A Path Model of Workplace Solidarity,Satisfaction,Burnout,and Motivation

Abstract

Communication dynamics within the business world dictate that the formality of interaction between supervisor and subordinate is determined by the supervisor. The present study investigates the influence of negotiated formality and closeness via supervisor-subordinate solidarity on subordinates’ burnout, motivation, and job satisfaction. An online questionnaire was administered to subjects across various occupations and organizations in the United States. The data are consistent with a mediated model in which job satisfaction mediates the relationships between solidarity-motivation and solidarity-burnout. These results are novel in that, first, job satisfaction is identified as an input of motivation and burnout rather than outputs of a shared induction, And, second, the results place renewed emphasis on the role of supervisor communication in the workplace as subordinates are unable to initiate solidarity.

Keywords

solidarity motivation burnout satisfaction communication

The present study seeks to investigate a unique form of rapport in the workplace via communication: interpersonal solidarity. Interpersonal solidarity is both the perceived synchronicity and closeness established through communication in a relationship (Wheeless, 1978). Solidarity is a unique variable within the workplace, because though both members of the supervisor-subordinate relationship must be willing to build solidarity for it to exist, rules of communication dynamics in the business world dictate that only the supervisor has the authority to change the formality of workplace communication such that solidarity can be formed (Newman & Ober, 2013; Sanders & Schyns, 2006). The supervisor’s legitimate authority over the subordinate confers more control on relational outcomes and influence (Dunbar, 2004). When subordinates feel a lack of closeness or unsupportiveness from their supervisor, they are more likely to remain silent because of anticipated negative outcomes (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003), eliminating all chances to build solidarity. So, unlike solidarity formed in any other context, only one party within the supervisor-subordinate dyad has the power to most effectively initiate solidarity regardless of participant willingness (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). For this reason (implicit power differences), supervisors must put forth more effort than their subordinates to build solidarity (Willemyns, Gallois, & Callan, 2003). As such, the present study seeks to better understand the influence of supervisor communication, as it contributes to perceived interpersonal solidarity, on internalized subordinate variables related to productivity, including job satisfaction, motivation, and burnout.

Interpersonal Solidarity

As a communication variable, solidarity has been identified as the best measurement of relationship intimacy (Baus & Allen, 1996; Wheeless, Wheeless, & Baus, 1984). Solidarity represents psychological and social closeness between persons generated through trust and self-disclosure (Wheeless, 1978). In their meta-analysis of customer-employee rapport, Gremler and Gwinner (2000) identified six studies that defined rapport with the same terminology that Wheeless (1976, 1978) used to describe solidarity: perceived closeness, quality of relationship, harmony, and trust. Like solidarity, rapport is built through verbal communication and self-disclosure (Gfeller, Lynn, & Pribble, 1987), blurring the distinction between these variables. Because of this, solidarity can be conceptualized as an assessment of perceived rapport based on past communicative experiences, especially those experiences involving self-disclosure.

As communication within a relationship increases or decreases, so will the perceived solidarity (Wheeless et al., 1984). Communication frequency has been found to relate positively to solidarity in both friend and family relationships (Patterson, 1995). Within high solidarity relationships, social comparison, perceived similarity, and feelings of positivity are also high (Locke, 2003). Yet, solidarity is prevalent in interpersonal relationships across all contexts, including the workplace context.

Organizational culture dictates levels of solidarity (Bourgeois & Friedkin, 2001). It is strongest when leaders promote informal communication and when employees are invested long term in the organization (Sanders & Emmerik, 2004; Sanders, Flache, van der Vegt, & van de Vliert, 2006). Additionally, organizations that encourage upward and downward communication among its members increase positive relations within that is conducive to solidarity (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). As such, solidarity is positively related to perceived closeness among organizational members (Myers & Johnson, 2004).

Solidarity is a prevalent variable in team dynamics. Coworkers who are mutually dependent, formally and informally, within an organization perceive higher solidarity with each other (Koster, Stokman, Hodson, & Sanders, 2007). Organizational teams that share responsibility of tasks among all team members have higher intermember solidarity than teams that do not promote a culture of mutual dependence (Koster et al., 2007). Though how well team members work together does not equate workplace solidarity (Sanders & Schyns, 2006), putting in additional hours at work positively relates to employees’ perceived vertical solidarity (Sanders & Emmerik, 2004), and high-solidarity coworkers relate better to their supervisors (Hodson, 1997).

Moreover, solidarity has an impact beyond employees. Organizational success is contingent upon the solidarity between supervisors and subordinates, specific to the solidarity perceived by the subordinate, because solidarity dictates the openness of communication (Sanders et al., 2006). Supervisors are the influencers/power sources for solidarity in supervisor-subordinate relationships (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). When a person is interacting with high power, low solidarity leads subordinates to withhold negatively perceived emotions such as anger, whereas high-solidarity subordinates feel encouraged to openly display positively perceived emotions such as happiness (Diefendorff, Morehart, & Gabriel, 2010). This openness and comfort of communication is likely related to subordinates’ job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an employee’s level of positive emotional orientation toward their job (Price, 1997), or “the feelings a worker has about his [or her] job” (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1996, p. 6). Job satisfaction is, generally, the overall sentiment that one has for their job. It is of importance to organizations in that job satisfaction is a strong predictor of productivity (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Malik, Ahmed, Saif, & Safwan, 2010; Politis, 2006; Rose, Kumar, & Pak, 2009; Yousef, 2002). In fact, job satisfaction is a stronger predictor of productivity than organizational commitment (Malik et al., 2010).

Organizations must be continually cognizant of their employee’s job satisfaction because it is a fluid variable, fluctuating throughout a career because of a number of known and unknown influences (Jusoh, Simun, & Chong, 2011). Job satisfaction is linked with employee turnover, absenteeism (Lawler & Porter, 1969), and desire to withdraw from an organization (Yousef, 2002). A meta-analysis substantiated Lawler and Porter’s (1969) finding by concluding that job satisfaction strongly contributed to turnover intentions and withdrawal among employees (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Research has further demonstrated that job satisfaction is negatively related to mental and physical ill health (Holdsworth & Cartwright, 2003) as well as stress (Yousef, 2002). It is also positively related to life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993), perceived gate-keeping of pertinent information (Muchinsky, 1977), and job security (Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles, & König, 2010).

Job satisfaction has also been attributed to organizational communication. It decreases when expectations for workplace communication, decision making, and motivation fall short (Jusoh et al., 2011). Conversely, job satisfaction has been found to relate positively to communication satisfaction, perceived summarization (highlighting relevant portions and minimizing nonrelevant portions in communication; Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010; Muchinsky, 1977), involvement in organizational learning (Rose et al., 2009), self-actualization (Watson, 2008), and perceived organizational quality (Orpen, 1997).

Within the supervisor-subordinate dyad, subordinate trust, perceived influence of supervisor, and mobility aspirations are positively correlated with job satisfaction of the subordinates (Muchinsky, 1977). Furthermore, supervisor temperament is positively related to subordinates’ job satisfaction (Porter, Wrench, & Hoskinson, 2007). Supervisors who are perceived to be more supportive of employees either directly or indirectly through non-work demands (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and supervisors who are perceived as competent communicators (Madlock, 2008) garner increased job satisfaction in their subordinates. Notably, supervisors’ use of negative communication behaviors, such as verbal aggression, has a greater effect on subordinate job satisfaction than does the use of positive communication behaviors (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010).

Because supervisor-subordinate communication has been linked to the success of an organization, it likely relates to organizational productivity. The more satisfied a person is at work, the more productive that person is (Judge et al., 2001; Malik et al., 2010; Politis, 2006; Rose et al., 2009; Yousef, 2002). Given the positive social outcomes associated with solidarity, it is reasonable that supervisor-subordinate solidarity influences job satisfaction. As such, it is predicted that perceived supervisor solidarity induces subordinate job satisfaction, which in turn induces subordinate predictors of productivity, namely, motivation and burnout.

Motivation

Motivation, the force that prompts an individual (Martin, 2004), is a variable key to organizational productivity. Initial theories on work motivation lacked complexity and were characterized by basic reward and punishment systems (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). It was thought that rewards for productive behaviors and punishment for nonproductive behaviors were sufficient for producing motivation in employees. Current motivational theories have expanded beyond simplistic models, separating intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, recognizing that motivation is derived from both internal self-determined factors (expectancies, attitudes, etc.) and external factors (organizational rewards, bonuses, time off, etc.; Katzell & Thompson; Porter & Lawler, 1968). As such, work motivation is the sum of both internal and external motivation factors such as feelings of competency (Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002), economic influence (Kolonoski, 2011), and age (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004).

There are a number of variables associated with change in employee motivation. Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand (2002) found that low motivation and emotional exhaustion produce increased turnover intentions and actual turnover behaviors. Contrariwise, highly intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to have higher commitment to the organization (Barbuto & Story, 2011; Chak & Gurland, 2008). Quality of communication within an organization relates positively to work motivation (Orpen, 1997).

Within the supervisor-subordinate dyad, perceptions of a supervisor’s temperament are positively related to subordinates’ motivation (Porter et al., 2007). Immediate supervisors have strong influence on generating subordinate motivation (Caldwell, 1978). Additionally, supervisors that exert lesser control and greater autonomy can increase employees’ motivation (Caldwell; Chak & Gurland, 2008; Richer et al., 2002; Richer & Vallerand, 1995).

Employees who are satisfied with their jobs have higher desires to keep those jobs (Barbuto & Story, 2011; Chak & Gurland, 2008). Because performance dictates job security and placement (Bernhardt, 1995) motivation to keep one’s job should be higher in satisfied workers than unsatisfied workers. Therefore, it is predicted that subordinate job satisfaction is positively related to subordinate motivation, such that satisfaction induces motivation.

Burnout

Burnout is defined as a state of emotional exhaustion derived from interpersonal interactions (Jackson, Schuler, & Schwab, 1986). Depersonalization and feelings of low personal accomplishment also contribute to burnout (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Malach-Pines, 2005; Maslach, 1982; Maslach & Jackson, 1981: Pines & Maslach, 1980). Most individuals report experiencing burnout as emotional exhaustion (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).

A number of factors contribute to burnout. Younger employees early in their careers are more likely to experience burnout without the support garnered from past experience; likewise, single individuals are more likely to feel burnout without interpersonal support at home (Maslach et al., 2001). Negative life events such as illness and interpersonal breakup increase the likelihood or severity of burnout, whereas positive events decrease it (Justice, Gold, & Klein, 1981; Omdahl & Fritz, 2006). Experience with defensive communication from supervisors also contributes to subordinate burnout (Becker, Halbesleben, & O’Hair, 2005).

Employees experiencing burnout behave differently than those who are not. Employees who reported higher levels of burnout also reported complaining less to coworkers or supervisors and demonstrating a sense of apathy toward their job (Avtgis, Thomas-Maddox, Taylor, & Patterson, 2007). Experiencing burnout increases workers’ thoughts of leaving their organization, absenteeism, and employee turnover (Jackson, Schuler, & Schwab, 1986; Maslach et al., 2001). Additionally, burnout has been linked to lower productivity, decreased job satisfaction, and decreased OCBs (Maslach et al., 2001).

Increased emotional awareness and control helps individuals resist burnout (Snyder, 2012). Furthermore, organizational engagement and job satisfaction decrease burnout (Hoeven, Jong, & Peper, 2006). Overall, employees who are satisfied with their jobs are unlikely to experience burnout (Reisel et al., 2010; Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers, 2010). Thus, satisfaction at work may alleviate emotional exhaustion. Given this, there is likely a negative relationship between subordinate job satisfaction and subordinate burnout, where satisfaction influences burnout.

Proposed Model

Little research has investigated the impact of perceived supervisor solidarity on subordinate work outcomes. Previous research has established that supervisors, as the empowered half of the supervisor-subordinate dyad, are the communicators who can most effectively establish solidarity within this type of relationship (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). Furthermore, subordinates have been observed to be more emotionally transparent in the presence of supervisors with whom they perceive solidarity (Diefendorff et al., 2010). From this, the literature concludes that supervisor solidarity is related to workplace comfort for subordinates.

The present study seeks to expand understanding of supervisor communication on subordinates, by specifically investigating the relationships between perceived supervisor solidarity, subordinate job satisfaction, subordinate motivation, and subordinate burnout. To reiterate, it has been predicted that increased perceived supervisor solidarity will positively change subordinates’ view of their work, thereby increasing their job satisfaction. This increase in subordinate job satisfaction will then increase their motivation while also enabling them to better cope with work situations that could lead to burnout. As such, the present study predicts that job satisfaction mediates the solidarity-motivation and solidarity-burnout relationships. The proposed model can be found in Figure 1. To reiterate, the model specifically tests the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of supervisor solidarity will directly, positively influence subordinate job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Subordinates’ job satisfaction will directly, positively influence their motivation.

Hypothesis 3: Subordinates’ job satisfaction will directly, negatively influence their burnout.

Figure 1.

Proposed model.

Method

Subjects

A total of n = 343 subjects participated in this study. Among those participants, 149 were male and 194 were female. The breakdown of occupations was as follows: 18.4% sales, 16.4 % skilled labor, 16.4% clerical, 8.5% professional/managerial, 7% education, 2.5% transportation, 2% factory, 1% nonfarm labor, and 27.9% other. On average, subjects were M = 26.8 (SD = 9.3) years old and had worked at their job for M = 3.3 (SD = 3.6) years. Of all participants, 54.8% responded regarding their past supervisor and 45.2% responded in reference to their present supervisor.

Procedure

Participants received a hyperlink via the researchers’ social network status on facebook. This method of solicitation resulted in a 23% response rate. The link took each participant to a welcome screen containing the informed consent. Participants were informed that by clicking next to continue to the survey, they were giving their consent. The survey was described to participants as an attempt to understand communication in the workplace. Participants spent approximately 15 minutes completing the questionnaire and received no incentive for their participation.

Instrumentation

Wheeless’s (1976) revised Solidarity Scale was used to assess interpersonal solidarity. The measure consisted of 20 items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from disagree to agree. Reliability of this measure was α = .93. Rubin, Palmgreen, and Sypher (2009) report that the measure has good concurrent validity.

Lawler and Hall’s (1970) Job Motivation Scale was used to assess subordinates’ job motivation. The measure consisted of four items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from disagree to agree. Reliability of this measure was α = .93.

Andrews and Withey’s (1976) Satisfaction Scale was used to assess the participant’s level of job satisfaction. This section contained five items that were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from terrible to delighted. Reliability of the measure was α = .81. Rentsch and Steel (1992) report that the measure has good convergent validity.

Malach-Pines’s (2005) Burnout Measure: Short Version (BMS) was used to assess subjects’ job burnout. The measure consisted of 10 items with a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from never to always. Reliability of this measure was α = .91. Malach-Pines found the BMS to have good face and construct validity. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for all measures.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Measure	Mean	SD	Minimum–Maximum	Skew	Kurtosis	Cronbach’s α
Job satisfaction	5.05	1.16	1.00–7.00	−0.54	0.36	.81
Motivation	5.64	1.10	1.00–7.00	1.10	1.65	.93
Burnout	2.73	1.35	1.00–7.00	0.71	−0.16	.91
Solidarity	2.4.07	1.41	1.00–7.00	−0.15	−0.79	.93

Results

Measurement Models

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess each unidimensional measurement model. Items were tested for both internal consistency and parallelism. The internal consistency within a construct is the extent to which each indicator correlates systematically with other indicators in that set. Interitem correlation matrices for each measure were examined for signs of obvious internal consistency issues. The measures were then tested for parallelism issues, where parallelism is the extent to which indicators purported to measure the same construct correlate systematically with indicators purported to measure a different construct.

Each measurement model was tested with the AMOS maximum likelihood parameter estimation algorithm, which estimates factor loadings for items based on an a priori hypothesized measurement model. These factor loadings were used to generate a predicted interitem correlation matrix to compare with the observed interitem correlation matrix so that items displaying less obvious evidence of invalidity could be removed. Each time an item was removed, the model was respecified without the problematic item. This process was repeated until the remaining items demonstrated fit with the hypothesized measurement models. All problematic items were removed from all subsequent analyses.

The final measurement models for motivation and job satisfaction are as originally proposed. Nine items were removed from the solidarity measure and three from the burnout measure. Notably, this study marks the first examination of the solidarity measure through CFA. The solidarity measure was refined in 1976, before CFA was a common practice to test for content validity. As such, the removal of nearly half of the original items presents an opportunity to refine and shorten the measure through the statistical tools available more than three decades after its publication. The final model yielded acceptable fit statistics, χ²(318, N = 367) = 794.80; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .86; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06. Fit statistics are listed in Table 2. Finally, the appendix contains the finalized solidarity and burnout measures.

Table 2.

Fit Statistics.

	χ²	GFI	RMSEA
Job Satisfaction	χ ²(5, N = 367) = 25.43, p < .05	.97	.11
Motivation	χ ²(2, N = 367) = 0.81, p < .05	.99	0.00
Burnout	χ ²(14, N = 367) = 52.61, p < .05	.96	.09
Solidarity	χ ²(54, N = 367) = 193.00, p < .05	.91	.08

Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Moderator Check

To collect subjects with greater ease, the solicitation asked for participation from anyone who had ever held a job, not just individuals who held a job at the time the questionnaire was administered. Therefore, subjects who did not have a job at the time of solicitation were asked to respond regarding their most recent supervisor. Because time can distort memory, the first analyses tested whether responses were moderated according to whether subjects responded to past or present supervisors. Four independent t tests were run to identify whether solidarity, t(365) = −.24, p > .05; motivation, t(3365) = −.21, p > .05; burnout, t(365) = .60, p > .05; or satisfaction, t(341) = −.95, p > .05, were moderated between these groups. The results support that responding to the questionnaire in reference to a past or present supervisor did not moderate the data.

Hypothesis Testing

The first hypothesis predicted that perceived solidarity between the supervisor and subordinate would be positively related to subordinate satisfaction. A Pearson correlation was run to test this hypothesis. Data supported a moderate positive relationship between solidarity and satisfaction: r = .40, P(.31 ≤ ρ ≤ .48) = .95; corrected for attenuation due to measurement error (ŕ) ŕ = .46, P(.37 ≤ ρ ≤ .54) = .95. Corrected and uncorrected correlations can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.

Correlations: Observed and Corrected for Attenuation due to Measurement Error.

Factor	Correlations
Correlations observed
Solidarity
Motivation	0.31*
Satisfaction	0.40*	0.49*
Burnout	−0.24*	−0.26*	−0.59*
Correlations corrected for attenuation due to measurement error
Solidarity
Motivation	0.33*
Satisfaction	0.46*	0.56*
Burnout	−0.26*	−0.28*	−0.69*

p < .05.

The second hypothesis predicted that subordinate job satisfaction and motivation would be positively related. A Pearson correlation was run to test this hypothesis. Data supported a moderate positive relationship between satisfaction and motivation: r = .49, P(.41 ≤ ρ ≤ .56) = .95; ŕ = .56, P(.48 ≤ ρ ≤ .63) = .95.

The final hypothesis predicted that subordinate job satisfaction and burnout would be negatively related. A Pearson correlation was run to test this hypothesis. Data supported a moderate positive relationship between solidarity and satisfaction: r = −.69, P(–.74 ≤ ρ ≤ –.63) = .95; ŕ = −.68, P(–.73 ≤ ρ ≤ –.62) = .95.

Model Testing

It was also predicted that perceived supervisor solidarity would induce job satisfaction, which would in turn induce both subordinate motivation and burnout. As such, it was predicted that job satisfaction would mediate the relationship between solidarity and the output variables. Ordinary least squares estimation was used to estimate the path coefficients (Boster, 2003; Kelloway, 1995). The standard path coefficients are reported in Figure 2. Both direct and indirect effects are statistically significant (Table 3). The observed relationship between solidarity and motivation (r = .20) has a confidence interval of P(.10 ≤ ρ ≤ .30) = .95, which is within the sampling error of the predicted relationship (r = .20). Furthermore, the observed relationship between solidarity and burnout (r = −.24) has a confidence interval of P(–.33 ≤ ρ ≤ –.14) = .95, which is within the sampling error of the predicted relationship (r = −.23).

Figure 2.

Supported model.

Notably, the model also fits when effects are corrected for attenuation due to measurement error. The observed relationship between solidarity and motivation (ŕ = .33) has a confidence interval of P(.23 ≤ ρ ≤ .42) = .95, which is within the sampling error of the predicted relationship (r = .26). Likewise, the observed relationship between solidarity and burnout (ŕ = −.26) has a confidence interval of P(–.36 ≤ ρ ≤ –.16) = .95, which is within the sampling error of the predicted relationship (r = −.32). As such, the model fits well.

Discussion

The present study furthers understanding within the organizational communication research in two ways. First, the data are consistent with a causal relationship from perceived supervisor solidarity to positive workplace outcomes for subordinates. Previous studies have not provided evidence to address the possibility of spurious relationships, in which an unidentified variable simultaneously increased solidarity, motivation, and job satisfaction as well as decreased burnout in the workplace. The data suggest that perceptions of increased supervisor solidarity actually directly or indirectly cause these desirable workplace outcomes. This is important both theoretically and pragmatically, as it suggests that a variable at the root of all of these subordinate outputs is interpersonal solidarity, notably a variable that is most effectively induced through supervisor communication in the business context.

Second, this research gives insight into the job satisfaction literature, which is highly descriptive and often fails to identify inputs and outputs rather than directionally specified relationships. The data are consistent with a mediated relationship such that perceptions of supervisor solidarity increase job satisfaction; job satisfaction, in turn, causes subordinates to be more motivated and less burntout at work. This identifies supervisor-subordinate solidarity as a direct input and both motivation and burnout as direct outputs of job satisfaction. Although the organizational behavior literature has repeatedly established that job satisfaction, burnout, and motivation are strongly related variables, little evidence has been provided that is consistent or inconsistent with causality.

Implications for the Workplace

The supported model has pragmatic implications for the workplace as well as research. Solidarity, the exogenous variable in this model, is controlled by the supervisor who has the power to influence subordinates’ workplace outputs. As such, supervisors can directly influence their subordinates’ job satisfaction and indirectly influence their motivation and burnout. More specifically, by supervisors increasing solidarity with their subordinates, subordinate job satisfaction will be increased. Increases in job satisfaction will then increase subordinate motivation and decrease burnout. Thus, supervisor communication influences the homeostasis of subordinates at work.

This notion is different from previous findings that focus on how to directly influence subordinates to increase their workplace homeostasis. Yes, the influence of supervisor-subordinate solidarity would in fact increase subordinate homeostasis directly. However, to increase the solidarity, the organizational change must be placed upon the supervisor, not the subordinate. Organizations who wish to use this finding must focus on training supervisors to develop higher levels of solidarity.

It is especially important that supervisors be cognizant of efforts to increase perceptions of solidarity with new/younger employees, particularly those without support at home. These employees have been identified as the groups that tend to experience burnout more frequently than employees that have better support systems (Maslach et al., 2001). Perceptions of supervisor solidarity is also especially important with employees who have faced a recent negative life event (death in the family, illness, etc.; Justice et al., 1981; Omdahl & Fritz, 2006). Because these groups have higher turnover risk due to general life dissatisfaction, perceptions of supervisor solidarity can be used to increase job satisfaction and ultimately decrease turnover.

Behaviors that supervisors can exhibit to increase perceptions of solidarity within their subordinates include the following:

Be aware of subordinate well-being (Elst, Baillien, de Cuyper, & de Witte, 2010).

Encourage employees to share their ideas (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Always make it clear that you are listening to the employee during face-to-face communication by giving eye contact, nodding, and paraphrasing what the employee has said (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Be friendly; supervisors who are perceived as friendly are more likely to be perceived as mentors (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010).

Implications for the Classroom

Ultimately, educators should be mindful to teach their students about this interpersonal workplace dynamic through active and passive means. In business, professional, and organizational communication courses, students should be introduced to supervisor-subordinate solidarity so that they will understand the benefits of building rapport with their subordinates when it is their time to take on a leadership role. As they emerge out of college into entry-level jobs though, they should also be aware that not all supervisors can or will develop solidarity with them. Because developing an interpersonal relationship requires relational maintenance, not all supervisors will or can put forth the cognitive or emotional work needed to perform relational maintenance with subordinates. Students should be encouraged to not take this personally, but rather be patient and be taught to show their willingness to develop solidarity without forcing the matter.

Showing willingness to initiate solidarity can be taught both through active lessons (practice nonverbally displaying friendliness and approachability) as well as passively through educator demonstration. Educators should model the behaviors that they expect their students to exhibit in the workplace (Ruppert & Green, 2012). Students recognize communication traits of their professors that they will carry over as best practices to utilize for the workplace. Because solidarity is measured by perceived closeness, perception of psychological distance in the classroom is decreased most effectively through teacher displays of immediacy behaviors (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless, 2006). These behaviors include

smiling,

eye contact,

relaxed body posture, and

speaking with vocal inflection (Martin & Mottet, 2013).

By simply displaying these behaviors while teaching and during interpersonal interaction with students, professors can decrease psychological distance. The sense of solidarity students feel with their teacher leads to increased motivation and learning, similar to the influence of solidarity in the workplace (Richmond & McCroskey, 2000), improving the learning environment, and providing students with examples of behaviors to mimic later in the workplace.

Implications for Future Research

That the data suggest that job satisfaction is the direct influence of motivation and burnout holds substantive implications for future research. Job satisfaction, as a psychological variable internal to the subordinate, cannot be directly influenced as an independent variable. As such, the manipulation of job satisfaction has been largely absent from previous literature because of practical limitations. Therefore, researchers who wish to control job satisfaction in future studies can do so by manipulating supervisor-subordinate solidarity.

Likewise, researchers can potentially use solidarity to indirectly influence the psychological states of motivation and burnout in behavioral research. The current data indicate that a subordinate’s perception of supervisor solidarity is the exogenous variable within the supported model, which can be controlled to influence subordinates’ motivation and burnout through job satisfaction. This manipulation can be used to induce these outputs in both behavioral research as well as the workplace setting.

Notably though, the fit statistics for the tested model are equivalently when the direction of the model is reversed. Therefore, the data are equally supportive that motivation and burnout jointly influence subordinate job satisfaction, which ultimately induces subordinate burnout. The model makes no logical sense in this direction, but the fact that the data are consistent with this directionality demonstrate the major limitation of the study: that causality is implied and supported by the data, but not confirmed. The model must be tested through behavioral data to conform causality.

Future studies should also consider expanding the model. Although the identified contribution of satisfaction is both theoretically and pragmatically important, the current model only accounts for 8% of the variance in burnout and 24% of the variance in motivation. Therefore, there are still additional variables influencing job satisfaction, motivation, burnout, and potentially even solidarity that were beyond the scope of the present study. A sensible next step in expanding this model would be to investigate subordinate influences on supervisor solidarity. Although the dynamics of the business world dictate that the supervisor has the authority to set the communication dictating solidarity, subordinate behaviors create part of the organizational climate, which induces changes in communication overall (Sue-Chan, Au, & Hackett, 2012; Werbel & Henriques, 2009). As such, additional influences to the present model may be subordinate behaviors.

The findings of this study have theoretical implications for future research as well as pragmatic implications for the workplace. Yet, the model is incomplete. Future research should move toward behavioral data to confirm causality and seek to identify additional exogenous workplace influences.

Footnotes

Appendix

Solidarity

Burnout

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Patrick MacDonald is a master’s student in instructional design and technology at West Virginia University.

Stephanie Kelly is an assistant professor of business communication at North Carolina A&T State University.

Scott Christen is an instructor of communication at Tennessee Technological University.

References

Allen

Witt

P. L.

Wheeless

L. R.

(2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55, 21–31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368

Andrews

F. M.

Withey

S. B.

(1976). Social indicators of well-being: American’s perceptions of life quality. New York, NY: Plenum.

Avtgis

T. A.

Thomas-Maddox

Taylor

Patterson

B. R.

(2007). The influence of employee burnout syndrome on the expression of organizational dissent. Communication Research Reports, 24, 97–102. doi:10.1080/08824090701304725

Barbuto

A. E.

Jr. Story

J. S. P.

(2011). Work motivation and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 23–34. doi:10.1002/jls

Baus

R. D.

Allen

J. R.

(1996). Solidarity and sexual communication as selective filters: A report on intimate relationship development. Communication Research Reports, 13, 1–7. doi:10.1080/08824099609362064

Becker

J. A. H.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

O’Hair

H. D.

(2005). Defensive communication and burnout in the workplace: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Communication Research Reports, 22, 143–150. doi:10.1080/00036810500130653

Boster

F. J.

(2003). Advanced communication research design and analysis. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Bourgeois

Friedkin

N. E.

(2001). The distant core: social solidarity, social distance and interpersonal ties in core-periphery structures. Social Networks, 23, 245–260. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(01)00033-8

Bernhardt

(1995). Strategic promotion and compensation. The Review of Economic Studies, 62, 315-339.

10.

Caldwell

(1978). Employee motivation under merit systems. Public Personnel Management, 7, 65–71.

11.

Chak

F. L.

Gurland

S. T.

(2008). Self-determined work motivation predicts job outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1109–1115. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.002

12.

Cordes

C. L.

Dougherty

T. W.

(1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–656. doi:10.2307/258593

13.

Diefendorff

Morehart

Gabriel

(2010). The influence of power and solidarity on emotional display rules at work. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 120–132. doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9167-8

14.

Dunbar

N. E.

(2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0403&4_8

15.

Elst

T. V.

Baillien

de Cuyper

de Witte

(2010). The role of organizational communication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association with work-related well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 249–264. doi:10.1177/0143831X09358372.

16.

Gfeller

J. D.

Lynn

S. J.

Pribble

W. E.

(1987). Enhancing hypnotic susceptibility: Interpersonal and rapport factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 586–595. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1987-21010-001

17.

Gremler

D. D.

Gwinner

K. P.

(2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of Service Research, 3, 82–102. doi:10.1177/109467050031006

18.

Hackman

M. Z.

Johnson

(2013). Leadership: A communication perspective. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

19.

Hodson

(1997). Group relations at work: Solidarity, conflict, and relations with management. Work and Occupations, 24, 426–452. doi:10.1177/0730888497024004003

20.

Hoeven

Jong

Peper

(2006). Organizational communication and burnout symptoms. International Communication Association Conference Proceedings, June 19–23, Dresden, Germany.

21.

Holdsworth

Cartwright

(2003). Empowerment, stress and satisfaction: An exploratory study of a call centre. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24, 131–140. doi:10.1108/01437730310469552

22.

Jackson

S. E.

Schuler

R. S.

Schwab

R. L.

(1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630–640. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.630

23.

Judge

T. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Bono

J. E.

Patton

G. K.

(2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

24.

Judge

T. A.

Watanabe

(1993). Another look at the job satisfaction–life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 939–948. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.939

25.

Jusoh

Simun

Chong

S. C.

(2011). Expectation gaps, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of fresh graduates. Education + Training, 53, 515–530. doi:10.1108/00400911111159476

26.

Justice

Gold

R. S.

Klein

J. P.

(1981). Life events and burnout. Journal of Psychology, 108, 219–226. doi:10.1080/00223980.1981.9915266

27.

Kanfer

Ackerman

P. L.

(2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.13670969

28.

Katzell

R. A.

Thompson

D. E.

(1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45, 144–153. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.144

29.

Kelloway

E. K.

(1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 215–224. doi:10.1002/job.4030160304

30.

Kolonoski

(2011). Work motivation, culture and economic development: Is work motivation shaped by its socio-economic context? International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 15, 91–99.

31.

Koster

Stokman

Hodson

Sanders

(2007). Solidarity through networks: The effects of task and informal interdependence on cooperation within teams. Employee Relations, 29, 117–137. doi:10.1108/01425450710719978

32.

Lawler

E. E.

Hall

D. T.

(1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305–312. doi:10.1037/h0029692

33.

Lawler

E. E.

Porter

L. W.

(1969). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7, 20–28. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.1967.tb01060.x

34.

Locke

K. D.

(2003). Status and solidarity in social comparison: Agentic and communal values and vertical and horizontal directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 619–631. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.619

35.

Madlock

P. E.

(2008). The link between leadership style, communication competence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61–78. doi:10.1177/0021943607309351

36.

Madlock

P. E.

Kennedy-Lightsey

(2010). The effects of supervisors’ verbal aggressiveness and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 42–62. doi:10.1177/0021943609353511

37.

Malach-Pines

(2005). The burnout measure, short version. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 78–88. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78

38.

Malik

M. I.

Ahmed

Saif

M. I.

Safwan

M. N.

(2010). Relationship of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and layoff survivors’ productivity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 200–211.

39.

Martin

A. J.

(2004). The role of positive psychology in enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and productivity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 113–133. doi:10.1300/J075v24n01_07

40.

Martin

Mottet

T. P.

(2013). The effect of instructor nonverbal immediacy behaviors and feedback sensitivity on Hispanic students’ affective learning outcomes in ninth-grade writing conferences. Communication Education, 60, 1–19. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.496868

41.

Maslach

(1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

42.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205

43.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

44.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

Hewlin

P. F.

(2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00387

45.

Muchinsky

P. M.

(1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organizational climate and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 592–607. doi:10.2307/255359

46.

Myers

S. A.

Johnson

A. D.

(2004). Perceived solidarity, self-disclosure, and trust in organizational peer relationships. Communication Research Reports, 21, 75–83. doi:10.1080/08824090409359969

47.

Newman

Ober

(2013). Business communication: In person, in press, online (8th ed.). Mason, OH: Houghton Mifflin.

48.

Omdahl

B. L.

Fritz

J. M. H.

(2006, June). Coping with problematic relationships in the workplace: Strategies that reduce burnout. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Communication Association Conference Proceedings, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany.

49.

Orpen

(1997). The interactive effects of communications quality and job involvement on managerial job satisfaction and work motivation. Journal of Psychology, 131, 519–522.

50.

Patterson

B. R.

(1995). Communication network activity: Network attributes of the young and elderly. Communication Quarterly, 43, 155–166. doi:10.1080/01463379509369966

51.

Pines

Maslach

(1980). Combatting staff burn-out in a day care center: A case study. Child Care Quarterly, 9, 5–16. doi:10.1007/BF01555032

52.

Politis

J. D.

(2006). Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance: The mediating influence of job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 203–216. doi:10.1108/01437730610657721

53.

Porter

Wrench

J. S.

Hoskinson

(2007). The influence of supervisor temperament on subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommunicative orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55, 129–153. doi:10.1080/01463370600998517

54.

Porter

L. W.

Lawler

E. E.

(1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey.

55.

Price

J. L.

(1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 18, 305–558. doi:10.1108/01437729710182260

56.

Reisel

W. D.

Probst

T. M.

Chia

S.-L.

Maloles

C. M.

König

C. J.

(2010). The effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees. International Studies of Management and Organization, 40, 74–91. doi:10.2753/IMO0020-8825400105

57.

Rentsch

J. R.

Steel

R. P.

(1992). Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and Withey job satisfaction questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 357–367. doi:0.1177/0013164492052002011

58.

Richer

S. F.

Blanchard

Vallerand

R. J.

(2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089–2113. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02065.x

59.

Richer

S. F.

Vallerand

R. J.

(1995). Supervisors’ interactional styles and subordinates’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 707–722. doi:10.1080/00224545.1995.9713974

60.

Richmond

V. P.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2000). The impact of supervisor and subordinate immediacy on relational and organizational outcomes. Communication Monographs, 67, 85–95. doi:10.1080/03637750009376496

61.

Rose

R. C.

Kumar

Pak

O. G.

(2009). The effect of organizational learning on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of Applied Business Research, 25, 55–65.

62.

R. B.

Rubin

Palmgreen

H. E.

Sypher

(Eds.). (2009). Communication research measures. New York, NY: Routledge.

63.

Ruppert

Green

(2012). Practicing what we teach: Credibility and alignment in the business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 29–44. doi:10.1177/1080569911426475

64.

Sanders

Emmerik

H. V.

(2004). Does modern organization and governance threat solidarity? Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 351–372. doi:10.1007/s10997-004-4128-9

65.

Sanders

Flache

van der Vegt

Vliert

(2006). Employees’ organizational solidarity within modern organizations: A framing perspective on the effects of social embeddedness. In Fetchenhauer

Fleche

Buunk

Lindenberg

(Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 141–156). New York, NY: Springer.

66.

Sanders

Schyns

(2006). Leadership and solidarity behavior: Consensus in perception of employees within teams. Personnel Review, 35, 538–556. doi:10.1108/00483480610682280

67.

Smith

P. C.

Kendall

L. M.

Hulin

C. L.

(1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

68.

Snyder

J. L.

(2012). Extending the empathic communication model of burnout: Incorporating individual differences to learn more about workplace emotion, communicative responsiveness, and burnout. Communication Quarterly, 60, 122–142. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.641837

69.

Sue-Chan

A. K. C.

Hackett

R. D.

(2012). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality. Journal of World Business, 47, 459-468. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.012

70.

Tett

R. P.

Meyer

J. P.

(1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x

71.

Thomas

L. T.

Ganster

D. C.

(1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6

72.

Watson

L. M.

(2008). Factors influencing job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Radiological Technology, 80, 113–122.

73.

Werbel

J. D.

Henriques

P. L.

(2009). Different views of trust and relational leadership: Supervisor and subordinate perspectives. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 780–796. doi:10.1108/02683940910996798

74.

Wheeless

L. R.

(1976). Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement, validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research, 3, 47–61. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00503.x

75.

Wheeless

L. R.

(1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143–157. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00604.x

76.

Wheeless

L. R.

Wheeless

V. R.

Baus

(1984). Sexual communication, communication satisfaction, and solidarity in the developmental stages of intimate relationships. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 217–230. doi:10.1080/10570318409374158

77.

Willemyns

Gallois

Callan

V. J.

(2003). Trust me, I’m your boss: Trust and power in supervisor-supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 14, 117–127.

78.

Ybema

J. F.

Smulders

P. G. W.

Bongers

P. M.

(2010). Antecedents and consequences of employee absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 102–124. doi:10.1080/13594320902793691

79.

Yousef

D. A.

(2002). Job satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between role stressors and organizational commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 250–266. doi:10.1108/02683940210428074