• No results found

Are supervisors the key to engaged employees? : a study about the relationship between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement mediated by interpersonal trust and moderated by New Ways of Worki

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Are supervisors the key to engaged employees? : a study about the relationship between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement mediated by interpersonal trust and moderated by New Ways of Worki"

Copied!
40
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

ARE SUPERVISORS THE KEY TO ENGAGED EMPLOYEES?

A study about the relationship between Supervisor-Subordinate

Communication and Employee Work Engagement mediated by

Interpersonal Trust and moderated by New Ways of Working.

Author: Quirine van Hasselt Student ID: 11110066

Master Thesis University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication

Master’s programme Communication Science; Corporate communication (MSc) Supervisor: MW. L. Helfer

(2)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

1

ABSTRACT

Consequences of employee work engagement have been explored for many years. However, less attention has yet been paid to the antecedents of this concept such as the communication between supervisors and subordinates. The present study investigated the relationship between four dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication (positive relationship-, upward openness-, negative relationship-, and job-relevant - communication) and employee work engagement. Furthermore, it was explored whether this relationship was based on interpersonal trust, and strengthened by new ways of working (NWW). The results of a survey study (N = 133) in the Netherlands showed that all four supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions predicted employee work engagement. A high level of employee work engagement was established or maintained when positive relationship-, upward openness-, job-relevant- communication were highly present and negative relationship

communication was minimized. Furthermore, this relationship was partly mediated by interpersonal trust for the dimensions upward openness- and job-relevant-

communication and fully mediated by interpersonal trust for negative relationship communication. Indicating that the relationship between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement was partly based, or completely based on interpersonal trust. Additionally, this research examined if NWW strengthened the relationship between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement. Results showed that NWW did not have an effect on the relationship between upward openness- and job-relevant- communication in

relationship and employee work engagement. The regression analysis did find an effect of NWW on negative relationship communication and partly on positive relationship communication in relationship with employee work engagement however, this effect was negative.

Keywords: employee work engagement, supervisor-subordinate communication, interpersonal trust and new ways of working

(3)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

2

INTRODUCTION

Employees are the most essential ingredient for effectiveness and efficiency in an organization according to Mosadegh Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006). Therefore, the belief of getting employees engaged with their work is becoming more salient (Avolio et al., 2009). Prior research on this topic paid much attention to the

consequences of employee work engagement and little attention to the antecedents of the concept (Gerards & de Grip, 2015; Mahon et al., 2015). One of the most

significant factors that can establish engaged employees is supervisor-subordinate communication (Agarwal et al., 2012; Attridge, 2009). However, this relationship might solely exist when interpersonal trust is established (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011). Adding interpersonal trust between the concepts of supervisor-subordinate

communication has not yet been investigated. Though, based on the study of Thomas et al. (2009) it can be argued that supervisors are able to build interpersonal trust with their subordinates by communicating effectively. When interpersonal trust is

established, subordinates develop a ‘‘greater confidence and effort in their work, which leads to a higher level of work engagement’’ (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008, p. 57).

Alongside the changes in salience of employee work engagement are the changes in organizational structures in current times (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012).

During the mid nineties, organizations were slowly changing their structure from traditional working designs into more flexible designs (Croucher & Brewster, 1998). Organizations today still adapt to the changes in the environment by implementing flexibility under the name of new ways of working (NWW) (Russo & Tencati, 2009). However, the changes that come with NWW do not solely affect organizations, it has

(4)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

3

an effect on employees as well, which according to Gerards and de Grip (2015) is a scarce perspective within NWW research.

Considering its increasing popularity, NWW will be implemented more often (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). Therefore, more research is needed to help both organizations and employees in the future with the challenges that arise with NWW and its effect on concepts such as supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement. Communication in traditional working designs is often stressed as important, however, communication in a structure of NWW is highly significant as well. Supervisors and subordinates do not see each other every day (Croucher & Brewster, 1998; Johnson, 2004), which might influence the

communication between a supervisor and a subordinate and consequently also the level of employee work engagement.

Findings of this study can advise organizations on which elements supervisors should focus on when establishing an effective communication relationship with their subordinates in order to keep their employees engaged, both in traditional working designs as in a structure of NWW.

In sum, the purpose of current study is to fill the gaps of both the shortfall of attention on the antecedents of employee work engagement and the thus far exclusion of the concepts of interpersonal trust and NWW in research on supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement. Based on this desire, the following research question is proposed: What is the relationship between

supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement; is this relationship based on interpersonal trust, and to what extend is this relationship strengthened by NWW?

(5)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

4

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Work engagement

Organizations are getting more and more interested in the importance of employee work engagement (Attridge, 2009). Nearly three decades ago, employee work

engagement was first referred to by Kahn (1990) as ‘‘the harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles’’ (p.694). Since then, employee work

engagement is often defined as the ‘‘work-related state that is characterized by three dimensions; vigor, dedication and absorption’’ (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p.295). Vigor refers to ‘‘the willingness to devote effort in one’s work, the feeling of high levels of energy while working, and the mind-set to endure working even during difficulties’’ (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p.295). Identifying with one’s work together with feeling significant, enthusiastic, inspired, proud and challenged refers to

dedication (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Absorption indicates being completely concentrated and joyfully consumed in one’s work, the feeling that time passes rapidly, and having difficulty with disentanglement from one’s work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Regardless of extensive research on exploring the concept of employee work engagement and its consequences, fewer empirical attention has been paid to the antecedents of employee work engagement (Gerards & de Grip, 2015; Mahon et al., 2015). The variables supervisor-subordinate communication, interpersonal trust, and NWW include several aspects of these antecedents, which are discussed in the following sections.

(6)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

5

The relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate is highly important as subordinates see their immediate supervisor as a ‘‘representative of their organization’’ (Agarwal et al., 2012, p.211). Communication is the core of this relationship, which supervisors should use effectively as they play a ‘‘critical role in shaping employees’ attitudes and behaviors’’ (Tymon et al., 2011, p. 294).

Supervisor-subordinate communication is often described as ‘‘exchanging information and influence among organizational members where one of those

members has official authority to direct and evaluate other members of organizational activities’’ (Jablin, 1979 p.1202). Authors who investigated supervisor-subordinate communication (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Huseman et al., 1980) developed several dimensions of communication that may appear between supervisor-subordinate relationships over the years. Miles et al. (1996) tested the dimensions of both studies and developed four independent dimensions of supervisor-subordinate

communication, which are used in this study as well, namely; positive relationship communication, upward openness communication, negative relationship

communication, and job-relevant communication (Miles et al., 1996; Abu Bakar, 2010). Miles et al. (1996) defined the dimensions as followed:

Positive relationship communication focuses on supervisor seeking

suggestions from subordinates, being interested in them as people, relating to them in a casual manner, and allowing them to contribute input on important decisions. Upward openness communication is characterized by the

opportunity to question a supervisor’s instructions to disagree with a supervisor. Negative relationship communication deals with supervisors’ ridiculing subordinates and criticizing them in the presence of others. Job-relevant communication includes a supervisor’s feedback on performance,

(7)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

6

information about rules and policies, job instructions, work assignments and schedules, and goals. (p.280).

Although these four dimensions reflect both work and social aspects in supervisor-subordinate communication (Abu Bakar, 2010), they do not necessarily all exist in every relationship. According to Wayne and Ferris (1990), supervisors establish ‘‘different quality exchange relationships’’ with subordinates, which stay fairly solid over time (p.487). Abu Bakar et al. (2010) agreed with the argument that supervisors have dissimilar relationships with different subordinates. The scholars explained that affect, integrity, and/or professional appreciation play a part, and vary within the relationships between a supervisor and his/her subordinates (Abu Bakar et al., 2010). As supervisors and subordinates develop different relationships, it is assumed that the communication between individuals with these separate roles differs as well (Abu Bakar et al, 2010). The variation in communication styles may lead to different levels of work engagement, which is explored in the next section.

Supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement

Prior research on the two constructs suggested that the quality of the supervisor-subordinate communication influences employee work engagement (Agarwal et al., 2012; Bhatnagar, 2007). Agarwal et al. (2012) investigated organizational members in six organizations in India using a survey approach and concluded that high quality communication exchanges increased the willingness of subordinates to devote efforts and abilities to perform job related tasks. Attridge (2009) reviewed several case studies and academic sources to investigate employee work engagement and related constructs such as supervisor-subordinate communication. Attridge (2009) stated that organizations with effective supervisor-subordinate communication were four times

(8)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

7

more likely to have employees who are engaged with their work in comparison to organizations with ineffective supervisor-subordinate communication.

The four supervisor-subordinate dimensions have not yet been studied in relationship with employee work engagement. However, prior research using survey methods in the United States (Miles et al., 1996) and Malaysia (Abu Bakar et al., 2010), investigated the four dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication in relationship with job satisfaction (Miles et al., 1996) and employee commitment (Abu Bakar et al., 2010). This study can use the studies of Miles et al. (1996) and Abu Bakar et al. (2010) as both job satisfaction and employee commitment can be

resembled to the concept of employee work engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Newman & Harrison, 2008). Results of the studies by Miles et al. (1996) and Abu Bakar et al. (2010) showed that all four supervisor–subordinate communication dimensions predicted job satisfaction and employee commitment. Positive relationship communication, upward openness communication, and job-relevant communication should be increased to establish a positive level of job satisfaction and commitment and negative relationship communication should be reduced (Miles et al., 1996; Abu Bakar et al., 2010). Based on these studies it was reasonable to assume that all four dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication were associated with employee work engagement. Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed:

H1 Supervisor-subordinate communication is associated with employee work engagement.

H1 a: Positive relationship communication is positively linked to employee work engagement:

(9)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

8

H1 b: Upward openness communication is positively linked to employee work engagement.

H1 c: Negative relationship communication is negatively linked to employee work engagement.

H1 d: Job-related communication is positively linked to employee work engagement.

Interpersonal trust, supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement

Prior research argued that the relationship between supervisor-subordinate

communication and employee work engagement might not hold without interpersonal trust (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011). Interpersonal trust is understood by ‘‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’’ (Mayer et al., 1995, p.712). In order for an employee to fully trust their supervisor, the employee needs to be convinced about three attributes their supervisor might possess namely, ability, benevolence, integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). Ability characterizes certain skills and competence, benevolence reflects the willingness to want to do good, and integrity refers to a set of principles of the supervisor that the employee finds adequate (Mayer et al., 1995).

According to Thomas et al. (2009), supervisors are able to give employees the opportunity to establish trust by providing them with accurate information. However, this information needs to be communicated effectively. The results of a survey study by Thomas et al. (2009) showed that the higher the quality of supervisor-subordinate communication, the higher the level of interpersonal trust was measured.

Furthermore, not providing employees with solid information will reduce interpersonal trust (Thomas et al., 2009).

(10)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

9

Apart from the direct relationship between supervisor-subordinate

communication and interpersonal trust is the evidence that interpersonal trust predicts employee work engagement (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Chughtai & Buckley, 2008). According to Chughtai and Buckley (2008), employee work engagement can be increased if employees trust the competence and capability of their supervisor. This trust will give employees the assurance that they have the ‘‘resources to successfully achieve their desired work goals’’, which will develop more confidence and effort in their work and therefore a greater work engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008, p. 57). Dirks and Ferrin (2002) discovered a similar finding and stated that a high level of trust leads to engaged employees who develop more positive behaviors and attitudes on the work floor than a low level of trust.

That interpersonal trust may mediate the relationship between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement can be based on the study of Hassan and Ahmed (2011). These authors investigated via a survey study whether interpersonal trust mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and employee work engagement and found a partially mediating effect. This leadership style promotes effective communication between supervisors and subordinates (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011), which aligns with the objective of a high quality supervisor-subordinate communication style that in turn might lead to employee work engagement (Attridge, 2009).

Based on the literature discussed above, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H2: Interpersonal trust will mediate the direct relationship between subordinate communication and work engagement: High quality

(11)

supervisor-GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

10

subordinate communication is most likely linked to interpersonal trust, which in turn leads to employee work engagement.

New ways of working, supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement

Since the late nineties, a comprehensive growth in implementing a structure of new ways of working in organizations was measured according to Croucher and Brewster (1998). NWW allows employees to flexibly construct their work in both time and location (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). NWW comes with challenges, such as blurring work-family boundaries, the idea that work never stops, and exhaustion (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; Gerards & de Grip, 2015), and advantages, including more employee control, efficient use of time, fewer interruptions, and job stress (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; Baruch, 2000; Johnson, 2004; Kurkland & Baily, 1999).

Considering that by implementing NWW the entire structure of an

organization changes, the communication changes as well. Studies on NWW often mention that within such an environment, communication is highly important due to the fact that supervisors and subordinates do not see each other everyday (Croucher & Brewster, 1998; Peters et al., 2010). Supervisor-subordinate communication is highly important, as it is not automatically present within a structure of NWW. Skilled communicators who know how to work with new communication technologies, often together implemented with NWW, are needed to work in organizations using this new structure (Kurkland & Baily, 1999).

NWW may strengthen supervisor-subordinate communication in a greater amount than working in traditional arrangements as it establishes open structures within organizations (Blok et al., 2012). An open structure stimulates ‘‘sufficient

(12)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

11

communication and facilitates an easier exchange of knowledge and skills’’ (Van der Voordt, 2004, p.134). Within these open structures, the chance that the three positive dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication (positive relationship

communication, upward openness communication, and job-relevant communication) by Miles et al. (1996) will have a bigger impact on work engagement compared to traditional work designs becomes more likely. This in turn will lead to a higher level of employee work engagement, assumed based on the studies of Abu Bakar et al. (2010) and Miles et al. (1996).

Built on the discussed literature that namely mentioned positive contributions of NWW, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H3: New ways of working moderates the relationship between

supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement: Working in a structure of NWW strengthens the association between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement in comparison to working in a non-NWW structure.

Conceptual model

Figure 1. Conceptual model of supervisor-subordinate communication, employee work

(13)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

12

The hypothesized relationships between the research variables are illustrated in the conceptual model in figure 1. Prior research has stressed the importance of

demographic characteristics when investigating employee work engagement and supervisor-subordinate communication. For instance, according to the survey study of Schaufeli et al. (2006) age was linked to a higher level of employee work

engagement. Furthermore, Schaufeli et al. (2006) discovered that being a subordinate came with a lower level of employee work engagement. Therefore, age and role in organization (if participants were also a supervisor themselves besides being a subordinate) were added in the conceptual model as control variables during the analyses.

METHODOLOGY

Sample

This study targeted participants with a full-time, part-time or internship contract within a corporate organization. In total, 200 participants started the questionnaire and 153 participants completed the questionnaire, which brings a dropout rate of 24%. However, to perform the analysis, solely answers of participants that had a supervisor could be used. A control question was used to check whether participants had a supervisor or not and it appeared that 20 participants needed to be left out of the sample. In total, 133 useful questionnaires were used in the analysis (N = 133). The sample consisted of 90 females and 43 males. The age of the participants differed from 20 to 53 (M = 27.17, SD = 5.28). Most participants were between 22 and 29 years old. Furthermore, participants overall had a high level of education. 43,6% of

(14)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

13

the participants finished a Bachelor degree including HBO or WO (N = 58). 54,1% finished a Master or Research Master degree (N = 72). 2,3% finished a high school degree (N = 3). The contract that participants hold within their organization was more dispersed namely, 56,4% was in the possession of a full-time contract (N = 75), 23,3% owned a part-time contract (N = 31), and 20,3% of the participants had an internship contract within their organization (N= 27). Of the participants, 100% had a supervisor to report to (N = 133). Besides having a supervisor, 24,8% of these

participants had subordinates to supervise (N = 33). The months of employment differed from 1 to 180 (M = 24.25, SD = 32.67). 53% of the participants were employed for 12 months or less, and 47% percent were employed for 13 months or more. When asked if participants worked in a structure of NWW, 59,4% answered yes (N = 79), 38,3% answered no (N = 51), and 2,3% answered I do not know (N = 3).

Design and procedure

This cross-sectional study was conducted between the 15th of April and the 15th of May 2016 in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was made in Qualtrics and consisted of 64 questions, which the participants had to fill in individually. Before answering the questionnaire, participants were first informed about the procedure and were ensured that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and that they could withdraw at any moment.

The online survey was distributed on social network sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn and via personal networks. To ensure the possibility to test the moderator of NWW, the questionnaire was sent to contacts that work at organizations that

(15)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

14

Philips. These organizations implemented completely or partially a structure where location and hours are not bounded to fixed office locations or time.

Due to the fact that the questionnaires were distributed on social network sites and sent to several e-mail addresses, this study had a non-probability convenience sample.

Measures

The dependent variable supervisor-subordinate communication was measured using the scale developed by Miles et al. (1996). This variable was divided into four dimensions; positive relationship communication, upward openness communication, negative relationship communication and job-relevant communication. Each of the dimensions had 6 items (the complete scales are attached in the appendix). All question items of the four scales were scored on a seven-point frequency scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scale used for positive

relationship communication included the questions: I think my supervisor asks me about my interests outside of work and I think that my supervisor jokes good-naturedly with me. A reliability analysis was completed that showed that the scale could be averaged on all six items (α = .90, M = 5.21, SD = 1.09). The scale used for upward openness communication contained the questions: I tell my supervisor when I think things are being done wrong and I tell my supervisor about my work problems. The reliability analysis showed again that the scale was reliable and could be

aggregated on all six items (α = .79, M = 5.17, SD = .79). The scale for negative relationship communication incorporated the questions: I think my supervisor ridicules me or makes fun of me and I think my supervisor is critical of me as a person. Four items were reversed coded and with the four recoded items and the two

(16)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

15

remaining items a reliability analysis was performed. This analysis demonstrated a moderate reliability. However, the negative relationship communication scale is a highly reputable and often used scale (Miles et al., 1996; Abu Bakar et al., 2010). Therefore, the decision was made to include all items for the reliability analysis, which also showed that the Cronbach’s alpha could not have been increased

substantially by excluding one item. The ultimate scale was averaged on all six items (α = .61, M = 4.97, SD = .84). The job-relevant communication scale included the questions: I think my supervisor gives clear instructions to me and I think my

supervisor informs me about future plans for me in the group. The reliability analysis showed that no items should have been excluded. Therefore, the scale was averaged on all six items (α = .90, M = 5.26, SD = 1.02).

The independent variable, employee work engagement was measured using the scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). This scale consisted of 9 items that represent the three constructs of employee work engagement; vigor, dedication, and absorption. Example questions are: At my work, I feel bursting with energy (vigor), My job inspires me (dedication), and I get carried away when I am working

(absorption) (for full scale see appendix). The items on the scale were scored on a seven-point frequency scale rating from 1 (never) to 7 (always). A reliability analysis was conducted and showed that the scale could be averaged on all nine items (α = .93, M = 5.11, SD = 1.00).

Interpersonal trust was measured by using the scale of Mayer and Davis (1999). The scale consisted of 17 items that were based on the three trustworthiness dimensions of Mayer et al. (1995); ability, benevolence, and integrity. The scale included the questions; My supervisor is very capable of performing his/her job and My supervisor would not knowingly do anything to hurt me and I never have to

(17)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

16

wonder whether top management will stick to its word (for full scale see appendix). The items on the scale were scored on a seven-point frequency scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). With the 17 items a reliability analysis was performed. The analysis showed that excluding an item made no substantial

difference in the Cronbach’s Alpha, therefore all 17 items were aggregated in the scale (α = .96, M = 5.31, SD =1.01).

New ways of working was measured using the scale developed by Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012). The scale used in this study contained five items, which included the questions; I can decide myself when I begin the workday and I work at locations that are convenient to me (the complete scale is attached in the appendix). The items on the scale were scored on a seven-point frequency scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability analysis revealed that no item should be excluded. The NWW scale was aggregated on all 5 items (α = .89, M = 4.09, SD = 1.65).

Control variables

Alongside the main research variables, this study controlled for both age and role in organization (whether participants were a supervisor or solely a subordinate). The variable age was measured in years and a dummy variable was created for role in organization (supervisor = 0, subordinate = 1).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and correlations

(18)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

17

the control variables are shown in Table 1. The correlations between the main research variables were particularly positive and showed mostly significant results. Exceptions were the supervisor-subordinate dimensions upward openness

communication and negative relationship communication (r = 1.00, p = .254), and the correlation between negative relationship communication and NWW (r = .08, p = .355). The control variables correlated less with the other variables compared to the main research variables. Age for instance, solely correlated with one of the

supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions namely job relevant communication (r = .19, p = .028).

Table 1

Mean, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of the research variables

Note. N = 133. SSC = supervisor-subordinate communication, PRC = positive relationship

communication, UOC = upward openness communication, NRC = negative relationship communication, JRC = job relevant communication, E. work engagement = employee work engagement.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

(19)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

18

The first hypothesis that was formulated stated that supervisor-subordinate communication was associated with employee work engagement. This umbrella hypothesis was divided into four sub-hypotheses that complemented the four supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions. The first sub-hypothesis (H1a) suggested that positive relationship communication was positively linked to employee work engagement. The second sub-hypothesis (H1b) proposed that upward openness communication was positively linked to employee work engagement. The third sub-hypothesis (H1c) expected that negative relationship communication was negatively linked to employee work engagement. The last sub-hypothesis (H1d) suggested that job-relevant communication was positively linked to employee work engagement. To answer these hypotheses, four single linear regression analyses were conducted (see Table 2). The regression model with employee work engagement as dependent variable and positive relationship communication as independent variable was significant, F(1, 131) = 45.06, p < .001 with an R2 of .26. Positive relationship communication had a significant association with employee work engagement, b = .46, b* = .51, t = 6.71, p < .001, 95% CI [.33, .60]. The participants’ level of work engagement increased by .46 for each level of positive relationship communication. As the results proved significant, H1a was supported.

The regression model with employee work engagement as dependent variable and upward openness communication as independent variable showed a significant equation as well, F(1, 131) = 20.21 p < .001 with an R2 of .13. The level of work engagement increased by .47 for each increasing level of upward openness communication, b = .47, b* = .37, t = 4.50, p < .001, 95% CI [.26, .67]. H1b was confirmed based on the significant results.

(20)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

19

The regression model with employee work engagement as dependent variable and negative relationship communication as independent variable demonstrated a significant result, F(1, 131) = 6.58, p = .010 with an R2 of .05. Negative relationship communication had a significant association with employee work engagement, b = .26, b* = .22, t = 2.57, p = .010, 95% CI [.06, .46]. For each level negative

relationship communication increased, the level of employee work engagement increased by .26. As negative relationship communication was recoded before the analysis, a high and positive score on this variable meant that there was little negative relationship communication present in the communication between the supervisor and the subordinate. Based on this result, H1c was confirmed.

The regression model with employee work engagement as dependent variable and job-relevant communication as independent variable showed a significant result, F(1, 131) = 27.63, p < .001 with an R2 of .17. Job-relevant communication had a significant association with employee work engagement, b = .41, b* = .42, t = 5.26, p < .001, 95% CI [.25, .56]. The level of work engagement increased by .41 for each increased level of job-relevant communication. As the results proved significant, H1d was supported.

In sum, all four supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions were linked to employee work engagement as shown in Table 2. Therefore, the umbrella hypothesis 1 was confirmed.

The regression models of the relationships between the four dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement were all controlled for by age and role in organization. Both age and role in organization yielded interesting results (see Table 5 in appendix). On the association between each of the four supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions and employee work

(21)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

20

engagement, age had a positive significant result. The variable role in organization, being a supervisor or not, had an influence as well on the relationship between each of the four supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions and employee work engagement, however this association became negative.

Table 2

Regression Analyses with Predictors of Employee Work Engagement

Note. N = 133. CI = confidence interval.SSC = supervisor-subordinate communication, PRC = positive relationship communication, UOC = upward openness communication, NRC = negative relationship communication, JRC = job relevant communication.

Table representing the separate linear regression models of the associations between the four SSC dimensions and employee work engagement.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The second hypothesis proposed that interpersonal trust mediated the

relationship between the supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions and work engagement: High quality supervisor-subordinate communication most likely fosters interpersonal trust, which in turn leads to employee work engagement. To answer this hypothesis four multiple regression analyses were conducted with employee work engagement as dependent variable and each of the supervisor-subordinate

communication dimensions and interpersonal trust as predictors. The regression models of the three dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication showed

(22)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

21

significant results; positive relationship communication, F(2, 130) = 23.93, p < .001 with an R2 of .27, upward openness communication, F(2, 130) = 18.37, p < .001 with an R2 of .22, and job-relevant communication, F(2, 130) = 17.79, p < .001 with an R2 of .22. However, as shown in Table 3, interpersonal trust was insignificant in the model with positive relationship communication, b = .36, b* = .40, t = 3.82, p < .001, 95% CI [.18, .55], and employee work engagement. Therefore, in this case

interpersonal trust was not a significant mediator between the relationship of positive relationship communication and employee work engagement. Furthermore, both upward openness communication, b = .26, b* = .21, t = 2.36, p = .020, 95% CI [.04, .49], and job-relevant communication, b = .22, b* = .23, t = .2.14, p = .034, 95% CI [.02, .43], appeared to have a significant association with employee work engagement when interpersonal trust was added. However, as shown in Table 3, the

unstandardized coefficients of the three dimensions became smaller. Therefore, interpersonal trust partially mediated the relationship between both dimensions of

supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement.

The multiple regression model with employee work engagement as dependent variable and negative relationship communication and interpersonal trust as predictors showed again a significant equation, F(2, 130) = 15.15, p < .001 with an R2 of .19. However, the association of negative relationship communication and employee work engagement, b = .06, b* = .41, t = .56, p = .575, 95% CI [-.15, .26], became

insignificant when the variable interpersonal trust was added (see Table 3). Thus, interpersonal trust had a full mediating effect on the relationship between negative relationship communication and employee work engagement. Based on these results H2 was not confirmed for positive relationship communication, partially confirmed

(23)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

22

for upward openness - and job-relevant communication, and fully confirmed for negative relationship communication.

Table 3

Regression Analyses with Predictors of Employee Work engagement including Interpersonal Trust as Mediator

Note. N = 133. CI = confidence interval.SSC = supervisor-subordinate communication, PRC = positive relationship communication, UOC = upward openness communication, NRC = negative relationship communication, JRC = job relevant communication.

Table representing the separate multiple regression models of the associations between the four SSC dimensions and employee work engagement with the inclusion of interpersonal trust as mediator. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The moderating hypothesis expected that working in a structure of NWW increased the association between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement in comparison to working in a traditional structure. To answer H3, four multiple linear regressions were conducted with employee work engagement as dependent variable and each of the four supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions, NWW, and the interaction effects with the four dimensions and NWW as predictors. The regression models of each supervisor-subordinate communication dimension were significant; positive relationship communication,F(3, 129) = 20.77, p < .001 with an R2 of .33, upward openness

(24)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

23

communication, F(3, 129) = 13.16, p < .001 with an R2 of .23, and job-relevant

communication, F(3, 129) = 13.07, p < .001 with an R2 of .23. However, the

interaction effects of both, upward openness communication, b = .05, b* = .47, t = -.93, p = .355, 95% CI [-.15, .05], and job-relevant communication, b = -.01, b* = -.09, t = -.19, p = .850, 95% CI [-.1, .08], were insignificant. The interaction effect of NWW and positive relationship communication showed a marginal significant result, b = -.07, b* = -.71, t = -1.82, p = .072, 95% CI [-.14, .01]. The interaction effect of negative relationship communication was proved to be significant, b = .16, b* = -1.44, t = -3.27, p < .001, 95% CI [-.25, -.06]. As shown in Table 4, the beta weights for both negative relationship communication and positive relationship

communication were negative. Indicating that the associations between these dimensions and employee work engagement decreased with -.07 for negative relationship communication and -.16 for positive relationship communication when each interaction effect was added. Figure 2 illustrates the interaction models of both dimensions. Based on these results, H3 was not supported.

Table 4

Regression Analyses with Predictors of Employee Work engagement including NWW as Moderator

(25)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

24

Note. N = 133. CI = confidence interval.SSC = supervisor-subordinate communication, PRC = positive relationship communication, UOC = upward openness communication, NRC = negative relationship communication, JRC = job relevant communication. NNW_SSC = interaction variable between NWW and one of the SSC dimensions.

Table representing the separate multiple regression models of the associations between the four SSC dimensions and employee work engagement with the inclusion of NWW as a moderator.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

When controlling the moderating role of NWW, it appeared that the variable role in organization influenced the moderating relationship of NWW between both negative relationship communication, F(4, 128) = 11.32, p < .001 with an R2 of .26 and positive relationship communication, F(4, 128) = 17.09, p < .001 with an R2 of .35, and employee work engagement. Negative relationship communication appeared to have decreased the work engagement level by .15 for subordinates compared to supervisors when working in a structure of NWW, b = -.15, b* = -.14, t = -3.10, p = .002, 95% CI [-.24, -.05]. Correspondingly positive relationship communication by .07, b = -.07, b* = -.76, t = -1.98, p = .050, 95% CI [-.15, .00].

Figure 2. Interaction models of SSC-NRC and SSC-PRC with NWW on employee work

engagement: interaction effect of SSC-NRC with NWW is significant (p < .01), interaction effect of SSC-PRC with NWW is marginal significant (p < .1).

(26)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

25

The desire of this study was to investigate the relationship between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement; whether this relationship was based on interpersonal trust, and whether it was strengthened by NWW. As mentioned in the introduction, prior research seemed to have neglected the antecedents that can establish employee work engagement (Gerards & de Grip, 2015; Mahon et al., 2015) such as supervisor-subordinate communication and interpersonal trust. Furthermore, investigating whether NWW strengthened the relationship

between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement has not yet been done. This study made an effort to try to fill this gap.

The findings of current study indicated that all four supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions predicted employee work engagement. The more positive relationship-, upward openness-, and job-relevant communication and the less

negative relationship communication were present, the more employees were engaged with their work. Thus, subordinates who experienced a high quality communication exchange between their supervisor and themselves experienced a higher degree of work engagement in comparison to subordinates who perceived a low quality communication exchange between their supervisor and themselves. These findings were in line with the findings of prior research on supervisor-subordinate

communication and employee work engagement. According to Agarwal et al. (2012), high quality supervisor-subordinate communication exchange increases the

willingness of subordinates to devote their effort and abilities to perform their work tasks. Furthermore, in this study these associations became stronger for participants who were older and reported being in a supervising position as well. These outcomes are consistent with the findings of Schaufeli et al. (2006) that ‘‘work engagement

(27)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

26

increased with age and that managers were more engaged than regular employees’’ (p.713).

This study also found that interpersonal trust partially mediated the association between upward openness-, and job-relevant- communication and employee work engagement and fully mediated the association between negative relationship communication and employee work engagement. Without some degree of interpersonal trust, the association between upward openness-, and job-relevant- communication and employee work engagement would not exist. The association between negative relationship communication and work engagement, where a high score meant that there was less negativity between the supervisor-subordinate communications, did not exist without interpersonal trust. This can be explained by the research of Mishra and Morrissey (1990), who found that participants view interpersonal trust as a ‘‘belief in the integrity, character, and ability of others, followed by the perception that interpersonal trust is a feeling of confidence and support shown’’ by the supervisors (p.443). When subordinates are being ridiculed and criticized, the belief in both the character of the supervisor and the feeling of confidence and support given by the supervisor is not present. In other words,

interpersonal trust is missing. Subordinates who feel unworthy or criticized will never devote time and effort in their work tasks (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008). These results confirm the findings of previous research, explaining that high quality communication came with interpersonal trust, which gave subordinates the assurance that they

possessed the ‘‘resources to successfully achieve their desired work goals’’, which led to a higher degree of work engagement (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008, p. 57).

The findings of the moderating role of NWW indicated that NWW influenced the association between negative relationship communication and employee work

(28)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

27

engagement and partially influenced the association between positive relationship communication and employee work engagement in a negative manner. Being a subordinate seemed to decrease the moderating effect of NWW and negative- and positive- relationship communication even further. Thus, working in a structure of NWW weakened the association between the two dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement in comparison to working in a non-NWW structure. Positive and negative relationship communication often deal with the social aspects of supervisor-subordinate communication, such as personal interests and addressing each other in a respectful and casual manner, as it is hinted by the term relationship in both dimensions (Miles et al., 1996). According to Markus (1994) social communication is best experienced through face-to-face communication, which is most present in traditional working arrangements when compared to a structure of NWW.

In sum, supervisor-subordinate communication predicted employee work engagement. This relationship was partly based on interpersonal trust for upward openness-, and job-relevant- communication and fully based on interpersonal trust for negative relationship communication. Working in a structure of NWW did not

influence the strength of the relationship between supervisor subordinate

communication and employee work engagement on the dimensions upward openness and job-relevant communication. However, NWW weakened the relationship between positive and negative relationship supervisor-subordinate communication and

employee work engagement.

(29)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

28

Several practical implications may be drawn from the conclusions of this study. In order to establish and maintain employee work engagement, organizations should stress the importance of high quality communication between their supervisors and subordinates. In this respect high quality communication means, being interested in each other, relating to each other in a casual manner (positive relationship

communication), to be able to question each other’s decisions and opinions (upward openness communication), addressing these questions or suggestions with respect and without criticizing each others in front of others (negative relationship

communication), and giving feedback and clear job instructions (job-relevant communication). However, first a base of interpersonal trust must be created. Supervisors could organize team-building activities, which might improve the communication between colleagues. During team building sessions, colleagues are able to get to know each other’s abilities, goodwill and integrity, which according to Mayer et al. (1995) will help to establish interpersonal trust. The need for

organizations to establish interpersonal trust and focus on high quality communication is argued by Johnson (2004) as well. With these two constructs an ‘‘organizations’ proficiency can be shown together with its survival in a structure of NWW’’

(Johnson, 2004, p.722). However, the results of this study proved that the relationship between supervisor-subordinate communication and employee work engagement was barely found while working in a structure of NWW. Therefore, organizations should attempt to keep the supervisor-subordinate communication in a structure of NWW similar to the way supervisors and subordinates would communicate in traditional working designs.

(30)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

29

This study focused mostly on subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor-subordinate communication and not the perceptions of the supervisors. The sample contained 20 participants who were supervisors themselves. However, their perspective as a

supervisor was not asked in the survey. The questions that the participants were asked to answer focused, also for these 20 participants, on the communication and

interpersonal trust between their supervisor and themselves. In order to analyze both sides of the supervisor-subordinate communication, future surveys should contain questions that will not only ask from a subordinate’s point of view. Another way to investigate both sides is by carrying out interviews.

Another limitation of current research was that the construct of NWW was based upon two aspects namely flexible time and flexible location. However, no attention has been paid to media technologies such as smart-phones, e-mail, videoconferences (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012), which according to Ten

Brummelhuis et al. (2012) is an important aspect of NWW. Media technologies are ways to communicate so it might have a significant influence on

supervisor-subordinate communication. Future research should explore the communication technology aspect of NWW.

The final limitation lies in the data collection of this study. As this study collected their data via a cross-sectional manner, it cannot speak of causal effects. In order to make causal assumptions, future research should collect data based on two time frames so it becomes a longitudinal study.

Another suggestion for future research is, as it is advised to focus on establishing a high quality communication relationship between supervisors and subordinates, to investigate which instruments organizations are able to use, such as

(31)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

30

job evaluations or remunerations, to stimulate their supervisors in creating a high quality communication relationship.

Concluding remarks

All in all, this study concluded that all four dimensions of supervisor-subordinate communication dimensions were linked to employee work engagement. Specifically, high quality supervisor-subordinate communication came with a high level of

employee work engagement, which was partly based on interpersonal trust. Furthermore, this relationship was more effective in traditional working designs compared to a structure of NWW. Thus, organizations should stimulate their

supervisors to communicate and build trusting relationships in a structure of NWW in the same way, as they would do in traditional working designs.

REFERENCES

Abu Bakar, H., Dilbeck, K. E., & McCroskey, J. C. (2010). Mediating role of supervisory communication practices on relations between leader–member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 637-656.

Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career Development International, 17(3), 208-230.

Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and managing employee work engagement: A review of the research and business literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4), 383-398.

(32)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

31

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449. Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals

and managers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 34-49.

Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key to retention. Employee relations, 29(6), 640-663. Blok, M. M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New ways of

working: does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes?. Work, 41(1), 2605-2610.

Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2008). Work engagement and its relationship with state and trait trust: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(1), 47.

Croucher, R., & Brewster, C. (1998). Flexible working practices and the trade unions. Employee Relations, 20(5), 443-452.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 611.

Gerards, R., & de Grip, A. (2015). New ways of working and work engagement(No. 002). Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).

Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6(3), 164-170.

Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., Boulton, W. R., & Gatewood, R. D. (1980).

(33)

Communication-GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

32

Performance Relationship. In Academy of Management proceedings 8(1), 178-182.

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior–subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological bulletin, 86(6), 1201.

Johnson, J. (2004). Flexible working: changing the manager's role. Management Decision, 42(6), 721-737.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations 2nd (ed.).

New York: Wiley.

Kurkland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). The advantages and challenges of working here, there anywhere, and anytime. Organizational dynamics, 28(2), 53-68. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.

Industrial and organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.

Mahon, E. G., Taylor, S. N., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2015). Antecedents of organizational engagement: exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a moderator. The Impact of Shared Vision on Leadership, Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship, 129.

Markus, M. L. (1994). Finding a happy medium: Explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 12(2), 119-149.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of applied psychology, 84(1), 123.

(34)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

33

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292.

Mishra, J., & Morrissey, M. A. (1990). Trust in employee/employer relationships: A survey of West Michigan managers. Public Personnel Management, 19(4), 443-486.

Mosadegh Rad, A. M., & Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006). A study of relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction.

Leadership in Health Services, 19(2), 11-28.

Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct “wines”. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 31-35.

Peters, P., den Dulk, L., & de Ruijter, J. (2010). May I work from home? Views of the employment relationship reflected in line managers' telework attitudes in six financial-sector organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An

International Journal, 29(5), 517-531.

Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2009). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 339-353.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

(35)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

34

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement?. Psicothema, 24(1), 113-120. Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication

in developing trust and its effects on employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication.

Tymon Jr, W. G., Stumpf, S. A., & Smith, R. R. (2011). Manager support predicts turnover of professionals in India. Career Development International, 16(3), 293-312.

Van der Voordt, T. J. (2004). Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(2), 133-148.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487.

(36)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

35

APPENDIX A: Results Table 5

(37)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

(38)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

37

APPENDIX B: Scales used in questionnaire.

Supervisor-subordinate communication – Miles et al. (1996) 1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

Positive relationship communication:

I think that my supervisor jokes good-naturedly with me

I think that my supervisor asks for my suggestions about how each work task could be done

I think my supervisor asks me about my interests outside of work I think my supervisor seeks my input on important decisions I think my supervisor strikes up casual conversations with me

I think my supervisor asks me for suggestions for improvements in my group Upward openness communication:

I question my supervisor’s instructions when I don’t understand them I tell my supervisor when I think things are being done wrong

I question my supervisor’s instructions when I think they are wrong I make suggestions to my supervisor about how work could be done

I think my supervisor asks for my suggestions about how work tasks could be done I tell my supervisor about my work problems

Negative relationship communication:

I think my supervisor ridicules me or makes fun of me I think my supervisor criticizes my work in front of others I think my supervisor is critical of me as a person

(39)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

38

I think my supervisor tells me how he/she disciplines his/her subordinates I think my supervisor admits to his/her mistakes

Job-relevant communication:

I think my supervisor gives me recognition for good work

I think my supervisor lets me know why changes are made in work assignments I think my supervisor keeps me informed about rules and policies

I think my supervisor gives clear instructions to me

I think my supervisor informs me about future plans for me in the group I think my supervisor tells me the reasons for work schedules

Employee Work engagement – Schaufeli et al. (2006) 1= never, 7 = always

At my work, I feel bursting with energy At my job, I feel strong and vigorous

When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work I am enthusiastic about my job

My job inspires me

I am proud of the work that I do

I feel happy when I am working intensely I am immersed in my work

I get carried away when I am working

Interpersonal trust scale – Mayer et al. (1995) 1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

(40)

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

39

My supervisor is known to be successful at the things he/she tries to do My supervisor has much knowledge about the work that needs to be done I feel very confident about my supervisor’s skills

My supervisor has specialized capabilities that can increase our performance My supervisor is well qualified

My supervisor is very concerned about my welfare

My needs and desires are very important to my supervisor My supervisor would not knowingly do anything to hurt me My supervisor really looks out for what is important to me My supervisor will go out of his/her way to help me My supervisor has a strong sense of justice

I never have to wonder whether my supervisor will stick to his/her word My supervisor tries hard to be fair in dealings with others

My supervisor’s actions and behaviors are not very consistent I like my supervisor’s values

Sound principles seem to guide my supervisor’s behavior

New ways of working - Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012) 1= strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

I can decide myself when I begin the workday I work at a time schedule that I plan myself I can decide where I work

I can decide the time slots I work in

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

A model of propagating rea tion fronts is given for simple auto atalyti.. rea tions and the stability of the propagating rea tion fronts

2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Kharagpur-721302, India (Received 3 March 2011; revised manuscript received 18 May 2011; published

Enes gaf aan meer bankjes en tafeltjes voor de huizen te zien staan…’Wat ook wel grappig is, dat zie je hier voor de deur als je naar beneden kijkt, je ziet steeds meer dat mensen

There could be noticed that studies about group effectiveness lead to negative effect if there is transformational leadership related differentiation, whereas in this review

In that sense, points within one pixel cannot have different labels, while the typical situation in the ALS point cloud is that points on a lower elevation are ground, while the

Finally, it was found that the low renin phenotype in this study is characterised by high blood pressure and a higher prevalence of hypertension (Table 1), and that the

equal to the sum of the adhesive layer thickness under the waveguides, the height of the waveguides and the height of the slab that is needed (figure 2) for the sample to operate

While methods that can quantify aneuploidy rates in interphase cells can be used to circumvent this bias, most of these methods cannot detect aneuploidies at the single cell