
Figure 5. Standardized Param eter Estim ates............................................................................ 113
Figure 6 Standardized Param eter Estimates for Revised M odel..........................................118
vi
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Typologies of Support and Leadership S tyle...................................................... 175

A ppendix B. M easures o f Supervisor Support............................................................................ 178
Appendix C. E-m ail D escription of Study.................................................................................... 181
Appendix D. Study Inform ation S heet..........................................................................................182
Appendix E. Informed Consent F orm ...........................................................................................183
Appendix F. Interview S chedule.................................................................................................... 184
A ppendix G. Coding Instructions for the Identification of Scoring Units for
Supportive and U nsupportive B ehaviors.............................................................. 190
Appendix H. Coding Instructions for Coding the Scoring U nits.............................................192
A ppendix I. Classification Scheme of M anagerial Supportive B ehaviors........................... 193
Appendix J. Classification Scheme of M anagerial Unsupportive B ehaviors.......................196
A ppendix K. Study Inform ation S heet..........................................................................................198
A ppendix L. Inform ed Consent F orm ...........................................................................................199
A ppendix M. Job Satisfaction......................................................................................................... 200
A ppendix N. Job-Related T ension................................................................................................. 201
A ppendix O. Perceived M anager Support....................................................................................202
Appendix P. Perceived M anager Sentim ent................................................................................ 203
Appendix Q. Overall Satisfaction W ith M anager...................................................................... 204
Appendix R. Initial Inventory o f M anagerial Supportive B ehaviors.................................... 205
A ppendix S. Initial Inventory o f M anagerial Unsupportive B ehaviors................................208
A ppendix T. E-m ail Sent to Em ployees Prior to Survey......................................................... 211
Appendix U. E-m ail Link to Survey............................................................................................. 212
A ppendix V. Informed C onsent.....................................................................................................213
Appendix W. Inventory of M anagerial Supportive and U nsupportive B ehaviors............. 214
Appendix X. Role O verload............................................................................................................217
Appendix Y. Job A utonom y............................................................................................................218
A ppendix Z. Job Self-Efficacy....................................................................................................... 219
Appendix AA. Job Satisfaction...................................................................................................... 220
Appendix BB. Comm itm ent to Supervisor...................................................................................221
Appendix CC. Turnover Intentions............................................................................................... 222
vii
Introduction
The influence of the m anager on em ployees work-related attitudes and behavior
on the jo b is well documented. Empirical studies have docum ented that em ployees who
perceive their managers as supportive have higher levels of job satisfaction (Bond,
Galinsky, & Swanberg, 1998; Thomas & Ganster, 1995), greater productivity (Bond et
al., 1998), more organisational loyalty (Bond et al., 1998; Greenberger, Goldberg,
Hamill, O Neil, & Payne, 1989), lower turnover intentions (Thom pson, Beauvais, &
Lyness, 1999), less work-fam ily conflict, less depression, and even low er cholesterol
levels (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Em ployee surveys conducted by large consulting
firms such as Gallup, H ew itt Associates, and Towers Perrin cite supervisors as one of the
prim e drivers o f a highly com m itted and m otivated workforce (Buckingham & Coffman,
1999; Howe, 2003).
Although it is important to document the positive consequences of supportive
supervisors, it is of lim ited practical use without know ledge of the kinds of behaviors that
make up a supportive manager. There is a paucity of qualitative research identifying
supportive manager behaviors. M oreover, the psychological processes by which
supportive behaviors affect em ployee well-being and job-related attitudes have been
overlooked.
In addition to being a source of support for em ployees, m anagers can also be a
source of stress. However, prior research on the em ployee-m anager relationship has been
heavily weighted tow ard the study of positive interactions. This om ission is particularly
glaring in light of evidence that conflict with others predicts more variance in
psychological outcom es than supportive interactions (Barrera, 1981; Fiore, Becker, &
Coppel, 1983). There has been a lack of em pirical research docum enting the behaviors
expressed by m anagers that are deemed to be unsupportive. M oreover, the processes by
which unsupportive managerial behaviors im pact em ployee outcom es have yet to be
identified.
In this dissertation, a series of studies are undertaken in order to 1) elucidate the
varied ways in which m anagerial support is expressed and identify behaviors that are
appraised by em ployees as not supportive; 2) develop and validate a com prehensive
behaviorally-based m easure assessing supportive and unsupportive m anagerial behaviors;
and 3) test a theoretical framework exam ining the psychological m echanism s that link
these behaviors to workplace attitudes and job strain, nam ely, perceptions o f jo b
autonomy, jo b self-efficacy, and perceived m anager sentiment.
D espite the volum inous research on supervisor support, very little has been
written on the conceptualization of this construct. Hence, this paper begins with a review
of the broader construct of social support, including a discussion of its conceptualization
and dim ensionality. D raw ing on the leadership literature, I propose broadening the
concept of supervisor support to include behaviors that enable em ployees to act more
autonomously on the job. Second, I review the m easurem ent of supervisor support and
identify several limitations. Third, I briefly review the literature on the effects o f
supportive supervision, and highlight gaps in our understanding of the m ediating
processes through which supportive supervision exerts its effects. Finally, after
summarizing the literature on abusive supervision, I highlight the need for additional
research to identify subtle actions on the part of the m anager that negatively impact
em ployee morale and well-being.
Literature Review
The Nature o f Social Support
Although social support may be expressed in different ways, prior definitions
have em phasized em otional support. For example, Sarason, Levine, Basham , and
Sarason (1983) state that social support is usually defined as the existence or availability
of people we can rely on, people who let us know that they care about, value and love us
(p. 127). Similarly, in a frequently cited paper, Cobb (1976) defines social support as
inform ation that conveys a sense of belonging and that com m unicates to an individual
that he or she is cared for and valued. Barnes and D uck (1994) define social support as
behaviors that, whether directly or indirectly, com m unicate to an individual that she is
valued and cared for by others (p. 176).
Shum aker and Brownell (1984) offer a broader conceptualization, defining social
support as an exchange of resources between at least two individuals perceived by the
provider or the recipient to be intended to enhance the well-being of the recipient (p. 13).
This definition differs from the previous definitions by including w ell-intentioned support
efforts on the part of the provider, which m ay not yield beneficial effects for the receiver.
M oreover, whereas the form er definitions focus on the em otional dim ension of support
(i.e., com munication of care, concern, and a sense of belonging), Shum aker and
B row nells (1984) definition includes actions such as problem -solving, advice, or
material aid, as long as they are well-intentioned. Given the varied ways in which
managers are expected to assist their subordinates, the definition of social support
adopted in the current studies is m ost closely aligned with this latter conceptualization of
support. Specifically, supervisor support is defined as behaviors or actions displayed by
m anagers/supervisors that convey a sense of caring, that assist in goal-directed behavior,
or that prom ote em ployee well-being.
D im ensions o f Social Support
Em pirical studies exam ining the dim ensionality of support have identified four
types of support: emotional, instrum ental, inform ational, and esteem /appraisal (Barrera &
Ainlay, 1983; Cassel, 1976; House, 1981, W eiss, 1974, 1980). Em otional support
includes behaviors such as active listening and the com m unication of empathy.
Instrum ental support involves the provision of tangible assistance (e.g., lending money,
covering for som eones work shift). Inform ational support involves the provision of
inform ation and advice. Esteem support involves providing feedback that is relevant to
self-evaluation (e.g., telling em ployees that they did a good job).
O ther researchers have developed more detailed classification schemes of
supportive behaviors based on reports of support received for specific stressors. In a
study of 40 low-incom e mothers, G ottlieb (1978) content coded helpful responses to
stressful experiences into 26 categories, which were grouped into four broader classes:
em otionally sustaining behaviors, problem solving behaviors, indirect personal influence,
and environm ental action. Em otionally sustaining behaviors include supportive
responses such as reassurance, encouragement, respect, listening, and talking about
general concerns (not specific to the stressor). Problem -solving behaviors include
providing advice and material aid, talking specifically about the problem , providing a
referral, and providing testim ony of a sim ilar situation. The third class, indirect personal
influence, refers to offers of help that convey the providers readiness to assist in times of
need, rather than direct forms of assistance. The fourth category, environm ental action,
involves assistance that is aim ed at reducing the source of stress.
D espite the distinctions that have been drawn among the different types of
support, em pirical validation suggests that there are likely to be few er distinct dimensions
than the four proposed; correlations between some dim ensions are often as high as the
reliabilities o f the subscales themselves (Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1994). O f the four
dimensions, em otional and instrum ental support are the most clearly differentiated from
each other, although even the correlations between these two dim ensions are m oderate
(Anderson & M cCulloch, 1993).
In explaining the high correlations among supportive dim ensions, Pierce, Sarason,
and Sarason (1990) have proposed that people have relatively stable w orking models of
support that colour their perceptions of other peoples actions. A ccording to Sarason and
colleagues (1994), these global perceptions o f support are deemed to be trait-like in
nature and reflect generalized expectations regarding the potential supportiveness and
responsiveness of others.
W eiss (1980) sentiment override hypothesis may also partially account fo r the
high intercorrelations between supportive dim ensions. According to this theory, general
sentiments towards a particular person can bias assessm ents of the quality o f those
interactions. Positive sentiments may inflate the recall of supportive encounters or
conversely, a person may inaccurately underestim ate the support they receive based on
general negative sentim ents towards that person.
The lack o f discrimination among the various types of support may also be a
function of poorly developed measures that lack specificity. One would expect higher
levels of differentiation between dim ensions of support from surveys that assess specific
observable behaviors com pared to studies that assess global ratings o f supportiveness,
given that the generality of the latter type would be m ore vulnerable to trait-like
influences (e.g., generalized expectancies of support). However, there has been a lack of
research to develop measures of support that are based on observable behaviors. One of
the purposes of Study 1 will be to bridge this gap in the literature by developing a
com prehensive inventory of supportive m anagerial behaviors.
Contributions o f the Leadership Literature to the Study o f Social Support
The studies of social support and leadership have largely run their course on
separate tracks, despite considerable overlap in the characteristics of effective leaders and
social support providers. However, one im portant difference betw een the two is their
respective functions. W hereas social support involves attempts to enhance the w ell-being
of others, leadership is viewed prim arily as a social influence process (Bass, 1985).
The various typologies of leadership and social support that have been developed
over the last two decades are sum m arized in Appendix A. D espite observed similarities
(e.g., both constructs include instrum ental and interpersonal dim ensions), there are
certain leadership characteristics that are not m irrored in the social support literature. For
example, there is accum ulating evidence in the leadership literature that em ployees are
more likely to prefer and benefit from a transform ational style of leadership than from a
transactional style (Bass, 1998; Church & W aclawski, 1999). Behaviors exem plified by
a transform ational leader include encouraging em ployees to challenge assumptions and
reframe problem s, and encouraging em ployee participation, input, and innovation (Bass,
1985; Church & W aclawski, 1999). In contrast, in the social support literature, direct
assistance with tasks and advice is often included under support typologies. Depending
on the way they are expressed, these behaviors may constrain or lim it autonomous
actions on the part of the receiver.
The im portance of autonomy enhancing behaviors in the leadership literature is
highlighted in a recent qualitative study of 43 em ployees in the public sector. In this
study, participants were asked to com m ent on individuals they w orked with who had a
powerful effect on their motivation, self-confidence, self-efficacy, or perform ance
(A lim o-M etcalfe & A lban-M etcalfe, 2001). Characteristics associated with strong
leadership included em powering subordinates; encouraging critical and strategic
thinking; clarifying boundaries, and involving others in decisions. The im portance of
emotionally supportive behaviors such as displaying genuine concern for others and
trustworthiness was also highlighted as desirable characteristics in a leader.
In contrast to the leadership literature, there is little discussion in the social
support literature of supportive behaviors that contribute to em ployees sense of control
over their work environm ent or that foster confidence in their ability to perform their jobs
effectively (i.e., job self-efficacy). This is som ew hat surprising, given prior research
linking both perceived control and self-efficacy beliefs to indices of well-being (Daniels
& Guppy, 1994; Smith, Dobbins, & W allston, 1991; Theorell, 2003; W iendenfeld,
O Leary, Bandura, & Brown, 1990).
The findings from the leadership literature also call into question whether
em ployees find direct assistance and advice helpful. D irect assistance may foster
dependency on managers and underm ine em ployees beliefs that they are capable of
managing difficult situations. Furthermore, whether or not esteem support is viewed as
helpful may depend on how and when it is provided. For example, it may be viewed as
controlling and m anipulative if it is provided only when em ployees com ply with their
supervisors directions and not when they have taken initiative in solving problem s.
C urrent typologies of support, which were previously discussed in this paper, may
not sufficiently capture the range and style of behaviors that em ployees find to be
supportive in a manager. The leadership literature suggests the existence of other
dim ensions specific to the m anagerial role such as autonomy enhancing behaviors.
A lthough both streams of literature enrich our understanding of m anagerial support, they
have largely run parallel to one another with little cross-connections or dialogue. In the
next section, com m only adm inistered measures of managerial support are discussed and
critiqued, taking into consideration dem ographic and leadership trends. Other
m easurement issues are also highlighted, such as the im portant distinction betw een
problem -focused versus ongoing support.
M easurement o f M anagerial Support and Limitations
Studies of the beneficial effects of m anagerial support have proliferated in the last
several decades, despite the lack of conceptual and operational developm ent o f this
construct. Although m ost people have a general sense of what a supportive m anager is or
what a supportive supervisor does, there has been a paucity of research on the particular
behaviors expressed by managers that are perceived by em ployees as supportive. As can
be seen in Appendix B, m easurem ent instrum ents of supervisor support are typically
written by researchers who have taken the liberty of determ ining what is supportive to
em ployees, w ithout the use of qualitative research to inform the conceptualization and
operalization of this construct.
M any researchers have written their own supervisor support scales, translating
H ouses (1981) typology into four scale items, one for each dim ension of support (see
Constable & Russell, 1986; Dorm ann & Zapf, 1999; Himle, Jayarathe, & Thyness, 1989;
Moyle, 1998). In these studies, each dimension of support is assessed with one item,
making it im possible to assess the dim ensional structure of the scale. M oreover, scale
items often lack specificity (e.g., How much is your supervisor helpful to you in getting
the jo b done?) and do not offer any insight into particular behaviors that are helpful to
employees.
A longer m easure (16 items) was developed by Kottke and Sharafinski (1988);
however, there is no inform ation in the study on how the survey was developed. In fact,
the authors state that pilot testing was discontinued after 14 em ployees had com pleted the
survey because of considerable confusion over the wording of the items. Sim ilar to other
measures of support, the items lack specificity (e.g., M y supervisor values my
contributions to the well-being of our departm ent). M oreover, scale item s m easure
em ployees perceptions of how their manager feels about them (e.g., M y supervisor
really cares about my w ell-being), rather than behaviors that com m unicate support.
M any studies of supervisor support adm inister Caplan, Cobb, French, and
H arrisons (1975) measure (e.g., see Fenlason & Beehr, 1994; Frese, 1999; Ganster,
Fusilier, & M ayes, 1986; Kaufmann & Beehr, 1989; LaRocco, House, & French, 1980;
Ray & Miller, 1994; Schirm er & Lopez, 2001; Sargent & Terry, 2000). Sim ilar to other
measures of supervisor support, items contained within this measure are fairly broad
(How much can your supervisor be relied on when things get tough at w ork?) and do
not offer any insight into particular behaviors expressed by m anagers that com m unicate
support. The lack of specificity in identifying behaviors also limits practical applications
of research findings. For example, studies using global assessm ents of support have little
practical utility for com panies interested in devising training program s aim ed at
enhancing supportive behaviors in the workplace.
A nother limitation of C aplans et al., (1975) m easure is that it was constructed
m ore than 25 years ago. Technological advances, coupled with a new generation of
workers with a different set of expectations, may make certain forms of support more
meaningful and salient for em ployees since that time period. Furtherm ore, there has been
a shift among leading edge companies from a more directive com m and and control
m anagem ent style to leadership com petencies that involve more collaborative
m anagem ent of innovation and change (Horton & Reid, 1991). This shift in leadership
style is likely to have a bearing on the kinds o f supportive behaviors that are displayed in
the workplace.
O ther researchers have adapted social support instrum ents that were developed
and validated based on contexts outside the workplace such as close relationships (e.g.,
Digman & W est, 1988; Lindorff, 2000). However, the kinds of behaviors that are
10
appraised as supportive from one source and in one context may not apply in a different
context. Behaviors that signify caring and concern from a significant other such as a
spouse are likely to be inappropriate if displayed by a supervisor. For exam ple, probing
for specific details about a personal crisis m ay be valued in intimate relationships;
however, the role obligations of a supervisor may proscribe such inquiries. B y the same
token, the m anagers role definition may call for other forms of support, which may not
be captured by existing m easurem ent instrum ents that have been developed for close
relationships. For exam ple, actions taken by the supervisor to advance an em ployees
career are unlikely to generalize to close interpersonal relationships. In short,
consideration of the forms of support that are unique to the m anagers role is missing
from the existing literature on m anagerial support.
There are also several measures that have been developed to specifically assess
perceived supervisor support for work-fam ily needs (e.g., Fernandez, 1986; Hughes &
Galinsky, 1988; Shinn, W ong, Simko, & Ortiz-Torres, 1989). However, these
m easurem ent instrum ents capture only one aspect of supervisor support - support for
w ork-fam ily demands. Although these measures may be well suited for studies assessing
the im pact of supervisor support on work-fam ily conflict, their narrow focus w ould be
inappropriate for other variables of interest.
Lastly, there has been a lack of conceptual differentiation between supportive
behaviors that occur on a regular basis (hereby referred to as ongoing support) and those
that occur in response to particular stressful situations (hereby referred to as problem -
focused support). This distinction has im portant theoretical im plications, particularly in
regards to the distinction between the main effect and the buffering effect of social
11
support. W hereas ongoing supportive behaviors are likely to serve a health-sustaining
function (i.e., main effect), support that is mobilized in the context of an em ployee coping
with a particular stressor (i.e., problem -focused support) is likely to m itigate the effects of
that stressor on em ployee strain (i.e., the relationship between jo b dem ands and strain
would be less strong for em ployees reporting higher levels of m anagerial support thereby
serving a buffering function). However, studies of m anagerial support have not
considered this distinction and some m easurem ent instrum ents conflate the two kinds of
support.
The focus of the current study is on identifying and studying the im pact of
ongoing supportive behaviors and exam ining the psychological m ediators that are
im plicated in the social support process. D ue to the fact that ongoing support occurs on a
m ore regular basis, its effects are more likely to promote enduring positive workplace
attitudes and well-being com pared to problem -focused support, which is m obilized on a
distinct occasion. As Vaux (1988) notes, supportive interactions that occur on a regular
basis are likely to serve an inoculation function, strengthening a persons psychological
resources to deal with potential stressors. M oreover, ongoing supportive encounters are
likely to foster positive attitudes towards the self by providing self-evaluative
information. For example, supportive managerial behaviors such as em ployee praise and
recognition provide em ployees with inform ation about how they are regarded by their
manager.
An empirical study of the relationships among supervisory behaviors,
psychological mediators (e.g., perceived control, job self-efficacy, perceived m anager
sentiment), and job-related attitudes and well-being will be undertaken in Study 3. The
12
next section briefly reviews the literature on the effects of supervisor support and
identifies gaps in our understanding of the process through which social support operates.
The Im pact o f M anagerial Support on E m ployees Job-related Attitudes and Well-being:
Identifying M ediating Processes
N um erous studies have docum ented that perceptions of a supportive supervisor
predict jo b satisfaction (Bond et al., 1998; M oyle, 1998; Thom as & Ganster, 1995);
organisational loyalty (Bond et al., 1998; Greenberger et al., 1989b); low er turnover
intentions (Thom pson et al., 1999); less turnover (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber,
Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002); less work stress (Viswesvaran, Sanchez, &
Fisher, 1999); less burnout (Constable & Russell, 1986); more work-fam ily balance
(Thomas & Ganster, 1995); psychological well-being (Terry, Neilsen, & Perchard, 1993;
W inefield, W inefield, & Tiggemann, 1992); and organizational com m itm ent (K idd &
Smewing, 2001).
D espite calls in the social support literature (e.g., Lakey & Cohen, 2000), little
empirical research has been directed tow ard em pirically testing the processes through
which support operates. Drawing on several theoretical and em pirical papers, I propose
that ongoing supportive behaviors displayed by managers positively influence
em ployees job-related attitudes and well-being through three psychological m ediating
processes: 1) by enhancing em ployees perceptions of work autonomy; 2) by enhancing
em ployees confidence in their ability to perform their jobs effectively (i.e., job self-
efficacy); and 3) by conditioning the belief that the m anager has positive regard for the
employee (i.e., perceived manager sentiment).
13
Autonomy, efficacy, and connectedness to others are featured prom inently in self-
determ ination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to self-determ ination
theory, there are three basic psychological needs: autonomy, com petence, and
relatedness, which, if blocked, im pair m otivational processes and psychological w ell
being. In the SDT fram ework, com petence refers to a persons sense of efficacy in
interacting with the social environm ent and having opportunities to apply o n es abilities.
In their model, autonom y refers to a persons actions being driven internally rather than
regulated by external forces. Lastly, relatedness refers to feelings of being cared for and
a sense of belonging. Although the conceptualization and operalization of these
constructs differ som ew hat from those proposed in the current framework, studies based
on self-determ ination theory have dem onstrated that autonomy enhancing environm ents
play an im portant role in contributing to psychological well-being, self-esteem, life
satisfaction, and initiative (O Connor & Vallerand, 1994; Vallerand & O Connor, 1989).
A pplied to the organizational context, when needs for autonomy, com petence, and
relatedness are met by the manager, em ployees are expected to report m ore satisfaction
with their work, a greater willingness to go the extra mile for the manager, and are less
likely to feel strained and think about leaving the organization. A more detailed
discussion of the application of these constructs to the workplace is provided next.
The Influence o f Perceived Job Autonom y on Work Attitudes and Well-being
The extent to which em ployees feel that they have autonomy and control in their
jobs is significantly related to their jo b satisfaction, personal accomplishm ent,
performance, job-related strain, and turnover intentions (Greenberger, Strasser,
14
Cum m ings, & D unham , 1989; Knudsen, Johnson, & Roman, 2003; Langfred, 2000;
M ikkelsen, Saksvik, & Landsbergis, 2000; Rasku & Kinnunen, 2003; Ross & Reskin,
1992; Zhou, 1998). M oreover, there is a considerable body of research docum enting the
m ental health benefits of having a sense of control (see Skinner, 1996). Control beliefs
have been conceptualised in a num ber of ways, from m ore dispositionally-based
conceptions such as locus of control to more situationally-determ ined constructs.
W hereas earlier research focused on general control beliefs, m ore recently, the
im portance of assessing domain-specific control has been recognized (e.g., Krause,
1997).
In organizational research, perceived control is often defined in terms of job
autonomy and participation in decision m aking (Macy, Peterson, & Norton, 1989). The
im portance of perceived work autonomy in the organizational context is enshrined in
K araseks (1979) job dem ands-control model. This model stipulates that low perceived
w ork control, defined as the degree to which em ployees feel they are able to exert
influence over jo b tasks, com bined with high jo b demands are conditions that pose a
significant threat to em ployees well-being. High perceived w ork control, on the other
hand, is expected to attenuate the deleterious effects of highly dem anding jobs. W ith a
greater sense of control, em ployees are expected to appraise their work as challenging
rather than draining. In 1990, K arasek and Theorell proposed a revised model,
incorporating the influence of social support. They hypothesized that the particular
com bination of low workplace support, low jo b control, and high demands should yield
the most elevated symptom s of strain.
15
Inconsistent results have em erged from several studies testing K araseks revised
m odel (see Daniels & Guppy, 1994). One limitation of K araseks research is that job
control is largel y viewed as a function of the adm inistrative structure and job design
features rather than as a consequence of the m anagem ent style o f supervisors. In the next
section, the influence of m anagerial behaviors (both supportive and unsupportive) on
perceptions of control in the workplace is discussed.
The M anager as a Facilitator or Inhibitor o f Job Autonom y
A ccording to A lbrecht and Adelm an (1987), a m ajor function of support is to
enhance peoples beliefs that they are personally able to control situations that are
causing them distress. M anagers behaviors m ay influence the degree to which
em ployees see them selves as having control over aspects of their jo b or w ork
environm ent. For example, m anagers m ay foster work autonom y by rewarding
em ployees who show initiative on the jo b or propose new ideas. On the other hand, a
m anager who criticizes new ideas and who uses a directive style is likely to undermine
em ployees sense of work autonomy.
Although the particular behaviours have yet to be clearly identified, a handful of
studies highlight the role that managers play in either contributing to or constraining
perceived control in the workplace. In two research studies, allowing em ployees
discretion in m odifying their start and end times (i.e., flextim e) reduced stress and
enhanced family role com petence through enhancing em ployees perceived control
(Kelloway & Gottlieb, 1998; Thom as & Ganster, 1995). In an action research project
conducted by Hugentobler, Israel, and Schurman (1992) with em ployees w orking for a
16
m anufacturing company, lack of influence and control over decision m aking was
identified as one of the m ajor sources o f stress in the plant. The authors noted that, after
further exploration of the issues with subcomm ittees, the lack o f participation in and
influence over decision m aking.. .along with supervisor problem s were interrelated
concerns that need to be addressed sim ultaneously (p.64). Although a pilot project was
initiated to rem edy the situation, little inform ation is provided about specific m anagerial
strategies that were encouraged or developed.
Drawing on a sample of female health care professionals, Thom as and G anster
(1995) found that supervisor support (assessed with em otional and instrum ental items)
reduced w ork-fam ily conflict by fostering em ployees perceptions of control (defined as
the belief that one can exert control over ones work and family environm ent so that it
becom es less threatening). In a longitudinal study of 148 managers working in the retail
food industry, em ployees global perceptions of their im m ediate supervisor predicted job
satisfaction through enhanced latitude in decision m aking (Moyle, 1998). H owever, one
limitation of this study was its broad assessments of support (e.g., to what degree is your
m anager helpful?). One of the principal aims of the first study reported here is to
identify the specific behaviours of managers that contribute to or underm ine em ployees
perceptions of job control.
To summarize, given the personal and organisational benefits of em ployee
control, it is surprising that very little is known about what managers do to foster or
constrain perceived control by providing or failing to provide certain kinds of support.
Although giving em ployees discretion in arranging their work schedule, equipping them
with information, and involving them in decision-m aking may enhance perceptions of
17
work autonomy, there are likely to be additional supportive behaviours that affect these
perceptions. Based on qualitative data, one of the aims of Study 1 will be to identify
supportive m anagerial behaviors that enhance or underm ine em ployees perceptions of
control over their w ork environment. Study 3 will draw on quantitative data to examine
whether any beneficial effects of these supportive m anagerial behaviours are m ediated by
enhanced perceptions of work autonomy. In addition, the role of self-efficacy beliefs will
be exam ined, a topic that is explored more fully in the next section.
The Influence o f Self-Efficacy Beliefs on A ttitudes and Well-being
Self-efficacy, defined as peoples judgm ents of their capabilities in carrying out
courses of action (Bandura, 1997) has been identified as a predictor of a variety of
affective and attitudinal outcomes such as less depressed mood, anxiety, and higher levels
of life and jo b satisfaction (Bandura, 1982; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca,
2003; Endler, Speer, Johnson, & Flett, 2001; M uris, 2002; Steffen, M cK ibbin, Zeiss,
Gallagher-Thom pson, & Bandura, 2002; Smith, Dobbins, & W allston, 1991). M oreover,
self-efficacy beliefs are posited to affect behavioral outcomes such as persistence on tasks
in the face of challenging situations (Bandura, 1982).
Self-efficacy beliefs have been studied both in term s of generalized expectancies
as well as expectancies that are domain specific (i.e., people can judge them selves to be
highly efficacious in one area, but lower on a different kind of task). A ccording to
Bandura (1997), self-efficacy beliefs differ in generality and therefore will vary
depending on the context. Consequently, it is im portant that the study and
operationalization of this construct be grounded and tailored to the particular dom ain of
18
interest. Recently, the concept of self-efficacy has been studied in the w ork domain, in
relation to em ployees confidence in their ability to deal with the dem ands and
responsibilities of their jobs. The few studies conducted on job self-efficacy have
docum ented that higher levels predict less work-family conflict (Erdwins, Buffardi,
Casper, & O Brien, 2001) and enhanced creative performance at work (Tierney &
Farmer, 2002).
Given the pivotal role that self-efficacy beliefs play in m otivational processes and
affective responses, understanding how jo b self-efficacy beliefs are shaped is of critical
importance. In the next section, it is proposed that these beliefs can be shaped by
supportive behaviors displayed by ones supervisor. Although it is acknow ledged that
these beliefs could be shaped by other work relationships such as relationships with
colleagues, the discussion will be lim ited to managers, given that they are the focal point
of the current study.
Supervisor Support as a D eterm inant o f Job Self-efficacy
The notion that self-efficacy beliefs can be enhanced by positive interactions with
others has been highlighted by several theorists. Bandura (1986), for exam ple, cited
verbal persuasion as one of the four sources of self-efficacy. Applied to an
organizational context, being told by a m anager that we are doing a good job, or being
recognized for effectively managing difficult situations, is likely to shape our beliefs that
we are com petent in our job (i.e., jo b self-efficacy). In their model of w ork-related self-
efficacy, Gist and M itchell (1992) discussed the ways m anagers contribute to em ployees
sense of efficacy on the job by modeling effective strategies. Supervisors may also
19
provide em ployees with the necessary resources to effectively accom plish tasks, thereby
influencing confidence in accom plishing future tasks.
Thoits (1985) has also linked ongoing supportive interactions to a persons sense
of m astery and esteem. Thoits (1985) posited that feelings of mastery, control, and self
esteem are enhanced by successfully meeting role expectations. In the w ork context,
managers not only define these expectations, but they can also strengthen these beliefs
with encouraging words and behaviors.
In a study exam ining the antecedents of creative self-efficacy on the job, Tierney
and Farm er (2002) found that supervisor support (defined as supervisors tendency to
model certain behaviors and provide em ployees positive feedback) bolstered em ployees
creative self-efficacy. One lim itation of this study, however, is that the m easurem ent of
supervisor support was confounded with the outcome of creative self-efficacy. For
example, one of the items was: M y supervisor bolsters my confidence in my creative
potential , which does not provide any insight into the kinds of behaviors that enhance
em ployees confidence in their creative potential. Furtherm ore, although the findings
indicated that creative self-efficacy and jo b self-efficacy predicted creative perform ance,
analyses were restricted to simple regressions and mediational models were not tested.
To date, only one study has exam ined jo b self-efficacy beliefs as a m ediator
between social support and em ployee outcomes. In a study of 143 fem ale em ployees,
Erdwins et al., (2001) found that jo b self-efficacy did not mediate the relationship
between perceived m anagerial support and role strain associated with balancing w ork and
family demands. However, the measure of job self-efficacy consisted of only four items,
had not been previously validated, and inform ation on the developm ent o f this m easure
20
was not m entioned in the article. M oreover, the measure of supervisor support was based
on em ployees perceptions of their supervisors attitudes, rather than actual behaviors.
A nother study found support for the m ediating role of a sim ilar construct, namely
mastery beliefs. In a study of 264 em ployed women who were also inform al caregivers,
M artire, Stephens, and Tow nsend (1998) found that frequent em otional support from
supervisors in the workplace resulted in few er symptoms of depression by elevating
levels of em ployee mastery.
Several studies published in other domains have found support for the mediating
role of self-efficacy beliefs and coping self-efficacy. In a study of 55 women, perceived
support from their social relationships alleviated postpartum depressive sym ptom s three
m onths after giving birth by enhancing m others sense of efficacy in the parental role
(Cutrona & Troutman, 1986). Although this was a longitudinal design, which enhances
confidence in the direction of causality, the application of structural equation techniques
was inappropriate given the small sample size. The use o f this statistical technique is
recom m ended with samples of at least 200 cases (Kelloway, 1998).
Coping self-efficacy, which refers to the extent of confidence in ones ability to
cope effectively, was exam ined as a m ediator between perceived support and
psychological adjustment after an abortion (Major, Cozzarelli, Sciacchitano, Cooper, &
Testa, 1990). The findings, based on a sample of 283 women, indicated that the
relationship between perceived support from significant others and post-abortion
adjustment (e.g., mood, depression) was mediated by the w om ans coping self-efficacy in
dealing with the abortion (i.e., beliefs that they could cope in the future with selected
stressors such as driving past the abortion clinic). Apparently, others support prom oted
21
health by boosting judgm ents of coping self-efficacy. However, the two previously
mentioned were based solely on female samples and to stressors that are m ore relevant to
women. H ence, it is not known whether the role of self-efficacy in the social support
process equally applies to men.
To the extent that social support plays a role in shaping dom ain-specific self-
efficacy beliefs, it is im portant to identify the kinds of supportive behaviors that exert a
greater im pact on self-efficacy. Although one would expect that esteem support (e.g.,
words or behaviors that com m unicate positive feedback) would be m ost strongly related
to self-efficacy, it is not known whether other forms of support (e.g., action-oriented)
contribute as well. It is anticipated that the results of Study 1 will identify a range of
supervisory behaviors that boost em ployees jo b self-efficacy judgem ents.
The Role o f Reflected Appraisals in the Social Support Process
Reflected appraisals are perceptions of other peoples reactions that convey self
relevant inform ation (Schwalbe, Gecas, & Baxter, 1986). They have been identified as
one of the determ inants of self-esteem form ation (Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982). Although
reflected appraisals have been primarily studied in the context o f familial and
interpersonal relationships, they are equally pertinent to our understanding o f w orkplace
relationships. Specifically, it is reasonable to propose that supportive responses from
others, or lack thereof, com municate self-evaluative inform ation concerning how others
feel about us or how others think about us. For example, public praise from a supervisor
may signal to an em ployee that she or he is valued or the indifference o f a colleague may
lead a person to believe that the colleague does not care about him/her.
22
Although reflected appraisals have been studied in close relationships (e.g.,
M urray, H olm es, M acDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998), there is a gap in our understanding of
how they apply to other forms of relationships such as workplace relationships. There is
some prelim inary research which shows that these perceptions can be shaped by task
feedback; however, there are likely to be other forms of com m unication that are equally
relevant. In a study of 197 university students, reflected appraisals of perform ance were
found to mediate the relationship between task feedback and self-evaluations (Jussim,
Soffin, Brown, Ley & Kohlhepp, 1992). Put another way, there was a significant direct
relationship between the kind of feedback given by a confederate on a task (i.e., positive,
negative, or neutral) and participants reflected appraisals of perform ance (i.e., their
perceptions of how the confederate regarded their performance). These reflected
appraisals, in turn, predicted self-perceptions o f performance. In other words, the
confederates feedback was internalized by the participant.
Extending this reasoning to an organizational setting, the ways in which
managers behave towards em ployees communicate m essages about their sentiment
toward employees. Positive reflected appraisals (e.g., my m anager trusts me; my
manager has confidence in my abilities) are likely to influence em ployees own self-
evaluative judgm ents, fostering positive attitudes and well-being. Along the sam e lines,
negative reflected appraisals may dam pen em ployees attitudes tow ard them selves,
including their self-confidence regarding their value, acceptance, and trustw orthiness.
In Study 3, the role o f reflected appraisals will be exam ined as a m ediator
between supportive and unsupportive behaviors displayed by m anagers and em ployees
job-related attitudes and well-being. For the purposes of the present research, these
23
reflected appraisals are labeled as perceived m anager sentiment. In the next section, I
review literature concerning behaviors of m anagers that com m unicate low regard and
lack of concern for the em ployee. I also underscore the need to identify less overt
behaviors that may affect employees in sim ilar ways.
Unsupportive Behaviors D isplayed by M anagers
The m ajority of em pirical studies exam ining the influence of m anagers on
em ployees attitudes and well-being have focused on the positive effects of supportive
managers. Although the inform ation from these studies has m ade a strong case for
bolstering supportive interactions in the workplace, exclusive em phasis on the positive
side of workplace relationships has yielded a partial and skew ed understanding o f the role
that managers play in determ ining em ployees well-being.
As pointed out by M anne and Glassman (2000), unsupportive behaviors can be
intentionally harmful or unintentionally harmful. A num ber of studies have focused on
the form er kinds of overt or hostile acts, such as public criticism or expressed anger;
however no study has docum ented subtle behaviors that may be construed by em ployees
as unsupportive. Tepper (2000), for exam ple, has studied the effects o f abusive
supervision, which he defines as subordinates perceptions o f the extent to which
supervisors engage in the sustained display o f hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors,
excluding physical contact (p. 178). Exam ples of abusive supervision include behaviors
such as ridiculing and criticizing em ployees, telling them their thoughts or feelings are
stupid, and expressing anger. In a review of studies on dom ineering managers, A shforth
(1994) defines a petty tyrant m anager as som eone who lords his or her pow er over
24
others (p. 755). Research on abusive m anagem ent practices has similarly been
conducted by Newman and Baron (1997) in their w ork on non-physical workplace
aggression and by Bies and Tripp (1998) who docum ented manifestations of abusive
m anagem ent behavior. According to Bies and Tripp (1998), an abusive boss is one
whose prim ary objective is the control of others, and such control is achieved through
methods that create fear and intim idation (p.205).
Although these studies have docum ented manifestations of abusive behaviors
displayed by managers, the range of behaviors included in these conceptualizations has
been restricted to overt displays of aggressive and bullying behaviors; less is known
about m ore subtle behaviors that may be construed by em ployees as unhelpful or
unsupportive.
Research on the miscarriage of support has been undertaken in other contexts
such as am ong individuals experiencing traumatic or stressful events. For exam ple, in
Lehman, Ellard, and W ortm ans (1986) study of 94 people who lost a loved one to a car
accident, m inim izing their situation, giving advice, and encouraging recovery were
viewed by the bereaved as unhelpful responses. In studies of cancer patients, the
provision of inaccurate inform ation or unw anted advice, abrupt responses, having
com parisons drawn with other cancer patients, and minimization of the patients
condition have been docum ented as unhelpful behaviors (D akof & Taylor, 1990; Dunkel-
Schetter, 1984). Similarly, m inim ization of the patients condition was identified as an
unhelpful response among individuals with multiple sclerosis (Lehman & H em phill,
1990). O ther unhelpful behaviors included m aking threatening social com parisons (e.g.,
someone says they know someone with MS who died), catastrophizing the p erso n s
25
condition, being over-protective, emotionally over-involved, and avoiding contact with
the distressed party. It is im portant to note that the focus o f these studies was on
identifying unsupportive behaviors in response to a person coping with a particular
stressor (e.g., m iscarried support). Less is known about unsupportive behaviors,
particularly those expressed less overtly, which occur outside a helping context, but that
nonetheless have an underm ining effect on people at the receiving end.
In the organizational literature, only two research papers exam ined subtle
expressions of unsupportive interactions in the workplace. In one study, the research
team shadowed em ployees in a high-tech corporation in order to docum ent the subtle
ways in which managers exert control over highly skilled em ployees (Perlow, 1988).
Because employees had considerable leeway in determ ining their work schedules,
managers relied on other techniques to maintain boundary control over their em ployees.
These included scheduling meetings without considering the needs of em ployees;
rewarding em ployees who worked long hours; setting unreasonable deadlines; and
constantly checking on em ployees w ork progress. Although it is not known w hether
m anagers recognized these behaviors as harmful, they nonetheless contributed to
em ployee stress and dissatisfaction with their jobs.
Drawing on prior research on interpersonal relationships, Duffy, G anster, and
Pagon (2002) proposed a conceptual model of social underm ining in the workplace. In
contrast to other conceptualizations of deviant or abusive behavior in the workplace,
social undermining includes less overt acts, which over time, dim inish the ability to
establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships at work. In order to be
considered social undermining, the action m ust be habitual and insidious (i.e., exerting its
26
im pact gradually over time); it must be perceived by the target as having negative intent;
and it may include the w ithholding o f actions, inform ation or goods. Exam ples include
spreading rumours, belittling ideas, and giving the silent treatment. However, certain
items in their measure of social underm ining are confounded with the outcome o f social
undermining (e.g., How often has your supervisor intentionally made you feel
incom petent ; hurt your feelings) and do not provide insight into the kinds of behaviors
that elicit negative em otional reactions. M oreover, many of the items were derived from
measures of social underm ining developed in non-w ork contexts. A lthough additional
items were added as a result o f one focus group that was conducted with police officers
working in the Republic of Slovenia, the article did not include any inform ation about the
m ethodology and makes no mention of whether the focus group was audio-recorded and
transcribed, or the approach that was taken to code the data. Furtherm ore, the
generalizability o f the study is quite limited.
M ore qualitative research is required to docum ent unsupportive behaviors
exhibited by m anagers in other workplace contexts. In the first study reported here, one
of the aims is to generate a com prehensive list of unsupportive supervisor behaviors, that
is, actions that convey a lack of caring, com m unicate low regard, or that underm ine goal-
directed behavior. This conceptualization differs slightly from social underm ining
because it does not concern itself with harmful intent. A m anager m ay not always be
aware of the dem oralizing and stressful im pact of his or her actions on em ployees.
M oreover, some behaviors m ay have a negative im pact on em ployees because the
m anagers intent is ambiguous. For example, an em ployee m ay not understand why the
manager has not asked him or her to participate in meetings. The em ployee m ay wonder
27
whether it is an oversight or whether his or her opinion is not valued. This ambiguity
about the action itself m ay cause distress. The conceptualization of unsupportive
behaviors adopted here also differs from social undermining because the behavior does
not need to be frequently repeated in order for it to be considered an unsupportive
behavior. Being yelled at once or twice would be included in the current
conceptualization, but would not be defined as social undermining.
The Consequences o f Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
Abusive m anagerial behaviors appear to exert their im pact on the same kinds of
outcome variables as supportive behaviors. T eppers (2000) study of over 700
employees dem onstrated significant relationships between abusive supervision and job
satisfaction, organizational com mitment, work-family conflict, depression, em otional
exhaustion, and anxiety. Ashforth (1994) links tyrannical m anagem ent behavior (i.e.,
noncontingent punishment; belittling; forced style o f conflict resolution) to higher levels
of stress, anxiety, dim inished performance, and self-esteem among em ployees. Similarly,
in a study of over 700 police officers, underm ining behaviors displayed by m anagers
(e.g., condescending, belittling behaviors) significantly predicted dim inished self-
efficacy, counterproductive behaviors, somatic com plaints, and organizational
com m itm ent (Duffy et al., 2002). However, the correlational nature of these studies
limits conclusions about the direction of causality. Em ployees who are stressed and
anxious may elicit more unsupportive responses from others.
In a qualitative study of em ployees who described having abusive supervisors,
participants described experiencing mental exhaustion, physical health problem s, distrust,
28
and frustration (Bies & Tripp, 1998). A num ber of studies have found that arbitrary
decisions and inequitable treatm ent of em ployees underm ine em ployees trust in
managers (Arvey, Davis, & Nelson, 1984; Hebden, 1986) and are related to lower ratings
of leadership (M ichener & Lawler, 1975).
Research on interpersonal relationships shows that unsupportive responses have a
stronger im pact on well-being than supportive responses (Fiore et al., 1983; M anne,
Taylor, D ougherty, & Kemeny, 1997). Unsupportive behaviors such as controlling and
condescending com m unications can have particularly dire consequences for em ployees
level of confidence in their work-related abilities because em ployees often look to their
supervisors for feedback on their jo b performance. In Bies and T ripps (1998) study,
som e em ployees with abusive supervisors described feeling paralyzed and having a
broken spirit. M oreover, the effects m ay be m ore pronounced for low er skilled workers
whose m obility may be more restricted within and outside the organization. Findings
from Teppers (2000) study dem onstrated that the effects o f abusive supervisors on job
satisfaction and depression were m ore pronounced for em ployees with less mobility.
The cognitive m echanism s through which unsupportive responses affect the w ell
being of receivers are speculated to be the same as for supportive behaviors (Vaux,
1988). Unsupportive behaviors such as criticism are likely to com m unicate to em ployees
that they are handling difficult situations incompetently, underm ining their jo b self-
efficacy (i.e., confidence in their ability to handle the demands of their jo b effectively).
In a study of 191 cancer patients, unsupportive responses by their spouses (e.g.,
criticisms, avoidant behavior) influenced their levels o f distress by enhancing negative
appraisals of their coping effectiveness (M anne & Glassman, 2000). Belittling or
29
underm ining behaviors are also likely to affect em ployees reflected appraisals (i.e.,
com m unicate to em ployees that their m anager holds them in low regard). W hile
controlling behaviors are primarily expected to reduce perceptions of jo b autonomy, at
the same time, these behaviors are also likely to com pound em ployees level of distress
by chipping away at their self-confidence. In lim iting em ployees ability to make work-
related decisions and to act independently, m anagers constrain their em ployees ability to
m aster new challenges, thereby negatively affecting their perceptions of jo b self-efficacy.
Although several organizational studies have linked unsupportive or abusive behaviors to
self-efficacy or self-esteem (e.g., Ashforth, 1994; D uffy et al., 2002), w hether or not job-
self-efficacy mediates the relationship between unsupportive behaviors and job-related
attitudes and strain has yet to be examined. M oreover, to date, no study has linked
abusive or unsupportive managerial behaviors to perceptions of jo b autonom y or
reflected appraisals. In Study 3, these relationships will be exam ined by testing a
mediational model that includes both supportive and unsupportive behaviors.
Limitations o f Prior Research on Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
As previously discussed, the few studies conducted in this area have focused
m ainly on the effects of overt displays of harmful behaviors; little attention has been paid
to identifying subtle behaviors that may underm ine em ployees self-confidence or be
interpreted as controlling or belittling. These kinds of behaviors are currently not
captured in existing m easurem ent instrum ents assessing harm ful supervisor behaviors.
This is likely due to the fact that the m easurem ent instrum ents used in research on
abusive behaviors were not developed inductively from qualitative research. Item s from
30
Teppers (2000) m easure of abusive behaviors were derived from prior literature
(including items of non-physical abuse in other relationships), rather than based on
qualitative research with employees. Although A shforths (1994) m easure of tyrannical
behaviors was partially based on qualitative interviews, the sample was com prised of
business students, which raises questions about the generalizability of the instrum ent.
A nother lim itation is that prior research has focused predom inantly on the effects
of physical forms of violence in the workplace. D espite the fact that indirect and passive
forms of workplace aggression are much m ore com m only experienced than physical
violence (Baron & N ew m an, 1996), only a handful of studies have been conducted on the
former.
Although it has been speculated that the psychological m ediational pathways by
which unsupportive behaviors exert their im pact on psychological w ell-being are likely to
be the same as for supportive behaviors (Vaux, 1988), only one em pirical study
exam ined m ediating processes. Tepper and colleagues (2002) docum ented that abusive
supervision affected jo b satisfaction, life satisfaction, organizational com m itm ent, work-
family conflict, and depression by influencing em ployees perceptions of organizational
justice. However, the construct of abusive supervisor is confounded with the criterion of
organizational justice (e.g., M y boss treats me fairly; I am fairly rew arded considering my
responsibilities), calling into question the m eaningfulness of the findings.
Finally, it is im portant to clarify the point that managers can engage in both
supportive and unsupportive behaviors. From time to time, a generally supportive
manager may behave in a way that is unsupportive. W hether unsupportive behaviors
overshadow the effects of supportive behaviors has not been determ ined to date.
31
Receiving a response that is inappropriate or harmful from a m anager m ay be more
dam aging than not receiving support at all. The deleterious effects of m iscarried support
in other contexts suggest the need to identify and understand the im pact of unsupportive
behaviors in the workplace.
The Effects o f Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors: A n Integrated
Framework
D raw ing on the w ork of various theorists (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Thoits, 1985; Deci
et al., 1981), an integrated model linking supportive and unsupportive m anagerial
behaviors to job-related attitudes and strain outcomes is presented in Figure 1. The
Figure shows that frequent ongoing supportive behaviors on the part of m anagers are
hypothesized to positively im pact job-related attitudes and reduce w ork-related strain by:
(1) enhancing em ployees perceptions that they have the discretion to act independently
on the jo b (i.e., w ork autonomy); (2) enhancing em ployees perceptions that they are
highly regarded and valued by their managers (i.e., perceived m anager sentiment); and
(3) enhancing em ployees confidence that they can handle job-related tasks and demands
(i.e., jo b self-efficacy).
As can be seen in Figure 1, perceived work autonom y is also hypothesized to
influence perceived m anager sentiment. In other words, em ployees who perceive that
they have more independence in their w ork role are more likely to infer their m anager has
a positive view of their competence. This hypothesis is based on the findings from a
qualitative study that found em ployees who were afforded greater autonomy on the job
32
Figure 1
The M ediational Processes By Which Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial Behaviors Influence E m ployees A ttitudes
and Job Strain
PR ED IC TO R S M E D IA T O R S O U TC O M E S
Supportive Behaviors Perceived Job Autonom y Supervisor Com m itm ent
Perceived M anager Job Satisfaction Turnover Intentions

Sentim ent
U nsupportive Behaviors
Job Self-Efficacy
Job-R elated Tension
were m ore likely to make positive statements regarding their m anagers perceived regard
for them (Schwalbe, 1985).
Perceived m anager sentiment, in turn, is posited to influence job self-efficacy
beliefs. In other words, employees who believe they are regarded highly by their
managers will have m ore confidence in their own abilities. The relationship between
reflected appraisals and self-efficacy has been previously docum ented in a study on
married couples (Schafer et al., 1998), but has yet to be confirm ed in a workplace
context.
On the outcom e side of the model, job satisfaction, work-related strain, and
com m itm ent to ones supervisor are posited to influence turnover intentions. The
direction of these hypothesized paths is based on prior research exam ining the
antecedents of turnover intentions (Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000; Richer, Blanchard, &
Vallerand, 2002; W ong, Ngo, & Wong, 2002). As well, job strain is hypothesized to
predict jo b satisfaction, consistent with prior research (Fuller, Stanton, Fisher,
Spitzmuller, Russell, & Smith, 2003).
Overview o f Studies
D espite the accum ulation of research dem onstrating the beneficial effects of
perceived m anagerial support, knowledge concerning the nature of that support is limited.
One of the most com m only em ployed m easures, by Caplan and colleagues (1975), was
constructed over a quarter of a century ago. Furtherm ore, items in these scales obscure
the behaviours that com m unicate support. M oreover, we know little about the kinds of
supportive behaviours exhibited by managers that affect em ployees sense of confidence
34
in performing their jobs effectively (i.e., job self-efficacy) and their perceptions of job
autonomy. M ost research has focused on the positive impacts that m anagers may exert;
however, as previously discussed, managers can also dim inish em ployee confidence and
contribute to stress. Although prior research has identified w ell-intentioned but ill-
received support in the context of critical illness (e.g., Dunkel-Schetter, 1984) and
bereavem ent (Lehman et al., 1986), little attention has been paid to the identification of
harmful m anagem ent behaviors.
In light of the preceding limitations and gaps in the literature, Study 1 is a
qualitative investigation o f the nature o f m anagerial supportive and unsupportive
behaviors. The inform ation gained from Study 1 is then used to develop a classification
scheme of supportive and unsupportive m anagerial behaviors, which was then
transformed into a behaviorally-based m easurem ent instrum ent. The purpose of Study 2
is to validate the instrum ent. Study 3 tests the proposed model displayed in Figure 1,
which exam ines the relationship between em ployee perceptions o f supportive and
unsupportive behaviors exhibited by managers and em ployee job-related attitudes and
strain, testing the psychological mediators that are hypothesized.
35
STU DY 1: D evelopm ent of a Typology of Supportive and U nsupportive
M anagerial Behaviors
Study Aim s
1. To develop a com prehensive classification scheme of perceived supportive and
unsupportive behaviors exhibited by managers, based on an interview study with
em ployees.
2. To identify perceived behaviors of managers that have a bearing on em ployees
perceptions of jo b autonom y and jo b self-efficacy.
M ethod
Participants
Interview s were conducted with 25 full-tim e em ployees working for two
organizations, a hum an services agency and a pharmaceutical com pany. The m ajority of
participants were fem ale (84% female; 16% male). O ver two-thirds of participants (68%)
had female managers. O f the total sample, 44% were between the ages of 40 and 54;
12% were between the ages 20 and 29; 36% were between the ages of 30 and 39, and 4%
were 55 and above. The average length of tim e em ployees had been working in their
current organization was 8.7 years. The participants occupations were varied and
included adm inistrative assistants, sales representatives, financial analysts, custom er
service agents, case workers, payroll specialists, research analysts, and assem bly line
workers.
Procedure
In order to achieve a diverse sample of employees, interview participants were
random ly selected within two organizations from both non-profit and for-profit sectors.
36
Prior to recruiting em ployees, a description of the study was com m unicated to them by e-
mail (see Appendix C). Initial contact was made through hum an resources about a week
after the initial e-mail. At one of the organizations, contact was made with prospective
participants by telephone and only one em ployee refused to participate, citing workload
as the reason. At the other organization, potential participants were contacted by e-mail,
and interviews were scheduled with the first 15 em ployees who responded. Face to face
interviews were conducted during w ork hours in a private room at each organization, and
all interviews were audio-recorded (with the participants consent). A brief written
description of the study was provided to em ployees prior to the interview (see Appendix
D), and em ployees were asked to give inform ed consent before com m encing the
interview (see A ppendix E). The duration of interviews ranged from 30 m inutes to an
hour. Em ployees were not given any material com pensation for their participation.
D evelopm ent o f Interview Schedule
A sem i-structured interview was constructed and revised after incorporating
feedback from the thesis committee. Pilot interviews were conducted with four
em ployees from one of the participating organizations. The interviews were audio
recorded and the data were transcribed. An exam ination of the pilot data resulted in
minor revisions (e.g., adding a w arm -up question before asking about experiences with
their own supervisor).
The final interview schedule itself is divided into several sections (see A ppendix
F). D em ographic questions were included at the beginning of the interview (e.g., sex of
supervisor, job position, tenure in the organization, age, am ount o f time spent interacting
37
with supervisor, etc). In Section A of the interview, employees were asked to discuss
what their current or previous managers did or said that they found to be supportive, as
well as what they found to be unsupportive. They were also asked to com m ent more
specifically on behaviours exhibited by their supervisors that enhanced or dim inished
their self-confidence on the job, and those that affected their perceptions of jo b
autonomy. In the second part of the interview (Section B), questions were designed to
elicit descriptions of problem -focused support (i.e., to discuss a stressful situation at
work, how their supervisor responded, and how they felt about their supervisors
response). Given that the purpose of Study 1 was to identify ongoing supportive and
unsupportive behaviors, Section 1 was the main focus for the content analysis of the
interview transcripts.1
Results
Analysis o f Interview Protocols
After transcribing the audiotapes, the material from Section A from all interviews
was subjected to a content analysis designed to identify all instances of ongoing
supportive and unsupportive behaviors. A fter identifying all explicit descriptions of
supportive and unsupportive behaviors, those deem ed to reflect the same them e were
grouped together. A prelim inary scheme of eight supportive and six unsupportive classes
was developed by assigning higher order cluster labels to sim ilar behaviors. D efinitions
were written for each of these higher order classes. Coding rules were developed for
determining what counted as relevant material (the scoring unit) and for coding the
material (see A ppendices G and H). The classification scheme underw ent a num ber of
1 Specific details on the coding and analysis o f data are provided in the Results section.
38
revisions, resulting in a final set of 64 supportive and 54 unsupportive behaviors that
were organized into eight classes of supportive behaviors and five classes o f unsupportive
behaviors. The classification scheme was review ed by the thesis supervisor for
conceptual clarity of the labels, definitions, and behaviors. This resulted in a few m inor
revisions.
Coding Reliability
O f the 25 interview transcripts, six were random ly chosen and coded by an
independent coder/judge to assess inter-rater reliability. Two reliability checks were
conducted in order to assess 1) agreement on the material to be coded and 2) agreement
on the codes that were assigned. For both reliability checks, the coder was provided with
a set of coding instructions (see Appendices G and H), definitions for each class (see
Tables 1 and 2 for definitions), and a copy of the classification schem e (see A ppendices I
and J). There was adequate agreement on what counted as a supportive or unsupportive
behavior (72% agreement). The inter-coder reliability for the assignm ent o f behaviors to
the five classes of unsupportive behaviors was .84 (C ohens Kappa) and .79 for the
assignment of the supportive behaviors to the eight classes (see Fleiss, 1981, for m ethod
of calculation). Inconsistencies in coding were resolved by discussion between the two
coders.
Classification Scheme o f Supportive Behaviors
The analysis yielded 64 supportive behaviors, classified into eight broad classes.
The eight classes, definitions of each class, and exam ples drawn from the transcripts are
39
listed in Table 1. The categories of behaviors that fall under each class can be found in
Appendix I.
A lthough the nam es assigned to the classes differed from those used in prior
typologies, there was considerable overlap in the content of the dim ensions. This is
likely due to the fact that prior typologies of leadership and social support were taken into
consideration during the developm ent of the classification scheme. The definitions
assigned to each cluster are functional in nature (e.g., behaviors that encourage
professional developm ent.. .or behaviors that recognize em ployees contributions). A
label was assigned to each class which best described the cluster of behaviors (e.g.,
Recognition, Open Comm unication).
In contrast to most typologies of social support that com m only identify four forms
of support, the current typology identified eight dim ensions specific to the m anagerial
role. There were several clusters of behaviors (Reasonableness/Fairness) w ithout any
known sim ilar dimensions. Next, a more detailed explanation of each class will be
provided and com parisons with other typologies will be made.
The first class of behaviors was assigned the label Trustw orthiness and
represents actions that convey to the employee that the m anager is trustworthy. Only two
behaviors were placed in this class: follows through on prom ises and respects the
confidentiality of conversations. This class is sim ilar to G ottliebs (1978) category of
Reflects trust which was considered to be a sub-category of Em otionally-sustaining
Behaviors in his classification scheme of inform al helping behaviors.
40
Table 1
Classification Scheme o f Supportive M anagerial Behaviors
Broad Category Definition # of Exam ple

Behaviors
1. Trustw orthiness Behaviors that 2 "S h es very good at m aking sure that
dem onstrate that the she keeps things private.
supervisor can be trusted.
2. G enuine Concern Behaviors that show that 8 Som ebody who has taken the time to
the supervisor cares know you as a person... I used to have
about the em ployee on a a m anager who every 2 weeks, met
personal level and that with each o f their employees, and it
dem onstrate interest in w a sn t ju s t w ork related - m ost o f it
and respect for the was - but there w ould be some
em ployees allowance fo r some how are you
personal/fam ily life. doing as a person in yo u r life ?
3. Reasonableness/ Behaviors that show that 4 I f I have made a mistake,

Fairness the supervisor is fair, approaching me about it in a rationale
level-headed, consistent, way.
and reasonable in his or
her decisions and
assessm ents of situations.
4. Recognition Behaviors that recognize 7 Just now and then saying ju st thank-
em ployees you fo r doing that or thank-you fo r
contributions. handling that difficult guy on the
telephone.
5. Professional Behaviors that encourage 5 I ve been recom m ended to various

D evelopm ent and em ployees professional research teams or recom m ended fo r
A d v o ca cy de vel opm ent/c areer p ro m o tio n o u tsid e o f the su p p o rt s ta ff
advancement and that role.
show a willingness to
advocate on em ployees
behalf.
41
Behaviors
6. Open Behaviors that encourage she w ould usually ju s t stop by the

Com m unication em ployees to engage in 13 desk every m orning before she would
open and honest dialogue go to her own office, and ju s t check to
with their supervisors see how things were going or if there
and that keep employees were any outstanding issues.
inform ed and engaged in
the organization.
7. Encourages Behaviors that encourage 12 She encouraged us to problem -solve

Decisional em ployees to make their our own problem s and issues, and
Discretion and own decisions and solve then present them to her once we
Creative Expression their own problem s, with thought we had some kind o f workable
lim ited input from the solution.
m anager and that
encourage em ployees to
express their ideas.
8. Task Guidance Behaviors that provide 13 She articulated very clearly what the
and Assistance clarity, suggestions, or m ost immediate objectives were and
practical assistance in outlined what she thought had to be
dealing with job-related done... she was very good at setting
tasks. the param eters o f the playing field.
42
The second class, Genuine concern, involves the com munication of em pathy
and concern for em ployees, and understanding of their family obligations. W hereas this
dim ension is sim ilar in some respects to what has been termed em otional support (House,
1981) or intim ate interaction (Barrera & Ainlay, 1983), it differs because it also includes
practical accom m odations (e.g., m aking special accommodations so that an em ployee can
attend his or her childs school recital) that reflect concern or em pathy for the em ployee
on a personal level. The key aspect of this dimension is that it goes beyond the
custom ary role obligations of a supervisor to support the em ployee professionally; it
reflects the m anagers sensitivity to the em ployees needs or interests outside the work
role. As one em ployee commented:
T heres a balance, that they recognize that youre a

person, that you have a life outside of here. They
show a little interest in it, and they give a little of
their own life.
The third class, R easonableness/Fairness, is com posed o f behaviors that show
prudence and calm ness when dealing with stressful situations, and good judgm ent in
assigning tasks and deadlines. W hen asked w hat her m anager did or said that added to
her confidence in her job, one em ployee said:
If theres an issue, seeking clarification before

m aking a judgm ent. Fact-gathering... Can you
tell me a little bit about what happened? Put it
into context. Gather information. G iving you the
benefit of the doubt.
R ecognition was the fourth class of supportive behaviors. This class involves
recognition of em ployees contributions and their value to the organization. It is similar
to the dim ension of esteem or appraisal support in other classification schemes; however,
43
in this context, it is tailored to the workplace and pertains to work-related tasks.
Recognition took various forms including monetary com pensation; verbal feedback; and
public displays of positive feedback. Receiving positive feedback in front of colleagues
or superiors was especially viewed favorably. As one employee recalled:
If I send him an e-mail, summarizing some ideas or

thoughts, if he thinks it was good, h e ll forward it
along to the com pany president or senior executives
and copy me on it, just to let me know that he
thought it was good. So I mean thats encouraging.
The fifth class, Professional D evelopm ent and A dvocacy , is support geared
towards advancing em ployees in the organization, assisting them to attain career goals,
and showing solidarity/backing o f em ployees in times of need. The dim ension is not
lim ited to such overt acts as recom m ending employees for prom otion, and includes such
indirect efforts to boost the em ployees developm ent as inviting em ployees to m eetings
where they will be exposed to senior leaders in the organization or encouraging them to
take on new tasks to broaden their skills set. One participant, w orking as a financial
analyst, made the following observation about how her m anager tried to encourage her
professional development:
She has asked me, W hat are you interested in

doing? And what are you currently doing? W hat
do you want to get rid o f .. . what chunks arent
im portant? W here do you want to go with your
career? So shes actually sat down tw ice with me,
and its been 6 months, to sort of discuss where we
want to take it. And I think thats important.
The sixth category, term ed Open C om m unication, includes behaviors that
foster closer com m unication between managers and em ployees, and that keep em ployees
inform ed of organizational/departm ental activities. Both inform al behaviors (e.g.,
44
chatting daily about w ork-related activities) and scheduled activities (e.g., holding
meetings to update em ployees) were mentioned. Other actions included being accessible,
providing adequate explanations, and com m unicating openly and honestly. Several
em ployees mentioned that they valued informal conversations about how w ork was going
more than form alized processes (e.g., jo b performance reviews). One em ployee
explained by saying:
Its just a little bit of time, on a regular basis to say,

how are things going? Is there anything thats
currently a concern? Is there anything thats
nagging away at you that needs fixing? That sort of
thing.
A sim ilar dimension of support was identified in a qualitative study used to
develop a new leadership inventory (see Alim o-M etcalfe & A lban-M etcalfe, 2001). One
of the dim ensions was nam ed A ccessible/A pproachable and was defined as being
accessible to staff at all levels and keeping in touch using face-to-face interaction.
The seventh category was titled Encourages decisional discretion and creative
expression . This form of support can involve instrum ental forms of assistance, but the
style of helping is less directive and less intrusive. It may also involve esteem support
aimed at enhancing autonomous work behaviors and fostering the generation of creative
ideas. In describing how her supervisor approaches the task of solving problem s at work,
one employee com m ented that:
She was speaking to me as an equal, as opposed to

condescending me. Instead of saying, M aybe you
should do it this w ay, it was more W hich way do
you think you should do it?
45
Although no com parable dimension could be identified in the social support
literature, the im portance of autonomy enhancing leadership has been extensively
researched in the m anagem ent literature. In the qualitative study conducted by Alimo-
M etcalfe and A lban-M etcalfe (2001), em powers/develops potential and encourages
critical and strategic thinking were identified as two of the nine factors of effective
leadership. The form er factor was interpreted as conveying trust that em ployees can
make their own decisions on important issues, and enabling em ployees to use their
potential. The latter factor was interpreted as encouraging em ployees to refram e problems
and take novel approaches to solving problems. Furtherm ore, an autonom y-enhancing
style is featured as a dimension in Stogdills (1963) typology of leadership (Tolerance of
Freedom dim ension) and in B ass (1985) typology of transform ational leadership (the
Intellectual Stim ulation dimension).
The eighth class is titled Task guidance and assistance and involves actions
intended to clarify job-related tasks and to bring to bear the m anagers expertise to assist
em ployees in their com pletion of work-related tasks. This dim ension resem bles
instrum ental support (House, 1981) and the dim ension of guidance (Barrera & Ainlay,
1983) in the social support literature. H owever, it differs from these concepts because it
is tailored to the kinds of assistance required to successfully accom plish jo b tasks (e.g.,
sets clear param eters when assigning work tasks).
M anager Behaviors that Enhance Employees Self-Efficacy
One o f the aims of Study 1 was to identify behaviors relevant to support that have
a bearing on em ployees self-confidence on the job, as well as those that influence
perceptions of jo b autonomy. Although this aim guided the developm ent of interview
46
questions, the analysis o f data was not constrained by this objective. As described in the
previous section, the dimensions were derived after content coding the transcripts and
grouping sim ilar clusters of behaviors together. O f the eight classes of behaviors that
were identified, one class was com posed of behaviors that encourage em ployees to work
more autonom ously on the job, entitled Encourages decisional discretion and creative
expression . A distinct cluster of behaviors that bolstered em ployees confidence did not
em erge in the analysis. Interestingly, in response to questions about how their manager
affected their self-confidence on the job, em ployees frequently made reference to the
degree of control their m anager afforded them on the job. For exam ple, in responding to
what her m anager did or said that added to her self-confidence on the job, one employee
answered by saying:
I think that by giving us more control, it was in

some ways a sign itself, saying that we were doing a
good job, because I dont think that sh ed give us
m ore autonomy if she didnt think that we were
doing a good job.
As the previous quotation illustrates, autonomy enhancing behaviors served as a source
of self-evaluative feedback. In addition to allowing employees a greater sphere of control
over how they perform ed their work tasks, these behaviors affected the self-confidence of
em ployees by indirectly com m unicating inform ation concerning their perceived
competence. A nother participant suggested that her m anagers tendency to encourage her
to solve her own w ork problems com m unicated trust and confidence in the em ployees
abilities.
47
W hen I would go to her with questions, or
problem s, her standard response was to say
something to the effect of youre the case
m anager.. .She was reflecting back her confidence
in me.
The link between em ployees self-confidence and autonomy constraining
behaviors was also evident in em ployees descriptions of their m anagers unsupportive
behaviors. In describing a previous manager, one employee com m ented that:
This previous m anager used to want to see every

eligibility for probably 2 years. So she over-killed
it...S h e was that very controlling type p erso n ...fo r
some people that m ight have really destroyed their
confidence.
Similarly, another employee described a controlling m anager as the one that had the
greatest im pact on his self-confidence.
The one that dim inished my confidence,

questioning your approach to things, again looking
over your shoulder, really outlining every step of
the process.
To summarize, a class of behaviors that had a bearing on em ployees perceptions
of job autonomy was identified, namely, Encouraging decisional discretion and creative
expression . Behaviors that that had a bearing on the other psychological m ediator (job
self-efficacy) were often expressed as control enhancing and thus were not clearly
delineated from the latter class. The above quotations illustrate the interconnectedness
between autonom y-enhancing or constraining behaviors, the com m unication of trust and
regard for the employee, and in turn, the em ployees self-confidence within the work
role. These relationships will be further exam ined through structural equation m odeling
48
in Study 3. In the next section, a more detailed analysis of unsupportive behaviors is
provided.
Classification Scheme o f Unsupportive Behaviors
Six broad classes of unsupportive behaviors were identified, containing a total of
54 behaviors (see Appendix J). A brief summary of the classes, including the num ber of
categories in each and definitions are listed in Table 2.
The first class, U ntrustw orthiness consists of behaviors that underm ine an
em ployees trust in his or her supervisor. Exam ples include actions such as gossiping,
breaking promises of confidentiality, or taking credit for em ployees work. In total, eight
untrustw orthy behaviors were identified.
The second class, U nderm ining is the largest class with a total of 17 behaviors
classified under this dimension. This class consists behaviors that demean, cause
personal hum iliation, or that undermine em ployees confidence in their com petencies or
their efforts to achieve work goals. They range from subtle actions such as m aking off
the cuff rem arks to overt acts of harassm ent (e.g., yelling). One em ployee described how
his m anagers tendency to blame employees underm ined his confidence in handling the
demands and responsibilities of his job.
Stuff happens beyond your control. He would do

things like try to make us feel responsible for it, like
say, I dont care what happened. This is your
project and if its not on time, this is your screw
up. So going through a project with things like that
can be quite frustrating, and thats when you go
home and say hey geeze, I m not doing a good
jo b .
49
Table 2
Classification Scheme o f Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors

Behaviors
1. U ntrustworthiness Behaviors that diminish an 8 She encouraged w ater cooler
em ployees trust gossip.
in his or her supervisor.
2. U nderm ining Behaviors that demean, 17 They criticize you in fro n t o f your
belittle, cause personal teammates. A n d personally that is
humiliation, or that probably the m ost degrading thing
undermine an em ployees that could be done to you.
confidence in his or her
work-related abilities.
3. Apathy Behaviors that show a lack 5 He absolutely knew nothing, and

of interest in the so he w ould sort o f slide out o f
em ployees work or a lack helping.
of awareness/regard for the
difficulties that employees
are coping with.
4. Bureaucratizing Behaviors that encourage 5 Others are, perhaps by their

or im plem ent formalized personality, ju s t m ore rigid about
procedures. the application o f the guidelines
and take it as bible law.
5. M onitors Face Behaviors that involve 5 I f you were leaving yo u r desk, he

time m onitoring em ployees needed to know where you were
whereabouts. going, who you were going with,
why you were going a n d when you
were coming back.
6 . Limits Decisional Behaviors that diminish 14 Everything had to go through his

Discretion and em ployees decision desk; everything had to be looked
Creative Expression making authority and that at by som ebody else before it
limit or dissuade reached him; i f you had an
employees from offering or innovative idea, it w as easily shut
expanding their opinions down at his office.
and ideas.
50
Others described more severe forms of underm ining behaviors. One em ployee observed
that his m anager would frequently yell, have tem per tantrums, much like a child, get
right in your face, yell, slam his hand on the table. A nother em ployee described the
following type of harassment:
W hen youre pulled into a back room w here nobody

can hear and literally yelled and cursed at. That
w asnt very nice. And then when you w ent upstairs
to upper m anagement to discuss it, again you were
the one who was at fault because I had less seniority
and a lower position. So it was my fault that the
supervisor swore at me and scream ed at me. And
I m thinking, what does that do for my dignity?
M any of the behaviors in this class are sim ilar to behaviors characteristic of a
tyrannical or abusive boss , as described by Bies and Tripp (1998). In their study,
managers who were deem ed by employees to be the boss from hell exhibited
unpredictable m ood swings, criticized em ployees w ork (often in front of others) and
were perfectionistic (e.g., second-guessing em ployees decisions, blam ing em ployees for
mistakes). In the current study, employees described more subtle forms of underm ining,
in addition to overt behaviors such as yelling. As one woman stated:
It was always said in a negative fashion: It doesnt

seem like youre busy today or It doesnt seem
like youre working today. And yet you could be
really busy and working, but shes not clear of what
she means by not working. It felt like you were left
with questions, and then it also felt that you were
inadequate.
The third class, term ed Apathy has received little attention in the social support
and m anagem ent literature. W hen asked what they found to be unsupportive about
current or previous managers, some employees identified behaviors that conveyed a lack
51
of interest in the em ployees work or disregard for the difficulties and dem ands they were
confronted with. W hile employees voiced a disdain for m anagers who micro-m anaged
their work, they also expressed dissatisfaction with managers who had a passive style of
managing em ployees. The Apathy dimension is sim ilar to a laissez-faire style of
managing, discussed by Bass (1998) as an approach that has been deem ed to be the least
effective style of managing.
The last three classes, Bureaucratizing , M onitors face tim e and Limits
decisional discretion and creative expression all involve the suppression of work
autonomy. B ureaucratizing occurs when m anagers adhere rigidly to policies and
procedures, or encourage the adoption of form alized processes. M onitors face-tim e
involves m onitoring the em ployees whereabouts or time away from their desk. The last
class, Limits decisional discretion and creative expression consists of behaviors that
limit em ployees decision-m aking capacity or discourage input and innovative ideas on
the job. The following exam ple illustrates several ways in which a m anager attem pted to
restrict his em ployees control on the job.
He w ould make it bureaucratically im possible to

m ove anything ahead without his signature on it. In
other words, arranged it so that the process for
m oving projects ahead in the com pany at every
stage, required his approval. The other was holding
project m eetings every other day and instead of
sitting back and listening and guiding, would
attempt to get into the projects and skew them and
start taking control of them.
This exam ple illustrates the kinds of behaviors com m only known as
micromanaging. In Bies and T ripps (1998) qualitative study on abusive supervisors, the
m icrom anager is described as being obsessed with details (e.g., having their hands in
52
everything). In describing the features of the organizational petty tyrant, Ashforth
(1994) describes two dim ensions characteristic of micromanaging: a forced style of
conflict resolution (e.g., forces acceptance of his or her point of view) and discouraging
initiative (e.g., discourages subordinates from participating in im portant decisions).
Subjective accounts from employees in Study 1 illustrated the disabling effects of
these m icrom anaging and underm ining behaviors. In recounting instances of
unsupportive behaviors displayed by their manager, em ployees reactions included
feelings of dem oralization, frustration, feeling threatened, self-consciousness, feelings of
inadequacy, anger, anxiety, helplessness, and self-doubt. Several respondents indicated
that they even sought professional counseling as a result of their negative interactions
with their manager. In Study 2, some of these adverse consequences (e.g., high jo b
strain, low jo b satisfaction) are em pirically tested as outcomes o f unsupportive
m anagerial behaviors identified in Study 1. Similarly, these outcom es are shown to co-
vary with supportive managerial behaviors in an effort to validate the new ly developed
inventories.
53
STUDY 2: D evelopm ent and Validation of a New Survey Instrum ent Assessing
Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
Study Aim s
1) To develop and validate a new survey instrum ent assessing supportive and
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors.
Hypotheses
1. Consistent with prior research on perceived supervisor support, the dim ensions of
the new hehaviorally-based instrum ent of supportive m anagerial behaviors are
expected to positively correlate with overall jo b satisfaction and negatively
correlate with jo b strain. The convergent validity of the instrum ent will be further
supported by positive correlations with perceived supervisor support and overall
satisfaction with the manager.
2. Conversely, the dim ensions of unsupportive m anagerial behaviors are expected to
negatively correlate with overall jo b satisfaction, perceived supervisor support,
and overall satisfaction with the m anager and positively correlate with jo b strain.
3. The measure of unsupportive managerial behaviors is expected to explain
additional variance in these outcomes, after controlling for the effects of
supportive m anagerial behaviors. The relative influence of supportive and
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors on strain is expected to mirror the findings
54
from studies on interpersonal relationships; it is hypothesized that job strain will
be more strongly predicted by unsupportive behaviors than by supportive
behaviors.
4. The supportive m anagerial behaviors survey is expected to dem onstrate
incremental validity by accounting for a unique proportion of variance in job
satisfaction, jo b strain, and satisfaction with ones manager, after controlling for
Caplan et al.s (1975) measure of perceived support.
M ethod
Participants
The data for this study are based on 100 em ployees from a variety of
organizations, and reflecting a variety of occupations. M ore than half of this convenience
sample was female (57%). About one-quarter o f em ployees (26%) were betw een the
ages of 20 and 29; 44% were between the ages of 30 and 39; 22% were between 40 and
54 and a small percentage were 55 and above ( 8 %). Em ployees worked, on average, 37
hours per w eek (paid). H alf of the sample had a fem ale m anager and the other h alf had
managers who were male. M ost of the participants interacted with their m anager on a
daily basis (60%); one-third interacted on a weekly basis and 7% had interactions with
their m anager on a m onthly basis. M ost of the sample (81%) were in professional or
managerial occupational categories (e.g., policy analyst, statistician, engineer, com puter
programmer); only 16% were in non-professional occupational categories such as
administrative assistants and custom er service representatives. O f the total sam ple, 23%
55
had job titles that suggested they were working in a m anagerial capacity (e.g., team
leader, manager).
Procedure
Em ployees were recruited by w ord of mouth. Questionnaires were sent to
employees mainly by e-mail, and in some cases by mail or in person. A pre-addressed,
postage paid envelope was provided to those who preferred to fill in a hard copy
questionnaire. M ost of the surveys were returned via e-mail (72%), and the rem aining
were mailed (28%). A description of the study and an inform ed consent form
accompanied the survey (see Appendices K and L).
M easures
Dem ographic information: Several items in the survey queried dem ographic
inform ation such as the sex and age range of the em ployee, sex of supervisor, jo b
position, and num ber of hours worked. In addition, em ployees were asked how long they
had worked with their manager and the degree of interaction (e.g., daily, weekly,
monthly).
Global Job Satisfaction: Job satisfaction was assessed with H oppocks (1935) 4-
item measure (see A ppendix M). Items are rated on a 7-point scale, with higher scores
indicating more satisfaction. Items 2 and 4 are reverse coded. This m easure has shown
adequate internal consistency and concurrent validity (Cook, H epworth, W all, & Warr,
1981). C ronbachs alpha in the current study was .8 6 .
56
Job Strain: Job strain was assessed with the Job-Tension subscale of House and
R izzos (1972) Anxiety-Stress Questionnaire (see Appendix N). There are five items in
this measure (e.g., problems associated with my job have kept m e up at night), all rated
on a 5-point agreement scale. H igher scores indicate higher levels of job-related strain.
The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the m easure have been previously
established (House & Rizzo, 1972; M iles, 1975). In the original scoring m ethod, items
were scored dichotomously; however, the measure has since been validated using a five-
point scale (M iles & Perreault, 1976). The current study confirm ed its internal reliability
(<x= .83).
Perceived Supervisor Support: Caplan et al s (1975) supervisor support scale was
adm inistered to assess the convergent and increm ental validity of the new ly developed
support scale (see A ppendix O). The measure includes four questions (e.g., How much
can your supervisor be relied on when things get tough at w ork?), each rated on a 4-
point scale (Not at all to Very M uch). The internal consistency and predictive
validity have been dem onstrated in previous studies (Larocco, House, & French, 1980;
Sargent & Terry, 2000). In the current study, C ronbachs alpha was .84. H igher scores
reflect higher levels of perceived support.
Perceived M anager Sentiment: This measure assesses em ployees beliefs about
their supervisors evaluations and regard for them (e.g., my m anager thinks I m a hard
worker). An exhaustive search of the literature revealed that no m easure of reflected
appraisals had been developed specifically for em ployee-m anager relationships. Hence,
items were m odified from those contained in measures for other kinds o f relationships
57
(see M urray et al., 1998). For example, the item M y partner loves me ju st as I am was
m odified to read M y manager likes me as a person . Several items were added from
statements made from Study 1 participants that were consistent with the
conceptualization of perceived m anager sentiment (M y m anager thinks I m
com petent). Respondents are asked to rate eight items based on how they think their
manager views them and the work they do (see Appendix P). All items are rated on a 5-
point scale ( D efinitely doesnt to D efinitely d o es), with higher scores reflecting higher
levels of positive perceived m anager sentiment. The m easure dem onstrated high internal
consistency (a = .94). Item 8 (M y m anager has confidence in my abilities) was
subsequently dropped, given its redundancy in content and high correlation (r = -. 8 6 )
with item 2 (M y m anager thinks I m incom petent). Convergent validity of the scale
was dem onstrated by significant positive correlations with C aplans m easure of perceived
supervisor support, r (97) = .62,p < .001 and jo b satisfaction, r (97) = .58, p < .001.
Em ployees who believed their managers had positive regard for them also reported less
job-related strain, r (97) = -.34, p <.01.
Satisfaction with M anager: Previously validated measures o f m anager satisfaction
were considered for inclusion in the current study, such as Scarpello and V andenbergs
(1987) satisfaction with supervisor scale; however, several items were redundant with
items from the newly developed inventory of managerial supportive behaviors.
Consequently, a brief global scale assessing overall satisfaction with o n es m anager was
created to assess the convergent validity o f the newly developed behaviorally-based
supportive and unsupportive scales (see Appendix Q). All four item s have high face
validity (e.g., Overall, I m satisfied with my current m anager ; I am very fortunate to
58
have the m anager I have). Item 2 is reverse coded (All in all, I w ould say my current
m anager leaves a lot of room for im provem ent). Items were rated on a 5-point
agreement scale ( Strongly D isagree to Strongly A gree), with higher scores reflecting
more satisfaction with o n es manager. The internal consistency of the scale was
supported with an alpha of .94
Instrum ent developm ent
Efforts were made to reduce the num ber o f items in the classification scheme of
Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors (total of 117 behaviors) by dropping
items that were redundant with other items or com bining similar items (e.g., Keeps
em ployees up to date and Keeps em ployees inform ed when changes are occurring in
the organization were replaced with one item Keeps me inform ed about things going
on at w ork). There was also considerable overlap between the items in the supportive
dim ensions of Trustw orthy (e.g., follows through on prom ises) and the unsupportive
dimension o f U ntrustw orthiness (e.g., breaks prom ises), as well as the supportive
dim ension o f Reasonableness/Fairness (e.g., Gives em ployees the benefit of the doubt
before m aking judgm ents) and the unsupportive dim ension of U nderm ining (e.g.,
blames em ployees). Once duplicate items from the Trustw orthy and
Reasonableness/Fairness classes were removed, eight supportive classes were reduced
to six. This resulted in a final set of 38 items (down from 64 items) for the supportive
behaviors and 40 items (down from 54 items) for the unsupportive behaviors (see
Appendices R and S for the initial inventories of supportive and unsupportive managerial
behaviors).
59
Each of the items was phrased as a declarative statem ent that contained an active
verb, referred to the em ployees personal experiences, and could be rated on a frequency
metric: Rarely, Occasionally, Often, and Always (e.g., My m anager interrupts me
when I m talking). The newly developed m easure was reviewed by the thesis
supervisor and m inor editorial changes were made to improve the clarity of some of the
items. The m easure was piloted with three em ployees before being finalized.
Results
D ata Cleaning
Before any analyses were conducted, data were exam ined for coding errors (i.e.,
out of range values) and outliers. M issing data was minimal. M issing values for scale
items were handled by using the mean of the rem aining items. Two univariate outliers
were identified. They were retained in the analyses because they were deem ed to be true
values and both were slightly above 3.2 standard deviations above the mean.
M ultivariate outliers were also examined. W ith 14 variables included, any value with a
M ahalanobis distance of 36.12 from the centroid was considered to be a m ultivariate
outlier (2 < .001). Using this criterion, one multivariate outlier was identified. A
decision was m ade to include this case because the deviation was minimal (42.72 from
the centroid).
Because several analyses involved multiple regression analyses, possible
violations of normality, linearity, and hom oscedasticity were tested. All of the variables
were normally distributed with the exception of perceived m anager sentiment, which was
m oderately negatively skewed (i.e., toward more favourable ratings) and the
60
unsupportive dim ensions, which were moderately skewed in a positive direction. The
positive distribution of unsupportive behaviors (i.e., low frequency) is consistent with
prior research (Duffy et al., 2002). Similarly, the negatively skew ed distribution of
perceived m anager sentim ent appeared to be consistent with prior research. For example,
in Schafer, W ickrama, and K eiths (1998) study, the mean of reflected appraisals was
5.98 on a scale of 1 to 7 (SD = .74). Appropriate transform ations were perform ed on
skewed variables and the analyses (e.g., regression, correlational) were run twice, one
with transform ed data and one with untransform ed data. Given the similarity in results, a
decision was made to retain the untransform ed data in the analyses.
W ith a total of 14 variables, it was not possible to plot all linear combinations.
However, the high inter-correlations between variables suggested that the assum ption of
linearity was met. Scatterplots were generated for selected pairs o f variables with skewed
distributions. Although there appeared to be violations of hom oscedasticity, evidence of
linearity was observed. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) note that the validity of the
findings rem ain intact when there are violations of hom oscedasticity, although
predictability is greater when it is accounted for.
Reduction o f Items
The items selected for exclusion in the final survey were based on several criteria
such as low item -total correlations, items with a restricted range, and items that were
redundant with other item s2. Specifically, items were deleted if 1) the correlation
between two items was greater than .70 and there was redundancy in the content; 2) there
2The elimination o f items could not be accomplished by factor analysis because the ratio o f item s to cases
was insufficient (the ratio o f cases to variables was 100 to 78). In Study 3, the revised survey was
distributed to a larger sample to allow for a factor analysis o f the items.
61
was a low item-total correlation (i.e., alpha increased when item was deleted from scale);
or 3) the proportion of responses to any one of the four response categories was 75% or
greater. This resulted in the removal of nine items from the supportive inventory and 21
from the unsupportive items. The majority of items that were dropped from the
unsupportive inventory (13 of the 21 items) had a restricted range (i.e., proportion of
responses in any one category was greater than 75%).
After these modifications, the categories of Genuine C oncern, Open
Com m unication and Professional D evelopm ent/A dvocacy were each com posed of
four items (see Table 3 for final subscales). The category of R ecognition was
com prised o f three items and both D ecisional D iscretion and T ask G uidance and
A ssistance were com prised of six items each. The item stands up for me at w ork when
I need it, which was originally conceptualized as an indicator of Professional
developm ent/A dvocacy , did not sufficiently co-vary with the other items in this class.
As a result, it was rem oved from its original hypothesized subscale. The item was m oved
under Genuine concern because it appeared to fit more closely with this dim ension (the
action of backing em ployees up w ould convey concern for the em ployee). The high
correlations between this item and other items under Genuine concern also supported
this change in conceptualization.
62
Table 3
M eans and Internal Consistency fo r Supportive Subscales
D imensions M SD a
G enuine Concern 2.7 (.72) .8 8

Sym pathizes with difficulties (Q3).
Sm iles/Appears happy to see me (Q4).
Shows interest in my life outside of work (Q 8 ).
Stands up for me at work when I need it (Q13).
Asks me how I m doing (Q17).
Open Com m unication 2.9 (.72) .85

Keeps me inform ed about things going on at work (Q15).
Com m unicates with me in an open and direct m anner (Q16).
Explains the reasoning behind decisions that affect me (Q18).
M akes him self or herself easily accessible to me (Q19).
Recognition 2 .6 (.82) .83

Gives me positive feedback (Q7).
Thanks me for the things I do (Q 12).
Praises my w ork in front of others (Q30).
Professional D evelopm ent 2.4 (.74) .77

Assigns tasks that are interesting to me (Q2).
Encourages work to help my professional developm ent (Q 11).
M akes em ployee visible to more senior people in the
organization (Q35).
Decisional Discretion 2 .8 (. 6 6 ) .84

Allows me to decide my work schedule (Q20).
He or she reassures me after I make tough decisions (Q22).
Grants tim e off work when I need it (Q25).
Asks for my opinion about things (Q26).
W orks collaboratively with me (Q27).
Offers suggestions, but leaves the final decision to me (Q38).
Task Guidance and A ssistance 2.7 (.70) .85

M akes efforts to clear work obstacles (Q5).
Gives clear instructions (Q9).
Shows a w illingness to pitch in (Q14).
Provides clear w ork expectations (Q29).
Answers questions I have (Q32).
Ensures that I have necessary resources (Q34).
Note. N = 100. Items have been shortened for this table. Please see Appendix R for exact
wording of items.
63
For the unsupportive dimensions, the A pathy dim ension was com prised of three
items (see Table 4). The rem aining one item under U ntrustw orthiness (e.g., Gossips
about m e) was subsum ed under the class U nderm ining because it was deem ed to be a
behavior that was dem eaning or undermining. The Underm ining dim ension had a total of
eight rem aining items. Only one item rem ained for the category of M onitors face-tim e
(M onitors how long it takes me to accomplish tasks) and one item for the class
Bureacratizing (Form alizes procedures that were better left inform al ). A decision
was made to group these two items with the rem aining six items under Limits decisional
discretion because o f their conceptual sim ilarity (all behaviors lim it em ployee job
autonomy or flexibility in their decision-making). The internal consistency of these eight
items (a = .85) supported this decision. The new subscale was relabeled M icrom anaging
Behaviors.
Descriptive Statistics
As revealed in Table 3, the means for the Supportive subscales range from a low
of M = 2.4 (SD - .74) to a high of M - 2.9 (SD - .85). U nsupportive behaviors were
displayed less frequently, the means for the U nsupportive subscales ranging from M = 1.5
(SD - .57) to M = 1.6 (SD = .56). As previously noted, this pattern of low frequency for
unsupportive behaviors is consistent with prior research (Duffy et ah, 2002).
64
Table 4
M eans and Internal Consistency fo r Unsupportive Subscales
M SD a
U nderm ining 1.6 (.56) .83

Second guesses decisions I make (Q3).
G ossips (Q 6 ).
Focuses more on negative than positive feedback (Q12).
Suggests that his/her way of doing things is better (Q13).
Asks me to do things that are beyond my abilities (Q14).
Gives insufficient notice about m eetings or deadlines (Q17)
Gives preferential treatment to certain em ployees (Q23).
Beats around the bush instead of being direct (Q29).
Apathetic 1.5 (.57) .70

Says he or she will do something, but doesnt do it (Q31).
Acts distracted when talking with me (Q33).
Displays little interest in the work that I do (Q35).
M icrom anaging 1.6 (.54) .85

M onitors how long it takes me to accomplish tasks (Q l).
Overrides decisions I make (Q5).
Form alizes procedures that were better left inform al (Q22).
Double-checks m y w ork (Q26).
Lim its my participation in m eetings (Q30).
Becom es over-involved in my projects or tasks (Q34).
M akes decisions that affect me, without my input (Q37).
M akes substantial revisions related to m y work (Q36).
Note. N = 100. Items have been shortened for this table. Please see Appendix S for exact
wording of items.
65
Internal Reliability
All six subscales of the Inventory of M anagerial Supportive Behaviors and three
subscales of the Inventory of Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors dem onstrated adequate
internal reliability (Tables 3 and 4). C ronbachs alpha ranged from .70 to . 8 8 .
D em ographic Correlates o f M anagerial Supportive and Unsupportive Behaviors
Analyses were conducted to determ ine whether any dem ographic variables co
varied with the respondents perceptions of the frequency of their m anagers supportive
and unsupportive behaviors. The sex of em ployees, age, the length of time they had
worked with their managers, sex of managers, and the num ber of hours they w orked were
not significantly related to the frequency of perceived support. H owever, the am ount of
contact em ployees had with their managers did make a difference: em ployees who had
m ore regular contact with their managers reported m ore frequent displays of concern, r
(100) = .25, p < .05, m ore task guidance, r (100) = .25, p <.05 , and behaviors that
fostered open and honest com munication, r (99) = .31, p <.01. Em ployees who reported
less contact with their m anagers reported m ore frequent displays of apathetic behaviors
(e.g., acting distracted, uninterested, uninvolved); r (99) = -.28, p <.01).
Construct validity
Correlations among all variables in the study are listed in Table 5. As w ould be
expected, each of the six subscales dem onstrated convergent validity; they were all
highly correlated with Caplan et al.s (1975) m easure of perceived supervisor support: the
correlations ranged from r (97) = .62, p <.001 to r (97) = .72, p <.001. Sim ilarly, high
66
Table 5
Correlations Between The Inventory o f Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial Behaviors and Job-Related A ttitudes
and Strain
GC OC REG PD DD TGA UND APA MM PS JSAT JTEN PMS MSAT

M 2.7 2.9 2 .6 2.4 2 .8 2.7 1 .6 1.5 1 .6 3.2 4.8 3.1 4.3 3.7
(S D ) (-72) (.72) (.82) (.74) (. 6 6 ) (-70) (.56) (.57) (.54) (.75) ( 1 .1 1 ) ( 1 .1 1 ) (.78) ( 1 .2 2 )
Alpha .8 8 .85 .83 .77 .84 .85 .83 .70 .85 .84 .8 6 .83 .94 .94
GC _
OC 7 7 ** -
REG .15 * * -
PD .73** 71 ** .76** -
7 7 ** .74** 7g**
DD .82** -
TGA .72** .80** 7 3 ** 69** .74** -
UND -.54** -.50** -.55** -.46** - 5 9 ** -.56** -

A PA -.48** -.55** -.51** -.38** , 50** . 64** .63** -
MM -.42** _ 4 4 ** -.4 4 ** -.40** -.53** _ 4 7 ** .82** 4 4 ** -
PS 70** .67** .64** .62** 71** .72** -.54** -.58** _ **

4 0 -
4 9 ** 5 9 ** . 3 7 **
JSAT .53** .50** .62** .48** -.32* -.2 5 + .50** -
JTEN -.28* -.34* -.28* -.2 4 + -,26+ -4 2 * * .32* ,2 2 + .27* -,2 5 + -, 2 2 + -
PMS 72** 7 q** . 6 8 ** .6 8 ** .73** .67** -.59** -.53** -.56** .62** .58** -.34* -
M SA T .76** 71** 71** .65** S i* * 7 4 ** -. 7 4 ** -.59** -.62** 7 9 ** .65** - 29* .76** -
Note. +p <.05, * p < .01, ** p < .001. Listwise deletion was employed N = 97
GC - Genuine Concern, OC - Open Communication, REC - Recognition, PD - Professional Development, DD - Encourages Decisional
Discretion, TGA - Task Guidance & Assistance, UND - Undermining Behaviors, APA - Apathetic Behaviors, MM -Micromanaging, PS,
Perceived Support, JSAT - Job Satisfaction, JTEN - Job-Related Tension, PMS - Perceived Manager Sentiment, MSAT - Manager Satisfaction
correlations were observed between the six supportive dimensions and overall
satisfaction with their manager; correlations ranged from r (97) = .65, p < .001 to r (97)
= .81, p < .001. Encouraging decisional discretion was the dimension m ost highly
correlated with overall satisfaction with the manager, r (97) = .81, p c.001). All six
dimensions were significantly correlated with H oppocks (1935) m easure of overall job
satisfaction; the correlations ranged from r (97) = .48, p <.001 to r (97) = .62, p <.001).
Similarly, out of the supportive dimensions, encouraging decisional discretion was most
highly associated with jo b satisfaction.
The six supportive dimensions were also significantly inversely related to job
strain; the correlations ranged from r (97) = -.24, p <.05 to r (97) = -.42, p <.001, the
strongest relationship being found for task guidance and assistance. In other words,
employees who received more direct assistance and guidance from their m anagers
reported less w ork-related strain.
As expected, employees who were more satisfied with their m anagers reported
that their m anagers displayed unsupportive behaviors less frequently; the correlations
ranged from r (97) = -.59, p <.001 to r (97) = -.74, p <.001). The highest correlation was
observed for the dim ension of undermining behaviors. Significant (negative) correlations
were also observed between H oppocks (1935) m easure o f overall jo b satisfaction and the
three subscales of unsupportive behaviors; the correlations ranged from r (97) = -.25, p <
.05 to r (97) = - .37, p < .001). The highest correlation was with underm ining behaviors.
Similarly, o f the three dimensions, underm ining behaviors was m ost highly correlated
with job strain, r (97) = .32, p <.01); the other subscales were significantly correlated,
68
but to a lesser degree, r (97) = .22, p < .05 to r (97) = .27, p <.01. Caplan et al.s (1975)
measure of perceived supervisor support was also significantly inversely related to all
three dim ensions (correlations ranged from r (97) = -.40, p < .001 to r (97) = - .58, p <
.001). For this variable, apathy (i.e., lack of interest and involvem ent in em ployees
work) dem onstrated the strongest correlation.
Increm ental Validity
A series of hierarchical regressions were perform ed in order to assess whether
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors explained additional variance in the outcomes, after
controlling for supportive behaviors. The purpose of conducting this analysis was to
determine w hether unsupportive behaviors significantly added to the prediction of work-
related outcomes, beyond the influence of supportive behaviors. In other words, the
findings w ould help to inform our understanding o f whether unsupportive behaviors form
a unique construct, separate from supportive behaviors, or whether unsupportive
behaviors are part of the same continuum of supportive behaviors, at opposite ends of a
unidim ensional scale. Four hierarchical regressions were conducted with different
outcome variables: jo b strain, satisfaction with ones manager, jo b satisfaction, and
perceived m anager sentiment. On step 1, the com posite score of supportive m anagerial
behaviors was entered, and on step 2 , the com posite score of unsupportive m anagerial
behaviors was entered.
As can be seen in Table 6 , unsupportive m anagerial behaviors explained an
additional 13% of variance in satisfaction with ones manager, and 4% in jo b strain and
4% in perceived m anager sentiment, after controlling for the effects of supportive
69
Table 6
H ierarchical R egression P redicting W ork-R elated A ttitudes and Strain from Supportive
an d U nsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors
Job Strain Satisfaction Job M anager

with M anager Satisfaction Sentiment
Variable p SE fi SE P SE p SE
Supportive -.30** (.17) .81** (.12) .57** (.14) .78** (.08)

Behaviors
R2 .09** .65** .33** .61**
Unsupportive .23 (.28) -.43** (.16) -.08 (.24) -.23** (.13)

Behaviors
R 2 change .04 .13** .01 .04**
Total A djusted R 2 .11** 7 7** .32** .64**

Unadjusted R 2 .13** .77** .33** .65**
Note: N = 99, In order to control for fam ily-wise error rate, Bonferonni correction was
used;*/? was set at < .013, (.05/4 univariate tests); ** p was set at < .003 (.01/4 univariate
tests).
70
managerial behaviors. However, the incremental variance for the outcom e of job strain
was not statistically significant, after adjusting for family-wise error rate. U nsupportive
behaviors did not uniquely account for any variance in jo b satisfaction, after controlling
for supportive behaviors.
In light of prior evidence suggesting that unsupportive interactions have a
stronger bearing on health than supportive ones, analyses were conducted com paring the
relative influence of supportive and unsupportive managerial behaviors on job-related
strain. To test this, standard regression was perform ed predicting jo b strain from the total
com posite scores o f unsupportive and supportive behaviors. A fter applying a
Bonferonni correction, the standardized beta-w eight for unsupportive behaviors was not
statistically significant when entered together with supportive behaviors (see Table 7).
The high correlation between the two constructs likely cancelled out the independent
effect each had on the outcom e variable. These findings are inconsistent with prior
research showing that even though negative interactions occur less frequently than
positive interactions, their im pact on well-being is more intense (D uffy et al., 2002).
As can be seen in Table 7, supportive behaviors played a larger role in predicting
positive attitudes than unsupportive behaviors. W ith respect to jo b satisfaction, the
standardized co-efficient was statistically significant for supportive behaviors, but not for
unsupportive behaviors. Although unsupportive behaviors uniquely predicted perceived
m anager sentiment, the standardized regression co-efficient was larger for supportive
m anagerial behaviors. Both unsupportive and supportive behaviors played an equal role
in explaining the variance in satisfaction with the manager.
71
Table 7
Standard R egression P redictin g W ork-R elated A ttitu des and Strain fro m Supportive and
U nsupportive M anagerial B ehaviors
Job Strain Satisfaction Job M anager

with M anager Satisfaction Sentiment
Variable P SE P SE P SE P SE
Supportive -.17 (.20) .57** (.12) .53** (.17) .65** (.09)

Behaviors
Unsupportive .23 (.28) -.42** (.16) -.08 (.24) -.23** (.13)

Behaviors
Adjusted R 2 77 ** 32**
Unadjusted R 2 .13** 7 7 ** .33** .65**
Note. N = 99, In order to control for family-wise error rate, Bonferonni correction was
used;*/? was set at < .013, (.05/4 univariate tests), ** p < .003 (.01/4 univariate tests).
72
Reproduced with perm ission of th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
It is reasonable to expect that the expressions of m anagerial support identified in
this study would correlate with other global measures of perceived support. However, in
order for the m easure of supportive behaviors to be accepted as a unique construct,
separate or discrete from global assessm ents of m anagerial support, it m ust dem onstrate
acceptable levels of increm ental predictive ability over and above these other measures.
In order to test this, a series of regressions were perform ed predicting three outcomes (job
satisfaction, satisfaction with manager, and job strain). In the first set of analyses,
hierarchical regressions were perform ed in order to determine w hether the inventory of
supportive m anagerial behaviors added additional variance to the outcomes, after
controlling for the effects of overall perceived supervisor support. As can be seen in
Table 8 , the new inventory of supportive behaviors accounted for a significant proportion
in both job satisfaction and overall m anager satisfaction, after controlling for
Caplan et al.s (1975) m easure of perceived support (an additional 11% of the variance
for both outcomes). Although the inventory o f supportive managerial behaviors
accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in job strain (after controlling for
perceived support), it was not statistically significant, after adjusting for fam ily-w ise
error rate.
In order to determ ine the relative influence of perceived support and the
frequency of supportive behaviors in predicting the outcomes, a series of standard
regressions were performed. As can be seen in Table 9, for job satisfaction and jo b
strain, the effect of Caplan et al.s (1975) measure of perceived support was no longer
significant, after controlling for the frequency of supportive behaviors.
73
Table 8
H ierarchical R egression P redicting W ork-R elated A ttitudes and Strain from the
Inventory o f Supportive B ehaviors and P erceived Support
Job Strain Satisfaction Job

with M anager Satisfaction
Variable /3 SE /3 SE /3 SE
Perceived Support -.21 (.14) .77** (.10) .48** (.13)
R2 .05 .60** 23**
Inventory of M anagerial Supportive -.34 (.26) .52** (.17) .52** (.22)

Behaviors
R change .05 11 ** 11 **
Adjusted R 2 .07* 70* * 32**

U nadjusted R 2 .09* 71** .33**
Note. N - 99, In order to control for fam ily-wise error rate, Bonferonni correction was
used;*/? was set at < .016, (.05/3 univariate tests); ** p < .003 (.01/3 univariate tests).
74
Table 9
Standard R egression P redicting W ork-R elated A ttitudes and Strain fro m the Inventory o f
Supportive B ehaviors an d P erceived Support
Job Strain Satisfaction Job

with M anager Satisfaction
Variable P SE P SE P SE
Perceived .04 (.21) .38** (.14) .08 (.18)

Support
Inventory of -.34 (.26) .52** (.17) .52** (.22)

Supportive
M anagerial
Behaviors
A djusted R 2 .07* 70** 32**

U nadjusted R 2 .09* 72** .33**
Note. N - 99, In order to control for fam ily-wise error rate, Bonferonni correction was
used;*p was set at < .016, (.05/3 univariate tests); ** p < .003 (.01/3 univariate tests).
75
Correlations Between Factors
As previously noted, it was not possible to em pirically derive the factors using
principal com ponents analysis or factor analysis because the ratio of sample size to items
was too small for these kinds of analyses. Hence, items were grouped together based on
apriori conceptual grounds. However, the high correlations between the supportive
dim ensions, r (97) = .69, p <.001 to r (97) = .82, p <.001) suggest a sim pler factorial
structure may provide a better fit to the data. The high correlations between dim ensions
are consistent with prior research on support typologies (Sarason et ah, 1994).
Similarly, high correlations between unsupportive dim ensions, ranging from r
(97) = .44, p <.001 to r (97) = .82, p <.001), have been reported in research on abusive
managerial behaviors. In A shforths (1994) study of m anagerial tyrannical behaviors, the
average correlation between dim ensions was .58. Similarly, a high correlation ( r = .60)
was found between two unsupportive dim ensions (e.g., criticism and avoidance) in a
study of cancer patients; how ever a two-factor structure was confirm ed using principal
com ponents analysis (M anne & Glassman, 2000). These findings are consistent with
the high correlations between unsupportive dim ensions observed in the current dataset.
In Study 3, using a larger sample, the factor structure of the items will be
exam ined empirically. Once simple structure has been achieved, structural equation
modeling will be em ployed to test the m ediating processes by which supportive and
unsupportive behaviors operate.
76
STUDY 3:
The Psychological Effects of Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors and
The M ediating Role of W ork Autonomy, Job Self-Efficacy, and
Perceived M anager Sentiment
Study Aim s
1. To determine the factor structure of the Inventory of Supportive and U nsupportive
M anagerial Behaviors.
2. To test a theoretical model that exam ines the processes by which supportive and
unsupportive behaviors influence em ployees attitudes towards their jo b (e.g., job
satisfaction, turnover intentions) and jo b strain.
Secondary Aim s
3. To explore the influence of occupational category on the relationships between
supportive m anagerial behaviors and outcomes.
4. To determine if ongoing supportive managerial behaviors serve a (direct) health
promotion function or a (indirect) stress buffering function. In other words, to
determ ine whether supportive managerial behaviors influences strain, regardless of
the intensity o f jo b demands, or whether the relationship between jo b dem ands and
strain is less strong for em ployees reporting high levels of m anagerial support.
77
H ypotheses
1) Five supportive dim ensions and three unsupportive dim ensions were proposed in
Study 2. However, despite conceptual differentiation between the dim ensions within
the supportive scale and within the unsupportive scale, the findings dem onstrated
considerable shared variance among them. As a result, it is expected that the factor
analysis will reduce the items into fewer dim ensions than those proposed in Study 2.
2) Perceptions of ongoing expressions of supportive and unsupportive m anagerial
behaviors are hypothesized to influence job-related attitudinal variables (i.e., job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions) and jo b strain through three m ediating
m echanism s 1 ) perceptions of jo b autonomy; 2 ) com m unicating low or high regard
for em ployees; and 3) influencing their confidence in handling their job
responsibilities (see Figure 1).
M ethod
Participants
Surveys were sent to 623 staff working for a large, non-profit, unionized, child
welfare agency in Ontario; 252 em ployees returned the surveys, yielding a response rate
of 40%. Five cases were subsequently dropped from the analysis, resulting in a final
sample size of 2473. However, the response rate is likely to be an underestim ate because
the data collection occurred during the sum m er months when m ore staff were on vacation
and therefore did not have the opportunity to return the survey in the tw o-w eek tim e
frame. The exact num ber of staff who did not receive the survey during this tim e frame is
3 These cases were deleted because a large proportion o f the data for the supportive and unsupportive
inventory was m issing (more than 40% o f items).
78
unknown. The response rate was sim ilar to those of previous surveys conducted at this
particular organization during the previous four years, which ranged from about 30% to
50%. Other studies on supervisor support in human service agencies have yielded
response rates of 54%, 66 %, and 69% (Dollard, W inefield, W inefield, & deJonge, 2000;
Himle et al., 1989; Soderfeldt et al., 1997).
The majority of the sample was female (82%) and the largest proportion was
between the ages of 40 and 54 (43% of sample). O ne-sixth of the sample (16%) were
between the ages of 20 and 29 and 31% were aged 30 to 39. A small proportion (9%)
were over 55. About three quarters had a university or graduate degree and an additional
9% had a college degree. Close to two-thirds of the sample had fem ale m anagers (65%)
and had been working with their m anager for over one year (60% of sample). A more
detailed summary of the demographics of survey respondents can be found in Table 10.
The table includes a colum n with descriptive inform ation for all em ployees at the
organization.
Staff of this organization belong to one of three broad categories: adm inistrative
(24% of final sample); bargaining units (49% of sample) and m anagem ent (28% of
sample). The first group includes positions such as adm inistrative support, com puting
support, hum an resource assistant, legal assistant, and payroll assistant. The second
group consists of social workers, com m unity workers, intake screeners, and health
specialists. The m anagem ent group is com prised of supervisors/directors/m anagers,
lawyers, and analysts. W hereas the bargaining unit was the largest group of respondents
(120 survey respondents), they had the lowest response rate (33%). The highest response
rate was among the management group (60% response rate). The response rate o f the
79
Table 10
D em ographic Characteristics o f Survey Respondents Com pared to D em ographics o f
Organization as a Whole
Survey Sam ple (%) Em ployee Population (%)

(N = 2 4 7 ) (N = 623)
Sex of Employee
Female 82.2 82.2
M ale 11.7 17.8
Unknown cases 6.1
Age
20 to 29 15.8 18.8
30 to 39 32.2 30.3
40 to 54 42.5 38.7
55 to above 8.5 12.2
Unknown cases 2.0
Education
High school diploma 6.1 D ata Not Com parable
Some post-secondary 11.7
College degree 8.9
University undergraduate degree 45.7
Graduate D egree 27.5
Occupational Category
Adm inistrative 23.9 19.9
Bargaining U nit 48.6 61.1
M anagem ent 27.5 19.0
Tenure at Organization
0 to 6 mths 8.5 4.6
7 mths to 1 yr 11.7 6.3
1 yr to 3 yrs 21.5 31.8
4 yr to 10 yrs 21.1 24.8
M ore than 10 yrs 36.4 32.4
Sex of M anager
Female 64.8 68.8
M ale 33.2 31.8
Unknown cases 2.0
Tenure with M anager
Less than 3 mths 9.3 Data Not Collected
3 mths to 1 yr 29.6
lyrto5yrs 47.8
M ore than 5 yrs 12.6
Unknown cases 0.8
80
adm inistrative unit was 43%. One possible reason for the low response rate among
bargaining units (comprised m ostly of case workers) could be time constraints in filling
out the survey. Their level of job demands was significantly higher than the other two
groups.
W ith the exception of occupational status, respondents were representative of the
em ployee population as a whole (see Table 10). The response rate was slightly low er for
m ale em ployees com pared to female em ployees. However, it is possible that a greater
proportion of male em ployees m ay have chosen not to identify their gender ( 6 . 1 % of
survey respondents chose not to answer this question) because of concerns about
anonymity. M ales form a much sm aller proportion of the em ployee population (18% of
all staff), especially among certain subgroups o f workers such as adm inistrative staff.
About three-quarters of the sample worked in direct services (73% ) and 26%
worked in corporate services (e.g., hum an resources, public relations, legal services,
finance). All em ployees in bargaining units work in direct services com pared to about
one-third (35%) of the adm inistrative workers and two-thirds (65%) of those in the
m anagement category. The m ajority o f the sample had been w orking at the organization
for four years or more (58% of sample); 22% between one and three years and 1 in 5
em ployees had been working at the organization for less than a year.
Procedure
The data for this study were prim arily collected through a w eb-based survey. The
survey was first piloted with four em ployees working at the organization, who were
representative of various subgroups of workers (e.g., m anagem ent, bargaining units, and
administrative). They were asked to read each question in the survey and com m ent on
81
the clarity o f the wording, the relevance o f the items, and whether any items pertaining to
supportive or unsupportive m anagement behaviors were missing. As a result, one item
was deleted from the scale (my m anager gossips about m e). N one was added. The on
line version of the survey was piloted to several additional em ployees, with no problems
arising.
The content of the survey and procedure were reviewed and approved by the
University of G uelphs ethics committee. A series of m eetings were held at the
organization in order to obtain union approval and support from the organizations
m anagem ent com mittee, and to work out procedural details.
Several weeks prior to data collection, an electronic message, which described the
overall aims of the study and inform ation related to confidentiality o f the survey data,
was sent to all em ployees (see Appendix T). This was followed by another e-mail
message two weeks later that included a direct web link to the survey (see A ppendix U).
Once the link was activated, users were autom atically transferred to the survey. The
inform ed consent appeared on the initial screen (see Appendix V). Once the user gave
inform ed consent (by clicking on a box on the screen), the survey was m ade available.
A two week time period was initially provided to com plete the survey, although
this was later extended to two and a half weeks. At the end of the survey, em ployees
were prom pted to press a button to save and submit the survey. In order to ensure that
employees did not mistakenly miss any questions, the software program prom pted
employees to fill in any missing questions at the end of the survey. If em ployees chose
not to answer the question, they could select the skip item response category, which
82
was available for all survey questions. Hard copies with a pre-addressed return envelope
were sent to 30 em ployees who did not have access to the internet.
M easures
Dem ographic Inform ation: Em ployees were asked to indicate their sex, age
range, level of education, duration of time at the organization, and w hether they were
em ployed as adm inistrative support, management, or bargaining unit. They were also
asked whether they worked in client services or corporate services. In addition, several
questions about their supervisor were included (e.g., sex of manager, duration o f time
with manager). Respondents were told not to write their names or any identifying
inform ation on the survey.
Predictor M easures
Frequency o f Supportive and Unsupportive Behaviors: The revised 46 item
Inventory of Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors (ISUM B) was
administered, which included the following six supportive classes: G enuine Concern;
Open Com m unication; Recognition; Professional Developm ent; D ecisional Discretion;
and Task G uidance and Assistance. The three unsupportive classes were: U nderm ining;
Apathy; and M icrom anaging. In order to enhance variability in the responses, the
response form at was m odified from a 4-point frequency rating to a 5-point frequency
rating: Almost Never; Occasionally; Fairly Often; Often; and Always. As can be seen in
Appendix W, the ordering of supportive and unsupportive items was m ixed in order to
control for the tendency of respondents to select positive response categories (i.e.,
83
acquiescence bias). Respondents were also given the opportunity to skip any items they
wished or to select a Not Applicable option.
Job Demands: In order to determ ine w hether ongoing supportive managerial
behaviors has a main effect or m itigating effect on job-related strain (secondary aim of
study), the Role O verload subscale of the M ichigan Organizational Assessm ent
Q uestionnaire (Cammmann, Fichm an, Jenkins, & Klesch, 1979) was adm inistered, in
order to assess em ployees level of job demands. Each item is rated on a 7-point
agreement scale (e.g., I have too much work to do everything w ell ; The am ount of
work I am asked to do is reasonable). The m easure has been found to have adequate
internal consistency (Cam mann et al., 1979). In the current study, C ronbachs alpha was
.82. The measure can be found in Appendix X.
M ediators
Perceived Job Autonomy, was assessed with B eehrs (1976) 4-item m easure of
job autonomy (see A ppendix Y). Each item is rated on a 4-point scale from N ot at all
T rue to Very True (I have a lot of say over what I do on the jo b ; I have enough
authority to do my jo b w ell). The internal consistency of the m easure has been
previously established (Beehr, 1976) and was supported in the current study (a = .95).
Job Self-efficacy: A previously validated instrum ent of job self-efficacy was
considered for inclusion in the current study (e.g., Schaubroeck & M erritt, 1997);
84
however, the m easure was lengthy (23 items) and many o f the item s were not domain
specific to the work role (e.g., I feel insecure about my ability to do things). A five-
item measure of job-self-efficacy was developed to assess em ployees confidence in their
ability to perform work-related tasks successfully (see A ppendix Z). Em ployees were
asked to rate their degree o f confidence on a 5-point scale (from not at all confident to
very confident). They were asked about various aspects of the job (e.g., your ability
to handle new challenging situations on the jo b ; your ability to perform the
responsibilities of your jo b effectively). In order to make com parisons among the
various subgroups o f workers, the items were broad in nature. All item s had strong face
validity. The scale also dem onstrated high internal consistency (a = .91).
Perceived M anager Sentiment was assessed with the Perceived M anager
Sentim ent Scale, developed and validated in Study 2 (see A ppendix P). Each item (e.g.,
M y m anager trusts m e.) is rated on a 5-point scale from Probably N ot to Definitely
D oes. Item 2 was reverse coded (e.g. My supervisor thinks I m incom petent). As in
Study 2, the scale dem onstrated high internal consistency (a = .91)
Outcomes
Job Strain: As in Study 2, job strain was assessed with the Job-Tension subscale
of House and R izzos (1972) Anxiety-Stress Q uestionnaire (see Appendix N). The
internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the m easure have been previously
established (House & Rizzo, 1972; M iles, 1975). The scale dem onstrated high internal
consistency in the current study (a = .83). Items include: I have felt fidgety or nervous
85
as a result o f my jo b and Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at
night.
Global Job Satisfaction: was assessed with the five-item scale developed by
Quinn and Shepard (1974). Each item is rated on a five-point scale. Exam ples of items
include: All things considered, how satisfied are you with your current jo b ? ; If you
had to decide all over again whether to take the jo b you have now, what w ould you
decide? The measure has proved to be reliable with high internal consistency (Bim baum
& Somers, 1993; W illiam s, Gavin, & W illiams, 1996). Concurrent and discrim inant
validity have also been established in numerous studies (see Fields, 2002 for review).
The scale dem onstrates high internal reliability in the current study (a = .95). It can be
found in A ppendix AA.
Commitment to Supervisor: A m odified version of M owaday, Steers, and Porters
(1979) brief m easure of organizational com m itm ent was adm inistered to assess
em ployees desire to rem ain working with their current manager; w illingness to exert
extra effort on behalf of the manager; and identification with the m anagers values. The
construct of com m itm ent to supervisor was chosen as an outcom e instead of
organizational com m itm ent because the form er was deem ed to be m ore relevant to the
studys main focus on m anagerial behaviors.
M owaday et a ls (1975) measure of organizational com m itm ent has dem onstrated
adequate internal consistency and concurrent and discrim inant validity (Fields, 2002). It
has been adapted and validated to assess other form s o f w orkplace com m itm ent such as
86
com m itm ent to ones profession and team com m itm ent (Bishop & Scott, 2000; see also
review by Fields, 2002). Seven items were m odified to reflect com m itm ent to o n es
manager (e.g., I would accept almost any type of jo b assignment in order to keep
working for the supervisor I have ; M y supervisor really inspires the very best in me in
the way of jo b perform ance). Each item was rated on the original 7-point Likert type
Agreement Scale. The reliability of the m odified version used in the current study was
supported with a = .95. The m easure is provided in Appendix BB.
Turnover Intentions: E m ployees intention to leave their jobs was assessed with a
3-item m easure drawn from the M ichigan Organizational A ssessm ent Q uestionnaire
(Cammann et al., 1979, see Appendix CC). Items are rated on a 7-point scale. Item 1 is
rated on a likelihood response scale (e.g., How likely is it that you will actively look for
another job in the next year?) and items 2 and 3 are rated on an agreem ent response
scale (e.g., Strongly D isagree to Strongly Agree). The internal reliability and construct
validity of the scale have been previously established (Cam mann et al., 1979) and was
confirm ed in the current study (a = .95).
Results
Plan o f Analysis
A series of analyses were undertaken to determ ine the factor structure o f the
Inventory of Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial Behaviors, and to exam ine their
relationship with the hypothesized mediating and outcome variables. A fter scale items
were cleaned and multivariate assumptions were checked, the item s were factor analyzed
using a principal axis extraction with an oblique rotation on the presum ption that the
87
factors are correlated. As recom m ended by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), other methods
of extraction and rotation were em ployed to test the robustness of the solution. In a
review of two m ajor m ethods of extraction (i.e., com ponent analysis or factor analysis),
Velicer and Jackson (1990) state that the choice of m ethod is unlikely to result in any
empirical or substantive differences. Analyses were conducted separately for supportive
and unsupportive items. Once items with complex loadings and low com m unalities were
removed, the rem aining items (both supportive and unsupportive) were entered together.
The factor structure that em erged was further tested with a confirm atory factor analysis
.and was com pared to alternative models. Finally, the theoretical fram ew ork linking these
dim ensions to m ediating and outcome variables was tested using observed path analysis.
Data Screening fo r Factor Analysis o f Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial
Behaviors
Before any analyses were conducted, all 46 variables were exam ined for outliers,
m issing data, and w hether normality, linearity, and hom oscedasticity assum ptions were
met. There were no coding errors because the data were subm itted electronically rather
than by m anual data entry. Five cases were deleted because a substantial am ount of data
were missing (more than 40% o f the supportive and unsupportive items were missing).
Four supportive variables (items 7, 22, 25, 46) and five unsupportive variables (item s 6 ,
9, 24, 27, 32) were rem oved because o f a high proportion o f m issing data (i.e., at least 11
% of the cases had missing data)4. For these nine variables, between 6 % and 16% of
employees rated the items as Not Applicable. Analyses were done to assess w hether
cases with missing data for these variables were disproportionately represented in certain
4 See Appendix W for content o f items.
88
occupational categories. For six of these nine variables, cases with m issing data were
equally represented among the three groups (i.e., adm inistrative, bargaining unit,
m anagement). However, for items 22 (encourages interesting tasks), 25 (reassured on
tough decisions), and 46 (made visible to senior leaders in organization), there was a
higher percentage of missing data for employees in the adm inistrative category (9% to
20% higher than the other two groups). However, only item 25 (reassured on tough
decisions) reached statistical significance, %2 (2, 247) = 18.59, p < .001)
In order to m inim ize the deletion of items with missing data, for the rem aining
items, m issing values were estim ated using a mean replacement. Rather than estim ating
data using the grand mean for all respondents, which reduces the variability of the data,
each missing data point was replaced with the mean of the rem aining supportive or
unsupportive items rated by that particular case. For exam ple, if two supportive items
were missing for a particular case, the values for these two data points were estim ated
with the mean for the rem aining supportive items for that case. This was deem ed to be a
m ore accurate estim ate than using the grand mean or grouped mean. M eans and standard
deviations of the rem aining items are listed in Tables 11 and 12.
Both univariate and multivariate outliers were checked separately for supportive
and non-supportive items. D ata points greater than 3.2 standard deviations from the
means were considered univariate outliers. Using this criterion, no outliers were detected
within each of the 23 supportive items. Among the 14 unsupportive items, 12 item s had
outlying cases5. A decision was made to retain the real values for these variables because
5 Among variables with outlying cases, the average number o f outlying cases was 4.6 (1.2% o f sample).
89
Table 11
M eans and S tandard D eviation s o f Supportive Item s
M SD
Genuine Concern
W hen I am experiencing difficulties, he or she sym pathizes with me (Q l). 3.56 ( 1 .2 2 )
Sm iles/Appears happy to see me (Q2). 3.88 ( 1 -1 2 )
Goes to bat for me at work when I need it (Q l 1). 3.48 (1.32)
Asks me how I m doing and means it (Q17). 3.46 (1.29)
Shows interest in w hats going on in my life outside o f work (Q43). 2 .8 6 (1.34)
Open Communication
Keeps me inform ed about things going on at w ork (Q13). 3.47 (1.17)
Com m unicates with me in an open and direct m anner (Q14). 4.06 ( 1 -1 2 )
Explains the reasoning behind decisions that affect me (Q19). 3.68 ( 1 .2 1 )
M akes him self or herself easily accessible to me (Q20). 3.83 (1.16)
Recognition
Gives m e positive feedback when deserved (Q5). 3.44 (1.34)
Thanks me for things I do (Q 10). 3.38 (1-31)
Praises my w ork in front of others (Q31). 2.70 (1.30)
Professional Development
Encourages me to take on work to help my professional development (Q 8 ). 3.15 (1.35)
Decisional Discretion
Allows me to decide my w ork schedule as much as possible (Q36). 4.02 ( 1 .1 2 )
Grants time off w ork when I need it (Q26). 4.18 (1.07)
Asks for my opinions on things instead of deciding things for me (Q29). 3.63 ( 1 .2 2 )
W orks with me on things using a collaborative style (Q40). 3.65 (1.18)
W hen a problem comes up and I need help, he or she provides me with 3.27 (1.15)
suggestions but leaves the final decision to me (Q39).
Task Guidance
W hen I experience obstacles that prevent me from doing my jo b effectively, he 3.52 (1.19)
or she makes efforts to clear them (Q4).
Gives clear instructions (Q42). 3.94 (1.09)
Provides me with clear expectations of my work responsibilities (Q30). 3.70 (1.16)
Answers questions I ask in a timely m anner (Q33). 3.95 (1.09)
Ensures I have everything I need to get my w ork done efficiently (Q34). 3.54 (1.19)
Note. N = 247, 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Fairly Often, 4 = Often, 5 = Always.
Four items were removed because o f a high percentage o f m issing data.
90
Table 12
M eans and Standard D eviations o f U nsupportive Items
M SD
Undermining
W hen I make decisions or perform tasks, he or she second guesses them (Q41). 1.51 (.71)
W hen review ing my work, focuses more on negative things than positive things 1.62 (.99)
(Q16).
Tells me that he or she would have handled work-related tasks differently (Q28). 1.54 (.79)
Asks me to do things that are beyond my abilities (Q12). 1,28 (.61)
Gives me insufficient notice about meetings or deadlines (Q37). 1 .8 6 (1.17)
Beats around the bush instead of being direct with m e (Q38). 1.41 (.83)
Gets visibly upset when I d o n t do things correctly (Q45). 1.42 (.78)
Apathy
Says he or she will do something for me, but doesnt follow through (Q15). 1.46 (.72)
Acts distracted when talking with me (Q23). 1.52 (.74)
Displays little interest in the work that I do (Q35). 1.63 ( 1 .0 1 )
Micromanaging
Overrides decisions I make (Q3). 1.81 (.75)
Limits m y participation in meetings (Q44). 1.28 (.62)
M akes decisions that affect me, without checking with me first (Q21). 1.60 (.77)
M akes substantial revisions or suggestions related to the work I do (Q18). 2 .0 0 (1.03)
Note. N = 247, 1 = Alm ost Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Fairly Often, 4 = Often, 5 = Always.
Five items were removed because o f a high percentage o f m issing data.
91
the same results em erged after running the analyses with adjusted values (to less extreme
scores). M oreover, the data values were real values and fell within the possible range of
the scale (all outliers were scored as fives on a one to five scale). W ith 23 variables
included in the analysis for supportive behaviors, any case with a M ahalanobis distance
greater than %2 (23) = 49.73 was considered a multivariate outlier (p < .001). Four cases
were identified.
For unsupportive behaviors, any case with a M ahalanobis distance greater than %
(14) = 34.52 was considered a multivariate outlier. Eighteen cases were identified. All
cases were exam ined and deem ed to be valid responses. These cases were retained in the
analyses because they were deem ed to be true responses and rem oving them would have
resulted in a substantial loss of cases.
In order to check the assumption of normality, each variable was plotted. The
supportive items, for the m ost part, were normally distributed (two items were slightly
negatively skewed). The m ajority of unsupportive items were positively skewed. D ue to
the large num ber of variables, it was not feasible to plot all linear com binations; however,
a random selection of linear plots suggested that pairw ise linearity was satisfactory.
Several pairs with unsupportive items, however, dem onstrated heteroscedasticity. As in
Study 2, a decision was made to retain the variables in the analysis without
transformation. M oreover, transform ations were conducted on these items, but the
transformation did not reduce the skewness. Analyses were conducted both using
transform ed data and nontransform ed data and the results yielded the identical factor
structure. Correlations am ong the variables did not reveal evidence of m ulticollinearity
and verified that the items were factorable (i.e., correlations were above .30).
92
E xploratory F actor Analysis: D im ensions o f Supportive B ehaviors
Because the data were expected to factor analyze into few er factors than the
hypothesized conceptual dim ensions, an exploratory factor analysis on the supportive
items was done using a principal axis extraction, without predefining the num ber of
factors. Because the dim ensions were expected to correlate, an oblique rotation was
chosen.
The value of the K aiser-M eyer-Olkin M easure o f Sampling Adequacy was .96,
which supported the factorability of the items. An exam ination of the scree plot suggested
the presence of 2 factors. The solution yielded two eigen values over one: 12.6 and 1.4.
Com m unality values were moderate to high, ranging from .42 to .73. O ne item
loaded equally on both factors (m akes efforts to clear obstacles that im pede m y w ork).
This item was deleted and the factor analysis was perform ed again. Loadings o f
variables on factors, com m unalities, and percents of variance and co-variance are shown
in Table 13. Loadings under .35 are not shown. The stability of the solution was
confirm ed re-running the analysis with a principal com ponents extraction and varying the
m ethod of rotation.
The results revealed that the six hypothesized dim ensions converged into two
broader facets. As can be seen in Table 13, Factor 1 is com prised o f the items
representing Open Com m unication, Decisional D iscretion, and Task Guidance. This
factor explained 54.3% of the variance in the variables. The highest loadings (all above
.75) were answers questions I ask in a timely m anner ; allows me to decide m y work
schedule as much as possible and gives clear instructions . M ost of the items that load
onto Factor 1 involve actions that assist employees to be more effective in their work
93
Table 13
Factor Structure fo r Supportive Behaviors Using Principal Axis Extraction and Oblique
Rotation
Factor 1 Factor 2 h2
Loading Loading
Open Com m unication
Q13. Keeps me informed. .53 -.2 2 .53
Q14. Com m unicates in direct m anner .62 -.25 .69
Q19. Explains reasoning behind decisions .66 -.19 .6 8
Q20. Is easily accessible to me .62 -.17 .61

Q36. Allows me to decide my w ork schedule .77 .2 0 .42
Q26. Grants time off w ork when I need it .64 .0 2 .47
Q29. Asks for my opinion on things .54 -.2 1 .59
Q40. Uses a collaborative style .71 -.17 .72
Q39. Offers suggestions but leaves m e to make .65 .0 0 .49
decisions
Task G uidance
Q42. Gives clear instructions .75 .0 1 .61
Q30. Provides me with clear w ork expectations .56 -.2 0 .57
Q33. Answers my questions in a timely m anner .76 -.0 2 .63
Q34. Ensures I have adequate work resources .62 -.2 0 .65
Genuine Concern
Q l. Sym pathizes with difficulties .27 -.59 .6 8
Q2. Sm iles/A ppears happy to see me .2 1 -.58 .61

Q43. Shows interest in m y life outside of work .24 -.43 .43
Q l 1. Goes to bat for me -.55 .71
Q17. Asks m e how I m doing. .36 -.53 .69
Recognition
Q5. Gives positive feedback -.07 -.89 .6 6
Q10. Thanks me for things I do. -.0 0 -.83 .6 8
Q31. Praises my work in front of others. -.04 -.74 .49

Professional D evelopm ent
Q 8 . Encourages work for professional .13 -.66 .57
developm ent
Percentage of Variance 54.3 6.3
Note. N = 247. Items with loadings greater or equal to .35 are in boldface. Items have been shortened for
this table. Please see Appendix W for exact wording o f items.
94
tasks. The rem aining items are autonom y enhancing behaviors (e.g., asks my opinion on
things; allows me to decide my work schedule). This new dim ension was relabeled
Enabling Job Support . The internal consistency of this subscale was supported with
C ronbachs alpha = .94.
Factor 2 is com prised of the items representing Genuine Concern and
Recognition, accounting for 6.3% of the variance in the items. The top loadings for this
factor (all above .80) were gives me positive feedback when deserved and thanks me
for the things I do . An exam ination of the items that make up this dim ension suggests
that the behaviors are esteem enhancing (e.g., praises my work in front of others , and
play a relational function (e.g., shows interest in my life outside of w ork ; asks me how
I am doing). H ence this dimension was renam ed Personal and Esteem Support. The
subscale dem onstrated high internal consistency (a = .93).
D espite the fact that the solution produced two clearly defined factors, the factor
correlation m atrix dem onstrated that the two dim ensions were highly correlated at .73.
Surprisingly, Item 8 (encourages me to take on work to help m e develop
professionally); which was originally conceived as an item on the dim ension,
Professional D evelopm ent , loaded onto the Personal and Esteem Support dimension.
The other two items, which were included as part of the Professional D evelopm ent
subscale, had been previously deleted due to m issing data. The loading of this item onto
this dim ension suggests that being assigned tasks for professional developm ent is seen as
a form of recognition.
95
E xploratory F actor A nalysis: D im ensions o f U nsupportive B ehaviors
The same analyses were run separately for the unsupportive items. The value of
the Keiser-M eyer-O lkin M easure of Sam pling was .91, supporting the factorability of the
items. The scree plot suggested the presence of two factors and the following eigen
values greater than 1 were produced : 5.8, 1.2, and 1.1. The analyses were repeated with
two factors specified (see Table 14). Three variables had com m unality values under .40
(items 12, 18, 35, and 37). Because they were not well-defined by the factor structure,
they were removed. Once removed, only one factor was extracted with the rem aining 10
items, accounting for 53.2% of the variance in the variables. This factor structure was
confirm ed with other methods of extraction and rotation. The internal consistency of the
one factor structure was supported with an alpha of .90.
Given that the num ber of unsupportive and supportive items had been reduced by
14 items from the original 46 items, the variable to case ratio was deem ed to be sufficient
to com bine them in order to assess whether positive support and unsupportive behaviors
are distinct constructs or form part of the same continuum. The results o f the scree plot
of the rem aining 32 items suggested that the variables were defined by a three-factor
solution. The eigen values over one were as follows: 15.33, 2.26, 1.47 and 1.03. A
principal axis factor extraction with an oblique rotation was conducted; how ever, the
results would not converge. The intercorrelations between the items were then exam ined
to exam ine if any pairs of items were too highly correlated, preventing the inversion of
the matrix. An exam ination of the inter-item correlations resulted in the deletion of item
29 (asks for m y opinions on things) because it was highly correlated with item 40 (my
manager works collaboratively with m e). After item 29 was deleted, the solution
96
Table 14
F actor Structure fo r U nsupportive B ehaviors Using Principal Axis Extraction and
Oblique Rotation
Factor 1 Factor 2 h2
Loading Loading
Undermining
Q12. Asks me to do things that I cant do. .32 .17 .25
Q16. Focuses m ore on negative things. .50 .30 .51
Q28. Says he/she would have done things .09 .73 .48
differently
Q37. Gives insufficient notice about deadlines. .15 .07 .1 0
Q38. Beats around the bush with me. .74 .0 1 .53
Q41. Second guesses my decisions. .52 .32 .56
Q45. Gets visibly upset when I make mistakes .34 .55 .60
Apathy
Q15. D oesnt follow through on things. .72 -.04 .46
Q23. Acts distracted with me. .69 -.06 .40
Q35. Displays little interest in my work. .52 -.07 .23
M icrom anaging
Q3. Overrides decisions I make. .54 .27 .52
Q18. M akes substantial revisions to my work. -.0 2 .30 .1 1
Q21. M akes decisions without consulting me. .79 -.1 2 .47
Q44. Limits my participation in meetings .56 .16 .45
Percentage of Variance 41.53 8.31
Note. N = 247. Items with loadings greater or equal to .35 are reported in boldface. Items have been
shortened for this table. Please see Appendix W for exact wording o f items.
97
converged.
Table 15 lists the factor loadings, com munalities, and proportion of variance
accounted for by the three factors. The results generally confirm ed that supportive and
unsupportive behaviors are unique constructs. None of the supportive behaviors loaded
onto Factor 2, the unsupportive dimension. However, four of the hypothesized
unsupportive items loaded onto Factor 1. Two were apathy items (says she will do
something, but doesnt and acts distracted with m e, suggesting that these items
represent a lack of support, rather than an active behavior that is deem ed to be
unsupportive. Item 38 (beats around the bush) also loaded onto Factor 1.
Considering its similarity to item 14 (com municates with me in a direct m anner), this
finding is not particularly surprising. Finally, item 21 (makes decisions without
consulting m e) loaded onto Factor 1. Again, this could be viewed as a lack of decisional
discretion. Given their overlap in content with the supportive items and the fact that that
these items did not load onto their hypothesized dimensions, they were rem oved from the
inventory. The rem aining six items were characteristic of managers who m icrom anage
(e.g., limits their participation in meetings, overrides em ployees decisions, second
guesses em ployees decisions, tells em ployees they would have handled things
differently) and who focus a great deal on em ployees shortcomings (e.g., gets visibly
upset when I make m istakes; focuses more on negative than positive things). The
possibility that these behaviors may undermine em ployees sense of control is suggested
by the high correlation between the mean score of these items and em ployees
perceptions of job autonomy, r (244) = -.45, p c.001). This dim ension was term ed
M icrom anaging .
98
Table 15
F actor Structure o f Supportive and U nsupportive Item s using P rincipal Axis
Extraction and Oblique Rotation
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 h2

Loading Loading Loading
Open Communication
Q13. Keeps me informed. .59 .08 -.23 .54
Q14. Communicates in direct manner .59 -.15 -.20 .73
Q19. Explains reasoning behind decisions. .69 .03 -.21 .70
Q20. Is easily accessible to me. .70 .05 -.14 .62
Q36. Allows me to decide my work schedule. .55 -.16 .08 .49
Q26. Grants time off work when I need it. .58 -.00 -.04 .48
Q40. Uses a collaborative style. .66 -.06 -.19 .70
Q39. Offers suggestions but leaves me to make decisions .46 -.19 -.07 .50
Task Guidance
Q42. Gives clear instructions .74 -.07 .04 .64
Q30. Provides me with clear work expectations .68 .16 -.19 .59
Q33. Answers my questions in a timely manner .80 .03 -.00 .68
Q34. Ensures I have adequate work resources .72 .13 -.20 .66
Genuine Concern
Q l. Sympathizes with difficulties .28 -.16 -.52 .69
Q2. Smiles/Appears happy to see me .17 -.24 -.50 .63
Q43. Shows interest in my life outside of work .30 .01 -.40 .45
Q l 1. Goes to bat for me. .37 -.07 -.52 .72
Q17. Asks me how Im doing. .37 -.11 -.48 .70
Recognition
Q5. Gives positive feedback -.02 -.15 -.80 .68
Q10. Thanks me for things I do. .09 -.06 -.74 .69
Q31. Praises my work in front of others. .00 -.04 -.70 .50
Q8. Encourages work for professional development .26 .01 -.57 .59
Micromanaging Behaviors
Q3. Overrides decisions I make. -.22 .61 -.03 .57
Q15. Says he/she will do something, but doesnt. -.54 .27 -.08 .56
Q16. Focuses more on negative things. .00 .57 .38 .62
Q21. Makes decisions without consulting me. -.48 .31 -.00 .53
Q23. Acts distracted when talking with me. -.43 .33 -.09 .47
Q28. Tells me he/she would have done things differently. .06 .65 .11 .48
Q38. Beats around the bush instead of being direct with me. -.50 .41 -.15 .62
Q41. Second guesses my work/decisions -.24 .59 .04 .60
Q44. Limits my participation in meetings -.11 .60 .04 .48
Q45. Gets visibly upset when I make mistakes .01 .82 .17 .64
Percentage of Variance 47.87 7.27 4.75
Note. N = 247. Items with loadings greater or equal to .35 are reported in boldface.
99
Confirmatory Factor Analysis o f Three Factor M odel o f Supportive and Unsupportive
M anagerial Behaviors
A confirm atory factor analysis was perform ed on the rem aining items using
LISREL 8.5 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001). The three-factor structure that em erged from
the exploratory factor analysis (Figure 2) was com pared to a tw o-factor model (Figure 3)
and a one-factor model (Figure 4). The com peting models were tested with a %2 test.
Factors in all models were expected to correlate.
The sample size, which was approxim ately 250 observations, was deem ed
sufficient to test the m easurem ent model (Boomsma, 1983, cited in Kelloway, 1998).
The m axim um likelihood estimation was em ployed and model tests were based on the
covariance matrix. As can be seen in Table 16, results of the various fit indices converge,
indicating that the three-factor model provided a better fit to the data com pared to either
the tw o-factor or the one-factor model. The values for the com parative fit indices (e.g.,
NFI, CFI) were high (.95 and above) for all models. This indicates that all three provide
a better fit to the data com pared to the null or independence model (i.e., no relationships
between variables). The superiority o f the three-factor model was m ore salient in the
indices of absolute fit (e.g., GFI, AGFI). The indices of parsim onious fit (e.g., PNFI,
PGFI), which are used to compare com peting models, indicated that the three-factor
solution was m arginally better than the other models. Results from the chi-square
difference test indicated that the 3-factor model provided a significantly better fit to the
data than the tw o-factor model (% 2 difference (2) = 152.4, p < .001) and the one-factor
model (x 2 difference (3) = 412.2, p c.001). Standardized param eter estimates fo r the
three-factor model are presented in Table 17. The latent variables accounted for a
100
Figure 2
A Three-Factor M odel o f Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
Personal and Esteem

Enabling Job Support Support Micromanaging Behaviors
\
Figure 3
A Two-Factor M odel o f Supportive a n d Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
Supportive Behaviors Micromanaging Behaviors
Q13 Q14 Q20 Q 26 Q36 Q ll Q28 Q 44
Q39 Q40 Q42 Q30 Q33 Q34 Q31 Q43 Q13 Q17 Q10
Q16 Q41 Q45
Figure 4
A O ne-Factor M odel o f Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
Supportive and Unsupportive

Managerial Behaviors
Q13 Q 14 Q 44
Q39 Q40 Q42 Q30 Q33 Q34 Q31 Q43 Q13 Q41 Q45
Table 16
Fit Indices o f Com peting M odels
Model x2 df GFI AGFI RM SEA NFI CFI PNFI PGFI
1 -factor 1025.0 324 .70 .6 6 .1 2 .95 .96 .88 .60

2-factor 765.2 323 .78 .74 .09 .96 .98 .88 .67
3-factor 612.8 321 .84 .81 .07 .97 .99 .89 .71
Note. N = 247, GFI = goodness-of-fit Index, AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index, RM SEA = root mean
square error o f approximation; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index, PNFI = parsimonious
normed fit index; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index
104
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 17
Standardized Param eter Estimates fo r the Three-Factor M odel
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 K2
Enabling Job Support

Q13. Keeps me informed. .71 .50
Q14. Comm unicates in direct manner .82 .67
Q19. Explains reasoning behind decisions. .82 .6 8
Q20. Is easily accessible to me. .75 .56

Q36. Allows me to decide my work schedule. .58 .33
Q26. Grants time off work when I need it. .61 .37
Q40. Uses a collaborative style. .83 .69
Q39. Offers suggestions but leaves me to make .62 .39
decisions
Q42. Gives clear instructions .74 .59
Q30. Provides me with clear work expectations .72 .52
Q33. Answers my questions in a timely m anner .76 .58
Q34. Ensures I have adequate work resources .79 .62
Personal and Esteem Support
Q l. Sympathizes with difficulties .83 .6 8
Q2. Smiles/Appears happy to see me .76 .58

Q43.Shows interest in my life outside of work .63 .39
Q ll.G o e s to bat for me. .84 .71
Q 17.Asks m e how I m doing. .83 .69
Q5. Gives positive feedback .79 .62
QlO.Thanks me for things I do. .79 .63
Q31.Praises my work in front of others. .67 .45
Q 8 . Encourages work for professional developm ent .74 .55
M icrom anaging Behaviors
Q3. Overides decisions I make. .71 .50
Q16. Focuses more on negative things. .75 .56
Q28. Tells me he/she would have done things .67 .45
differently.
Q41. Second guesses my work/decisions .77 .59
Q44. Limits my participation in meetings .6 6 .44
Q45. Gets visibly upset when I make mistakes .80 .64
105
m oderate to large am ount o f variance in the indicators; the squared m ultiple correlations
ranged from .33 to .71. As can be seen in Table 18, the three factors were highly
correlated.
Testing the M ediational M odel Using O bserved Variable Path A nalysis
Prior to data analysis, the rem aining variables were screened for outliers, missing
data, and tests of normality and linearity were conducted. The am ount of missing data
was minimal (between 0% and 4%). M issing data for each scale item was replaced with
the overall mean for that measure for each particular case. In cases where every single
item was missing for a particular measure, the value of the m easure was estim ated using a
grouped m ean . 6
Across all variables, six univariate outliers were detected. They were retained in
the analyses unadjusted since they were real values and were m arginally above 3.2
standard deviations above the mean. W ith 12 treasures, any variable with a M ahalanobis
distance greater than 32.91 was considered to be an outlier. U sing this criterion, three
were detected. Similarly, these were retained in the analyses. Several variables were
m oderately negatively skewed (i.e., job satisfaction, jo b self-efficacy, perceived manager
sentiment) and two were m oderately positively skewed (turnover intentions, unsupportive
m anagerial behaviors). In a review of practical issues in structural equation m odeling,
B ender and Chou (1988) state that with non-normal data, the fit indices produced by
6 The variable occupational category (e.g., administrative, management) was used to calculate the group
mean.
106
Table 18
Interfactor C orrelations
1 2 3
1. Enabling Job 1 .0
Support
2. Personal and .8 8 1 .0
Esteem Support
3. M icrom anaging -.70 -.69 1 .0
107
structural equation m odeling using the m axim um likelihood estim ation technique are
reliable7. This was confirm ed with the current dataset; the fit indices rem ained
unchanged when the SEM was run with transform ed data. M oreover, the path
coefficients varied very little, if at all, using transform ed data and tests of significance for
the coefficients rem ained the same. Hence, a decision was made to retain the
untransform ed data in the analyses so that the interpretation of the analysis w ould be
based on real data values.
Given that the sample size was insufficient to test both the m easurem ent and
structural model simultaneously, the totals for each scale were treated as observed
variables, rather than estimating latent scores. The assum ption that all variables are
m easured w ithout error, a necessary condition of observed path analysis (Kelloway,
1998) was met in the current study, as dem onstrated by the high reliabilities of the scales.
M eans, standard deviations, reliability, and inter-correlations are displayed in Table 19.
Given the high correlation between the two dim ensions of supportive behaviors (r
(247) = .81, p < .001), one com posite score was created that assessed the perceived
frequency of supportive behaviors. Com bining the subscales reduced the risk o f
m ulticollinearity and also reduced the num ber of estim ated parameters. Supervisor
com m itm ent was also highly correlated with the two dim ensions of support, r (244) =
.73, p <.001 and r (244) = .74, p <.001) and with perceived m anager sentiment, r (244)=
.74, p < .001. This outcome measure was rem oved from the observed path analysis in
order to reduce the num ber of parameters. A decision was made to rem ove this variable
7 In contrast to the fit indices, Bentler and Chou (1988) state that % 2 and standard errors are affected by
distributional violations.
108
s
ON
oo
s ^ $ o
'B on no
Tt CN
H d r_l- 00
**
00
I s l a HCN.CN
O <N %. ^ * o
^ JQ
U in CN . CN
co vn on
*
* /N**
cn 1 N" ( N
T
it
l- ^ COJS
ON ? n CN
'*f Tj- N"
CN CN P <N
w
Table 19 Mean, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Inter-correlations Between Variables
C NO
V** *
.*
Q CO^ (N ^ (N ^ CN CN <N
S ^ c
V** /s+ /-s **

* ' -V.
O 'O O ^ i O 't i n ^ o n O * VO
Tt 0
CN CN CN ' <N CN
*
* v ** v **
r-~S** / *
00 cn 0 On vn ** nf Tt CN in * - '' ** vn
CN nf fn N" Tf
s w CN in CN CN N" CN . ^ CN cn. ^CN
0-
*
* * '* *
* 10
^
o. r- O gP 5CN S 5CN CN r-
00 ^CN^CN^CNpCN
* * * v. **
(N * /^~S* V* ^-V* *
r- cn r- ON r- ON vn CN nf CN , H V
TO
m n o . _
00 cp
on
N-
CN r-
N" nf
CN CN , CN CN CN
N- r- N" CN N"
CN
t
(N
PU cn
* * N** * * * * _
* * r- X /
vn vn
*
N" *cn Tf nO >0 * ^ >0
r-
rf vn r- cn nf rf C] Cl Tt
% o 2 ? ^
t
5 s (N r**- (N CN vn ^t
W n o i
CN CN (N (N . CN P (N
^ t+ CO * CN <N (Q. . co'a

aw 8 3CN s . <
3N 2 . C $ v, t)-
$N - (N 2 4 in 4'Cf Tt Tf a5r Fi
(N j CO r \ l ^ ~<
m
C
rNN
9N
i P C
H CN CN CN CN
_ * _
t" CN rfr * CN cn r- 00 * cn
o o C
'dN
;
m<"'3T
1
CN CN
^
CN P
N-
(N (N
^ cn n-
CN CNi CN
H
cn o n * o ., N o O
<
L> OO \f
CN < CN (y-. CN cn' CN CN
DO O* oCN no 't rf o ^ S nb Tf
~* NJ
10 CN CN CN . CN CN CN CN co CN CN 1 CN . CN P CN
<
O ^t
TS33 ' CN
* CN P <N *CN CN . CN <N P CN
^ )R ^ 5 ^N P
C O CN CN
N"
CN
W
oX
to
22 ^ 00 P
cn 22
, 1O iq CN
CN oo ocn o? cn 22 cn Xf m
CN Ch f9 00 CN So
2^ n CN(N O g! ^ g R ">b ocn
. CN ^ CN CN P CN P CN o C N o C N O cn
ro ^ cn
(N H (N o ^ P (S <N CN
00
C3 E _c
-C 0 ^ 00 a(D G o C
W 3 "cd
Oh
(UT3 O
G
o
00
W
v+-<

O
O U S3h is
00 W < H E- W P-. e a> 00 H 00
109
Note. +p <.05, * p < .01, ** p < .001. Sex - Sex of Employee (1= Male, 2 = Female); Educ - Education Level (coded categorically); Age - Age
of Employee (coded categorically); TOW - Type of Work (1 = Corporate, 2 = Direct Service); Ten - Tenure (coded categorically); EJS -
Enabling Job Support- PES - Personal/Esteem Support; Micro - Micromanaging Behaviors; PM S- Perceived Manager Sentiment; JE ff-Job Self-
efficacy; Jdem - Job Demands; Jcont - Job Control; SCom - Supervisor Commitment; JSatis - Job Satisfaction; Tumo - Turnover Intentions;
Strain - Job-Related Strain

over the other outcom e measures because its inclusion was more exploratory in nature.
Although prior research has docum ented that supervisor support is an antecedent to
organizational com mitment (Kidd & Smewing, 2001), the relationship between
m anagerial supportive behaviors and supervisor com m itm ent has not been established to
date.
The revised model resulted in 17 param eter estimates. The sample size of 247
was considered sufficient (15 to 1, case to param eter ratio). W ith 8 variables and 17
param eter estimates, the model was deem ed overidentified, a desired condition of
structural modeling. Analyses were run with LISREL 8.5 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001).
M axim um likelihood was used as the m ethod of estim ation for the model param eters
using the covariance matrix.
Assessm ent o f Overall M odel Fit
Given that the chi-square tests based on m axim um likelihood can becom e
unreliable with non-norm al distributions, the assessm ent of model fit was based on the fit
indices, as these have been shown to be robust to violations of norm ality (Bentler &
Chou, 1988). Both absolute and com parative fit indices were used to evaluate the
hypothesized model. Although there are no fixed cut-off scores that indicate a good or
poor fit, guidelines have been established. Typically, a good fitting model should yield a
goodness of fit index (GFI) and adjusted goodness fit index (AGFI) above .90 and a root
mean square error of approxim ation (RM SEA) less than .10 (Kelloway, 1998). An
RM SEA less than .05 would suggest a very good fit to the model.
Ill
The com parative fit indices (CFI, norm ed fit index - NFI, and nonnorm ed fit
index - NNFI) com pare the fit o f the hypothesized model to the independence model (i.e.,
no relationships between variables). These indices should be above .90 (which would
indicate that the hypothesized model is 90% better than the independence model). The
indices of parsim onious fit (e.g., parsim onious goodness of fit index, akaike information
criterion) were not exam ined because they are more appropriately used to compare
com peting models.
The results indicated that the hypothesized m odel did not provide a good absolute
fit with the data. The value of the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) was .79, below
the .90 criterion for a good fit. There was a discrepancy betw een the A G FI (.79) and the
GFI (.94) suggesting that the hypothesized model included small (and often non
significant) param eters (Kelloway, 1998). The RM SEA was .15, much less favourable
than the .05 level recom m ended as reflecting a very good fit. The indicators of
parsim onious fit (NFI = .95; CFI = .95) indicated that the model was superior to the
independence model (i.e., no relationships between the variables).
Interpretation o f Structural Coefficients
Out of the 17 parameters estimated in the model, 14 were statistically significant.
Standardized param eter estimates for the model are presented in Figure 5. Together, the
model explained 36% of the variance in jo b satisfaction, 44% of the variance in turnover
intentions, and 14% of the variance in jo b strain. As shown in the figure, turnover
intentions were predicted by both job satisfaction (/?= -.58, p c.001) and jo b strain (/? =
.15, p <.01 ). Job satisfaction, in turn, was predicted by work autonom y {j3= .18, p <
112
Figure 5
Standardized Param eter Estimates
W ork A utonom y
-. 21 *
. 11* Job Satisfaction
Supportive Behaviors .53
(00
Perceived M anager
.16 Sentiment________ Turnover Intentions
- 31*** -.13
.23*
Job Strain
.18*
-.18**
Job Self-efficacy
Note. * p <.05, ** p < .01, ***p <.001

.01), perceived m anager sentiment (jB= .22, p < .001) and jo b strain (/?= -.39, p C.001).
Job strain was predicted by w ork autonomy (/3 - -.21, p <.01) and jo b self-efficacy
(/?= -.18, p < .01). W ork autonomy was predicted by both supportive behaviors (/? =
.36, p < .001) and unsupportive behaviors (/?= -.21, p < .01).
Similarly, perceived m anager sentiment was predicted by supportive behaviors (J3
= .53, p < .001) and unsupportive behaviors (/?= -.31, p < .001), as well as work
autonomy (/?= .11, p < .05).
Two of the non-significant paths involved job self-efficacy (from supportive
behaviors to jo b self-efficacy, ( 5 - .16, ns and from job self-efficacy to jo b satisfaction, f5
= .00, ns). M oreover, the direction of the standardized beta-weight from unsupportive
behaviors to job self-efficacy was contrary to the hypothesized model (fi = .18, p < .05)
and the standard error was high (.11). The simple correlation between jo b self-efficacy
and unsupportive behaviors was also not statistically significant.
As noted by Kelloway (1998), small and non-significant param eters may
contribute to a discrepancy between the goodness of fit index and the adjusted goodness
of fit index for the overall model. This discrepancy in fit indices was observed in testing
the current model and may have been associated with the non-significant paths related to
job self-efficacy.
M odel Respecification
The findings from the analysis suggested that job-self-efficacy did not play a
m ediating role between m anagerial behaviors and job-related attitudes and strain. There
are several reasons that may explain this finding. First, it should be recognized that
114
managers are only one source of feedback in the workplace. Self-efficacy beliefs may
also be shaped by feedback from colleagues, clients, or subordinates or directly from the
job tasks themselves. D ata collected from only one source of feedback may not be
enough to explain the variation in job self-efficacy beliefs. In the current sample, only
7% of variance in jo b self-efficacy scores was explained by both supportive and
unsupportive managerial behaviors.
Second, although there is theoretical and em pirical support for the notion that
self-efficacy beliefs can be shaped by interactions with others, studies have shown that
trait-based characteristics such as optim ism are more highly related to dom ain-specific
self-efficacy beliefs than situational factors (Gottlieb & Rooney, 2003). M oreover, this
sample was overrepresented by professional and m anagem ent occupational categories,
whose confidence in abilities may be m ore firmly established and less malleable
com pared to em ployees with less formal education and training. It is also possible that
jo b self-efficacy beliefs are affected by supervisor feedback to a greater extent for
em ployees who are new to the organization. The fact that most em ployees in the current
sample had been in the organization for more than a year may have diluted the
relationship. The reasons cited above cast doubt on the role of self-efficacy as a mediator
between m anagerial behaviors and job-related attitudes for this particular sample.
Because of the reasons cited above and because the t-values associated with several path
coefficients of job self-efficacy were non-significant, the model was re-run w ithout job
self-efficacy as a mediator.
Prior to this analysis, m odification indices were exam ined to determ ine whether
any paths should be added to the model. Although the modification indices generated by
115
LISREL indicated that adding eight additional paths would have im proved the fit, there
was no research to justify the inclusion of these paths, with one exception (a direct
relationship from unsupportive behaviors to job strain). Prior research has docum ented
that underm ining and abusive behaviors displayed by managers have a direct relationship
with the am ount o f somatic com plaints reported by em ployees (D uffy et ah, 2002) and
their level of stress (Ashforth, 1994).
A revised model was tested, rem oving job self-efficacy and adding an additional
direct path from unsupportive behaviors to job strain. The fit indices for the revised
model are listed in Table 20. The fit indices for the form er model are listed in the row
below. As can be seen, the indices of absolute fit indicated the revised model provided a
good fit to the data. Both the goodness of fit (GFI) and the adjusted goodness o f fit
(AGFI) indices were above .90. The root mean square error of variance (RM SEA) was
.07; the P-value for test of close fit indicated that the value for RM SEA was not
significantly different from .05 (values less than .05 are interpreted as good fit). The
com parative fit index (CFI) indicated that the model was superior to the independence
model. Lastly, the parsim onious fit indices (PNFI, PGFI) indicate that the revised model
is superior to the form er model that included jo b self-efficacy as a mediator.
The standardized coefficients for the revised model are listed in Figure 6 . In the
revised model, 37% of the variance was accounted for in job satisfaction, 45% o f the
variance was accounted for in turnover intentions, and 15% of the variance was
accounted for in job strain . 8
8 Due to the possible confounding effect of job demands, a more stringent analysis was performed, partialling out the
variance attributed to job demands from both the exogenous and endogenous variables. The saved standardized
residuals of the exogenous and endogenous were entered into the analyses. The tests of significant for the regression
coefficients remained unchanged, after partialling out the effect of job demands.
116
Table 20
Fit Indices o f R evised M odel C om pared to F orm er M odel.
M odel x2 df GFI AGFI RM SEA NFI CFI PNFI PGFI
Revised model 11.34 7 .99 .95 .07 .99 1 .0 .33 .25

Form er model 66.77 10 .94 .79 .15 .95 .95 .34 .26
Note. GFI - Goodness of fit index; AGFI -Adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA; Root mean
square error of approximation; NFI - Normed fit index; CFI - Comparative fit index; PNFI -
Parsimonious normed fit index; PGFI - Parsimonious goodness of fit index.
117
Figure 6
Standardized Param eter Estim ates fo r R evised M odel
.18**
Job Satisfaction
W ork A utonom y
Supportive Behaviors
-.26*
.IF T urnover Intentions
Perceived M anager Job Strain

Sentim ent_________ .00
31*
Note. * p <.05, ** p < .01, ***p <.001

Finally, one last model was tested in order to determ ine w hether the exclusion of
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors from the m odel resulted in a worse fit and less
predictive ability in the outcom e variables. Evidence of a poorer fit would provide
evidence that the m easure of unsupportive m anagerial behaviors is a distinct construct
from supportive behaviors and that it adds value to the theoretical fram ework. If the fit
indices rem ain unchanged after the removal of unsupportive behaviors, it w ould suggest
that the measure o f unsupportive m anagerial behaviors is redundant with the construct of
supportive behaviors, (i.e. both simply reflect opposite ends of the same continuum).
In this last analysis, the m easure of supportive m anagerial behaviors was entered
as the only exogenous variable (i.e., the m easure o f unsupportive m anagerial behaviors
was rem oved from the analysis). In other words, Figure 6 was re-tested rem oving
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors from the model. Because this model was not nested
w ithin the form er m odel, it was not possible to perform a %2 difference test. However, the
fit indices indicated that the model was slightly superior when the m easure of
unsupportive behaviors was included com pared to when it was not. For exam ple, the
R M SEA was .08 when the measure o f supportive behaviors was included as the only
exogenous variable com pared to .07 when unsupportive behaviors was included in the
model as well. The AGFI was .93 when the measure of supportive behaviors was
included as the only exogenous variable com pared to .95 when unsupportive behaviors
was included in the model as well. The PGFI was .23 in the latter model, com pared to
.25 when both supportive and unsupportive behaviors were included. The findings
suggest that there is only a slight im provem ent in model fit when the frequency of
119
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors are considered in addition to the frequency of
supportive m anagerial behaviors.
D oes the Relationship Between Supervisor Support and Job-Related A ttitudes D iffer
fo r D ifferent Types o f Workers?
Given that data was collected on occupational category, exploratory analyses were
conducted to determ ine whether the strength of the relationship between supportive
supervision and job-related outcomes would be more or less pronounced for certain kinds
of workers. There are several reasons this m ight be the case. For one, different kinds of
workers have different exposures to stressors in the workplace, which may call for more
or less supervisor support. Social workers are exposed to critical stressors in the
workplace such as threats of violence, assaults, and even a childs death (Regehr, Leslie,
Howe, & Chau, 2002) and m ay benefit from m ore supervisor support, given the stressful
nature of their job.
Other situational factors related to ones occupational category may also m ake
support less or more important. For example, those who work m ore autonom ously on the
job (e.g., professionals, management) and those who have lim ited contact with their
m anagers/supervisors, may be less affected by what m anagers/supervisors do or say than
those who w ork more closely with their manager/supervisor. For these reasons,
d ifferen ces in correlation co efficien ts betw een the frequency o f supportive m anagerial
behaviors and job-related outcomes were tested between em ployees in different
occupational categories. As can be seen in Table 21, there was a significant difference
for job strain. A m ong employees in adm inistrative support positions, there was
120
Table 21
Difference in Correlation Coefficients Between Supervisor Support and Job-Related
Outcomes fo r Em ployees in D ifferent O ccupational Categories
Administrative B argaining Unit M anagem ent

(n = 59) (n = 1 2 0 ) in = 6 8 )
Job Self-Efficacy .29* .13 39 **
Job Satisfaction bb * * * 39 **
Turnover Intentions .,48*** -.18* -.18
Job Strain _ 5 7 *** a -,1 6 b _ 3 7 **
N ote. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .00. Each value represents the correlation between supervisor support
and outcome variables (e.g., job self-efficacy), listed for each occupational category o f workers. Different
subscripts (a, b) denote a significance difference in correlation coefficients using Fishers r to z
transformation. For job strain, the test o f significance for a difference in correlation coefficients yielded p
< .003. In order to control for fam ily-wise error rate, Bonferonnis correction was used.
121
a strong negative relationship between supportive m anagerial behaviors and job strain, r
(59) = -.57, p < .001). Conversely, am ong those in a bargaining unit (largely comprised
of social workers), the relationship between these two variables was tenuous, r ( 1 2 0 ) =
-.16, n.s.). A sim ilar pattern of results was observed for the other outcome variables, but
did not achieve statistical significance after controlling for fam ily-wise error rate. The
results indicate that among adm inistrative workers, their job-related attitudes are closely
related to how supportive their m anager behaves. However, the results indicate that
among bargaining units, their job-related attitudes are only weakly related to having a
supportive manager. Because of the type of w ork these em ployees do (i.e., working
directly with clients on a daily basis), other features of the work environm ent (e.g.,
critical job stressors, high job dem ands) are likely to play a larger role in determ ining
w ork-related attitudes for this group of workers. Supportive m anagerial behaviors were
m oderately related to the attitudes o f those in m anagem ent positions, less so than the
adm inistrative group, but more so than the bargaining units.
Do Ongoing Expressions o f Supervisor Support M itigate the Adverse Consequences o f
H ighly D em anding Jobs?
The main effect model of social support was tested using hierarchical regression
analysis. As explained in the introduction of the dissertation, ongoing expressions of
support are exp ected to exert a m ain effect on w ell-b ein g , but are not expected to buffer
the effect of jo b demands. The buffering function of social support is expected to occur
only when the support is tailored to addressing the needs posed by the stressor at hand.
122
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This latter form of support was not assessed in the current study, so the analysis is limited
to exam ining the function of ongoing support.
Given that job-related strain was related to the sex of the em ployee, education, and
occupational category (i.e., case worker, adm inistrative, m anagement), these were
entered as control variables on Step 1. The main effects were entered on Step 2 and the
interaction term was entered on the third and final step. As recom m ended by Aiken and
W est (1991), all main and interaction terms were centered before being entered into the
regression. Because of the high correlations between the two subscales of
Personal/Esteem Support and Enabling Job Support, the com posite total of these two
subseales was entered.
The results of these analyses, displayed in Table 22 indicate that both jo b demands
and supervisor support contribute a unique proportion of variance to job-related strain,
after controlling for dem ographic variables. As hypothesized, supervisor support has a
direct bearing on work-related strain, but does not m itigate the effects of highly
dem anding jobs. In other words, the positive effects o f supervisor support are sim ilar for
workers with varying kinds o f jo b demands. Together, job demands, supervisor support,
sex of the em ployee, educational level, and type of work accounted for alm ost 50% of the
variance in job-related strain. O f these, jo b demands had the strongest bearing (/?= .54, p
c.001).
K araseks (1990) revised model of jo b demands-control model, which incorporates
the com bined influences of social support, job control, and job dem ands, was also tested
using hierarchical multiple regression analyses. This model stipulates that job-related
123
Table 22
M o derated H ierarch ical R egression A nalyses P redictin g Job Strain fro m Job
D em ands an d Supervisor Support
Predictors Job Strain

/3 SE
Step 1
Sex of Em ployee .17* (.23)
Education -.0 1 (.08)
Occupational C ategory 9 -.28* (.24)
R2 14**
Step 2
Job Demands ,54**(.03)
Supervisor Support -.24** (.06)
Change in R 2 27 **
Step 4
D em ands X Support .04 (.03)
Change in R 2 .0 0
Total V ariance A ccounted For (Adjusted) 4 9 **
N = 247, +p <.05, * p < .01, * * p < .001
9 Given the categorical nature o f this variable (i.e., Case worker, Administrative or M anagement), it was
dummy coded.
124
strain is highest when dem ands are high, and control and supports are low. However,
displayed in Table 23, the 3-way interaction was not statistically significant.
125
Table 23
M oderated H ierarch ical Regression A nalyses P redictin g Job Strain from Job
Dem ands, Job Control, and Supervisor Support
Predictors Job Strain

P SE
Step 1
Sex of Employee .17* (.23)
Education -.0 1 (.08)
Occupational C ategory 10 -.28* (.24)
R2 14**
Step 2
Job Demands .52** (.03)
Job Control -.2 1 ** (.07)
Supervisor Support -.14* (.07)
Change in R 2 40**
Step 4
Dem ands X Support -.0 1 (.04)
D em ands X Control .1 0 (-04)
Support X Control .08 (-06)
Change in R 2 .0 1
Step 5
Control X Support X Demands -.1 0 (.04)
Change in R 2 .0 1
Total Variance A ccounted For (Adjusted) .53**
Note. N = 247, + p <.05, * p < .01, ** p < .001
10 Given the categorical nature o f this variable (i.e., Case worker, Administrative or Management), it was
dummy coded.
126
Discussion
The current study sought to understand the various ways in which supervisor
support is manifested and to understand the psychological m echanism s that link these
behaviors to their subordinates work-related attitudes and strain. In an effort to
understand the full range of support-related behaviors that influence how em ployees feel
about themselves and their jobs, unsupportive managerial behaviors were also examined.
These included both blatant and subtle forms of underm ining (e.g., yelling; second
guessing em ployees decisions), as well as micromanaging (e.g., m onitoring em ployees
work too closely). Drawing on the w ork of several theorists, an integrated m odel was
developed that proposed three mediating mechanisms through which supportive and
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors influence their subordinates w ork-related attitudes
and strain. The three proposed m ediating variables are perceptions of w ork autonomy,
perceived m anager sentiment, and job self-efficacy. Structural equation m odeling was
applied to test these m ediating mechanisms. This technique has an advantage over
m ultiple regression in that all relationships in the model are tested simultaneously. The
interpretation and significance of these findings, study lim itations, and directions for
future research are discussed next.
The Nature o f Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
Despite the exponential growth of studies on supervisor support, little research
has been conducted to clarify and unpack its meaning. Although m ost people have an
intuitive sense of what a supportive manager does, there has been a lack of rigorous
127
research to docum ent its various manifestations. The current study undertook a thorough
exploration of m anagers supportive behaviours that occur on a regular basis, and in
particular, behaviors perceived by em ployees as having a bearing on their self-confidence
on the job and their sense of control within their work role. In addition, inform ation was
collected on behaviors they consider to be unsupportive, including subtle actions that
em ployees regard as undermining or over-controlling. This study adopted a qualitative
method, interview ing em ployees at two different organizations. A total of 64 supportive
behaviors and 54 unsupportive behaviors were identified, organized into eight supportive
classes and six unsupportive classes.
Findings indicated that, among other behaviors, supportive m anagers 1) display
behaviors that dem onstrate trustworthiness on the part of the m anager; 2 ) show genuine
concern for their employees; 3) dem onstrate fairness/reasonableness in their decisions
and behaviors; 4) give employees recognition for the w ork they do; 5) help em ployees to
advance their careers; 6 ) com municate with them on a regular basis; 7) encourage them to
be autonomous and innovative on the job; and 8 ) offer expertise and assistance in a
capacity-building style.
W hereas some of the classes identified in Study 1 replicate prior categories of
social support, others are unique to the m anagerial role. For exam ple, the class o f
behaviors entitled Genuine Concern bears a strong resem blance to the category of Non-
Job Related Com m unications included in Beehr, King, and K ings (1990) typology of
em ployee-supervisor com m unications (e.g., we discuss things that are happening in our
personal lives) and with the Intimate Interaction class of supportive behaviors, derived
from Barrera and A inlays (1983) review of support typologies.
128
The class of behaviors labeled Trustw orthiness is sim ilar to G ottliebs (1978)
category of R eflects trust . The category entitled Recognition is similar to the
dim ension of esteem or appraisal support in other social support classification schemes;
however, in the current study, the construct is more lim ited in nature, pertaining to
feedback relevant to the work role. Behaviors that fall within the dim ension Task
G uidance and A ssistance are manifestations of both instrum ental support (House, 1981)
and guidance support (Barrera & Ainlay, 1983); however, they are tailored more
specifically to the kinds of assistance required to successfully accomplish jo b tasks.
The dim ensions of Open Com m unication Reasonableness/ Fairness ,
Professional D evelopm ent , and Encourages D ecisional D iscretion appear to be
unique to the m anagerial role, as no com parable classes were located in the social support
literature. The latter dimension, however, has been docum ented in several leadership
typologies. F or example, in Alimo-M etcalfe and A lban-M etcalfes (2001) classification
of leadership behaviors, empowers/develops potential and encourages critical and
strategic thinking were identified as two of the nine factors of effective leadership.
Similarly, behaviors illustrative of an empowering style are featured prom inently in B ass
(1985) conceptualization and operalization of transform ational leadership (Bass &
Aviolo, 1990), specifically in regards to the dim ensions o f Charism atic Leadership (e.g.,
encourages m e to express my ideas and opinions) and Intellectual Stim ulation (e.g.,
enables me to think about new w ays of look in g at things w h ich used to be a puzzle for
m e). Finally, the dim ension of Open Com m unication was previously identified by
Alim o-M etcalfe and Alban-M etcalfe (2001) in their study on leadership characteristics,
although the label they used to describe the dim ension was Accessible/A pproachable.
129
Although it is im portant to docum ent the positive m anifestations of supervisor
support, it is equally im portant to know what m anagers do or say that em ployees deem to
be unsupportive. Prior research on interpersonal relationships has shown that both
supportive and unsupportive actions uniquely contribute to outcomes such as depression
and distress (Fiore et al., 1983; Lehmann, Shinn, Allen, & Simko, 1983, cited in Shinn,
Lehm an, & W ong, 1984; M anne et al., 1997). In other words, they are independent
constructs; one can be supportive and act unsupportively at the sam e time. However, we
know very little about how these dynamics operate in the workplace.
The findings of Study 1 dem onstrated various ways in which em ployees perceive
their m anagers as behaving unsupportively. These included behaviors that 1) undermined
em ployees trust in his or her m anager (e.g., broke prom ises); 2 ) were dem eaning,
hum iliating or underm ining (e.g., criticized subordinates in front of colleagues); 3)
dem onstrated apathy (e.g., disinterested in em ployees work); and were controlling (this
included m onitoring em ployees whereabouts; lim iting their decision-m aking ability and
creative potential; and encouraging bureaucracy).
The behaviors characteristic of an abusive boss developed by Bies and Tripp
(1998) overlap considerably with the results from Study 1; however, the concepts used to
organize them differ. M oreover, Bies and Tripp (1998) did not provide a com prehensive
list of behaviors; instead, they provided several exam ples illustrative of each broader
construct. They described the abusive boss as a m icrom anager, som eone who is obsessed
with details (e.g., m ust have their hands in everything); is obsessed with perfection (e.g.,
is intolerant of mistakes, second guesses em ployees decisions); gives vague direction
with decisive delivery (e.g., provides low role clarity with high expectations for
130
performance); displays unpredictable m ood swings; derogates em ployees in public; and
makes arbitrary decisions. Several dim ensions o f Bies and T ripps (1998) typology,
however, were not reflected in the results of Study 1 such as having an obsession with
loyalty (e.g., not tolerant of dissent) and exercising raw power for personal gain (e.g.,
engages in unethical behavior or uses coercion to force em ployees into engaging in
ethical behavior).
The controlling behaviors from Study 1 are also sim ilar to two dim ensions of
A shforths (1994) construct of tyrannical m anagem ent behaviors: forced style of conflict
resolution and discourages initiative. A shforths (1994) typology also includes a
belittling dim ension (e.g., yells at subordinates). However, one of the dim ensions in his
typology is lack of consideration (e.g., is friendly and approachable, reverse coded),
which appears to be part of the same continuum of supportive behaviors, rather than an
independent construct assessing unsupportive behaviors.
The concept of unsupportive managerial behaviors and the m ethodology used to
develop the dim ensions in the current study differ from the previously m entioned studies
in several ways. First, in contrast to the typology of abusive or tyrannical
supervisors, the intent o f the current study was not to identify the characteristics of
harassing or abusive supervisors, but rather to identify a full range of behaviors, deemed
to be unsupportive, including both blatant and subtle ways in which m anagers m ay
behave unsupportively. In other words, the purpose was not to docum ent the m ost
extreme forms of abuse, but to include unsupportive behaviors that are som etim es
displayed by generally supportive managers. From a practical perspective, the
classification scheme of unsupportive behaviors provides useful inform ation to all
131
m anagers in that it identifies behaviors that some m anagers may not even reaJize have a
dam aging effect on employee morale (e.g., excluding them from meetings; displaying
little enthusiasm for the work they are doing; hovering over em ployees while they are
working).
The Factor Structure o f Supportive M anagerial Behaviors
One of the strengths of the current study is that the dim ensions of supportive and
unsupportive behaviors were derived inductively, based on a qualitative analysis of
interview responses and validated em pirically by factor analytic techniques. In contrast
to many prior typologies of supportive and unsupportive or abusive behaviors, the current
classification scheme attaches definitions to each class and provides a com prehensive list
o f behaviors within each class. M oreover, participants from Study 1 were random ly
drawn from two different organizations that belonged to two different sectors (e.g., non
profit; private, for profit), enhancing the probability that the items w ould be applicable to
various sectors and populations.
U sing both exploratory and confirm atory factor analytic techniques, the results
confirm ed a tw o-factor structure of support. However, because the confirm atory factor
analysis was conducted on the same sample as the exploratory factor analyses, further
validation of the factor structure using other samples is needed.
One of the factors, labeled Personal and Esteem Support , includes behaviors
that support employees on a personal level (e.g., asks em ployees how they are doing) and
behaviours that com m unicate positive feedback related to self-evaluation (e.g., praises
em ployees work in front of others). The other factor, labeled Enabling Job Support,
132
includes assisting em ployees in fulfilling their work obligations (e.g., ensuring clarity
over work tasks) and encouraging them to be innovative and autonom ous in their jobs.
Although the two-factor structure of support was confirm ed by structural equation
modeling, the two dimensions were highly correlated, r (247) = .81, p < .001). These
results suggest that managers who encourage autonomous behaviors from their
em ployees also freely give them praise and genuinely care about their em ployees.
The two dim ensions that em erged after applying factor analytic techniques
replicate some of the dim ensions identified in the social support and leadership
literatures. As noted in the introduction to the study, the most com m only identified forms
of social support in the literature are: em otional, esteem /appraisal, instrum ental, and
inform ational in nature. However, whereas em otional and esteem support are typically
viewed as separate dimensions o f support, the findings from the current study suggest
that there is an overarching construct that unites these two forms of support. W ith the
exception of one item (encourages w ork for career developm ent), all the other items
involve supportive actions of a highly personal nature (e.g., smiles, appears happy to see
m e ; sym pathizes with difficulties I am experiencing) that validate em ployees as
individuals, rather than as subordinates.
The im portance of career-enhancing support coupled with actions that serve to
validate and respond to the emotional needs of em ployees is also em phasized in the
literature on m entoring relationships. For example, in a review o f m entor-apprentice
relationships within the work context, Johns and Saks (2000) discuss the psychosocial
role functions of a m entor such as acceptance and confirm ation, counseling, and role
modeling. The career functions of a m entor include behaviors such as enhancing an
133
em ployees visibility, assisting to develop key skills, coaching, and nom inating the
employee for promotions.
The Personal and Esteem dimension bears some similarity to the Individualized
Consideration dim ension of the M ultifactor Leadership Q uestionnaire (M LQ), which
assesses transform ational leadership style (Bass & Aviolo, 1990). For exam ple, items in
the Individualized Consideration dim ension signify a caring m anager (e.g., gives
personal attention to m em bers who seem neglected), who provides esteem support (e.g.,
You can count on him /her to express his/her appreciation when you do a good jo b ).
However, whereas the Individualized Consideration dim ension is focused on the work
role context (e.g., is satisfied when I meet agreed-upon standards for good w ork), the
Personal and Esteem dim ension is focused m ainly on supporting the em ployee as a
person. This latter dim ension adds value to our understanding of the m anagerial role
because it em phasizes the im portance of developing relationships beyond the verbal
exchanges necessary to perform the work role. In fact, findings from Beehr et a ls (1990)
study showed that these kinds of non-job related com m unications with o n es supervisor
buffered the effects of jo b stressors, whereas job-related verbal com m unications did not.
The second dim ension in the current study, Enabling Job Support, shares more
in com mon with typologies found in the leadership literature, particularly with the
Intellectual Stim ulation dimension of the M ultifactor Leadership Q uestionnaire, MLQ
(Bass & Aviolo, 1990) and the Initiating Structure and Tolerance of Freedom dim ensions
of the Revised Leadership, B ehavior Description Questionnaire, developed by Stogdill
(1963). All of these dim ensions include behaviors that support em ployees in fulfilling
134
their work obligations, as well as behaviors that encourage em ployees to act
autonomously and creatively on the job.
However, one o f the lim itations of the M LQ is that the dim ensions are not clearly
differentiated from each other on conceptual or em pirical grounds. Some of the
behaviors under the Charism atic Leadership dim ension (e.g., encourages me to express
my ideas and opinions) overlap in content with behaviors under Intellectual Stim ulation
(e.g., enables me to think about old problem s in new w ays). Furtherm ore, the lack of
differentiation between factors was docum ented in a study conducted by Carless (1998)
using confirm atory factor analysis. M oreover, the items in the M LQ do not docum ent the
behaviors of leaders; they assess em ployees global perceptions (sim ilar to m any social
support instrum ents) and some items are confounded with criterion variables (e.g.,
inspires loyalty to the organization; increases m y optim ism for the future). Finally,
both the M LQ and the Leader Behavior D escription Q uestionnaire include item s that
assess m anager behaviors directed at the work unit (e.g., Lets m em bers do their work
the way they think best), in contrast to the Inventory o f Supportive and U nsupportive
M anagerial Behaviors (ISUM B) which assesses em ployees perceptions of how their
m anager behaves tow ards them in particular. The form er m easurem ent is problem atic
given that supervisors may not treat everyone in the work unit the same. M oreover, the
m anagers behavior tow ard the em ployee would appear to be a m ore sensitive predictor
of the em ployees attitudes and well-being than how the m anager behaves towards the
work unit in general.
135
The Factor Structure o f Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors
Em pirical verification of discrete unsupportive dim ensions was not confirm ed in
Study 3. The findings suggested that apathetic behaviors were part of the same
continuum as supportive behaviors. Controlling and underm ining behaviors, on the other
hand, factor analyzed into one dim ension, separate from supportive dim ensions. Only
one study (Ashforth, 1994) was located that em pirically derived factors of unsupportive
behaviors. A lthough Ashforth (1994) reports six separate factors of abusive supervision,
the results from his factor analysis indicated that all 47 survey item s had factor loadings
greater or equal to .44 on the first factor, calling into question the validity of the six factor
structure of tyrannical behaviors.
A New Behaviorally-Based Inventory o f Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial
Behaviors (ISUMB)
The ISUM B proved to be a reliable and valid m easurem ent tool. In contrast to
previous m easurem ent instruments of supervisor support that pose questions about
m anagers overall helpfulness, the ISUM B assesses the frequency of particular behaviors
deem ed to be supportive or unsupportive. Findings from Study 2 dem onstrated its
predictive superiority over a com m only em ployed instrum ent o f perceived m anager
support in predicting job-related attitudes such as jo b satisfaction, m anager satisfaction,
and well-being (i.e., job strain). Correlations between the supportive dim ensions and
positive job-related attitudes ranged from a low of .48 to a high o f .81, indicating strong
convergent validity. Furtherm ore, the current measure has utility in its specificity
com pared to C aplans et al.,s (1975) global measure of perceived support. M oreover,
136
the validation of the survey on two separate samples enhances confidence in the
generalizability of the instrument. Em ployees from Study 3 were drawn from a non
profit hum an service agency, and em ployees from Study 2 were drawn from the public
sector, for profit, and non-profit sectors. For practical reasons, it was not feasible in the
current study to dem onstrate discrim inant validity (i.e., to com pare ISUM B scores for
m anagers classified as supportive and those deem ed to be unsupportive).
D espite evidence of the m easures validity and reliability, further refinem ent of
the unsupportive m anagerial scale may be necessary. For example, the skewed
distribution o f unsupportive behaviors suggests that the measure m ay lend itself to a
different response format than a frequency rating. The average score on the com posite
scale of unsupportive behaviors in Study 3 was 1.5 on a scale of 1 to 5. Given the low
occurrence of unsupportive behaviors, it may be useful in future research to include an
upset rating for each unsupportive behavior that is rated to occur at least once.
Interestingly, other research has shown that some stressors that occur relatively
infrequently have nonetheless proved to be highly upsetting (e.g., Terri, Truaux,
Fogsdon, U om oto, Zarit, & Vitaliano, 1992). In addition, the time elapsed since the last
incident in which the m anager behaved unsupportively may be worth exam ining as a
predictor of w ork-related outcomes (e.g., occurred within last week, occurred m ore than a
week ago). D espite the low occurrence of unsupportive behaviors, their strong
relationship with job-related strain is noteworthy. This suggests that behaving
inconsiderately tow ard an em ployee even once or twice can have far reaching effects.
It would be interesting to explore why certain item s had a higher percentage of
N ot A pplicable and why this response was overrepresented am ong certain occupational
137
categories. For example, em ployees working in an adm inistrative capacity were more
likely to indicate the Professional D evelopm ent items were not applicable to them.
Although it is not known whether these results reflect differential needs among workers
in different occupational roles or whether the results reflect different expectations of the
m anagerial role, the findings m erit further study. At the very least, the results suggest
that some items may be occupationally specific. In future research, it would be worth
exam ining which kinds of supportive behaviors are core items, equally relevant to
em ployees in different occupations and industries, and which items are industry or
occupationally-specific. In this regard, the current survey instrum ent could be
adm inistered to different groups of workers who are asked to rate the applicability of
various supportive behaviors.
In sum, the ISUM B overcom es m any of the lim itations characteristic of
com m only adm inistered social support and leadership m easurem ent instrum ents. The
items are based on observable behaviors, are not confounded with criterion variables,
were derived inductively through a qualitative approach and validated em pirically, and
dem onstrate a factor structure that is consistent with prior typologies.
The M ediating Role o f Perceived Job Autonomy, Job Self-Efficacy, and
Perceived M anager Sentim ent
The final study sought to understand the psychological processes by which
supportive and unsupportive managerial behaviors affect em ployees attitudes towards
their job and w ork strain. Although a handful of studies have been conducted on the
mediating m echanism s by which supportive behaviors affect attitudinal outcom es, these
138
studies employed global measures of perceived support and only one study was specific
to the workplace context. M oreover, only one study has been conducted to date on the
processes by which unsupportive m anagerial behaviors affect attitudinal outcomes (i.e.,
Tepper et al., 2002). The lim itations of this particular study were outlined in the
introduction. To date, there are no em pirically driven studies to identify whether
unsuppoitive managerial behaviors im pact em ployees differently than supportive
behaviors or w hether they operate through sim ilar processes. Three m ediating
m echanism s were tested in the current study, based on prior research on interpersonal
relationships and draw ing on the w ork of several theorists (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Thoits,
1985; Deci et al., 1981).
P erceived Job Autonom y
Findings from Study 1 identified particular behaviors (both positive and negative)
that were autonomy enhancing (those labeled encouraging decisional discretion and
creative expression) and autonomy suppressing (those labeled as bureaucratizing
monitors face-tim e and lim its decisional discretion and creative expression).
Interestingly, findings from Study 3 indicated that behaviors that reflected genuine
concern and gave em ployees recognition were also highly related to perceived jo b
autonomy (the correlation between Personal/Esteem Support and jo b autonom y was .42).
One explanation may be that managers who genuinely care about their em ployees also
trust them to behave m ore autonom ously on the job. These skills are characteristic of a
people-oriented m anager rather than a m anager who focuses on achieving results without
consideration of his or her em ployees needs.
139
The strong relationship between the dim ension of Enabling Job Support and
perceptions of autonomy is also noteworthy (the correlation between Enabling Job
Support and jo b autonomy was .55). A ccording to self-determ ination theory, autonomy
supportive environm ents are expected to help facilitate the actualization of personal
goals, which in turn, are related to enhanced internal motivation and personal well-being
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). A pplied to the w ork context, behaviors that assist em ployees to
perform their work role more com petently such as clarification o f work tasks or that
encourage professional developm ent may help em ployees to actualize their own work
goals and take on m ore responsibility in their job, thereby allowing them to behave more
independently on the job.
A discussion of how perceived jo b autonomy can be influenced by o n es
supervisor has been largely absent from the research on supervisor support and job
control; prior studies have tended to assume that these constructs operate largely
independently. A ccording to Karasek and Theorells (1991) revised jo b dem ands-control
model, particular com binations of control, job demands, and supervisor support predict
job strain. In contrast, findings from the current study suggest that m anagers foster or
constrain em ployees sense of autonomy in their w ork role. M oreover, jo b control
proved to mediate the im pact of m anagers supportive and unsupportive behaviors on job
strain and other w ork-related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover intentions).
Enhanced feelings of autonomy were also hypothesized to positively influence
perceived m anager sentiment. In other words, em ployees who had the freedom to
manage their own jobs surmised that their m anager must think highly o f them to have
given them this much say over their work. That is, they inferred the m anagers positive
140

view of their com petence from the extent of discretion that was granted to them. This
hypothesis was also supported in the study. M oreover, this is consistent with findings
from a qualitative study of 103 em ployees from various occupational groups (Schwalbe,
1985), revealing that em ployees who were afforded greater autonomy on the job
attributed their autonomy to their m anagers perceived regard for them. A ccording to the
authors, freedom to act autonom ously on the jo b was viewed by em ployees as a badge
of status, an indicator of an em ployees jo b s skill and perhaps m ost im portant, a reward
for reliable and com petent perform ance (p.527).
Interestingly, whereas em ployees in Study 1 expressed disdain for managers who
closely m onitored their w ork and who lim ited their decision-m aking capability, they were
equally displeased with managers who had a laissez-faire style o f managing. These
were managers who exhibited apathetic behaviors such as acting disinterested in
em ployees work; not following through on promises; and ignoring issues that are
problem atic for employees. These findings suggest that em pow ering em ployees requires
more effort and skill than leaving em ployees to their own devices to solve their own
problems. An em powering approach to m anaging requires that the m anager is
enthusiastic about em ployees work and available to assist em ployees on w ork-related
tasks. D irect involvem ent in tasks must be done sparingly and with a non-directive style
that does not rob em ployees of a sense of accom plishm ent and worth. This style of
managing is consistent with the em pathic-active approach to teaching, as described by
Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002). The prim ary focus o f this approach is to ensure that
students authentic goals and interests are understood by the teacher, and that efforts are
made to engage students in activities that will help to realize the students goals and
141
interests. This em powering approach also shares many com m onalities with
transform ational leadership.
Perceived M anager Sentim ent
Reflected appraisals, a construct that has been typically studied in the context of
close relationships, contributed to an understanding of the processes by which m anager
behaviors have a bearing on the w ork-related attitudes of employees. It was hypothesized
that supportive and unsupportive m anagerial behaviors would indirectly com m unicate to
em ployees how they are regarded by their managers. The findings suggested that
supportive behaviors on the part of the m anager com m unicate to em ployees that they are
valued and deem ed com petent, whereas unsupportive behaviors convey the opposite
information.
Perceived m anager sentiment, in turn, predicted em ployees satisfaction with their
jobs. The more em ployees believed their m anager had positive regard for them, the more
positive attitudes they reported towards their job. Consistent with research on close
relationships (e.g., Schafer et al., 1998), these reflected appraisals also predicted
em ployees level of self-efficacy (specific to the w ork role). The m ore em ployees
believed that their m anager had positive regard for them, the m ore confidence they had in
their own work-related capabilities. This suggests that em ployees internalize these
messages and integrate them into their self-concepts or identities.
It was also hypothesized that em ployees with less favorable responses to
perceived m anager sentiment would report less confidence in perform ing w ork-related
tasks, consequently experiencing greater work distress (i.e., job strain). These
142
relationships were supported. A direct relationship between perceived m anager
sentiment and jo b strain was also expected, although this was not confirm ed in the
analysis. The weak relationship between perceived m anager sentim ent and jo b strain
m ay be due to a ceiling effect; the mean score on the perceived m anager sentim ent scale
was 4.3 on a scale of 1 to 5. These findings indicate that most em ployees felt that their
m anager regarded them in a positive light. Scores may need to be below a certain
threshold in order to exert a direct effect on job strain.
In future research, it may be worthwhile to exam ine personality variables that
may dim inish the effect of perceived m anager sentim ent on job strain. Em ployees with
certain traits (e.g., those low in conscientiousness) may be less affected by what they
believe others think of them, com pared to employees who are m ore sensitive to other
peoples perceptions of them. Related to this point, it would be interesting to explore
other personality characteristics that may mitigate the effects of unsupportive managerial
behaviors on perceived manager sentiment. For example, em ployees with high self
esteem may show an ego-defensive bias by attributing unsupportive m anagerial behaviors
to characteristics of the m anager (e.g., m anager is under stress) rather than viewing them
as a reflection of how their managers feel about them. It would also be interesting to
exam ine the concordance of responses to the Perceived M anager Sentim ent Scale from
both the m anagers point of view and the em ployees points of view. Prior research on
marital couples has shown a greater discrepancy between actual appraisals and reflected
appraisals among individuals with low self-esteem than among those with high self
esteem (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1997, cited in M urray et al., 1998).
143
Clearly, there is more research to be done on perceived m anager sentiment in the
workplace. The current study is the first to apply the concept of reflected appraisals to
em ployee-supervisor relationships; hence there are likely to be other issues related to this
construct that deserve investigation. Further exam inations of perceived m anager
sentim ent may benefit from a closer look at the research on leader-m em ber exchange
(Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Liden, W ayne, & Stilwell, 1993), given that there
is a considerable degree of overlap in the operationalization of these two constructs.
Job Self-Efficacy
Job self-efficacy, the degree of confidence em ployees have in perform ing work-
related tasks, was expected to play a m ediating role between m anagerial behaviors (both
supportive and unsupportive) and em ployees attitudes toward their jo b and work-related
strain. Although supportive m anagerial behaviors were significantly correlated with job
self-efficacy, the path coefficient was not significant when structural equation modeling
was applied to the data. Rather, the initial SEM analyses indicated that supportive and
unsupportive m anagerial behaviors were indirectly related to jo b self-efficacy through
enhanced perceived sentiment. In other words, supportive m anagerial behaviors do not
directly enhance job self-efficacy, but they do com m unicate high regard for the
em ployee, which in turn, partially shapes self-efficacy beliefs.
Surprisingly, jo b self-efficacy beliefs did not have a significant relationship (i.e.,
simple correlation) with underm ining and controlling behaviors. It is plausible that, in
com parison to the other m ediating variables, jo b self-efficacy is more trait-based than
situationally-based. Evidence for this comes from research on other dom ain-specific self-
144
efficacy m easures, which has shown that this construct is more heavily influenced by
stable characteristics such as optim ism and relatively resistant to situationally-specific
influences (e.g., Gottlieb & Rooney, 2003).
The Relationship Between Supervisor Support and Job-Related Attitudes:
The M oderating Role o f O ccupational Category
This is one of the few studies to consider w hether the relationship between
supervisor support and job-related attitudes differs for em ployees working in different
occupational positions within the organization. There are several reasons why
occupational category may modify the relationship between the frequency o f supportive
behaviors and job-related attitudes. One possible explanation is that the nature of the
work and level of expertise required on the job may make certain forms of supervisory
support more or less relevant. Those in professional categories (e.g., case workers,
management) m ay require less practical assistance and validation from their manager.
On the other hand, one could argue that case workers m ay need more support from their
m anager because of their high exposure to stressful incidents on the jo b and high levels
of jo b demands.
A nother reason why one m ight expect occupational category to serve a
moderating role is that those who work more autonom ously on the job, and who have
limited contact with their managers, may be less affected by what m anagers do or say.
Conversely, for em ployees who have regular contact with their m anager, how they feel
about their job may be more heavily determ ined by how they are treated by their
manager. However, the opposite argum ent could be made, nam ely that little contact
145
makes em ployees all the more sensitive to any interactions that do occur. Because there
has been a lack of research and theoretical developm ents on this topic, exploratory
analyses were conducted by inspecting the differences in correlation co-efficients
between adm inistrative, management, and bargaining units.
The results reveal that jo b attitudes are m ore closely related to m anagerial support
for adm inistrative workers than for employees in a bargaining unit (all of w hom work in
direct services, largely com prised of social workers). Although a sim ilar pattern was
observed for all outcome variables, the difference in correlation coefficients was
statistically significant for job strain only. C haracteristics particular to the w ork
environm ent of case workers (e.g., dealing with difficult clients, high job dem ands) may
override the influence of m anagerial behaviors on job-related outcom e variables.
M oreover, case workers (who form a large m ajority of the bargaining units) often work
off site and do not have frequent face-to-face contact with their managers.
A m ong the m anagem ent group, supportive m anagerial behaviors w ere m oderately
related to their w ork-related attitudes; the correlation between these two variables was
larger than that found among m em bers of the bargaining units, and sm aller than among
the adm inistrative workers (with the exception o f job self-efficacy). It was not surprising
that their results were more similar to the bargaining un its, given that both of these
groups of em ployees are expected to work more autonom ously on the job and are less
likely to rely on feedback from their supervisor to accomplish daily work tasks.
These exploratory analyses em phasize the im portance of exam ining occupational
category as a m oderator o f the relationship between supervisor support and outcom es in
future research. H ad the sample been larger in the current study, separate m odels could
146
have been tested within each occupational group. The results of this study suggest that
outcom es such as turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and job strain may be driven by
different factors, depending on the kind o f occupation and degree of autonom y afforded
within that role.
The M ain Effects M odel o f Supervisor Support
C onsistent with apriori hypotheses, ongoing supportive behaviors displayed by
managers did not moderate the effect of job dem ands on work-related strain. Ongoing
support, however, did show a main effect on jo b strain; the more support em ployees
received on a regular basis, the less likely employees were to report w ork-related strain.
The im pact was not affected by the extent of em ployees perceived job demands. Future
research is required to test whether problem -specific support mitigates the effects of
stressors on strain outcomes. Moreover, future studies could im prove upon the current
design by including both objective and subjective measures of dem ands that are tailored
to the population being studied. The inclusion of a subjective self-report m easure of
demands in the current study may have contributed to the lack of evidence for moderation
because of com m on m ethod bias.
Study Limitations
Several lim itations of the current study are noteworthy. First, all three studies are
based on self-report data. A concern with self-report data is that com m on m ethod bias
may have inflated relationships between variables. In addition to the concern o f common
m ethod bias, ratings o f supervisor behaviors and perceived m anager sentim ent m ay have
147
been biased by social desirability or personal characteristics (e.g., self-esteem ). Although
this study controlled for job demands as a potential confounding variable, there is a
possibility o f other unmeasured individual differences that may have coloured
em ployees perceptions of the support they received and affected their work-related
perceptions as well. This would include variables such as negative affectivity,
neuroticism , and optimism. Although the inclusion of one or more of these variables was
considered during the planning of the study, the participating organization expressed
concerns about survey fatigue because the length of the survey was over 100 questions.
A nother lim itation of the study was the non-norm al distribution of some o f the
variables, particularly the unsupportive inventory, which may have diluted the
relationships between variables. However, as previously mentioned, others have
indicated that this estimation technique is relatively robust to violations of m ultivariate
norm ality (Bentler & Chou, 1988; Jaccard & W an, 1996). This was confirm ed in testing
the theoretical fram ework in Study 3 using both transform ed and non-transform ed data.
The survey instrum ent assessing supportive and unsupportive m anagerial
behaviors had the advantage of being tested and validated in two different studies.
However, the m ethod of data collection in Study 2 may have resulted in a biased sample
because respondents were not random ly chosen. On the other hand, one of the benefits of
drawing on a convenience sample was that employees reflected a diverse set of
occupations in a variety of organizations.
The generalizability of the theoretical model tested in Study 3 is lim ited, given
that it was tested within one organization. Although a variety of workers are em ployed
by this organization (e.g., human resource personnel, lawyers, adm inistrative assistants,
148
com puting support), validation of the model in other settings and industries would be
useful. A nother lim itation with testing the model within one organization is that some
em ployees were rating the same manager, which raises concern about the independence
of observations (one of the statistical assumptions in structural equation modeling).
However, in a study conducted by Greguras and Robie (1998) on w ithin-source interrater
reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings, the findings dem onstrated that there was little
agreement am ong subordinates ratings of their direct supervisor. The authors surmised
that the variability in ratings could be due to the fact that em ployees are exposed to
different aspects of their supervisors behavior. In other words, supervisors have
different relationships with each employee, resulting in em ployees being exposed to
different kinds o f behaviors on the part of the manager. Greguras and R obies findings
suggest that there would be sufficient variability across subordinates ratings of
supervisor support to protect against violating the independence of observations
assumption.
In Study 3, the response rate was 40%, raising concerns about the
representativeness of the sample. Although this response rate was typical for this
particular organization, when com paring the characteristics of the sample to the entire
organization, male employees and bargaining units were less likely to com plete the
survey. However, the lack of gender differences in Study 2 suggests that this was not a
serious threat to the generalizability of the findings to male em ployees. In discussions
with hum an resource personnel at this organization, job demands were identified as one
factor that may have interfered with em ployees ability to complete the survey. This is
149
further supported by the fact that the response rate was lowest am ong em ployees with the
highest work demands (e.g., bargaining units).
Lastly, the correlational nature of the study prevents the possibility of determ ining
causal relations among the variables. For example, it is possible that em ployees higher in
job self-efficacy m ay elicit m ore supportive responses from their m anagers than those
lower in self-efficacy. A more stringent test of this model would involve an intervention
targeted at changing the behaviors in the inventory (e.g., m anagerial skills training),
accom panied by a longitudinal study that involved tracking m anager behaviors and
em ployee perceptions over time.
Directions fo r Future Research
Given the strong link between unsupportive behaviors and job strain, it w ould be
worthw hile to study the antecedents of these behaviors. Certain dispositional factors may
m ake certain managers m ore prone to engaging in belittling and m icrom anaging
behaviors. In his review of the petty tyrant manager, Ashforth (1994) discusses some of
these dispositional variables, which include a sense of powerlessness in o n es role
coupled with low self-confidence and cynical beliefs about subordinates (e.g., em ployees
are generally lazy). In addition, certain characteristics of organizations have a greater
likelihood of breeding abusive supervisors. These include organizations that em phasize
close com pliance with centralized decision-making and high stress work environm ents
(Ashforth, 1994). Several studies have found that high stress conditions elicit m ore
forceful styles of managing (Mulder, de Jong, Koppelaar, & Verhage, 1986). In a study
150
on social work managers, Lee and Ashforth (1993) found that em otionally exhausted
managers were m ore likely to depersonalize their subordinates.
In addition to dispositional variables and excessive workplace dem ands, there are
other organizational factors that set the stage for workplace aggression. As discussed by
Newman and Baron (1997), these include technological advances; shifts in organizational
priorities; downsizing; and increased reliance on contingent workers. These changes
may engender feelings of exploitation, worker stress, and frustration, which are
precursors to aggression (Berkowitz, 1989; Chen & Spector, 1992; H ollinger & Clark,
1993). M oreover, among organizations that hire tem porary workers, there are few
deterrents to stop workplace aggression, given that these workers have few labor
protections.
D espite the abundance of research on the im portance of having supportive
managers, very few studies have exam ined how managers themselves are supported.
This is one of the studies that exam ined the im pact of supervisor support am ong a
subgroup of em ployees in a managerial role. In future research, it would be interesting to
determine whether the am ount of support received from ones supervisor is m odeled with
ones own direct em ployees, or alternatively, whether unsupportive behaviors from ones
supervisor enhances the likelihood of behaving unsupportively with o n es own direct
employees.
A lthough an effort was made in the current study to capture m ore subtle displays
of supportive and unsupportive behaviors by managers, the inform ation gathered from
em ployees in Study 1 was based on em ployees recall of events. This m ethod o f data
collection made it challenging to identify less overt behaviors, which may have been
151
barely discernible to the employee, but which may nevertheless have underm ined or
boosted their confidence. In a daily study conducted by Bolger, Zuckerm an, and Kessler
(2000), invisible forms of support (those acts not recognized by the recipient as
support per say) were, in fact, the most effective in reducing symptom s of depression.
In an effort to discern m anifestations of these invisible helpful behaviors in the
workplace, future research could explore other methods of data collection such as
observational research.
In a related vein, the topic of m anager support could benefit from more detailed
exam inations of com munication patterns between em ployees and their m anagers. In
research on the com m unication patterns of distressed and non-distressed couples,
Gottm an (1979) has used observational techniques to code patterns of com m unication
that distinguish both groups. A similar technique could be applied to w ork settings by
video recording encounters in the workplace such as meetings or perform ance feedback.
From both a theoretical and a m easurement perspective, it w ould be interesting to
exam ine how other kinds of response formats affect the relationship between supportive
behaviors and outcomes. As discussed earlier, upset ratings tied to specific episodes of
unsupportive behaviors may prove to be a stronger predictor of jo b strain and work-
related attitudes than the mere frequency o f unsupportive behaviors. As another example,
satisfaction with the amount of support received may be a better predictor of jo b -related
outcomes than the am ount reported to be received (although the latter is likely to be more
confounded with personality characteristics of the receiver than a frequency count).
This is one of the few studies that exam ined the mediating m echanism s associated
with both supportive and unsupportive behaviors. Although perceived m anager
152
sentiment and perceived job control were found to play a m ediating role, there are likely
to be other potential mediating mechanisms. Theory and prior research on distressed
couples or other types of dysfunctional relationships may help to inform this gap in the
literature.
O rganizational Implications
Findings from these series of studies have considerable practical utility for
organizations with an interest in fostering m ore effective leadership and supportive work
environm ents. The detailed view of supportive behaviors, as laid out in the classification
scheme, offer m anagers concrete ideas on how to enhance their own level of
supportiveness towards their direct reports. M oreover, the classification scheme of
unsupportive behaviors points to specific ways in which seem ingly innocuous behaviors
(e.g., acting distracted when talking with employees; m aking m ultiple revisions to their
work; dropping by em ployees desks frequently) can be negatively received by
employees.
In addition, the findings m ay be of benefit to organizations that offer
training/leadership programs for managers, especially for organizations who wish to
transform the culture of an organization from a com m and-control structure to a workforce
that is m ore collaborative and empowered. M oreover, the survey instrum ent could be
used to evaluate the effectiveness of leadership programs targeted at changing the
behaviors of managers. The ISUMB could also be used included as part of regular
organizational clim ate survey; be adopted for use as a 360 degree evaluation tool; used to
target developm ental needs of managers; or to inform perform ance m anagem ent systems.
153
The ISUMB inventory has the potential for being adapted to other kinds of
relationships, particularly student/teacher relationships. In fact, the literature on
student/teacher relationships has identified autonomy enhancing behaviors as precursors
to behavioral and cognitive engagement (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). It
would be interesting to exam ine whether other dim ensions are equally relevant to
educational settings (e.g., interpersonal and esteem support; underm ining behaviors).
Concluding Remarks
This series of studies involved the developm ent and validation of a
com prehensive behaviorally-based survey instrum ent of supportive and unsupportive
behaviors displayed by managers. Furthermore, it is one of the few studies that exam ined
the influence of supportive and unsupportive behaviors simultaneously. C urrently, there
appears to be much emphasis on surveying positive interactions and perceptions of
support in the workplace. There is an equal need to study and understand the im pact of
unsupportive behaviors so that they can be targeted and eliminated.
The findings offer a more detailed exam ination of how m anagers can effectively
em power em ployees. Although previous research has docum ented that high levels of
em ployee job control are related to a num ber of outcomes, little attention has been paid to
how perceptions of job control can be heightened. The findings show that granting
em ployee control does not mean leaving employees to their own devices to m ake their
own decisions; it requires skill and particular attention to whether em ployees have
sufficient clarity about their tasks; whether they require additional support; giving regular
feedback; and ensuring open lines of communication.
154
From a theoretical standpoint, the results suggest that support from ones
supervisor provides the means by which em ployees can exercise control within their
w ork role. Enhanced autonomy on the job not only predicts job-related attitudes and
strain, but also influences reflected appraisals about ones com petence and worth (i.e.,
perceived m anager sentiment). Employees who have enough freedom in their jo b to
accomplish work tasks are more likely to believe that their m anager regards their work in
a positive light. Those in a supervisory role need to pay attention not only to obvious
forms of em ployee feedback (e.g., thanking em ployees), but to m ore subtle actions, such
as restricting access to workplace meetings, which can convey im portant self-evaluative
inform ation to em ployees (e.g., my m anager doesnt value what I have to say).
M anagers behaviors are especially relevant to certain occupational groups such as
adm inistrative support workers, who are likely to have regular contact with their
managers and who may rely more on their feedback as a source of self-evaluative
inform ation regarding their work performance com pared to other types of workers.
Contrary to hypotheses, supportive and unsupportive m anagerial behaviors did
not directly predict em ployees level of confidence on the job. Further research in other
populations with a broader range of managers who vary in supportiveness is required to
validate these findings. M oreover, the model should be validated among other w orker
populations such as new workers, whose self-efficacy in the jo b role may be less
established and m ore vulnerable to supervisor feedback.
Organizations that are looking for ways to reduce disability claims and turnover
and increase their em ployees job satisfaction need to pay closer attention to the
behaviors of their supervisors. Although structural changes in the w orkplace are
155
sometimes needed to address employee strain, there is overw helm ing evidence that
supportive workplace relationships, particularly relationships with ones manager, can
contribute to peoples mental and physical well-being. Given that m ost people spend the
majority of their waking hours at work, it is essential that they feel supported in this role.
156
References
Aiken, L. S., & W est, S. G. (1991). M ultiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Albrecht, T. L., & Adelm an, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications
Alim o-M etcalfe, B., & Alban-M etcalfe, R. J. (2001). The developm ent of a new
transform ational leadership questionnaire. Journal o f Occupational and
O rganizational Psychology, 74, 1-27.
Anderson, T. B., & M cCulloch, B. J. (1993). Conjugal support: Factor structure for
husbands and wives. Journal o f Gerontology: Social Sciences, 48, S133-S142.
Arvey, R. D., Davis, G. A., & Nelson, S. M. (1984). Use o f discipline in an organization:
A field study. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 69, 448-460.
Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organisations. H uman Relations, 47, 755-778.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:
Autonom y-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviors predicting students
engagem ent in schoolwork. The British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 72,
261-271.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. A m erican Psychologist,
37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations o f thought and action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise o f control. New York: Freem an.
Bam es, M. K., & Duck, S. (1994). Everyday com m unicative contexts for social support.
In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, I. G. Sarason (Eds). Communication o f social
157
support (pp. 175-194). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Baron, R. A., & Newman, J. H. (1996). W orkplace violence and workplace aggression:
Evidence of their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior,
22, 161-173.
Barrera, M. Sr. (1981). Social support in the adjustm ent of pregnant adolescents:
A ssessm ent issues. In B. H. Gottlieb (ed.). Social networks and social support
(pp.69-96). Beverly-Hills: Sage.
Barrera, M. Jr., & Ainlay, S. L. (1983). The structure of social support: A conceptual
and empirical analysis. Journal o f Community Psychology, 11, 133-143.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and perform ance beyond expectations. NewYork: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational
impact: M ahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Aviolo, B. J. (1990). Transformation leadership development: M anual
fo r the M ultifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palto, Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Beehr, T. A. (1976). Perceived situational m oderators of the relationship between
subjective role am biguity and role strain. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 61, 35-
40.
Beehr, T., King, L., & King, D. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: Talking
to supervisors. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 36, 61-81.
Bender, P. M., & Chou, C. (1988). Practical Issues in Structural Equation M odeling. In
J. S. Long (Eds). Common problems, proper solutions: Avoiding error in
158
quantitative research (pp. 161-192). Newbury Park: Sage.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Exam ination and
reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless: Coping with tyranny in
organizations. In R. M. Kram er and M. A. N eale (Eds). Pow er and influence in
organizations (pp. 203-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bim baum , D., & Somers, M. J. (1993). Fitting jo b perform ance into a turnover model:
An exam ination of the form of the jo b perform ance-tum over relationship and path
model. Journal o f M anagement, 19 ( I f 1-11.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D. (2000). An exam ination of organizational and team
com m itm ent in a self-directed team environment. Journal o f A pplied Psychology,
85, 439-450.
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustm ent to
stress. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953-961.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E. & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study o f the
changing workforce. New York: Fam ilies and W ork Institute.
Boomsma, A. (1983). On the robustness o fL IS R E L (m axim um likelihood estimation)
against small sample size and nonnormality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the w o rld s
greatest m anagers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cammann, C., Fichm an, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesch, J. (1979). The M ichigan
Organizational A ssessm ent Questionnaire. U npublished M anuscript. U niversity
159

of M ichigan, Ann Arbor, M ichigan.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R.. P., Harrison, H. V., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job
demands and worker health. Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute for Social Research,
U niversity of Michigan.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers job satisfaction. Journal o f Educational Psychology,
95, 821-832.
Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discrim inant validity of transform ational leader
behavior m easured by the MLQ. Journal o f O ccupational and Organizational
Psychology, 71, 353-358.
Cassel, J. C. (1976). The contribution of the social environm ent to host resistance.
Am erican Journal o f Epidemiology, 104, 107-123.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationship of w ork stressors with aggression
withdrawal, theft and substance abuse: An exploratory study. Journal o f
O ccupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.
Church, A. H., & W aclaw ski, J. (1999). The im pact of leadership style on global
m anagem ent practices. Journal o f Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1416-1443.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a m oderator of life stress. Psychosom atic M edicine,
38, 300-314.
Constable, J. F., & Russell, D. W. (1986). The Effect of Social Support and the work
environm ent upon burnout among nurses. Journal o f H uman Stress, 12, 20-26.
Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. D., W all, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience o f
work: A compendium and review o f 249 measures and their use. London:
160
Academic Press.
Cutrona, C. E., & Troutman, B. R. (1986). Social support, infant tem peram ent, and
parenting self-efficacy: A m ediational model o f postpartum depression. Child
Development, 57, 1507-1518.
Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). V ictim s perceptions of support attempts: W hat is
helpful to whom? Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80-89.
Daniels, K., & Guppy, G. (1994). O ccupational stress, social support, jo b control, and
psychological well-being. H um an Relations, 12, 1523-1544.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M., (1991). M otivation and
education: The Self-Determ ination theory perspective. Educational Psychologist,
26, 325-346.
Dignam, J. T., & W est, S. G. (1988). Social support in the workplace: Tests of six
theoretical models. Am erican Journal o f Community Psychology, 16, 701-725.
Dollard, M. F., W inefield, H. R., W inefield, A. H., & deJonge, J. (2000). Psychosocial
jo b strain and productivity in human service workers: A test of the dem and-
control-support model. Journal o f Occupational and O rganizational Psychology,
73, 501-510.
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (1999). Social support, social stressors at work, and depressive
symptoms: Testing for main and m oderating effects with structural equations in a
three-wave longitudinal study. Journal o f A pplied Psychology, 84, 874-884.
Duffy, M. J., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social underm ining in the workplace.
Academ y o f M anagem ent Journal, 45, 331-351.
Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1984). Social support and cancer: Findings based on patient
161
interview s and their im plications. Journal o f Social Issues, 4 0 ,1 1 -9 8.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L.
(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational
support and employee retention. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.
Endler, N., Speer, R. L., Johnson, J. M., & Flett, G. L. (2001). General self-efficacy and
control in relation to anxiety and cognitive performance. Current Psychology:
D evelopmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20, 36-52.
Erdw ins, C. J., Buffardi, L. C., Casper, W. J., & O Brien, A. S. (2001). The relationship
of w om ens role strain to social support, role satisfaction, and self-efficacy.
Fam ily Relations, 50, 230-238.
Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress. Effects of
talking to others. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 15, 157-175.
Fernandez, J. P. (1986). C hild care and corporate productivity: Resolving fam ily/w ork
conflicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the measure o f work: A guide to validated scales fo r
organizational research and diagnosis. New York: Sage.
Fiore, J., Becker, J., & Coppel, D. B. (1983). Social netw ork interactions: A buffer or a
stress. Am erican Journal o f Community Psychology, 11, 423-439.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical m ethods fo r rates and proportions. New York: W iley.
Frese, M. (1999). Social support as a m oderator of the relationship between w ork
stressors and psychological functioning: A longitudinal study with objective
measures. Journal o f Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 179-192.
Fuller, J. A., Stanton, J. M ., Fisher, G. G., Spitzmuller, C., Russell, S. S., & Sm ith, P. C.
162
(2003). A lengthy look at the daily grind: Time series analysis of events, mood,
stress, and satisfaction. Journal o f A pplied Psychology, 88, 1019-1033.
Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & M ayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the
experience o f stress at work. Journal o f A pplied Psychology, 71, 102-110.
Gist, M. E., & M itchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determ inants and malleability. Academ y o f M anagem ent Review, 17, 183-211.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1978). The development and application of a classification schem e of
informal helping behaviors. Canadian Journal o f Behavioral Science, 10, 105-
115.
Gottlieb, B. H., & Rooney, J. A. (2003). V alidation of the RIS Eldercare Self-efficacy
Scale. Canadian Journal on Aging, 22, 95-107.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). M arital interaction: Experim ental investigations. New York:
Academic Press.
Graen, G., Novak, M A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-m em ber
exchange and jo b design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual
attachm ent model. Organizational Behavior and H uman Performace, 30,
109-131.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S. Cummings, C. L., & D unham , R. B. (1989a). The im pact
of personal control on performance and satisfaction. O rganisational B ehavior
and H uman D ecision Processes, 43, 29-51.
Greenberger, E Goldberg, W. A., Hamill, S., O Neil, R., & Payne, C. K. (1989b).
Contributions of a supportive work environm ent to parents w ell-being and
orientation to work. Am erican Journal o f Community Psychology, 17, 755- 783.
163
G reguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interater reliability of
360-degree feedback ratings. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 83,_960-968.
Hebden, J. E. (1986). Adopting an organizations culture: The socialization of graduate
trainees. O rganizational Dynamics, 15, 54-72.
Himle, D. P., Jayarathe, S., & Thyness, P. (1989). The buffering effects of four types of
supervisory support on w ork stress. Adm inistration in Social Work, 13, 19-34.
Hollinger, R. D., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
H oppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. Harper and Brothers. New York: Reprint edition by
A m o Press, New York, 1977.
Horton, T. R., & Reid, P. C. (1991). Beyond the trust gap: Forging a new partnership
between m anagers and their employers. Homewood, Illinois: Business One
Irwin.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-W esley.
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and am biguity as critical variables in a
model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 7,_467-505.
Howe, C. (2003). B est companies: Can you make the grade? HR Professional, 20 (2),
24-29.
Hugentobler, M. K., Israel, B. A., & Schurman, S. J. (1992). An action research approach
to workplace health: Integrating methods. H ealth Education Quarterly, 19, 55-
76.
Hughes, D., & Galinsky, E. (1988). Balancing work and family life: Research and
corporate application. In A. E. Gottfried & A. W. G ottfried (Eds.), M aternal
164
em ploym ent and childrens development: Longitudinal research (pp. 54- 71).
New York: Plenum Press.
Jaccard, J. R., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in
m ultiple regression. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Johns, G., & Saks, A. M. (2000). O rganizational behavior: Understanding and
m anaging life at work. 5th edition. Longman: Addison-W esley.
Jones-Johnson, G., & Johnson, W. R. (1991). Subjective underem ploym ent and
psychosocial stress: The role of perceived social and supervisor support. The
Journal o f Social Psychology, 132, 11-21.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.5. Scientific Softw are International.
Lincolnwood, Illinois.
Jussim, L., Soffin, S., Brown, R., Ley J., and Kohlhepp, K. (1992). U nderstanding
reactions to feedback by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
402-421.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, jo b decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for jo b redesign. Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). H ealthy work: Stress, productivity, and the
reconstruction o f work life. New York: Basic Books.
Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1989). Occupational stressors, individual strains, and
social supports among police officers. H uman Relations, 42, 185-197.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL fo r Structural Equation M odeling. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
165
Kelloway, E. K., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1998). The effects of alternative work arrangem ents
on w om ens well-being: A dem ands-control model. W om ens H ealth Research
on Gender, Behavior, and Policy, 4, 1-18.
Kidd, J. M ., & Smewing, C. (2001). The role of the supervisor in career and
organizational commitment. European Journal o f Work and O rganizational
Kottke, J., & Sharafinski, C. (1988). M easuring Perceived Supervisory and
O rganizational Support. Educational and Psychological M easurement, 48, 1075-
1079.
Knudsen, H. K., Johnson, J. A., Roman, P. (2003). Retaining counseling staff at
substance abuse treatm ent centers: Effects of m anagem ent practices. Journal o f
Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 129-135.
Krause, N. (1997). Social support and feelings of personal control in later life. In G. R.
Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds), Sourcebook o f social
support and personality (pp. 335-355). New York: Plenum Press.
Lakey, B., & Cohen, S. (2000). Social support theory and measurement. In S. Cohen, L.
G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (eds). Social support m easurem ent and
intervention: A guide f o r health and social sciences (pp. 29-52). New York:
Oxford U niversity Press.
Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group
autonomy in work groups. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 21, 563-585.
LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R. P. (1980). Social support, occupational
stress, and health. Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 21, 202-218.
166
Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational
com mitment: Relations with person and work-related variables. Journal o f
A pplied Psychology, 8 5 ,1 9 9 -813.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A longitudinal study of burnout am ong supervisors
and managers: Comparisons between the Leiter and M aslach (1988) and
Golem biewski et al. (1986) models. Organizational Behavior and Human
D ecision Processes, 54, 369-398.
Lehm an, D. R., Ellard, J. H., & W ortm an, C. B. (1986). Social support for the bereaved:
R ecipients and providers perspective on what is helpful. Journal o f Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 54, 438-446.
Lehm an, D. R., & H em phill, K. J. (1990). R ecipients perceptions of support attempts
and attributions for support attempts that fail. Journal o f Social and Personal
Relationships, 7, 563-574.
Lehm ann, S., Shinn, M., Allen, J., & Simko, P. (August, 1983). M easuring social
supports. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Anaheim , CA. M.
Liden, R. C., & W ayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early
developm ent of leader-m em ber exchanges. Journal o f A pplied Psychology, 78,
662-674.
Lindorff, M. (2000). Is it better to perceive than receive? Social support, stress, and strain
among managers. Psychology, Health, & M edicine, 5,211-286.
M acy, B. A., Peterson, M. F., & Norton, L. W. (1989). A test of participation theory in a
work re-design field setting: Degree of participation and com parison site
167
contrasts. Human Relations, 42, 1095-1165.
M ajor, B., Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, A. M., Cooper, M. L., Testa, M., & M ueller, P.
M. (1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustm ent to abortion.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 452-463.
M anne, S., & Glassm an, M. (2000). Perceived control, coping efficacy, and avoidance
coping as mediators between spouses unsupportive behavior and cancer patients
psychological distress. Health Psychology, 19, 155-164.
Manne, S. L., Taylor, K. L., Dougherty, J., & Kemeny, N. (1997). Supportive and
negative responses in the partner relationship: Their association with
psychological adjustm ent among individuals with cancer. Journal o f Behavioral
Medicine, 20, 101-125.
M artire, L. M., Stephens, M. A. P., & Townsend, A. L. (1998). Emotional support and
w ell-being of m idlife women: Role-specific m astery as a m ediational m echanism.
Psychology and Aging, 13, 396-404.
M ichener, H. A., & Lawler, E. J. (1975). Endorsem ent of formal leaders: An integrative
model. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 216-223.
M ikkelsen, A., Saksvik, P. O., & Landsbergis, P. (2000). The im pact of participatory
organizational intervention on job stress in com m unity health care institutions.
W ork & Stress, 14, 156-170.
M iles, R. H. (1975). An em pirical test of causal inference between role perceptions of
conflict and am biguity and various personal outcomes. Journal o f A p p lied
168
Miles, R. H. & Perreault, W. D. (1976). Organizational role conflict: Its antecedents and
consequences. O rganizational Behavior and H uman Performance, 1 7, 19-44.
M owaday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The m easurem ent of
organizational com mitment. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 77, 224-247.
M oyle, P. (1998). Longitudinal influences of m anagerial support on em ployee w ell
being. W ork and Stress, 12L 29-49.
M ulder, M., De Jong, R. D., Koppelaar, K., & Verhage, J. (1986). Pow er situation and
leaders effectiveness: An organizational field study. Journal o f A pplied
M uris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptom s of anxiety disorders
and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual
Differences, 32, 337-348.
M urray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1997). M odels o f se lf and the regulating
role o f reflected appraisals in the idealization process. Unpublished manuscript,
State U niversity of New Y ork at Buffalo.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., M acD onald, G., & Ellsw orth, P. C. (1998). Through the
looking glass darkly? W hen self-doubts turn into relationship insecurities.
Newman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). A ggression in the workplace. In R.A. G iacalone
& J. G reenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37-67).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O Connor, B. P., & Vallerand, R. J. (1994). The relative effects of actual and
experienced autonom y on motivation in nursing home residents. Canadian
169
Journal on Aging, 13, 528-538.
Perlow, L. A. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering o f w ork and family time in
a high-tech corporation. Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 43,J328-357.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Integrating social support
perspectives: W orking m odels, personal relationships, and situational factors. In
S. D uck & R. C. Silver (Eds.) Personal relationships and social support (pp. 173-
189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. G. (1974). The 1972-1973 Quality o f Em ploym ent Survey.
Ann Arbor: University of M ichigan. Institute for Social Research.
Rasku, A., & Kinnunen, U. (2003). Job conditions and wellness am ong Finnish upper
secondary school teachers. Psychology and Health, 18, 441-456.
Ray, E. B., & M iller, K. I. (1994). Social support, hom e/w ork stress, and bum out: W ho
can help? Journal o f Behavioral Science, 30, 357-373.
Regehr, C., Leslie, B., Howe, P., & Chau, S. (2000). Stressors in child welfare practice.
O.A.C.A.S. Journal, 44, 2-4.
Rosenberg, M., & Kaplan, H. B. (Eds). (1982). Social psychology o f the self-concept.
Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.
Ross, C. E., & Reskin, B. F. (1992). Education, control at work, and jo b satisfaction.
Social Science Research, 21, 134-148.
Ryan, R. M ., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determ ination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am erican
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). A ssessing social
170
support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 127-139..
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1994). Relationship-specific social
support: Toward a model for the analysis of supportive interactions. In B. R.
Burleson, T. L. Burleson, & I. G. Sarason (eds.). Communication o f social
Support: Messages, interaction, relationships, and community (pp. 91-112).
London: Sage.
Sargent, L. D., & Terry, D. (2000). The m oderating role of social support in K araseks
jo b strain model. Work and Stress, 14, 245-261.
Scarpello, V., & Vandenberg, R. (1987). The Satisfaction With M y Supervisor scale: Its
utility for research and practical application. Journal o f M anagement, 3, 451-470.
Schafer, R. B., W ickrama, K., & Keith, P. M. (1998). Stress in m arital interaction and
change in depression. Journal o f Fam ily Issues, 19, 578-594.
Schaubroeck, J., & M erritt, D. E. (1997). D ivergent effects of jo b control on coping with
w ork stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academ y o f M anagem ent Journal,
40, 738-754.
Schwalbe, M. L. (1985). Autonomy in work and self-esteem. The Sociological
Quarterly, 26, 519-535.
Schwalbe, M. L., Gegas, V., & Baxter, R. (1986). The effects of occupational conditions
and individual characteristics on the im portance of self-esteem sources in the
workplace. Basic & A pplied Social Psychology, 7,.63-84.
Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (2001). Probing the social support and w ork strain
relationship am ong adult workers: Contributions of adult attachm ent orientations.
171
Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 59, 17-33.
Shinn, M. Lehm ann, S. & N. W. Wong, N. M. (1984). Social interaction and social
support. Journal o f Social Issues, 40, 55-76.
Shinn, M., W ong, N. M., Simko, P. A., & O rtiz-Torres, B. (1989). Prom oting the w ell
being of working parents: Coping, social support, and flexible jo b schedules.
Am erican Journal o f Community Psychology, 17, 31-55.
Shum aker S. A., & Brownell, A. (1984). Tow ard a theory of social support: Closing
conceptual gaps. Journal o f Social Issues, 40, 11-36.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal o f Personality and Social
Smith, C. A., D obbins, C. J., & W allston, K. A. (1991). The mediational role of
perceived com petence in psychological adjustm ent to rheum atoid arthritis.
Journal o f A pplied Social Psychology, 21, 1218-1247.
Soderfeldt, B., Soderfeldt, M., Jones, K., O Campo, P., M untaner, C., Ohlson, C., &
W arg, L. (1997). Does organization matter? A m ultilevel analysis of the demand-
control model applied to human services. Social Science Medicine, 44, 527-534.
Steffen, A. M., M cKibbin, C., Zeiss, A. M., Gallagher-Thom pson, D., Bandura, A.
(2002). The revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy: Reliability and validity
studies. Journals o f Gerontology, 57B, 74-86.
Stogdill, R. (1963). M anual fo r the Leader Behavior D escription Q uestionnaire-Form
XII: An experimental revision. Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State
University, Colum bus, Ohio.
Stogdill, R. (1974). H andbook o f leadership. A survey o f the literature. New
172
York: Free Press.
Tabachnick, B., G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd edition).
Northbridge: H arper Collins.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. A cadem y o f M anagem ent
Journal, 43, 178-190.
Terri, L., Truaux, P., Logsdon, R., Uomoto, J., Zarit, S., & Vitaliano, P. P. (1992).
Assessm ent of behavioral problem s in dementia: The R evised M em ory and
Behavior Problem s Checklist. Psychology & Aging, 7, 622-631.
Terry, D. J., Neilsen, M., & Perchard, L. (1993). Effects o f work stress on psychological
w ell-being and jo b satisfaction: The stress-buffering role of social support.
Australian Journal o f Psychology, 45, 168-175.
Theorell, T. (2003). To be able to exert control over ones own situation: A necessary
condition for coping with stressors (pp.201-219). In J. C. Cam pbell, & L. E.
H andbook o f Occupational Health Psychology. W ashington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Thoits, P. A. (1985). Social support and psychological well-being: Theoretical
possibilities. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory,
research, and application (pp.51-72). The Hague, The Netherlands: M artinus
Nijhof.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of fam ily-supportive w ork variables on
work-family conflict and strain. : A control perspective. Journal o f A pplied
Thom pson, C., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). W hen work-fam ily benefits are
173
not enough: The influence of work-fam ily culture on benefit utilization,
organizational attachment, and work-fam ily conflict. Journal o f Vocational
Behavior, 54, 392-415.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance. Academ y o f M anagem ent Journal, 45,
1137-1148.
Vallerand, T. J., & O Connor, B. P. (1989). M otivation in the elderly: A theoretical
fram ew ork and some prom ising practices. Canadian Psychology, 30, 538-550.
Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research, and intervention. New York:
Praeger.
Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Com ponent analysis versus com mon factor
analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. M ultivariate
Behavioral Research, 25, 1-28.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the
process o f work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 54,
314-334.
W eiss, R. L. (1974). The provision of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Eds.). D o unto
others (pp. 17-26). Englew ood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
W eiss, R. L. (1980). Strategic and behavioral marital therapy. Tow ard a model for
assessm ent and intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), A dvances in fa m ily
intervention, assessm ent and theory, Vol. 1, (pp.229-271). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
W iedenfeld, S. A., O Leary, A., Bandura, A., & Brown, S. (1990). Im pact of perceived
174
self-efficacy in coping with stressors on com ponents on the im m une system.
W illiam s, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & W illiams, M. L., (1996). M easurem ent and non
m easurem ent processes with negative affectivity and em ployee attitudes. Journal
o f Applied Psychology, 81, 88-101.
W inefield, H. R., W inefield, A. H., & Tiggemann, M. (1992). Social support and
psychological well-being in young adults: The M ulti-Dim ensional Support Scale.
Journal o f Personality Assessment, 58, 198-210.
Wong, Y. T., Ngo, H. Y., & Wong, C. S. (2002). Affective organizational com m itm ent
of workers in Chinese joint ventures. Journal o f M anagerial Psychology, 17, 580.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievem ent
orientation: Interaction effects on creative performance. Journal o f A pplied
175
Appendix A
Typologies of Support and Leadership Style
Authors Domain of Sample Dimensions Development of Factor

literature Scale Analysis?
Barrera & Social 370 college 5 Dimensions based on Typology Yes
Ainlay, 1983 support students literature review developed from key
Material Aid articles on social
Behavior Assistance support
Intimate Interaction
Guidance Survey items
Feedback developed from
4 Dimensions based on previous studies
empirical validation
Directive Guidance
Nondirective Counseling
Positive Interaction
Tangible Assistance
Beehr, King, Social 225 nurses 3 Dimensions Described as Yes
& King, 1990 support Non-job-Related developed using a
Communication rational approach
Positive Job-Related
Communication
Negative Job-Related
Communication
Gottlieb, Social 40 single 4 dimensions Derived from No
1978 support mothers Emotionally Sustaining qualitative study
Problem-solving
Indirect Personal
Influence
Environmental Action
Anderson & Social 298 marital 3 dimensions Survey items Yes
McCulloch, support dyads Instrumental developed from
1993 Emotional prior typologies
Confiding
Alimo- Leadership 1464 9 Dimensions Derived from Yes
Metcalfe & Managers Genuine concern for qualitative study
Alban- from public others
Metcalfe, sector Political sensitivity and
2001 Skills
Decisiveness,
determination, self-
confidence
Integrity, trustworthy,
honest, and open
Empowers, develops
potential
Inspirational networker
176
and promoter
Accessible, approachable
Clarifies boundaries,
involves others in
decisions
Encourages critical and
strategic thinking
Bass, 1985, Leadership 70 Senior Charismatic Items derived from Yes
executives Individualized open-ended survey
and 154 US Consideration with 70 executives
army Intellectual Stimulation
colonels Contigent Reward
Management by
Exception
Stogdill, Leadership 235 Army Consideration Derived from 2-factor
1963 officers, Initiating Structure previous research structure of
185 admin, Tolerance of Freedom Consideration
officers, 55 Representation & Initiating
CEOs Demand Reconciliation Structure has
Tolerance of Uncertainty been validated
Persuasiveness
Role Assumption
Production Emphasis
Predictive Accuracy
Integration
Superior Orientation .
177
Appendix B
M easures o f Supervisor Support
Author Items Developed inductively Factor

from employees? Analysed?
Caplan, Cobb, How easy is it to talk with your supervisor? No No
French, & How much can your supervisor be relied on
Harrison, 1975 when things get tough at work?
How much is your supervisor willing to
listen to your personal problems?
How much does your supervisor go out of
his/her way to make your work life easier
for you?
Himle, 4 items based on Houses (1981) typology No Yes,
Jayaratne, & How true is it that your supervisor is warm incorrectly
Thyness, 1989 and friendly when you have problems? applied.
How true is it that your supervisor shows
approval when you have done a job well?
How true is it that your supervisor helps
you with a difficult task?
How true is it that your supervisor gives
information when you need it?
Constable & Items based on Houses (1981) typology No No

Russell, 1986 How much is your supervisor willing to
listen to your work-related problems?
How much is your supervisor helpful to
you in getting the job done?
My supervisor is very concerned in doing
his/her job.
Moyle, 1998 6-item measure based on Houses (1981) No No
typology
Respondents were asked the extent to
which their manager is helpful, reliable,
and competent with respect to difficulties at
work.
Sargent & 6-items based on format of Caplan et ah, No No
Terry, 2000 1975
e.g., how much can you count on your
supervisor to help you feel better when you
experience work-related problems?
Digman & Items based on the Inventory of Socially No Modified

West, 1988 Supportive Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera, version was not
Sandler, & Ramsey, 1981) factor analysed
Assesses directive guidance, non-directive
support, positive social interaction &
tangible assistance
178
Author Items Developed Factor
inductively from Analysed?
employees?
Lindorff, 2000 6-items No Modified
from Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ; Sarason version not
et al 1987) factor analysed
Erdwins, Four items developed for the purpose of study No No
Buffardi, Satisfaction with supervisors attitudes and policies
Casper, & on situations involving a potential work-family
OBrien, 2001 conflict
Jones-Johnson 9 items Unknown Yes
& Johnson, My supervisor gives emotional support
1991 My supervisor is indifferent
My supervisor makes work life easier
My supervisor can be relied on when things get
tough at work
My supervisor helps work-related problems
My supervisor is good to work with
My supervisor wont stand by when I need help.
My supervisor will do anything to help.
My supervisor helps solve problems.
Kottke & 16 items No Yes
Sharafinski, My supervisor values my contribution to the well
1988 being of our department.
If my supervisor could hire someone to replace me
at a lower salary he/she would do so.
My supervisor appreciates extra effort from me.
My supervisor strongly considers my goals and
values.
My supervisor wants to know if I have any
complaints.
My supervisor takes my best interests into account
when he/she makes decisions that affect me.
Help is available from my supervisor when I have a
problem.
My supervisor really cares about my well-being.
If I did the best job possible, my supervisor would
be sure to notice.
My supervisor is willing to help me when I need a
special favour.
My supervisor cares about my general satisfaction
at work.
If given the opportunity, my supervisor would take
advantage of me.
My supervisor shows a lot of concern for me.
My supervisor cares about my opinions.
My supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments.
My supervisor tries to make my job as interesting
as possible.
179
Author Items Developed Factor
inductively from Analysed?
employees?
Fernandez, 6-items assessing the degree to which supervisors Yes, but not No
1986 are supportive of work-family difficulties, content coded
e.g., How free do you feel to discuss your child
care needs with your immediate supervisors?
To what extent does your supervisor support you
and your child care needs?
Shinn, Wong, 9-items No No
Simko, & 1. Switched schedules (hours, overtime hours,
Ortiz-Torres, vacation) to accommodate my family
1989 responsibilities.
2. Listened to my problems.
3. Was critical of my efforts to combine work and
family.
4. Juggled tasks or duties to accommodate my
family responsibilities.
5. Shared ideas or advice.
6. Held my family responsibilities against me.
7. Helped me to figure out how to solve a problem.
8. Was understanding or sympathetic.
9. Showed resentment of my needs as a working
parent.
Hughes and 3-items assessing the degree to which supervisor is No No
Galinsky, 1988 supportive of work-family difficulties
Note. Exact wording of items was not available for all studies.
180
Appendix C
E-mail D escription of Study
You have been random ly selected to participate in a research study designed to identify
managerial strategies that enable em ployees to achieve a greater sense of efficacy on the
job and that add to a sense of jo b satisfaction. This inform ation will help to develop an
inventory o f effective m anagem ent practices.
The study is being adm inistered by Jennifer Rooney, M .A., Psychology, U niversity of
Guelph, Contact N um ber 519-824-4120 ext. 6763 E-mail: jrooney@ uoguelph.ca
For this study, you are being asked to participate in a private 45 m inute interview. You
will be asked to identify behaviors that you view as supportive. You will also be asked
about work situations you find challenging, and to identify things that have been helpful
in helping you to cope with these situations, as well as things that have been less helpful.
W ith your perm ission, the interview will be audio-recorded. All inform ation that you
provide will be kept confidential and anonymous. The audiotapes and interview
schedules will be identified by a number only and will be stored in a locked cabinet at the
University of Guelph. Only Jennifer Rooney and another research assistant will have
access to the data.
The results will be presented in aggregated format and sum m arized across all
participating em ployees. Selected verbatim quotations may be incorporated in the final
analysis; however, no identifying inform ation will be attached to the quotations, and none
will be used that pose any risk to the identification of the participant.
Y our participation in this study is voluntary, you may withdraw from it at any time, even
after the interview has commenced. You may also refuse to answ er any questions
Jennifer asks.
Should you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact Jennifer at your
earliest convenience.
Please indicate your interest in participating, by replying to me by M onday, July 28th.

Convenient interview times will be scheduled over the next two weeks.
In any event, thank you for your consideration in this matter.
181
Appendix D
Study Information Sheet
Principle Investigator: Jennifer Rooney, M.A., Psychology, U niversity of Guelph

Contact Number: (519) 824-4120 X6763
E-mail: jrooney@ uoguelph.ca
Faculty Study Director: Benjamin H. Gottlieb, Ph.D. Psychology, U niversity of G uelph

Contact Number: (519) 824-4120 X3513
You are being asked to participate in a research study designed to identify things
m anagers do and say that help and hinder em ployees from feeling satisfied with their jobs
and confident about their own jo b performance. The inform ation for this study is being
gathered across several organisations, including this one, and will be used to develop a
bank o f m ore and less supportive m anagem ent practices.
For this study, you are being asked to participate in a private 45 m inute interview. You
will be asked to identify things that your m anager does or says that you view as
supportive. You will also be asked about a work situation you have found challenging,
and about w hether and how your m anager was involved with you in dealing with it.
W ith your perm ission, the interview will be audio-recorded. All inform ation that you
provide will be kept confidential and anonymous. The audiotapes and interview
schedules will be identified by a num ber only and will be stored in a locked cabinet at the
University o f Guelph. Only Jennifer R ooney (Principle Investigator), Benjam in Gottlieb
(Faculty D irector at the University of Guelph) and another research assistant will have
access to the data.
The results will be com bined and sum m arized across all participating em ployees,
including those of other organizations. Selected verbatim quotations may be used in the
final analysis; however, no identifying inform ation will be attached to the quotations, and
none will be used that pose any risk o f identifying the participant.
There are no anticipated risks related to your involvem ent in this study.
You may refuse to participate in this study or withdraw from it at any time, even after the
interview has commenced. You may also refuse to answ er any questions I ask.
Do you have any questions about the study, your role in it, or anything else at this time?
182
Appendix E
Informed Consent Form
Principal Investigator: Jennifer Rooney, U niversity of G uelph
I acknowledge that I have been given adequate inform ation about the research study,
including the aims and procedure. A copy describing this inform ation has been given to
me. I also acknowledge that any questions I have asked have been answered to my
satisfaction.
I understand that there are no risks associated with my participation and that I may ask
for more inform ation about the study at any time.
I have been assured that the inform ation I provide, which will be audio recorded, will be
kept confidential and anonymous.
I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time or refuse to answ er any
questions.
I hereby consent to participate in this study
Name (Please print) Signature Date
Please check h e re if you would like a summary of the findings
If you would like a summary of the findings, please indicate m ethod of delivery
e-mail (please provide address)
mail (please provide address)
183
Appendix F
Interview Schedule
Good m orning/good afternoon. M y nam e is Jennifer Rooney and I ll be doing the

interview with you today (take time fo r participant to read inform ational sheet and
inform ed consent form ). During the next 45 m inutes or so, I m going to ask you to talk
about certain experiences at work and about things your supervisor does or says that
affect how you feel about yourself and your job.
(Code Sex o f Employee: M ale Fem ale)
But first, perhaps you could begin by telling me how long you have been with this
organization and what you do in the com pany?
1. Years in com pany:____________
2. Job position:_________________________________
3. And how long have you worked with your current supervisor?
4. Do you have a male or female supervisor? M ale Female
5. D o you know approxim ately how long he/she has been in the com pany?
6 . For dem ographic purposes, can you tell me in what range your age is in?
The ranges are b etw een 20 and 29

30 and 39
40 and 54
and 55 and above
SECTION A
Id like to begin by asking you to reflect on previous supervisors and also on your current
supervisor and to reflect on the characteristics that you value. W hen y o u re ready, Id
like you to list some of the qualities that are im portant to you to have in a supervisor.
184
When thinking about your current supervisor, w hat are some of the things, he or she does
that make you feel good about working with that person.
These behaviors can range from things that are very direct, like telling you that youre
doing a good job, or things that are m ore subtle that your supervisor m ay not even be
aware have a positive im pact on you (pause).
6 . Can you describe some things your supervisor does or says that m ake you feel good
about working with him or her?
7. In what ways does this affect you?
Supervisors differ in w ays they relate to their em ployees. At one end of the spectrum,
there are supervisors who do things to encourage their em ployees to be as independent as
possible, while at the other end, there are supervisors who do things that lim it the amount
of say and independence their employees have.
8. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being representing a m anager who encourages his or her

em ployees to be as independent as possible, and 1 representing a m anager who lim its his
or her em ployees independence, what num ber from 1 to 10 would you use to describe
your m anager?________i f num ber is 6 to 10, go to next question
i f num ber is 1 to 5, go to question 11)
9. W hat are some of the things your m anager has done or said that has m ade you feel like
you have a reasonable degree of say and independence in your job?
10. Is there anything your manager has done or said that has lim ited the am ount of say
and control that you have related to your work? (go to question 12)
185
11. W hat are some of the things your m anager has done or said that has m ade you feel
that you dont have a lot of independence in handling your job?
12. W hen com paring your current m anager to any previous m anagers, is there anything
your current m anager does differently to either increase or limit how much say and
independence you feel you have on the job?
Supervisors may also differ in ways they encourage and m otivate their em ployees. In
com m unicating, there are ways of m aking em ployees feel more confident in their ability
to perform their job and there are other things supervisors may do or say that dim inish an
em ployees self-confidence.
13. W hat kinds of things has your supervisor done or said that has affected how confident
you feel in your ability to perform your job effectively? (pause) This can either be in a
positive or negative way.
14. W hen thinking about supervisors you had previously or those in other departm ents, is
there anything that your supervisor does differently that has a bearing on how confident
you are in your ability to handle the demands and responsibilities of your jo b effectively?
14b. Using one or two words, how would you describe the way in which your supervisor
com m unicates with you or other em ployees in your department?
186
15. W hen thinking about your current supervisor, are there things he or she does or says
that you feel are unsupportive? I m thinking o f things that upset you or that interfere with
you doing your job well.
16. And why does this bother you?
SECTION B
Now, I would like you to recall the last time when you were struggling with a problem at
w ork or feeling frustrated about something while at work.
17. Can you relate to this? Yes No
18. How long ago did this happen?______________
19. Briefly, can you tell m e what happened?
20. Did your supervisor becom e involved?
No, W hy not? (go to Question 21)
Yes, Can you recall what your supervisor said or did? (go to question 22)
187
21. Did you want your supervisor to becom e involved? Yes No
21b. Has there been another time when you were struggling with a problem at work or
feeling frustrated about something while at work and your m anager did becom e involved
in some manner?
Yes (go to Q 19) No (go to Q25)
22. How did you feel afterwards? (pause) D id your supervisors response make a
difference for the better or worse?
23. W hat was it about your supervisors response that made you feel that way?
24. Can you recall anything about the m anner in which your supervisor responded that
affected how you felt about how things went?
25. O ther than the things you have already talked about, what are some o f the other things
that your supervisor does or says that makes you feel like youre being supported?
188
26. and why is this im portant to you?
27. Is there anything else that you would like to add a before we end the interview today?
No Yes
Thank you so much for your time today. Please dont hesitate to call me if you have any
additional questions or comments.
189
Appendix G
Coding Instructions for the Identification of Scoring Units for Supportive and
Definitions and Location of Contextual Material
Supportive Behaviors: Explicit descriptions of things that their m anagers have done or
who do that have affected how the em ployee feels about them selves or about their jo b in
a positive way.
Contextual Unit = Questions 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25
Unsupportive Behaviors: Explicit descriptions of things that their managers have done or
who do that have affected how the em ployee feels about themselves or about their job in
a negative way.
Contextual Unit = Questions 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Instructions
1. Identify supportive and unsupportive m anagerial behaviors. These are phrases

should contain actions/verbs.
2. Include desired behaviors as well (I wish my m anager w ould give us more

feedback). (I probed fo r desired behaviors, when the em ployee had nothing to
say about supportive behaviors that their m anager exhibited).
3. Generally the behavior/action will have the supervisor as the one initiating
behavior. Occasionally, the pronoun will be w e (e.g., we work on things
collaboratively), include these actions as well, as long as they follow a question
that probes for m anagerial supportive or unsupportive behaviors.
4. Sometimes the em ployee refers to m anager in plural form -include these

behaviors. Include behaviors that refer to w hat m anagers do or say, even if
the pronoun of the m anager is missing (e.g., W ere not given enough
inform ation ; I get regular jo b performance review s).
5. If the behavior is follow ed by more description, include the more detailed

description in the scoring unit (e.g., my m anager checks up on us, by that I mean,
he hovers around our desk)
190
6 . You may peruse the other questions (20b, 23) for scoring units describing
supportive and unsupportive behaviors ; how ever the supportive behavior
identified can not be in response to one isolated incident.
7. If tw o scoring units with different meaning are side by side, keep the space
between them uncolored.
8. D o not include explanations for a m anagers behavior in scoring unit (My

m anager is under a lot of pressure . Do not include description o f how the
m anagers behavior im pacts the em ployee (He m ade me feel threatened). Do
not include em ployees attributions about m anagers intentions (I felt like she
d id n t want us to have any voice in the m atter).
191
Appendix H
Coding Instructions for Coding the Scoring Units
1. In the actual transcript, add corresponding code next to YELLOW highlighted

scoring unit in brackets. For example: She was good at giving positive
feedback (D). Use the larger categories: A, B, C, etc.
2. If you think that the scoring unit belongs in two categories, pick the one that best
describes the scoring unit.
3. W hen asked about a supportive behavior and the answer is she/he doesnt do
something -co d e it in the unsupportive behaviors: She doesnt hover (code as M2
-NOT). Or if asked about an unsupportive behavior, and the answ er is she/he
doesnt give any positive feedback -co d e it in the supportive behavior (D1 -
NOT).
192
Appendix I
Classification Scheme o f M anagerial Supportive Behaviors
A. Demonstrates Trustw orthiness
A l. Follows through on promises

A2. Respects confidentiality of personal conversations
B. D em onstrates Genuine Concern
B 1. Asks em ployees how they are doing

B2. Acknow ledges difficulties that em ployees are experiencing
B3. Talks with em ployees casually about non-w ork issues
B4. Listens em pathetically and/or verbally reflects back understanding
B5. Smiles
B6 . Shows interest in em ployees life outside of w ork/recognizes fam ily obligations
B7. M akes accommodations to address em ployee concerns
B8 . Grants time off work when needed
C. D em onstrates Reasonableness/Fairness
C 1. Seeks clarification before making judgem ents

C2. Gives em ployees the benefit of the doubt before m aking judgem ents
C3. Gives employees reasonable timelines
C4. Is consistent with what she/he says and does
D. Demonstrates Recognition
D 1. Gi ves positive feedback

D2. Rewards em ployees materially or financially
D3. Thanks employees
D4. Acknowledges em ployees accomplishm ents to others
D5. Acknowledges em ployees when they work extra hours
D6 . Com pensates em ployees when they work extra hours
D7. Recognises m inor contributions to projects
E. Professional D evelopm ent and Advocacy
E l. Assigns interesting tasks to employees

E2. Gives employees opportunities to develop themselves professionally
E3. Exposes em ployees to senior people in the organization
E4. Encourages or recom m ends em ployees to new tasks or for promotion
E5. Supports em ployees/backs employees with senior people in the organization
193
F. Open C om m unication
F I. Initiates regular discussions about work/consults with em ployees on a regular

basis
F2. Keeps em ployees inform ed when changes are occurring in the organization
F3. Keeps em ployees up to date
F5. Keeps em ployees inform ed of the bigger picture on projects
F6 . R eceptive to questions
F7. Shares the inside scoop about things that em ployees m ay not norm ally be privy
to.
F8 . Schedules regular meetings in order to update em ployees
F9. Com m unicates openly with employees
F10. Asks em ployees if they are experiencing any w ork difficulties
F I 1. Tells em ployees to go to them if they have an issue
F I 2. Explains reasoning behind decisions that affect em ployees
F I 3. M akes them selves easily accessible
G. Encourages D ecisional Discretion and Creative Expression
G l. Encourages em ployees to solve their own problem s and m ake their own decisions
G2. Allows em ployees the opportunity to correct their own mistakes
G3. Encourages em ployees to sort out scheduling difficulties with colleagues
G4. Encourages em ployees to resolve conflict in the workplace among colleagues
G5. Encourages em ployees to com e up with suggestions on how to cope with
problem s they encounter on the job
G 6 . Gives em ployee carte blanche in dealing with m atters related to his or her job
G7. Gives em ployees suggestions on how to handle jo b challenges but allows
em ployee to choose
G 8 . Positively reaffirm es decisions employees have made
G9. Expresses confidence in em ployee when he or she is assigned new or challenging
tasks
G10. Expresses confidence in, or encourages new ideas presented by em ployees
G l 1. W orks collaboratively with employees; treats them more like colleagues, than as
subordinates
G12. A sk em ployees for their opinions
194
H. Provides Task Guidance and Assistance
H I. Provides clear expectations of job responsibilities

H2. Provides constructive feedback during perform ance reviews
H3. Sets clear param eters when assigning w ork tasks
H4. Provides suggestions when em ployee is faced with challenges
H5. Provides direction when employee is faced with challenges
H6 . Provides answers when em ployee is faced with challenges
H7. Equips em ployee with necessary m aterials to accom plish tasks
H8 . W ill pitch in when needed or when deadlines are approaching
H9. Responds to employees in a timely m anner
H10. Cuts through red tape/bureaucracy on behalf of employees
H I 1. M akes efforts to clear obstacles that may be im peding em ployees progress on
work tasks or projects
H I 2. Gives constructive criticism on job-related tasks
H13. W hen reviewing work m istakes, focuses on the problem rather than blaming
em ployees
195
Appendix J
Classification Scheme of M anagerial U nsupportive Behaviors
I. Dem onstrates Untrustworthiness
11. Breaks promises

12. Talks behind em ployees back/gossips
13. Behaves secretively
14. Does not respect confidentiality
15. Says one thing to em ployees and behaves differently
16. Discusses perform ance issues or work difficulties with a superior, without
discussing the issue with the em ployee first
17. Discusses private m atters in an open setting
18. Takes credit for em ployees work
J. Underm ining Behaviors
J l. Questions em ployees work or decisions that em ployees have made

J2. Takes away responsibilities without an explanation
J3. M inim izes em ployees workload
J4. Blam es em ployees
J5. Criticizes em ployees work
J6 . Criticizes em ployees in front of others
J7. Focuses m ore on negative than positive aspects of employee.
J8 . Second guesses em ployees decisions or suggests their way of doing it would
have been better
J9. Poses questions or makes requests that are beyond em ployees abilities
J10. Allows disruptions while in discussions with employees (e.g., takes phone calls)
Jll. Takes away responsibilities from em ployees who make a m istake on the jo b
J12. Gives insufficient notice/unreasonable deadlines
J13. Talks to em ployees in a condescending m anner
J14. Interrupts em ployees or contradicts them
J15. Shows favoritism
J16. Yells/loses tem per
J17. Teases/M akes off the cuff remarks
K. Apathetic Behaviors
K l. Does not respond to em ployee questions in a timely m anner

K2. Acts distracted/uninterested when in discussions with em ployee
K3. D oes not intervene to reduce em ployees w orkload
K4. Ignores issues that are identified by em ployees as being problem atic
K5. Does not pitch in when extra help is needed
196
M icrom anaging Behaviors
L. Bureaucratizing
L I. Rigidly applies guidelines/procedures without considering individual

circum stances
L2. Form alizing procedures that were once inform al
L3. Im plem ents procedures that create additional bureaucracy
L4. Puts procedures in place, without input from employees
L5. Puts procedures in place that require m anagers approval during m ultiple steps in
a project
M. M onitors Face-Tim e
M l. M onitors tim e it takes to accomplish tasks

M2. Hovers over employees while they are working
M3. M onitors breaks/tim e away from ones desk
M4. Schedules too frequent work/team /project meetings
M5. D rops by em ployees desk frequently
N. Limits D ecisional Discretion/Participation and Creative Expression
N l. Lim its job responsibilities to simple tasks or asks em ployee to do menial tasks
N2. Lim its involvem ent in tasks that are not em ployees prim ary responsibility
N3. Does not give employees opportunity to solve their own problem
N4. Takes over/encroaches on em ployees responsibilities or becom es over involved
N5. Gives too many directions
N6 . M akes excessive revisions/suggestions
N7. Constrains em ployees decision-m aking capacity
N8 . Sets tim elines without discussing them first with employee
N9. Presents solutions to employees
N10. Dom inates discussions in meetings/answering questions that are directed at
em ployees
N i l . Overrides em ployees decisions
N12. D ouble-checks work frequently
N13. D iscourages discussion o f new ideas or is unreceptive to em ployees ideas
N14. Does not invite em ployees to meetings
197
Appendix K
Principle Researcher: Jennifer Rooney, M .A., Psychology, U niversity o f Guelph
Contact Number: (613) 792-4947

E-mail: jrooney@ uoguelph.ca
You have been asked to participate in a research study to assess the validity of a new
survey instrum ent assessing supportive and unsupportive behaviors displayed by
managers.
For this study, you will be asked to answer a num ber of questions about your m anager
and about how you feel about your job.
All answers will be kept confidential and anonymous. The com pleted surveys will be
identified by a num ber only and will be stored in a locked cabinet at the U niversity of
Guelph.
The results will be sum m arized across all participating em ployees.
There are no anticipated risks related to your involvem ent in this study.
You may refuse to participate in this study or to skip any questions that you wish.
198
Appendix L
Inform ed Consent Form
Principal Researcher: Jennifer Rooney, University of Guelph
I acknowledge that I have been given adequate inform ation about the research study,
including the aims and procedure. A copy describing this inform ation has been given to
me.
I understand that there are no risks associated with my participation and that I may ask
for more inform ation about the study at any time.
I have been assured that the inform ation I provide will be kept confidential and
anonymous.
I understand that I m ay refuse to participate in this study at any time or refuse to answer
any questions.
Please m ark an X below if you consent to participate in this study
I hereby consent to participate in this study
Please check h e re if you would like a summary of the findings
If you would like a summary of the findings, please indicate m ethod of delivery
e-mail (please provide address)
mail (please provide address)
199
Appendix M
Job Satisfaction (Hoppock, 1935)
1. Check off one of the following statements which best tells how well you like your job
(M ark with an X).
I hate it
I dislike it
I dont like it
I m indifferent to it
__I like it
I m enthusiastic about it
I love it
2. Check one of the following to show how much of the time you feel satisfied with your
job.
All of the time

M ost of the time
A good deal of the time
About half of the time
O ccasionally
Seldom
Never
3. Check one of the following which best tells how you feel about changing your job.
I would quit this job at once if I could get anything else to do

I w ould take almost any other job in which I could earn as much as I am earning now
I would like to change both my jo b and occupation
I would like to change my present job in the same line of w ork
I am not eager to change m y job but I would do so if I could get a better job
I cannot think of any jobs for which I would exchange mine
I would not exchange my jo b for any others
4. Check one of the following to show how you think you com pare with other people.
No-one likes his or her job better than I like m ine

I like m y job much better than m ost people like theirs
I like m y job better than m ost people like theirs
I like m y job about as well as m ost people like theirs
I dislike my jo b more than most people dislike theirs
_I dislike my jo b much more than most people dislike theirs
No-one dislikes his or her job more than I dislike mine
200
Appendix N
Job-Related Tension (House & Rizzo, 1972)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements.
Strongly Som ewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly

D isagree D isagree Agree Agree
1 . 1 work under a great deal of 1 2 3 4 5

tension.
have felt fidgety or nervous as a

2 . 1 1 2 3 4 5
result of my job.
3. If I had a different job, my health 1 2 3 4 5

w ould probably im prove
4. Problem s associated with my job 1 2 3 4 5

have kept me awake at night.
5 . 1 often take my job hom e with 1 2 3 4 5

m e in the sense that I think about it
when doing other things.
201
Appendix O
Perceived Supervisor Support (Caplan, 1975)
Not at all A little Som ewhat Very much
1. How much can your im m ediate supervisor be 2 3 4

relied on when things get tough at work?
2. How much is your supervisor willing to 2 3 4

listen to your w ork-related problem s?
3. How easy is it to talk to your supervisor?
4. How much is your supervisor willing to do

things to make your w ork life easier?
202
Appendix P
Perceived M anager Sentiment
Please indicate how you think your m anager views you and the work that you do.
D efinitely Probably Unsure Probably Definitely

D oesnt D oesnt D oes Does
1. M y m anager trusts me. 2 3 4 5
2. M y m anager thinks I m competent. 2 3 4 5
3. M y m anager values what I have to say. 2 3 4 5
4. M y m anager has respect for me. 2 3 4 5
5. M y m anager cares about me. 2 3 4 5
6 . M y m anager thinks I m a hard worker. 2 3 4 5
7. M y m anager likes me as a person. 2 3 4 5
8. M y m anager has confidence in my 2 3 4 5

abilities.
203
Appendix Q
Satisfaction W ith M anager
Please rate your level o f agreement or disagreement with the following items.
Strongly D isagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1. Overall, I m satisfied with my 1 2 3 4 5

current manager.
2, All in all, I w ould say my 1 2 3 4 5

current m anager leaves a lot of
room for improvement.*
3 . 1 am very fortunate to have the 1 2 3 4 5

m anager I have.
4 . 1 would regret losing my current 1 2 3 4 5

manager.
* Reverse coded.
204
Appendix R
Initial Inventory of M anagerial Supportive Behaviors
Below is a list of items that describes certain things your m anager may do or say towards
you. For each item, please rate how frequently this happens. Please read every item
carefully. If you do not think the item is applicable to the work that you do, please
indicate N/A beside the item.
My m anager does th is....
Never Occasionally Often Always

1. Talks with me to see how my work is going. 1 2 3 4
2. W hen possible, assigns tasks that are interesting to me. 1 2 3 4
3. W hen I am experiencing difficulties, he or she 1 2 3 4

sympathizes with me.
4. Sm iles/Appears happy to see me. 1 2 3 4
5. W hen I experience obstacles that prevent me from 1 2 3 4

doing my job effectively, he or she makes efforts to clear
them.
6 . Schedules meetings. 1 2 3 4
7. Gives me positive feedback when deserved. 1 2 3 4
8. Shows interest in w hats going on in my life outside of 1 2 3 4

work.
9. Gives clear instructions. 1 2 3 4
10. Shows appreciation when I ve worked especially 1 2 3 4

hard
11. Encourages me to take on work that will help me to 1 2 3 4

develop professionally.
12. Thanks me for things I do. 1 2 3 4
13. Stands up for me at w ork when I need it. 1 2 3 4
14. W hen theres a deadline or when my workload gets 1 2 3 4

too heavy, she or he offers assistance.
205
15. Keeps m e inform ed about things going on at work. Never Occasionally Often Always
2 3 4
16. Com m unicates with me in an open and direct 2 3 4
manner.
17. Asks m e how I m doing. 2 3 4
18. Explains the reasoning behind decisions that affect 2 3 4

me.
19. M akes him self or herself easily accessible to me. 2 3 4
20. Allows me to decide my w ork schedule as much as 2 3 4

possible.
21. Gives m e carte blanche in dealing with matters 2 3 4

related to m y job.
22. W hen I make tough decisions on my own, he or she 2 3 4

reassures me.
23. Encourages me to take on new tasks. 2 3 4
24. W hen I suggest new ideas, he or she offers 2 3 4

encouraging words.
25. Grants tim e off work when I need it. 2 3 4
26. Asks for my opinions on things instead of deciding 2 3 4

things for me.
27. W orks collaboratively with me on things. 2 3 4
28. Com plim ents my perform ance when I m dealing with 2 3 4

new or challenging tasks.
29. Provides me with clear expectations of m y work 2 3 4

responsibilities.
30. Publicly praises my good work. 2 3 4
31. W hen I m faced with challenges, he or she provides 2 3 4

me with direction.
206
32. Provides me with answers when I ask for them. Never Occasionally Often Always
1 2 3 4
33. Chats with me inform ally about things unrelated to 1 2 3 4
work.
34. Ensures that I have everything I need to get my work 1 2 3 4

done efficiently.
35. M akes attempts to make me visible to more senior 1 2 3 4

people in the organization.
36. Responds to my requests for help in a timely manner. 1 2 3 4
37. Gives me constructive criticism on how to improve. 1 2 3 4
38. W hen a problem comes up and I need help, he or she 1 2 3 4

provides m e with suggestions but leaves the final
decision to me.
207
Appendix S
Initial Inventory of M anagerial Unsupportive Behaviors

1. M onitors how long it takes me to accomplish tasks. 2 3 4
2. Discusses personal matters in front of others. 2 3 4
3. W hen I make decisions or perform tasks, he or she 2 3 4

second guesses them.
4. Blames me when mistakes are made. 3 4
5. Overrides decisions I make. 3 4
6 . Gossips. 2 3 4
7. Takes credit for w ork I have done. 2 3 4
8. Takes away m y responsibilities without an 2 3 4

explanation.
9. Explains things to me in a condescending manner. 2 3 4
10. Hovers around my desk while I am working. 2 3 4
11. Criticizes my work. 2 3 4
12. W hen reviewing my work, focuses more on 2 3 4

negative things than positive things.
13. W hen I m dealing with w ork-related tasks, my 4

m anager indicates that he or she would have handled
things differently.
14. Asks me to do things that are beyond my abilities. 2 3 4
15. Takes phone calls when I am talking with him or 2 3 4

her.
16. Gives me insufficient notice about m eetings or 4

deadlines.
17. Answers questions that are directed to me in 4

meetings.
208
18. Interrupts m e when Im talking. 1 2 3 4
19. Limits my job responsibilities to mundane tasks. 1 2 3 4
20. Contradicts me in front of others. 1 2 3 4
21. Form alizes procedures that were better left 1 2 3 4

informal.
22. Gives preferential treatm ent to certain employees. 1 2 3 4
23. Yells at me. 1 2 3 4
24. Prom ises things, but then doesnt follow through. 1 2 3 4
25. Double-checks my work. 1 2 3 4
26. Asks me for updates on my work progress. 1 2 3 4
27. Loses his or her temper. 1 2 3 4
28. Beats around the bush instead of directly telling me 1 2 3 4

how she or he feels.
29. Limits my participation in meetings. 1 2 3 4
30. Says he or she will do something, but doesnt do it. 1 2 3 4
31. Presents me with solutions to challenges I am 1 2 3 4

experiencing.
32. Acts distracted when talking with me. 1 2 3 4
33. Becom es over-involved in projects or tasks that are 1 2 3 4

suppose to be my responsibility.
34. Displays little interest in the w ork that I do. 1 2 3 4
35. M akes substantial revisions or suggestions related 1 2 3 4

to the work I do.
36. M akes decisions that affect me, without checking 1 2 3 4

with me first.
209
37. M onitors how long I take for break or lunch. 1 2 3 4
38. When I make a mistake, he or she fixes it instead of 1 2 3 4

letting me fix it.
39. Dom inates discussions in meetings. 1 2 3 4
40. Criticizes my ideas. 1 2 3 4
210
A ppendix T
E-mail Sent to Em ployees Prior to Survey
As part of its com m itm ent to a healthy workplace, _____________ is pleased to be

included in a survey that examines its em ployees' well-being in relation to their attitudes
tow ard their jobs and their managers. The survey includes questions about employee
stress, jo b demands, job control, and perceptions of m anagers/supervisors. The study is
being conducted by Jennifer Rooney, a doctoral candidate in Psychology at the
University of Guelph.
Although your participation in the survey is voluntary, we hope that you will consider
com pleting the survey so that we can better support staff. Since no identifying
inform ation that links your responses to your identity is being collected, your responses
will be safeguarded as anonymous. The survey results will be reported in aggregate
rather than individual terms. In addition, to further protect the confidentiality and
anonym ity of the survey, the data will be housed at the U niversity of Guelph. All reports
prepared f o r _________will be made available to you upon your request.
In a week, you will be sent a link to access an on-line survey. If you would prefer to fill
in a paper version of the survey, please contact me and a paper copy will be sent to you.
For further inform ation about the survey, please contact Jennifer R ooney
(iroone v @ uo guelph .c a).
Thank you for your consideration,
211
Appendix U
E-m ail Link to Survey 11
This is in follow-up to an e-mail fro m ___________ sent on M ay 22, 2003. Over the past
6 y e a rs,__________ has conducted a num ber of anonymous on-line staff surveys with a
goal of im proving the quality of worklife and retention of staff. W e have reviewed and
analyzed the aggregate data collected with staff representative groups who have
participative in m aking recom m endations to the Senior Leadership Team for improving
the workplace. W e believe that these surveys have assisted us in im proving staff
retention.
One of the m ajor findings of the 2001 Staff Retention Survey was the significant role of
the Supervisor in retaining staff. W e are interested in exam ining this issue in greater
depth and therefore, we have agreed to participate in another survey of staff as a follow
up to determine what we can do better to support staff. We hope that your feedback will
assist us in identifying what is im portant to you and highlighting related issues that need
to be addressed to develop an effective strategy for continued staff retention.
We discussed the goals of this survey with various staff groups in A pril/M ay 2003.
These staff representative groups have indicated that they are in full support of this
survey and look forw ard to reviewing the results.

As part of its com m itm ent to a healthy workplace, _____________ is pleased to be
included in a survey that exam ines its em ployees' well-being in relation to their attitudes
toward their jobs and their managers. The survey includes questions about
em ployee stress
jo b demands
job control, and
perceptions of m anagers/supervisors.
The study is being conducted by Jennifer Rooney, a doctoral candidate in Psychology at

the U niversity of Guelph. Although your participation in the survey is voluntary, we
hope that you will consider com pleting the survey so that we can better support staff.
Since no identifying inform ation that links your responses to your identity is being
collected, your responses will be safeguarded as anonymous. The survey results will be
reported in aggregate rather than individual terms. In addition, to further protect the
confidentiality and anonym ity of the survey, the data will be housed at the U niversity of
Guelph. All reports prepared f o r ___________ will be made available to you upon your
request.
For further inform ation about the survey, please contact the follow ing individuals:
Thank you for your consideration. Click here to open M anagem ent Survey.
11 This has been slightly modified to protect the anonymity o f the participating organization
212
Appendix V
Informed Consent
Click on the button and read the Study Information Sheet.
I have read the Study Inform ation Sheet and acknowledge that I have been given
adequate inform ation about this survey and how the results will be used.
I have been assured that all answers are anonymous and that the data is confidential.
I understand that there are no risks associated with my participation and no im plications
related to my em ploym ent a t ______________ .
I understand that I may refuse to participate in this study or skip any questions.
I consent to participate in this study.
TH A NK YOU - Please proceed to the survey
213
A ppendix W
Inventory of M anagenal Supportive and U nsupportive Behaviors
Below is a list of things supervisors/managers may do or say to their employees. Please read every item
carefully and indicate how frequently your supervisor does this.
12
My supervisor does this... 1= Almost Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Fairly Often 4 = Often 5 = Always
1. When I am experiencing difficulties, he or she

sympathizes with me.
2. Smiles/Appears happy to see me. 2 3 4
3. Overrides decisions I make. 2 3 4
4. When I experience obstacles that prevent me from 2 3 4

doing my job effectively, he or she makes efforts to clear
them.
5. Gives me positive feedback when deserved. 2 3 4
6 . Monitors how long it takes me to accomplish tasks. 2 3 4
7. When theres a deadline or when my workload gets too 2 3 4

heavy, she or he shows a willingness to pitch in.
8 . Encourages me to take on work that will help me to

develop professionally.
9. Becomes over-involved in projects or tasks that are

supposed to be my responsibility.
10. Thanks me for things I do. 2 3 4 5
11. Goes to bat for me at work when I need it. 2 3 4 5
12. Asks me to do things that are beyond my abilities. 2 3 4 5
13. Keeps me informed about things going on at work. 2 3 4 5
14. Communicates with me in an open and direct manner. 2 3 4 5
15. Says he or she will do something for me, but doesnt 2 3 4 5

follow through.
12In the web-based survey, participants were also given a Not Applicable and Skip Item category for each
item.
214
1= Almost Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Fairlv Often 4 = Often 5 = Alwavs
16. When reviewing my work, focuses more on negative 1 2 3 4 5

things than positive things.
17. Asks me how Im doing and means it. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Makes substantial revisions or suggestions related to 1 2 3 4 5

the work I do.
19. Explains the reasoning behind decisions that affect me. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Makes himself or herself easily accessible to me. 1 2 3 4 5
21. Makes decisions that affect me, without checking with 1 2 3 4 5

me first.
22. When possible, encourages me to take on tasks that are 1 2 3 4 5

interesting to me.
23. Acts distracted when talking with me. 1 2 3 4 5
24. Gives preferential treatment to certain employees. 1 2 3 4 5
25. When I make tough decisions on my own, he or she 1 2 3 4 5

reassures me.
26. Grants time off work when I need it. 1 2 3 4 5
27. Strictly applies policies and procedures, without 1 2 3 4 5

considering my individual circumstances.
28. Tells me that he or she would have handled work- 1 2 3 4 5

related tasks differently.
29. Asks for my opinions on things instead of deciding 1 2 3 4 5

things for me.
30. Provides me with clear expectations of my work 1 2 3 4 5

responsibilities.
31. Praises my work in front of others. 1 2 3 4 5
32. Checks, then double-checks my work. 1 2 3 4 5
33. Answers questions I ask in a timely manner. 1 2 3 4 5
34. Ensures I have everything I need to get my work done 1 2 3 4 5

efficiently.
35. Displays little interest in the work that I do. 1 2 3 4 5
1= Almost Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Fairlv Often 4 = Often 5 = Alwavs
36. Allows me to decide my work schedule as much as 1 2 3 4 5

possible.
37. Gives me insufficient notice about meetings or 1 2 3 4 5

deadlines.
38. Beats around the bush instead of being direct with me. 1 2 3 4 5
39. When a problem comes up and I need help, he or she 1 2 3 4 5

provides me with suggestions but leaves the final decision
to me.
40. Works with me on things using a collaborative style. 1 2 3 4 5
41. When I make decisions or perform tasks, he or she 1 2 3 4 5

second guesses them.
42. Gives clear instructions. 1 2 3 4 5
43. Shows interest in whats going on in my life outside of 1 2 3 4 5

work.
44. Limits my participation in meetings. 1 2 3 4 5
45. Gets visibly upset when I dont do things correctly. 1 2 3 4 5
46. Makes attempts to make me visible to more senior 1 2 3 4 5

people in the organization.
216
A ppendix X
Role O verload (Cam mann et al., 1979)
1. I have too much w ork to do everything well.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly D isagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly
D isagree Disagree Agree Agree
2. The am ount of work I am asked to do is fair.
1 2 3 5 6 7
3. I never seem to have enough time to get everything done.
1 2 3 5 6 7
217
Appendix Y
Job Autonomy
1. I have a lot of say over what I do on the job.
1 2 3 4 5
N ot at all True V ery True
2 . 1 have enough authority to do m y job well.
1 2 3 4 5
3. My jo b allows me to make decisions on m y own.
1 2 3 4 5
N ot at all True Very True
4 . 1 have enough freedom to do my work.
1 2 3 4 5
218
Appendix Z
Job Self-Efficacy
Please rate your degree of confidence in your ability to do each of the following.
N ot At Som ewhat M oderately Quite Very

All Confident C onfident C onfident Confident
Confident
1. Your ability to perform 1 2 3 4 5
the responsibilities of your
job effectively.
2. Your ability to handle

new challenging situations
on the job.
3. Your ability to m eet your

supervisors expectations.
4. Your ability to make

good w ork-related
decisions.
5. Y our ability to be good at

what you do on the job.
219
Appendix AA
Job Satisfaction
1. If you had to decide all over again w hether to take the job you now have, what would
you decide? (circle answer)
1 2 3 4 5
Definitely Not Definitely Take
Take the Job the Job
2. If a friend asked if he/she should apply for a jo b like yours with your organization,
what would you recom m end?
1 2 3 4 5
Not Recommend Recommend Strongly
at All
3. How does this job compare to your ideal job?
1 2 3 4 5
Very Far From Very Close to Ideal
Ideal
4. How does your jo b m easure up to the sort of jo b you w anted when you took it?
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Like I Very Close to Ideal
wanted
5. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your current job?
1 2 3 4 5
Not at All Completely Satisfied
Satisfied
220
Appendix BB
Com m itm ent to Supervisor
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Slightly Moderately Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree
Nor
Disagree
1 . 1 talk up (brag about) my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
supervisor to my friends as
a great person to work for.
2. I would accept almost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

any type of job assignment
in order to keep working
for the supervisor I have.
3. I find that my values and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

my supervisors values are
very similar.
4. My supervisor really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
inspires the very best in me
in the way of job
performance.
5 . 1 am extremely glad that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I chose to work under my
current supervisor.
6 . 1 am willing to put in a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
great deal of effort beyond
what is normally expected
because of the kind of
supervisor I have.
7. My manager is the best 1 2 3 4 5 6

of all possible supervisors
to work for.
221
Appendix CC
Turnover Intentions
1. How likely is it that you will actively look for another job in the next year?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Quite Likely Extremely
Likely Likely Likely
2. I often think about quitting.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
3 .1 will probably look for a new job in the new year.
1 2 3 4 5 . 6 7
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
222

Supportive and Unsupportive Managerial Behaviors

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Supportive and Unsupportive Managerial Behaviors

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SUPPORTIVE AND UNSUPPORTIVE MANAGERIAL BEHAVIORS: TYPOLOGY,

VALIDATION, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON SUBORDINATES

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

The University of Guelph

JEN NIFER A. ROONEY

In partial fulfilm ent of requirements

for the degree of

Jennifer A. Rooney, 2004

Acquisitions and Acquisisitons et

395 W ellington Street 395, rue W ellington

Your file Votre reference

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires

SUPPO RTIV E AND UNSUPPORTIVE M A N A G ER IA L BEHAVIORS: TYPOLOGY,

V ALIDA TIO N, AND PSYCH O LO GICA L EFFECTSO N SUBORDINATES

Jennifer A. Rooney Advisor:

unabated, despite considerable conceptual am biguity surrounding the nature o f this

supportive managers, the adverse effects of m anagers unsupportive behaviours have

subordinates deem to be unsupportive. Study 1 was a qualitative investigation of 25

a classification scheme of perceived supportive and unsupportive behaviors. The analysis

dem onstrates apathy).

In Study 2, the Inventory of Supportive and U nsupportive M anagerial Behaviors

em ployees from different organizations, reflecting diverse occupations. The

Study 3 tested the factor structure of the Inventory of Supportive and

Unsupportive M anagerial Behaviors (ISUM B) with a sample o f 247 em ployees. The

Using path analysis, perceived jo b autonomy, jo b self-efficacy, and perceived manager

sentiment were tested as psychological mediators through which supportive and

unsupportive m anagerial behaviors respectively influenced em ployees w ork-related

organizational im plications of the study are discussed.

greatly enhanced the quality of my thesis. In addition to playing an active role in my

academic development, he was em otionally supportive during times when I faced

Hausdorf, and Steven Cronshaw, were also an invaluable resource. O ur discussions

issues, and keeping my thesis focused.

schedules to participate in my dissertation. Special thanks to the several organizations

I would like to thank my husband Jordan for encouraging me to purse m y doctoral

A cknow ledgem ents............................................................................................................................... i

STUDY 1: D evelopm ent of a Typology of Supportive and Unsupportive

STUDY 2: D evelopm ent and Validation of a New Instrument A ssessing Supportive

STUDY 3: The Psychological Effects of Supportive and Unsupportive M anagerial

Table 1. Classification Scheme of Supportive M anagerial B e h a v io rs.............................. 41

Figure 1. The M ediational Processes By W hich Supportive and U nsupportive

Appendix A. Typologies of Support and Leadership S tyle...................................................... 175

The influence of the m anager on em ployees work-related attitudes and behavior

1999; Howe, 2003).

Although it is important to document the positive consequences of supportive

make up a supportive manager. There is a paucity of qualitative research identifying

supportive manager behaviors. M oreover, the psychological processes by which

In addition to being a source of support for em ployees, m anagers can also be a

expressed by m anagers that are deemed to be unsupportive. M oreover, the processes by

which unsupportive managerial behaviors im pact em ployee outcom es have yet to be

In this dissertation, a series of studies are undertaken in order to 1) elucidate the

appraised by em ployees as not supportive; 2) develop and validate a com prehensive

behaviorally-based m easure assessing supportive and unsupportive m anagerial behaviors;

autonomy, jo b self-efficacy, and perceived m anager sentiment.

of the broader construct of social support, including a discussion of its conceptualization

supportive supervision, and highlight gaps in our understanding of the m ediating

em ployee morale and well-being.

The Nature o f Social Support

Although social support may be expressed in different ways, prior definitions

valued and cared for by others (p. 176).

support as an exchange of resources between at least two individuals perceived by the

support. Specifically, supervisor support is defined as behaviors or actions displayed by

m anagers/supervisors that convey a sense of caring, that assist in goal-directed behavior,