The Impact of Control Preferences Fit Between Employees and Their Supervisors on Employee Job Satisfaction

• Authors: Anna Olga Kuzmińska , Daniel Pazura

Title variants

PL

Znaczenie dopasowania preferencji kontroli pomiędzy podwładnym i przełożonym dla satysfakcji z pracy pracowników

Abstracts

PL

Preferencje kontroli różnicują ludzi pod względem ich skłonności do podziału kontroli w sytuacji współzależności. Sytuacje społeczne, które blokują zdolność do sprawowania preferowanego rodzaju kontroli mogą zostać ocenione jako nieprzyjemne i doprowadzić do ich porzucenia. Postawiliśmy hipotezę, że niezgodność preferencji kontroli pomiędzy liderami a pracownikami związana jest z niższym zadowoleniem z pracy wśród pracowników. Taka niezgodność może wynikać albo z rozbieżności pomiędzy preferencjami kontroli liderów i pracowników (np. różnica pod względem preferencji partnerstwa), albo ze zbyt dużego podobieństwa (np. podobnie silna preferencja dominacji). W naszym badaniu 203 uczestników oceniło własne preferencje kontroli oraz postrzegane preferencje kontroli ich bezpośrednich przełożonych. Wyniki regresji wielomianowej wykazały, że zadowolenie z pracy było tym wyższe, im bardziej pracownik był dopasowany do lidera pod względem preferencji partnerstwa, ale jedynie dla wysokiego poziomu tej preferencji. Wbrew naszym oczekiwaniom to podobieństwo, a nie odmienność preferencji dla dominacji pomiędzy pracownikami i ich liderami przewidywało większe zadowolenie z pracy wśród pracowników. Zadowolenie z pracy było też wyższe, gdy przywódcy byli postrzegani jako mający większy szacunek dla autonomii, niezależnie od poziomu reaktancji pracowników. Wreszcie, zadowolenie z pracy wzrastało wraz ze wzrostem zarówno samokontroli pracownika, jak i szacunku lidera dla jego autonomii.

EN

Control preferences differentiate people with regard to their inclination towards a certain division of control in an interdependent situation. Social situations that block one’s capability to exert a preferred type of control can be evaluated as unpleasant and provoke their abandonment. We hypothesized that incompatibility of control preferences between leaders and followers would result in diminished job satisfaction among the followers. Such incompatibility could stem from either discrepancy between leader-follower control preferences (e.g. a discrepant preference for collaboration) or too great a similarity (e.g. a similarly strong preference for domination). In our study, 203 participants rated their own control preferences and the perceived control preferences of their immediate supervisors. The results of polynomial regression with response surface analysis showed that job satisfaction was higher when a follower was aligned with a leader at a high level of collaboration preference rather than at a low level of collaboration preference. Contrary to our expectations, a similarity rather than a dissimilarity in dominance between employees and their leaders predicted higher job satisfaction among employees. Job satisfaction was higher when leaders were perceived as having greater respect for autonomy, regardless of the follower’s reactive autonomy. Finally, job satisfaction increased as both the follower’s proactive autonomy and the leader’s respect for autonomy increased.

Keywords

EN

person-supervisor fit; person-environment fit; control preferences; job satisfaction; supplementary fit; complementary fit

PL

dopasowanie człowiek-przełożony; dopasowanie człowiek-środowisko; preferencje kontroli; satysfakcja z pracy; dopasowanie suplementarne; dopasowanie komplementarne

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Studia i Materiały
• Year: 2018
• Issue: 2(29), cz. 2
• Pages: 18-32

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Anna Olga Kuzmińska

• Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw

• https://orcid.org/0000000260604549

author

Daniel Pazura

• Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw

References

• Bajcar, B., Borkowska, A., Czerw, A., & Gąsiorowska, A. (2011), Satysfakcja z pracy w zawodach z misją społeczną. Psychologiczne uwarunkowania. Gdańsk: GWP.
• Byza, O.A.U., Schuh, S.C., Dörr, S.L., Spörrle, M., & Maier, G.W. (2017). Are two cynics better than one? Toward understanding effects of leader–follower (in-)congruence in social cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1246–1259. https:// doi.org/10.1002/job.2200.
• Bretz, R.D., & Judge, T.A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32–54.
• Colbert, A.E., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Bradley, B.H., & Barrick, M.R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159495.
• Doliński, D. (1993). Orientacja defensywna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Psychologii PAN.
• Follmer, E.H., Talbot, D.L., Kristof-Brown, A., Astrove, S.L., & Billsberry, J. (2017). Resolution, relief, and resignation: a qualitative study of responses to misfit at work. Academy of Management
• Journal, 61(2). amj.2014.0566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0566.
• Giberson, T.R., Dickson, M.W., & Resick, C.J. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
• 90(5), 1002–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1002.
• Glomb, T.M., & Welsh, E.T. (2005). Can opposites attract? Personality heterogeneity in supervisor-subordinate dyads as a predictor of subordinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 749–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.749.
• Grzelak, J. (2001). Control preferences. In J.A. Bargh & D.K. Apsley (Eds.), Unraveling the complexities of social life (pp. 141–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Grzelak, J. (2002). O orientacjach kontroli. In J. Brzeziński & H. Sęk (Eds.), Kolokwia Psychologiczne: Vol. 10. Psychologia w obliczu nadchodzących przemian społeczno-kulturowych. Warszawa: Instytut Psychologii PAN.
• Grzelak, J. (2005). Social motivation: Are we better now than then? International Journal of Sociology, 34(4), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2004.11043139.
• Grzelak, J.Ł., Kuhlman, D.M., Yeagley, E., & Joireman, J.A. (2009). Attraction to prospective dyadic relationships: Effects of fate control, reflexive control, and partner’s trustworthiness. In R.M. Kramer, M.H. Bazerman, & A.E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Social decision making: Social dilemmas, social values, and ethical judgments (pp. 205–237). New York: Psychology Press.
• Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M.R., & Stevens, C.K. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 935-957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00334.x.
• Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, personorganization, person-group, and person-supervisor FIT. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.
• Kuzminska, A., Schulze, D., & Koval, A., (2018). Who doesn’t want to share leadership? The role of control preferences, personality, and political orientation in preference for shared vs. focused leadership in teams. Management Challenges in the Era of Globalization. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe WZ UW.
• Levine, J.M., & Moreland, R.L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000093.
• Matthew Montoya, R., Horton, R.S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700.
• Modrzejewska, I. (2004). Satysfakcja zawodowa, wartości zawodowe a preferencje kontroli u pracowników zatrudnionych w organizacji prywatnej i państwowej (unpublished master’s thesis). Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
• Muchinsky, P.M., & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1.
• Neuman, G.A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N.D. (1999). The relationship between work team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Managment, 24(1), 28–45.
• Oh, I.S., Han, J.H., Holtz, B., Kim, Y.J., & Kim, S.(2018). Do birds of a feather flock, fly, and continue to fly together? The differential and cumulative effects of attraction, selection, and attrition on personality- based within-organization homogeneity and between-organization heterogeneity progression over ti. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (February 2017), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2304.
• Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
• Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S.S.K. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069428.
• Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x.
• Schneider, B., Goldstiein, H.W., & Smith, D.B. (1995). The ASA framework: An Update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x.
• Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad arethe effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001.
• Shanok, L.R., Baran, B.E., Gentry, W.A., Pattison, S.C., & Heggestad, E.D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4.
• Shanok, L.R., Baran, B.E., Gentry, W.A., Pattison, S.C., & Heggestad, E.D. (2014). Erratum to: Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 543–554. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4.
• Spector, P.E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1094428105284955.
• Vianen, A.E.M. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702.
• Vianen, A.E.M. (2000). Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 113–149. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00196.x.
• Witt, L.A. (1998). Enhancing organizational goal congruence: A solution to organizational politics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.666.
• Youyou, W., Stillwell, D., Schwartz, H.A., & Kosinski, M. (2017). Birds of a feather do flock together: Behavior-based personality-assessment method reveals personality similarity among couples and friends. Psychological Science, 28(3), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678187.
• Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0865.

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1733-9758.2018.29.2

Biblioteka Nauki

2188978