Abstract
Previous research, building on Hodson’s concept of management citizenship behavior (MCB), has shown that managers’ operational and relational competence are positively related to important employee outcomes. In this article, we suggest and show how such behaviors vary by the race-specific character of manager–subordinate dyads. Drawing on organizational demography literature (that emphasizes ascriptive differences between superiors and subordinates) and literatures on racial stereotyping (that suggest ways in which minority supervisors are viewed as less competent than White supervisors), we test hypotheses that minority and White employees have different responses to minority and White managers’ MCBs. Analyses of the 2002 National Survey of the Changing Workforce reveal that in cross-race dyads managers’ relational competence significantly increases subordinates’ commitment and job satisfaction. Managers’ technical competence, in contrast, increases subordinates’ commitment, satisfaction, and (to a lesser extent) mental health, but only in same-race dyads. Our findings suggest that managers who competently organize the workplace and show respect for workers’ rights can potentially transcend racial differences in the workplace. In the process, worker well-being and employee commitment can be enhanced.
Work scholars are increasingly documenting the changing employment relationship in the “new economy,” characterized by work that is increasingly fast-paced and long for some, and increasingly short term and unstable for others (Kalleberg, 2000, 2009; Maume & Purcell, 2007). As employers strive to create a flexible workforce to lower their wage bill, the challenge of motivating workers to work hard on behalf of their employers becomes more difficult. Given these concerns, a small but burgeoning literature suggests that management citizenship behaviors (i.e., demonstrating competent leadership skills while showing respect for workers’ rights) are instrumental in producing satisfied and well-adjusted workers who are also willing to work hard (Hodson, 1999; Rubin & Brody, 2011).
The dynamics of workplace commitment are increasingly relevant to our understanding of race/ethnicity, mobility, and stratification. We know, for instance, from recent work that there is an increasing presence of minorities among managers, growing from near zero in 1965 to 7% in 2000 (Stainback & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2009). It should thus come as no surprise that, given the privileged position of managers in the occupational hierarchy, attention has turned toward the determinants of minority access to management positions (Reskin, McBrier, & Kmec, 1999). An equally important (and more often neglected) question is how subordinates fare when they report to a minority manager. Some suggest that the mere presence of minority managers demonstrates an employer’s commitment to fairness and diversity and that subordinates (especially minorities) will react favorably to these workplace arrangements. Other studies suggest, however, that persistent discrimination in the workplace segregates minority workers into the least desirable jobs—jobs in which they report to a minority supervisor, and wherein reactions to work are shaped more by a devalued status within the firm than by their relationships with immediate supervisors (Elliott & Smith, 2001, 2004; Smith & Elliott, 2002).
Given the importance of these questions to labor market and stratification scholars, it is surprising that there is so little research the intersection of subordinate status and managerial relations. We consequently ask in this article, “Do minority managers differ from majority managers in practicing citizenship in the workplace, and are subordinates more committed, satisfied, and well-adjusted when their supervisors strive to be good citizens?” Following an overview of potentially relevant work, we analyze how managers actually behave relative to racial dyads, by drawing on data from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce. Our data and modeling allow for the inclusion of several key worker outcomes (i.e., organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and mental health) along with indicators of supervisory technical competence and interpersonal relational skills (i.e., a bundle of attributes that is termed “management citizenship behavior”). Findings inform research on the challenges of management in the new economy. We conclude by discussing as well the implications of increased minority presence in management for the sociological understanding of inequality and relational dynamics of employment.
Background
The Challenge of Management Citizenship in the New Economy
In contrast to the postwar period when many workers were motivated to work hard for their employers by the promise of consistent pay raises, generous benefits, and lifelong employment (Cappelli et al., 1997; Edwards, 1979; Rubin, 1996), the challenge of managing workers in the new economy is more complicated when workers earn low wages, turn over frequently, and are more likely to obtain jobs on a contingent or part-time basis (Kalleberg, 2012). The challenge to motivate and control workers is especially daunting in the 70% of the economy that is the non-finance-insurance and real estate service sector (Moller & Rubin, 2008). In low-end service industries, potentially unhappy and unmotivated workers are on the frontlines of interaction with customers and can create lasting damage to a company’s reputation when brand loyalty and repeat purchases are central to the business model of most service employers (Frenkel, Korczynski, Shire, & Tam, 1999; Gutek, 1995). In light of this question, work scholars have increasingly examined the behaviors of managers (rather than the personalities of workers) as factors promoting positive worker experiences. This focus is embodied in the concept of management citizenship behavior (MCB).
Originally developed by Hodson (1999), MCB refers to the ways in which managers who are competent, engender trust, and respect workers’ rights can promote positive workplace experiences in their subordinates and, by extension, benefit the larger organization. Drawing from his content coding of 83 workplace ethnographies, Hodson suggests that MCB, which encompasses both operational and relational competence, is rooted in the legitimate exercise of authority and the norm of reciprocity in the workplace. Operational competence is a supervisor’s ability to assemble the resources and create the conditions that foster production. Relational competence, in contrast, is the extent to which managers show respect for workers and gain their trust. In his empirical test of MCB, Hodson finds that operational and relational dimensions both increase worker’s autonomy and willingness to work hard for their employers (Hodson, 1999), and decrease conflict between workers and managers (Hodson, 2002b). Given his reliance on workplace ethnographies, some of which go as far back as the beginning of the 20th century, Hodson’s challenge was for labor market scholars to retest such relations using more recent surveys of workers.
Generally speaking, sociologists have not taken up Hodson’s challenge; the few exceptions have not comprehensively tested the effects of MCB on worker outcomes. For example, Kick, Fraser, and Davis (2006) studied postal workers and measured MCB with eight items tapping respect for and trust in managers, yet they found that MCB had weaker effects on worker commitment than other aspects of workers’ employment situations. Frenkel and Orlitsky (2005) measured the relational (but not operational) component of MCB and found that it positively predicted favorable impressions of management. Several other studies have measured MCB tangentially (such as with scales tapping supervisor support) and found positive effects on workers’ reactions to their jobs (Broschak, Davis-Blake, & Block, 2008; Kmec & Gorman, 2010; Schieman & Reid, 2008; Sengupta, Edwards, & Tsai, 2009).
The most comprehensive replication of Hodson’s MCB concept is that by Rubin and Brody (2011), which draws on data from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce and offers extensive measures of the operational and relational dimensions of MCB. In addition, Rubin and Brody extended the MCB concept to include two related and timely dimensions, manager’s ethical behavior and support for work–family balance, both of which reflect “prevailing norms,” a key aspect of the construct. As Rubin and Brody (2011) note, high-profile lapses in business ethics make the ethical behavior of managers an increasingly important topic of conversation among customers, workers, and managers themselves, and contemporary workers increasingly evaluate the desirability of jobs based on their allowance of time for family life outside of work. In extensive multivariate analyses, Rubin and Brody show that these dimensions of MCB positively affect workers’ organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and mental health.
Although such prior findings are provocative and important, all view management somewhat in the abstract (i.e., disembodied managers vary in the degree to which they act as good workplace citizens). In a second article, Brody and Rubin (2011) embodied both managers and their employees by considering their sex. They found that the relationships observed in the previous article varied in predictable ways once the sex of the managers and employees was accounted for. Managers and workers can be differently gendered, of course, but they can also be members of different racial/ethnic majority or minority groups—a point on which we elaborate next.
Minority Managers and Subordinate Outcomes
Scholars differ on the significance of an increased minority presence in management. Some express the optimistic view that by their mere presence, minority managers signal that the labor market and employers are more open and fair, and that racial discrimination is a vestige of the past (M. K. Brown et al., 2003; Wilson, 1980). More typically, scholars are skeptical about minorities in management, pointing out that often employers are practicing bottom-up ascription (Elliott & Smith, 2001, 2004). That is, after majority groups reserve the best jobs for themselves (Reskin et al., 1999; Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993), the challenge for the organization is obtaining desired work behavior and commitment from those who occupy devalued and immobile jobs. To solve this problem, organizations place minority superiors in charge of minority-dominated workgroups (Elliott & Smith, 2001; Smith & Elliott, 2002). Doing so signals the firm’s compliance with external legal pressures to diversify the ranks of management while also leaving the impression among minority subordinates that via hard work, commitment, and loyalty to their employers, they too can advance to supervisory positions.
The organizational demography perspective has long held that the racial composition of organizations matters to workers and their employers (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990; Ibarra, 1995; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). This perspective is based on the similarity-attraction paradigm, positing that perceived similarity with others in the workplace fosters interpersonal attraction and liking (Byrne, 1971). Much research drawing on this perspective has focused on the racial and gender composition of workgroups and resulting perceptions of conflict, confirming that compared with uniform workgroups, diversity increases interpersonal conflict and dissatisfaction (Dickerson, Schur, Kruse, & Blasi, 2010; Hodson, 2002a; Mueller, Finley, Iverson, & Price, 1999; Wharton, Rotolo, & Bird, 2000). Organizational behavior and management scholars have focused more on similarity in manager–worker dyads, but they tend to draw samples of managers and ask about relations with their own supervisors, generally finding that similarity increases positive assessments of performance and commitment in both workers and their supervisors (Avey, West, & Crossley, 2008; B. P. Brown, Zablah, & Bellenger, 2008; Duffy & Ferrier, 2003). Yet these studies often examine worker outcomes in the absence of controls for measures of management citizenship; thus, the way in which racially similar managers promote positive workplace experiences in subordinates is unexplored in these studies.
In the few studies that examined racial similarity in manager–worker dyads among nonmanagerial subordinates, results are conflicting and noncumulative. For example, a study of public school teachers found higher job satisfaction and lower turnover when supervised by a same-race principal (Grissom & Keiser, 2011). On the other hand, a study of hotel employees found that minority subordinates had more positive assessments of the integrity of White than minority supervisors, and had higher job satisfaction and commitment as a result (Simons, Friedman, Liu, & Parks, 2007). Another study of soldiers found that job satisfaction and intent to reenlist in the army was invariant of the race of their commanding officers (Vecchio & Bullis, 2001). Finally, in an explicit test of bottom-up ascription (whereby a minority supervisor offers the symbolic promise of mobility to devalued minority employees), Maume (2012) found that, indeed, minority subordinates who reported to a minority supervisor had higher expectations of a future promotion even as they were paid less than minorities who reported to a White supervisor. As was the case with samples of managers, however, these studies of subordinate reactions to similarity in manager–worker dyads were often conducted in the absence of data on how managers actually behaved in the workplace, suggesting the need for additional research on this issue.
Hypotheses
We link dimensions of MCB to employee outcomes of long-standing interest to workplace scholars, namely commitment, job satisfaction, and mental health (Broschak et al., 2008; Johnson, Mortimer, Lee, & Stern, 2007; Kalleberg, 1977; Schieman & Reid, 2008). As noted above, employers traditionally secured committed and satisfied workers by creating job ladders and tying pay and benefits to seniority (Cappelli et al., 1997; Edwards, 1979); now it is immediate supervisors who must secure desired work behavior from a flexible workforce. This concern is prominent in the management literature that reflect managers’ desire for employees to act committed, even if that is opposite of what they feel, to provide good service to customers to ensure repeat business (Frenkel et al., 1999; Gutek, 1995; Rubin & Brody, 2005).
Similarly, scholars have long recognized that general well-being and attitudes about work are determined by workplace organization and experiences (Hodson, 2001; Kalleberg, 1977). This issue takes on added significance as current workplaces are increasingly shaped by global competition, the quest for flexibility, and the need to operate on fast-paced schedules. In this context, several studies note that workers’ commitment to their employers, satisfaction with their jobs, and general mental health are diminished by the realities of working in the new economy (Brand & Burgard, 2008; Galinsky, Bond, Kim, & Jones, 2001; Kalleberg, 2009; Maume & Purcell, 2007). Thus, we expect that as managers recognize the importance of having committed, satisfied, and well-adjusted workers to compete in the new economy, they will increase their efforts to create a well-run workplace, while also respecting the rights of workers. Thus, our
The mention of race above serves to remind us that underlying all workplaces are struggles over the allocation of valuable resources. As sociological research has long demonstrated, minority groups are more susceptible to supervisor mistreatment and targeted discrimination (for a review, see Roscigno, 2007). Moreover, other research shows that supervisors often relaxed their oversight over subordinates, allowing majority group workers to bully and harass minority group workers (Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez, 2006). This behavior is a “divide-and-conquer” strategy that diverts workers’ concerns about existing asymmetric power relationships vis-à-vis management, to a concern that minorities threaten the gains and position of majority group workers (Blalock, 1967; Royster, 2003). As minorities have increased their representation in management, these concerns about minority threats to privileged majority positions in the economy intensify, especially as minority gains in management are seen as achieved by political pressure rather than merit (Skaggs, 2009; Woo, 2001). Furthermore, racial stereotypes suggest that minority employees are less competent and trustworthy than White employees (Moss & Tilly, 2001; Pager & Quillian, 2005), suggesting that minority managers are placed in positions of power to satisfy external pressures to achieve diversity (Collins, 1997). Of course these may be the views of Whites, and minorities may have a different view of minority managers in the workplace. For them, the presence of minority managers may signal that their employer is committed to fairness in evaluating and rewarding employees (Elliott & Smith, 2001). When managers are matched to ascriptively similar workers, feelings of commitment and satisfaction may intensify among subordinates. And, as the relational demography literature shows, cross-race matches of workers and superiors tends to increase workers’ distrust in and conflict with bosses (Avey et al., 2008; B. P. Brown et al., 2008; Duffy & Ferrier, 2003; Grissom & Keiser, 2011).
Because minorities have only recently increased their presence in management, it is more difficult to predict how majority subordinates will react to their work situations. If White workers believe that minority managers are more likely to be incompetent and to have achieved their position to satisfy diversity requirements (Collins, 1997), then subordinates may have lower commitment, satisfaction, and mental health. Taken together, the propositions suggest a
Of course, it is also plausible that managerial competence and respect for subordinates are invariant of the race of the superior (Vecchio & Bullis, 2001). In this case, we might expect that MCB significantly shapes worker outcomes similarly across worker–supervisor dyads defined by race. Research drawing on the bottom-up ascription perspective suggests, however, that organizations purposefully assign minority managers to oversee minority and/or devalued workgroups. Doing so provides minority/devalued workers with an important symbol of the potential for mobility (i.e., the minority supervisor) and convinces them to work hard on behalf of the company to get promoted (Elliott & Smith, 2001, 2004; Smith & Elliott, 2002). We might anticipate that minority/devalued workers in the firm receive lower pay, work part-time, are concerned about job security, work in race-typical workgroups, and so on. In such settings workers may realize that a successful future with the firm is unlikely because they occupy devalued positions within the firm (Maume, 2012). If so, this pattern suggests that conditions of work for minority and/or devalued workers rather than behaviors of immediate supervisors will more strongly predict worker outcomes. These propositions suggest a
Data
The data used in this study are from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW), a survey of employed U.S. adults; when weighted, the sample is representative of the employed civilian labor force in 2002 (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2003). This data set has a number of items that correspond closely to Hodson’s concept of MCB, as well as extensive measures of workers’ reactions to their employment situations. From an original sample of 2,810 wage and salary workers, we limited the sample to 2,527 workers who reported to an immediate supervisor. Scattered missing data on our predictors further reduced the analytic sample to 2,431 workers.
Manager–Worker Dyads
The second and third hypotheses above suggest differences in predictor effects on outcome measures across the racial configuration of manager–worker pairings. Thus, in our analysis below we define four groups by the race of the worker matched to racial similarity of the immediate supervisor, and compare slope effects of predictors across these four groups. Starting with subordinates, White non-Hispanics constituted 76% of the sample, Blacks and Hispanics each constituted approximately 9.5% of the sample, and 4.6% were self-identified “others.” Although stereotypes about African Americans’ work and management styles may differ from those of other groups (Moss & Tilly, 2001; Royster, 2003), we combined Blacks with Hispanics and “others” into a “minority” group category (in contrast to the larger category of non-Hispanic Whites). We did so to ensure enough cases for a multivariate analysis of worker outcomes, although we revisit this decision in the discussion of results below.
Respondents also gave a yes or no response to the question, “Is your supervisor or manager of the same racial or ethnic background as you?”; these responses were cross-tabulated with the workers’ minority status to determine the racial match of workers to managers. As Table 1 shows, minority workers matched to White and minority supervisors are in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, whereas White workers matched to minority and White supervisors are in Groups 3 and 4, respectively. Of these four types of dyads, the largest is Group 4 (White workers reporting to a White supervisor; n = 1,659), and smallest is Group 2 (minority workers matched to minority supervisors; n = 200).
Means on Analytic Variables, 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce by Race of Subordinate–Race of Supervisor Dyad.
p < .05.
Measures
Table 1 shows the range on the analytic measures (in parentheses, after the variable name) and the dyad-specific means in the body of the table (complete descriptive statistics on all measures are available on request). The rightmost column presents the F value from a one-way analysis of variance, indicating a significant difference in variable means across the four dyads.
Dependent Variables
Our research questions concern the effects of MCB focus on three worker outcomes—organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and mental health. We assessed workers’ reactions to their jobs in multi-item scales.
Organizational commitment
Consistent with prior studies, we conceptualize organizational commitment as an internalization of the belief in loyalty to one’s employer that also increases workers’ willingness to work harder on behalf of their employers (Kmec & Gorman, 2010; Marsden, Kalleberg, & Cook, 1993). Thus, we measure organizational commitment with two items: (a) “How loyal do you feel to your employer—extremely loyal, very loyal, somewhat loyal, not very loyal, or not loyal at all?” (reverse coded) and (b) “I am willing to work harder than I have to, to help my company or organization succeed” (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). After standardizing these two items, their mean was taken (Cronbach’s alpha = .52); higher scores indicate stronger organizational commitment (a handful of workers had extremely negative scores on these indices and were recoded to the first percentile value).
Job satisfaction
We measure job satisfaction with a global assessment item and a willingness to take the same job again. Specifically, the NSCW survey asked, (a) “All in all, how satisfied are you with your job?” (1 = not at all satisfied to 4 = very satisfied) and (b) “Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to take the job you now have, what would you decide?” (1 = definitely
Mental health
Our measure of mental health combines six items tapping stress, coping mechanisms, and symptoms of depression. Specifically, the NSCW asked,
How often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?
How often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?
How often have you felt that things were going your way?
How often have you felt that difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?
During the past month, have you been bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?
During the past month, have you been bothered by little interest or pleasure in doing things?
The first four items had response categories ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often), and the last two items had yes or no responses. Items were reverse coded as necessary, and the mean of the standardized items was taken (Cronbach’s alpha = .74); higher scores indicated better mental health.
Management Citizenship Behavior
As noted above, Hodson (1999, 2001, 2002a, 2002b) originally conceived of MCB as consisting of two dimensions—creating the conditions for efficient production (operational competence) and showing concerns for workers’ rights (relational competence). Drawing on Hodson’s contention that norms of MCB may vary over time, Rubin and Brody (2011) propose that ethical competence (honest dealings with workers, suppliers, customers, etc.) and supporting a balance between the work–family responsibilities of workers are additional dimensions of MCB that are of great concern to contemporary workers. Yet Rubin and Brody acknowledge that business ethics likely correlate with operational competence, and that respecting the rights of workers includes supporting their attempts to balance work–family obligations. Indeed, in preliminary analyses Rubin and Brody (2011, p. 17) found that items tapping operational and ethical competence loaded onto a single underlying factor, as did items reflecting relational competence and support for work–family balance. Thus, we replicate this measurement strategy in this article—that is, we measure MCB as consisting of two dimensions as Hodson (1999) originally conceived, but with the added measures of ethical and family-supportive competence as suggested by Rubin and Brody (2011).
Operational and ethical competence
This scale consists of six items with response categories ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Specifically, the NSCW items included,
My supervisor or manager keeps me informed of the things I need to know to do my job well.
Managers at my workplace actively seek out information and new ideas from employees at all levels of the organization to guide their decision making.
I have the equipment, budget, and people I need to do my job.
My supervisor or manager is very competent in his or her job.
I can trust what managers say in my organization.
Managers in my organization behave honestly and ethically when dealing with employees and clients or customers.
The scale score is the mean of these six items (Cronbach’s alpha = .80), with higher values indicating greater operational and ethical competence of managers.
Relational/family supportive competence
This nine-item scale has the same response categories as the items in the previous scale; the scale is computed as the mean of the items (Cronbach’s alpha = .90):
My supervisor or manager has expectations of my performance on the job that are realistic.
My supervisor or manager recognizes when I do a good job.
My supervisor or manager is supportive when I have a work problem.
At the company or organization where I work, I am treated with respect.
My supervisor or manager is fair and doesn’t show favoritism in responding to employees’ personal or family needs.
My supervisor or manager accommodates me when I have family or personal business to take care of, for example, medical appointments, meeting with child’s teacher, etc.
My supervisor or manager is understanding when I talk about personal or family issues that affect my work.
I feel comfortable bringing up personal or family issues with my supervisor or manager.
My supervisor or manager really cares about the effects that work demands have on my personal and family life.
Control Variables
A number of workplace factors will affect employees’ job-related outcomes and outlooks and may be correlated with measures of MCB as well. For example, the analytic models will include a measure of job autonomy that has been shown to increase job satisfaction and reduce psychological distress (Karasek, 1979) and that may derive from MCB (particularly the operational/ethical dimension). Thus, job autonomy was measured by the mean of three items (with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree):
I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job.
It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done.
I have a lot of say about what happens on my job.
Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .71, and Table 1 indicates that Groups 2 (minorities with minority supervisors) and 4 (Whites reporting to White bosses) had the least and most amount of autonomy, respectively. Other variables may tap working conditions in the new economy, including binary measures if workers had experienced layoffs or downsizing in the previous year and/or if respondents worked part-time.
To take bottom-up ascription processes into account, we controlled for being in a race-atypical workgroup with the question, “About what percentage of your coworkers are of people from your racial, ethnic, or national background?” Responses ranged from 1 (100% of coworkers) to 6 (0%), such that higher numbers indicate that the respondent was more likely to be a racial token among one’s coworkers. Minorities reporting to White bosses were the most likely to be in a race-atypical workgroup (Group 1 M = 4.11), whereas Whites with White bosses were the least likely to be in a race-atypical workgroup (Group 4 M = 2.25).
We also considered that work is more bureaucratically controlled and managerial behavior more constrained by human resources policies (Marsden, 1996) that may affect workers’ outcomes. Thus, firm size was the number of employees at establishment, captured by an ordinal measure ranging from 1 (fewer than 25 employees) to 10 (10,000 or more employees). Of course, the type of job they have and the industrial sector of employment may also affect workers’ reactions to their jobs. We controlled for occupation with a vector of six binary measures (production occupation was the reference category) and for employment in the service sector with a single dummy variable. Employment by occupation and industry was more or less constant across the four dyads, with the only exception being that White workers are generally more likely than minority workers to be in professional occupations.
The analytic models also controlled for supervisors’ characteristics, as they are prominent in the organizational demography and bottom-up ascription literatures in predicting worker outcomes. For example, compared with those whose immediate supervisor is about their same age, binary measures were created for reporting to a supervisor who was older or younger than them; in addition we created a binary measure for those whose immediate supervisor was a female.
Finally, we controlled for demographic effects on worker outcomes, including being female, having an employed spouse, having children, family income (the sum of respondent’s and spouses incomes, logged to correct for skewness), and living in the South. Table 1 shows that these measures vary considerably across dyads, with Whites generally more likely than minorities to have an employed spouse, and higher family incomes, and minorities generally more likely than Whites to have children and live in the South.
Results
We tested our research hypotheses by regressing the three dependent variables onto the two dimensions of MCB and the controls, among each of the four types of manager–worker dyads. Rather than presenting multiple tables with multiple columns of regression coefficients for the manager–worker dyads, we briefly describe the general pattern of the effects of control variables on the outcome measures and then present Table 2 summarizing the effects of MCB on workers’ outcomes (complete regressions are available on request).
Partial Effects of Management Citizenship Behaviors on Worker Outcomes by Race of Subordinate –Race of Supervisor Dyad.
Note. MCBOE is an index tapping the supervisor’s operational and ethical competence; MCBRF is an index tapping the supervisor’s relational competence and support for family–work balance. Ordinary least squares used to analyze commitment, job satisfaction, and mental health and effects shown are standardized slopes; all effects shown are net of the controls shown in Table 1.
Among minority workers, effects of management citizenship behavior (MCB) differ significantly by race of supervisor (1 vs. 2).
Among White workers, effects of MBC differ significantly by race of supervisor ( 3 vs. 4).
Among those with a White super, effects of MCB differ significantly by race of worker (1 vs. 4).
Among those with a minority super, effects of MCB differ significantly by race of worker (2 vs. 3).
p < .05, one-tailed test. *p < .05, two-tailed test.
Turning first to the effects of the control variables, Dyad 4 (White workers reporting to White managers) had the largest number of significant predictors of the outcome measures (likely because it had the largest sample size). Among the other three types of dyads, the control variables had sporadic effects on the outcome measures. Yet the results do provide a rather clear rejection of the third hypothesis that bottom-ascription governs the matching of supervisors to work groups, and it is the status as a devalued worker, rather than supervisor’s MCB, that more strongly determines workers’ outcomes. The effects of location in firm status hierarchies (full-time work status, the racial composition of coworkers, pay, etc.), had inconsistent effects on the outcome measures yet the presence of these measures did not explain away, and were always weaker than, the effects of MCB on the three worker outcomes (full results available on request). Thus, it appears safe to conclude that being a minority and/or working in the most devalued jobs in the firm matter less than the citizenship behaviors of one’s immediate supervisor in determining subordinate reactions to their jobs.
Table 2 shows the partial (standardized) determinants of MCB on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and mental health, for the four types of manager–worker dyads. The rightmost column shows the results of unstandardized slopes (not shown) that differ significantly across the four manger-worker dyads (results that bear on Hypothesis 2). Finally, shown below the MCB coefficients are the R2 values for the explanatory power of the fully specified equations for each worker outcome. Among the ordinary least squares equations, the models explain the most variation in job satisfaction and the least in mental health.
Although not universally significant, each dimension of MCB has multiple significant effects on the outcome measures across the four types of dyads. Moreover, the magnitudes of the effects are largely the same, irrespective of the racial configuration of the manager–worker dyad (a pattern of results that largely support Hypothesis 1). That is, among 24 possible interaction effects of MCB on outcome measures by the racial nature of the manager–worker dyad (24 = 2 dimensions of MCB × 4 four slope contrasts × 3 outcome measures), 8 are statistically significant, 6 of which affect organizational commitment.
Only for organizational commitment does hypothesis two (MCB effects on worker outcomes differ significantly across racial dyads) receive any support. The results in Table 2 show that the effects of MCBRF are stronger in promoting organizational commitment among minorities and Whites who work for different-race bosses (B = .292 in Group 1 and B = .290 in 3), than among their counterparts who work for same-race bosses (B = .088 in Group 2 and B = .104 in Group 4), as denoted by the a and b symbols in the t test column in Table 2. It is also true that among those reporting to a White supervisor, minority workers significantly exceed White workers in increasing their commitment to their employers as their boss’s MCBRF increases (the contrast between Groups 1 and 4, denoted by the c symbol). These findings bear on the relational demography literature that has long shown that workers have more negative reactions to their work when their bosses are ascriptively different from them. Yet, as the review above showed, this research has largely failed to control how bosses actually behave in the workplace. The results in Table 2 strongly support the proposition that workers’ commitment to their employers is facilitated by bosses who respect their rights as workers, and who acknowledge and accommodate those times when work and family responsibilities conflict.
This is not to say that the managers’ technical competence and ethical behaviors are unimportant in promoting organizational commitment. Indeed, it appears to be the case that in the same-race dyads (Groups 2 and 4), MCBOE significantly increases commitment more so than among workers in different-race dyads (Groups 1 and 3). These findings might be anticipated from the relational demography literature. That is, in ascriptively similar boss–worker pairings, the potential for misunderstanding and conflict is reduced. In these cases, it is likely that the supervisor’s technical competence takes on added importance as a determinant of workers’ commitment to their employers.
In contrast to the differing effects of MCB on organizational commitment by the racial composition of the supervisor–worker dyad, MCB has largely similar effects across the types of dyads for the remaining outcomes. These results largely support Hypothesis 1. For example, 7 of the 8 effects of MCB on job satisfaction were statistically significant, yet the only significant slope contrast across groups was among those who report to White supervisors; minority workers respond more favorably than White workers to bosses who are technically and ethically competent (see the c symbol in the t test column). MCB has weaker effects on workers’ mental health, showing consistently positive and significant effects only for the fourth dyad (White workers reporting to a White manager). Among minority workers (Groups 1 and 2), the supervisor’s relational and family supportive competence has positive effects on mental health, but the effects are significant only in a one-tailed test.
Are the Results the Same for African Americans and Hispanics?
The conclusion above rests on the assumption that minority workgroups and minority managers are alike in how they work and manage the workplace, respectively. There is, however, some research suggesting that African American workers have more contentious relations with managers, whereas Hispanics are more docile workers (Moss & Tilly, 2001; Royster, 2003). In addition, one management study showed that African American managers managed more closely than did their White counterparts out of concern that subordinates’ mistakes will jeopardize their career prospects (Simons et al., 2007). In consideration of these findings, we reestimated the models shown in Table 2 after disaggregating the “minority” group subordinates (1 and 2) into those who identified as African American and Hispanic. The number of respondents who identified as “other” was too small to obtain reliable results from a multivariate analysis. Table 3 shows the effects of MCB on commitment and well-being among African Americans and Hispanics who reported to different- and same-race supervisors, respectively.
Partial Effects of Management Citizenship Behaviors on Worker Outcomes, by Subordinate -Supervisor Dyad, and by Race and Ethnicity.
Note. MCBOE is an index tapping the supervisor’s operational and ethical competence; MCBRF is an index tapping the supervisor’s relational competence and support for family–work balance. Ordinary least squares used to analyze commitment, job satisfaction, and mental health and effects shown are standardized slopes; all effects shown are net of the controls shown in Table 1.
Among African American workers, effects of management citizenship behavior (MCB) differ significantly by race of supervisor (1 vs. 2).
Among Hispanic workers, effects of MBC differ significantly by ethnicity of supervisor (3 vs. 4).
p < .05, one-tailed test. *p < .05, two-tailed test.
In the analyses above, we found that managers’ relational and family supportive competence increased commitment in cross-race dyads, whereas operational and ethical competence increased commitment in same-race dyads, and that both dimensions of MCBs had consistent positive effects on the job satisfaction of all minority workers. This pattern of results is largely replicated in the findings shown in Table 3. That is, the organizational commitment of African Americans is significantly increased when reporting to a White supervisor who is respectful of workers’ rights (B = .483), and in the smaller group of African American workers matched to African American supervisors, the effect of operational competence is sizable but only marginally significant (B = .360). White managers’ operational and relational competence both have marginally significant effects on Hispanic workers’ commitment (Group 3), but in Dyad 4 the effect of White managers’ operational competence on Hispanics’ commitment is sizable but not significant (B = .207).
Both dimensions of MCB are positively related to job satisfaction in the cross-race dyads (Groups 1 and 3), and at least one dimension of MCB significantly predicts satisfaction in the same race dyads (Groups 2 and 4). These results largely mirror the consistent positive effects of MCB on the job satisfactions of all minorities (Table 2). Yet only among Blacks reporting to a White boss does relational competence marginally increase African Americans’ well-being. For the remaining dyads, the two dimensions of MCB have modest but insignificant effects on mental health.
Summary and Discussion
Several research literatures point to the importance of managerial behaviors on subordinate work experiences. The relational demography literature has long studied variation in job satisfaction and performance of subordinate managers when reporting to superiors of a different race. The bottom-up ascription literature questions the effects of minority managers on minority subordinates’ careers given that minority managers tend to supervise other minorities employed in low-paying and dissatisfying jobs. And, a smaller and emerging body of work suggests that managerial effects on workers’ commitment and satisfaction are more important in the new economy, which is characterized by the lack of job security and promotion ladders that motivated yesteryear’s workers. After posing three hypotheses, we used a representative survey of the labor force (as of 2002) to examine how MCBs (competence in organizing and directing the workplace, and respect for workers’ rights and conflicts with family life) affected workers’ commitment to their employers, job satisfaction, and perceived well-being.
Our third hypothesis drew from the bottom-up ascription literature to suggest that it was the characteristics of undesirable jobs more so than MCB that affected worker well-being. This hypothesis was not supported, suggesting that even in the worst jobs reporting to a competent, trustworthy, and empathic manager increased job satisfaction and commitment among workers. Our second hypothesis drew from the relational demography literature to posit that subordinate well-being is maximized when matched to racially similar bosses. On balance, our findings rejected this hypothesis and challenged conventional wisdom in the relational demography literature; particularly noteworthy was the finding that organizational commitment increased with relationally competent managers in cross-raced dyads. Our findings may differ from those of the relational demography literature due to the latter’s tendency to sample workers at the apex of the occupational hierarchy and to examine the effects of ascriptive matches on subordinate well-being in the absence of measures of how their supervisors actually behaved. Our sample includes lower-level white- and blue-collar workers, in which it may be the case that managers’ behaviors more strongly affect subordinate well-being, especially in cross-race dyads.
Our results were most consistent with our first hypothesis that managerial variation in respecting workers’ rights and demonstrating competence would strongly affect subordinate well-being. We found consistently strong effects of MCB on the outcome measures, particularly for organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Our findings here bear on a timely and important management question: How do firms motivate and satisfy workers when they no longer offer them a guarantee of lifetime employment and steadily rising wages? Our unequivocal answer to this question is that managers who deal honestly and ethically with internal and external stakeholders, maintain clear and open lines of communication with workers, recognize and respect workers’ rights, and accommodate workers in those times when family demands intrude into the workplace will enhance the satisfaction of workers and increase their commitment to work harder to ensure the firm’s success. Perhaps most important, we found that managerial citizenship behaviors have the potential to transcend racial differences in the workplace. That is, White supervisors who were respectful and competent increased minority workers’ sense of well-being; the same effects were observed among White subordinates with minority superiors. These findings reinforce long-standing views that rather than practicing adversarial relations with workers, managers who strive to create a well-run and respectful workplace will lessen the chances of conflict in the workplace and likely contribute to the well-being of the firm.
We note two limitations of our cross-sectional research design in hopes of stimulating additional on managers’ behavioral effects on worker outcomes. First, our “snapshot” of managers’ behaviors and workers’ job experiences does not account for the fact that managerial relations have a history, and that workers themselves are not passive actors in the workplace. That is, workers often seek to control the workplace, and they may use various forms of sabotage and resistance as a tactical strategy to impose their will on the work process (Edwards, 1979; Hodson, 2001). This insight raises the possibility that, in response to workers’ negative behaviors, managers invoke oppressive strategies to reassert control over the work process. Although it is possible that workers’ behaviors determine the behavior of managers, we suspect that asymmetric power relations in the workplace make it more likely that managers’ citizenship behaviors influence workers’ job experiences. Nevertheless, more longitudinal research is needed to determine the causal process linking managers’ behaviors and workers’ experience. Longitudinal studies would also address a second limitation of our data in that we cannot observe other outcomes of matching workers to supervisors, affecting the long-term fortunes of both subordinates and employers. If we are correct that managers’ citizenship behaviors produce committed and satisfied workers, this should register in other outcomes that can be observed over time. An obvious worker outcome to examine would be worker turnover, but another may be firm performance as well. Our expectation is that as managers consistently over time organize a well-run workplace and respect workers’ rights, the firm’s workforce will stabilize and their profit margins improve. We urge other scholars to examine these propositions with longitudinal research designs.
Despite the limitations of a cross-sectional research design, we have shown that it is possible for employers to create a positive-sum game in the workplace, at least in the short term. Firms that place a priority on organizing a well-run workplace and respecting workers’ rights will be rewarded with a loyal and committed workforce that is invested in the firm’s success. In the past, large and profitable organizations were able to satisfy their workers and ask for their loyalty by buying them off with good pay, promotions, and generous benefits. Our findings suggest that all employers, not just the most profitable ones, may now employ a strategy of good management citizenship practices to achieve the goals of securing a satisfied and committed workforce, a strategy that becomes even more important as markets become more competitive, and the demands of work increase.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank Emily Wetzel for her research assistance.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.