The effects of leaders’ communication styles on job satisfaction and job stress among employees

The effects of Leaders’ Communication Styles on Job Satisfaction and Job Stress among Employees

Carlijn E. van der Linden 10062270

Master’s program Corporate Comunication Universiteit van Amsterdam

Supervised by Jelle Boumans Date: 24/06/2016

Abstract

This research examines whether several leader communication styles (expressiveness, preciseness, and verbal aggressiveness) have an effect on job satisfaction and job stress among employees. It also examined whether this relationship will be enhanced or reduced by leader’s communication channels. Results provide insights in the field of leader

communication styles, which has not been examined thoroughly. Through an online survey, data is gathered (N =140) to use for the analysis. Based on multiple regression analyses, results show that two out of three leader communication styles, preciseness and verbal aggressiveness, have significant influence on job satisfaction and job stress. Preciseness enhances job satisfaction and, contrary to what was expected, enhances job stress. Verbal aggressiveness is found to reduce job satisfaction and enhance job stress among employees. Expressiveness did not have a significant influence on both work outcomes. Three weak moderating effects have been found, when controlling for leaders’ communication channels, age, sex, level of education, hours of working per week, and length of employment. When organization want to enhance job satisfaction among employees, their managers should be trained to be as precise as possible in explaining expectations and upcoming activities. Being verbally aggressive as a manager elicits job related stress among employees. Thus, managers are advised to be trained to lower their verbal aggressiveness to enhance job satisfaction, and reduce job related stress.

Keywords: Leader Communication styles, Job Satisfaction, Job Stress, Leader’s Communication Channels.

In 2014, one out of seven employees in The Netherlands suffered from a burnout (CBS, 2015). At least once a month they felt empty at the end of the day, emotionally

exhausted by the workload or tired when getting up to go to work (CBS, 2015). Especially in communication and financial services, burnout rates were the highest (CBS, 2015). Although a burnout is very unfortunate for an employee and its family members, it is also very costly for the organization to provide personal assistance, allowances or the re-integration of an employee (Jick & Payne, 1980). Thus, employers must take care of their employees to avoid these unnecessary costs and naturally, to avoid employees suffering from a burnout. Previous research has shown that job satisfaction and job stress are important predictors of a burn out (Griffin, Hogan, Lambert, Tucker-Gail, & Baker, 2009; Kalliath & Moore, 2002). It is therefore of great importance for managers to enhance high job satisfaction and avoid job stress among employees. Several authors have identified various factors that have an impact on these work outcomes, such as emotional support from supervisors (Firth, Mellor, Moore & Loquet, 2004), participation in decision making (Miller, Ellis, Zook & Lyles, 1990), and supportive communication (Ray & Miller, 1991). All these factors can be identified through managers’ communication styles, which will be the main focus of this research article. De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Konings and Schouten (2011) developed the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI), an instrument that measures communication styles, which in this study will be used to measure communication styles of leaders perceived by employees. In particular, this research will explore to what extent the leader communication styles expressiveness, preciseness and verbal aggressiveness relates positively or negatively to job satisfaction and job stress. Additionally, as we live in a world where different forms of technologies are used, this research also aims to examine whether this relationship is being enhanced or reduced by the media channel a leader uses to communicate with employees. Previous research has shown that when leaders use face-to-face channels to communicate with subordinates, this is

positively associated with employee satisfaction (Men, 2014). The outcomes/implications of this study can give advice to leaders regarding the most effective communication styles to use to enhance job satisfaction and reduce job stress among employees. Additionally, results may provide important insights into which communication channels are most effective in reaching employees. Moreover, the results can offer an extension to the scientific literature on the impact of leadership communication styles on work outcomes, as the CSI has never been used in a leadership context and the impact on work outcomes. The following research question has been formulated:

RQ: “To what extent are leadership communication styles related to job satisfaction and job

stress, and what is the role of media channel use of managers in this relationship?”

In order to answer this research question, a cross-sectional survey will be conducted among employees having a part-time job, fulltime job, or an internship in The Netherlands. First, the development of the CSI and leader communication styles will be explained in the literature overview, alongside the concepts of job satisfaction, job stress and leader communication channels. Based on the literature hypotheses will be developed. Next, the methods section will show how and in what context the research will be conducted. Subsequently, the results section will provide a description of the analysis of the survey and will provide an overview of the demographics. Finally, conclusions, limitations, future research and practical

implications will be provided in the discussion.

Literature overview

This section will elaborate on the different leader communication styles, explain the concepts of job satisfaction, job stress and job involvement, and elaborate on the different manners of communication leaders use.

Leadership communication styles

The way leaders communicate towards their subordinates has been found to influence the satisfaction levels of employees (Hicks, 2011). De Vries, Bakker-Pieper and Oostenveld (2010) define a leader’s communication style as “a distinctive set of interpersonal

communicative behaviors geared toward the optimization of hierarchical relationships in order to reach certain groups or individual goals” (p.386). These interpersonal

communicative behaviors revolve around communicative activities in interpersonal

relationships (De Vries et al., 2010). De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Siberg, van Gameren and Vlug (2009) identified seven leader communication styles by conducting a lexical study. The basis of a lexical study is that all words that can be said about a construct will be encoded in language (De Vries et al., 2010). Thus the authors used a sample of all dictionary words that were related to communication. After selecting adjectives and verbs that described

communication styles, a component analysis provided evidence of seven communication style dimensions: Preciseness, Reflectiveness, Expressiveness, Supportiveness, Emotionality, Niceness, and Threateningness, forming the acronym PRESENT (De Vries et al., 2010). With these dimensions a new communication style questionnaire, the Communication Styles Inventory (CSI) was developed by De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Konings and Schouten (2011). After testing several versions of a preliminary communication styles inventory, the authors discovered it was impossible to construct independent factors that aligned well with the communication style dimensions Threateningness, Niceness and Supportiveness (De Vries et al., 2011). The authors, therefore, decided to create one single overarching factor, which they named Verbal Aggressiveness (De Vries et al., 2011). In addition, De Vries et al. (2011) constructed a sixth factor to measure a deceptive communication style, which they named Impression Manipulativeness. The CSI thus represents six behavioral communication style dimensions: Expressiveness, Preciseness, Verbal Aggressiveness, Questioningness,

Emotionality, and Impression Manipulativeness. Expressiveness means a leader is talkative, can steer conversations easily, demonstrates a sense of humor, and has the ability to interact with others in an informal way (Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013). Preciseness refers to the ability to communicate in an organized, well-structured, and efficient way (Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013). Verbal Agressiveness is the overarching factor for the dimensions

threateningness, niceness and supportiveness. Threateningness refers to the use of negative connotations and is a reversed item. Niceness and supportiveness on the other hand, refer to the use of supportive and stimulating communication and being kind and thoughtful (De Vries et al., 2011). Questioningness was named Reflectiveness in the lexical study, and is a smaller factor that consists mainly of components engagement, analytical reflectiveness, and philosophical or poetic communication behaviors. Emotionality reflects adjectives with a negative connotation, such as sadness, irritability, anger, and tension (De Vries et al., 2011). Finally, Impression Manipulativeness refers to a more deceptive way of communicating, including the use of charm, ingratiation, and concealing information (De Vries et al., 2011). In this research, only the behavioral communication style dimensions ‘Expressiveness’, ‘Preciseness’, and ‘Verbal Aggressiveness’ will be taken into consideration. According to research by Bakker-Pieper and de Vries (2013), the dimensions Expressiveness and Preciseness are closely related to personality traits leaders have. Leaders that are highly expressive are more easily approachable and easier to interact with than with leaders with a low sense of expressiveness. Preciseness on the other hand, is associated with

conscientiousness, which is a significant contributor for subordinates’ perceived leader performance (Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013). Verbal Aggressiveness is the overarching factor for the dimensions threateningness, niceness and supportiveness, which in this study are considered to be characteristics a leader can be associated with. The other three factors, Questioningness, Emotionality, and Impression Manipulativeness are not taken into

consideration as they are communication styles that are less associated with leadership than the other communication styles.

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is one of the most important attitudes managers have to take care of within an organization. Job satisfaction is the overall attitude of an employee towards their job (Elias, Smith and Barney, 2012). Previous research has shown that job satisfaction correlates with organizational commitment, job involvement and organization-based self-esteem,

absenteeism, employee turnover and job performance (Elias et al., 2012). Thus, keeping employees satisfied with their jobs and maintaining a good relationship with their employees is a major concern managers have to deal with. Several determinants of job satisfaction have been identified in studies, such as the level of job security, the level of advancement

opportunities, level of income, level of independence, and whether an employee has a good relationship with their management or with their colleagues (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Posa, 2000; Gaertner, 2000). Gaertner (2000) also found that workload, autonomy and routinization were determinants of job satisfaction. However, in the field of communication style use by leaders, no research has been conducted on the influence of specific leader communication styles on job satisfaction. De Vries et al. (2009) did demonstrate that leader communication styles are grounded in leadership styles. For example, they showed that charismatic leaders are characterized by communication styles with a positive connotation , i.e. expressiveness, preciseness, and lack of verbal aggressiveness (De Vries et al., 2009). In turn, a charismatic leadership style has been shown to have a positive correlation with job satisfaction (Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993). Therefore, on the one hand, it is expected that expressiveness and preciseness are positive determinants of job satisfaction. On the other hand, charismatic leaders are associated with a verbally non-aggressive communication style. As this study

examines the impact of the opposite, namely being verbally aggressive, it is therefore expect that verbal aggressiveness is negatively associated with job satisfaction. Thus, the following hypotheses are developed:

H1a: The leader communication style Expressiveness will be positively related to job satisfaction.

H1b: The leader communication style Preciseness will be positively related to job satisfaction.

H1c: The leader communication style Verbal Aggressiveness will be positively related to job satisfaction.

Job stress

Previous research has shown the major consequences job stress has on an employee and in turn, on the organization itself (Schabracq, Winnubst & Cooper, 2003). To avoid confusion, it is important to emphasize the fact that job stress and a burnout are two differing concepts. A burnout is generally the consequence of being exposed to job stress for a larger amount of time, and it takes much longer to happen than job stress (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). It is job stress that leads to health-related problems, which will turn into a burn-out after a certain amount of time (Maslach & Jackson, 1984). Parker and DeCotiis (1983) define job stress as ‘a particular individual’s awareness or feeling of personal dysfunction as a result of

perceived conditions or happenings in the work-setting” (p. 161). Perceived conditions, or ‘stressors’, can vary from too much workload (Miller & Ray, 1991) and a lack of job security (Erickson, Pugh & Gunderson, 1972), to the use of new technologies at work (Fonner & Roloff, 2012), and role conflict (Jamal, 1984). It is important to note that the causes of job stress are not only organization related, but also related to the individual personality and the

original attitude towards work and the position of work of an employee (Iacovides,

Fountoulakis, Kaprinis and Kaprinis, 2003). However, in this research, the main focus will be the leader’s communication styles that might be related to job stress, as no research has been conducted on this relationship with regards to particular communication styles leaders possess, but only on leadership styles. Sosik and Godshalk (2000) for example, showed in their study that the transformational leadership style was negatively related to job related stress. As a transformational leadership style is closely related and sometimes even equated, to the charismatic leadership style (Yukl, 1995; House & Shamir, 1993), it is assumed that the three leader communication styles are also grounded in the transformational leadership style, and are in turn also negatively related to job related stress. As Verbal Aggressiveness is a reversed item, it is expected to be positively related to job related stress. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2a: The leader communication style Expressiveness will be negatively related to job related stress.

H2b: The leader communication style Preciseness will be negatively related to job related stress.

H2c: The leader communication style Verbal Aggressiveness will be positively related to job related stress.

Leaders’ communication channels

As we live in a rapidly changing technological world in which new communication tools are developed on a daily basis, organizations must go along with the latest communication tools. With so many options and ways of communicating, organizations’ ways of communicating internally has changed, and questions of what channels are most effective in reaching its employees are examined. Men (2014) found in her study that employees mostly preferred to

communicate with their leaders by e-mail, through employee meetings and through leader communication with their supervisor. Management – employee relationships have been found to be improved when interpersonal communication channels, or face-to-face interactions, such as team meetings, group problem-solving sessions, and supervisor briefings, are being used (Cameron & McCollum, 1993; Men, 2014). Thus, employees have a certain preference over the communication channel their employer uses to communicate with them, and even has been shown to enhance relationships between management and employees (Men, 2014). This research aims to explore a comparable relationship, namely the relationship between leader communication styles and employee’s job satisfaction and job stress. Therefore, this study wants to examine whether leader’s communication channels has moderating effect on this relationship, alongside other control variables like how many hours a week someone works, someone’s age, gender, length of employment and educational level. Men (2014) for example, showed that leaders’ use of face-to-face communication is positively associated with employee satisfaction, and that employees mostly prefer face-to-face communication over other ways of communication by their supervisor (Men, 2014; Cameron & McCollum, 1993; White, Vanc & Stafford, 2010), as it gives employees the sense they matter (White et al., 2010). Therefore it is expected that face-to-face communication will positively moderate the relationship between leader’s communication styles and job satisfaction, and positively moderate the relationship between leader’s communication styles and job stress. On the other hand, White et al. (2010) also found that employees prefer e-mail for its convenience and for information exchange, and therefore it can be assumed as a relevant communication channel. However, e-mails are appropriate for quick updates and notices, whereas personal contact carry the most influence over attitudes and behaviors (White et al., 2010). Therefore, it is also expected that communication by e-mail will positively affect the relationship between

between leader’s communication styles and job stress. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3a: Face-to-face communications will positively affect the relationship between leader’s communication styles and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3b: Communication by e-mail will positively affect the relationship between leader’s communication styles and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4a: Face-to-face communication will positively affect the relationship between leader’s communication styles and job stress.

Hypothesis 4b: Communication by e-mail will positively affect the relationship between leader’s communication styles and job stress.

In the following paragraph, methods and measurements of the hypothesis will be outlined. Second, the hypotheses will be tested in the results section. Next, the conclusion section will provide an answer to the research question. Next, hypotheses will be tested in the results section, and will answer the research question in the conclusion. Finally, an overview of limitations, suggestions for future research, and practical implication will be given in the discussion.

Methods

Procedure and sample

A survey was chosen as it allows to measure attitudes and reach as a many people as possible in a short period of time, which enhances the external validity (Fink, 2012). Participants with a part-time job, fulltime job, or an internship were approached to fill in an online survey. A convenience sample was used, and was based on three criteria in order to ensure a valid and

generalizable sample: respondents had to be 18 years or older, had to work for an

organization , either part-time, fulltime or as an intern, and were required to work under a supervisor. Family and friends received a link to the online survey by the means of e-mail and Facebook messenger. In total, 237 respondents entered the survey. However, only 60 % (N=140) of the participants completed the entire questionnaire. A total of 26.4 % of the participants that completed the survey were male (N=37) and 73.6% were female (N=103). The youngest participant was 19 years old and oldest was 61 years old (M= 25.06, SD= 6.22), and 75 % of the participants were between 19 and 25 years old. Most of the

participants had a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree or higher (N = 120). Additionally, 55.7 % of the participants indicated they worked in private organizations (N=78), whereas 35.0 % (N=49) participants worked in publics organizations and 9.3% (N= 13) participants worked for non-profit organizations (See Appendix A for complete overview of demographics). See Appendix A for an overview of demographics provided in Table 1.

Measures

Independent variable. In the present study, the main independent variable Leader Communication Styles was measured using a selection of items of the CSI (Communication Style Inventory) developed by de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Konings & Schouten (2011). In the CSI, all statements could be answered in two different ways: as if it was addressed to yourself, or as if it was about someone else. For this study, the statements were transformed in a sense that it was about someone’s supervisor at work. There were three communication styles included in the questionnaire, being Expressiveness, Preciseness and Verbal

Aggressiveness. Each of the dimensions had its own scale with 16 items, which ought to be answered on a 5.-Likert scale, with 1= “Strongly disagree” to 5= “Strongly agree”, implying that someone either agrees or disagrees with a certain statement. However, for

research, as it were statements regarding talkativeness, which is deemed a characteristic that not necessarily has to be associated with leadership. Thus, the scale for Expressiveness contained twelve items, including questions such as ‘My supervisor has a hard time being humorous in a group’, or ‘My supervisor addresses other in a very casual way.’ (See Appendix B for the complete scale). After reversing five items, the scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .66, which is reasonably reliable. The scores were averaged across the 12 items, M = 3.33, and SD = .44. The scale for Preciseness contained 16 items, and included

questions such as ‘My supervisor finds it hard to tell a story in an organized way, or ‘Most of the time, my supervisor only needs a few words to explain something’ (See Appendix B for the complete scale). After reversing four items, the scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .83, indicating the scale to be very reliable. The mean for the total sample of this scale was M = 3.17, SD = .49. The scale for Verbal Aggressiveness also contained 16 items, including questions such as ‘My supervisor can sometimes react somewhat irritably to people’, or ‘My supervisor has humiliated someone in front of a crowd (See Appendix B for the complete scale). After reversing seven items, the scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .85. The scores of the scale had a mean of M = 2.57, and a standard deviation of SD = .59.

Dependent variables. For the dependent variable Job Satisfaction, a scale was derived from the JSS (Job Satisfaction Scale) developed by Spector (1994). The original JSS consists of nine facet subscales, based on four items each. However, in this study, only three subscales were included in the measurement of job satisfaction, as they were deemed more relevant for this research than the other subscales. The subscales included in this research were scales regarding the satisfaction about the supervision at work, the nature of work and about the communication within the organization. Other subscales, such as satisfaction about pay and promotion were left out, as this study has a focus on the influence of leader

communication. Thus, the scale measuring job satisfaction within this research contained twelve items regarding the satisfaction about supervision, nature of work and communication, and included questions such as; ‘My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job’, ‘I sometimes feel my job is meaningless’, or ‘Communications seems good within this organization’ (See Appendix B for the complete scale). All items were measured on a 6.-scale, varying from 1 = “Disagree very much” to 6 = “Agree very much”. The scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .82. The scores on the scale had a mean of M = 4.30, and a standard deviation of SD = .73.

The second dependent variable Job Stress, was measured on a nine-item scale, developed by Shukla and Srivastava (2016). The nine-item scale included statements such as; ‘My job makes me nervous’ and “I feel bad when I take a leave’ (See Appendix B for the complete scale). All items were measured on a 5.-Likert scale, with 1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 5 = “Strongly Agree”. The scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .86. The scores averaged across the nine items were M = 2.29, and SD = .70.

Moderating variable. The moderating variables in this research were face-to-face communication and communication by e-mail and were measured by two different questions developed by Men (2014). Face-to-face communication was measured by the following question: “How often does your supervisor use e-mail to communicate with you?”, and communication by e-mail was measured by this question: “How often does your supervisor use face-to-face communication to communicate with you?”. Both questions could be answered on 6.-scale, varying from 1 = “Never” to 6 = “Always”.

Control variables. This research also controlled for demographic factors and factors that might have an influence on the relationship between leader communication styles and job satisfaction and job stress. Gender was measured as a dummy variable (0 = male, 1 = female).

Age was measured in years, and highest achieved educational level was measured using an ordinal scale (1 = none or elementary school, 2 = high school, 3 = Bachelor HBO/WO, 4 = Master , 5 = Research Master). Other demographics asked were how many hours a week someone worked (1 = 0-8, 2 = 9-16, 3 = 17-24, 4 = 25 – 32, 5 = 33-40, 6 = More than 40 hours a week), how long someone had been working for an organization in months, and what type of employment someone was in (1 = a freelancer, 2 = a salaried employee in a non-managerial function, 3 = a salaried employee in a non-managerial function, 4 = my own boss). See Appendix B for an overview of the measurement of demographic variables.

Results

Analyses of the data will be reported in three different sections. To test all ten hypotheses, separate multiple regression analyses were conducted.

Leader’s communication styles and job satisfaction

The first and second hypotheses proposed that leader communication styles

Expressiveness and Preciseness would be positively related to job satisfaction, and the third hypothesis proposed that Verbal Aggressiveness would be negatively related to job

satisfaction. To test the hypotheses, four variables were included in the regression:

expressiveness, preciseness and verbal aggressiveness as the independent variables, and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. The overall regression model was significant, F (3, 136) = 27.73, p < .05, and can therefore be used to predict job satisfaction among employees. The strength of the prediction is moderate: 36 % of the variation in job satisfaction can be predicted on the basis of expressiveness, preciseness, and verbal aggressiveness (R² = .33). When looking at the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, the model indicates that all independent variables are associated with job satisfaction.

Expressiveness, b* = 0.14 t = 2.08, p = .04, 95 % CI [0,01, 0,44], has an insignificant

influence on job satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis 1a is rejected. Preciseness, b* = 0.20 t = 2.68, p < 0.05, 95 % CI [.07, .51] has a significant, weak positive influence on job

satisfaction, when holding other independent variables in constant. This means that when a leader has a more precise and accurate way of communicating, job satisfaction is slightly enhanced among employees. Thus, hypothesis 1b is confirmed. Verbal Aggressiveness, b* = -0.47, t = -6,33, p < 0.05, 95 % CI [-0,76, -0,40], shows a significant, moderately strong negative influence on job satisfaction, when holding the other independent variables in constant. In other words, when a leader is verbally aggressive, it will reduce an employee’s job satisfaction. This means, hypothesis 1c is accepted. Table 2 shows an overview of the results regarding

All relationships were controlled by the variables age, gender, level of education, working hours, and length of employment. With regards to the relationship between all leader communication styles and job satisfaction, all variables but one had no significant effect on this relationship. Length of employment at the organization negatively influenced the relationship between verbal aggressiveness and job satisfaction, b* = -.150, t = -2.15, p = .033, CI 95% [-.006, .00]. Furthermore, no other effects were found for. Thus, age, gender, level of education, working hours and length of employment within the relationship between

Table 2.

Simple linear regression with job satisfaction as the dependent variable (N = 140)

B SE B b* t p

Expressiveness .23 .11 .14 2.08 .039

Preciseness .29 .11 .20 2.68 .008

Verbal Aggressiveness -.58 .09 -.47 -6.33 .000

communication styles and job satisfaction. See Appendix A for Table 3, which provides an overview of all the regression analyses when controlled for demographics.

Leader’s communication styles on job stress

Hypothesis 2a and 2b proposed that expressiveness and preciseness would be negatively related to job related stress, whereas hypothesis 2c proposed that verbal aggressiveness would be positively related to job related stress. When looking at the

regression model, all three variables accounted for a significant, weak amount of variance in job stress, R² = .18, F(3, 136) = 11.04, p < .05. This means the regression model is useful to predict job stress among employees by expressiveness, preciseness, and verbal

aggressiveness. However, when looking at the individual relationships, expressiveness does not have a significant relationship with job stress, and therefore hypothesis 2a is rejected, b* = -.47, t = -.37, p = .709, 95% CI [-.29, .20]. Preciseness, b* = .22, t = 2.67, p < .05, 95% CI [.08, .55], shows a significant, weak positive influence on job stress. However, the hypothesis predicted a negative effect on job stress, therefore hypothesis 2b is rejected. Verbal

Aggressiveness, b* = .47, t = 5.48, p < .05, 95% CI [.35, .75], shows a significant, moderately strong positive influence on job stress. This means that when leaders are verbally aggressive, i.e. he or she doesn’t listen well, tells people what to do, and makes fun of people in a way that might hurt, job stress is enhanced among employees. This is in line with the sixth hypothesis 2c, and is therefore accepted. Table 4 shows an overview of results.

When controlling for the relationship between the leader communication styles and job stress, age, gender, level of education, and length of employment did not affect any of the three tested relationships. However, a significant effect with the control variable hours of work per week was found. Hours of working slightly enhanced the negative relationship between expressiveness and job stress, F(2,137) = 3.36, p = .03, b = .07, b* = .17, t = 2.07, p

= .04, 95% CI [-.003, .14]. Thus, results show that there is no significant relationship between expressiveness and job stress. However, this relationship is moderated by hours of working a week, indicating that employees with an expressive leader, will experience more job stress, when they work more hours a week then other employees. Hours of working also slightly enhanced the positive relationship between verbal aggressiveness and job stress, F(2,137) = 17.7, p < .05, b* = .16, t = 2.11, p = .03, 95% CI [.004, .13]. This indicates that when leaders are verbally aggressive, it has a positive influence on job stress. However, when employees work more hours a week, employees will even experience more job stress. See Appendix A for Table 5, which provides an overview of all the regression analyses when controlled for demographics. Table 5 only depicts the information of the regression when the regression model was found to be significant.

The role of leader communication channels: face-to-face communications and communications by e-mail

Hypothesis 3a proposed that face-to-face communication by leaders would enhance the relationships between leader communication styles and job satisfaction, whereas

hypotheses 3b proposed that communication by e-mail would reduce this relationship. To test hypothesis 3a and 3b three multiple linear regressions for each hypothesis were conducted to examine whether a moderation is present for each individual relationship. To test hypothesis

Table 4.

Simple linear regression with job stress as the dependent variable (N = 140)

B SE B b* t p

Expressiveness -.47 .12 -.30 -.37 .709

Preciseness .39 .11 .22 2.67 .008

Verbal Aggressiveness .55 .10 .47 5.47 .000

3a and 3b, Job Satisfaction was used as the dependent variable in all six regressions. For every regression an interaction term was made between the two variables that were tested. In the first regression analysis, Expressiveness and face-to-face communication were used as independent variables, together with the centralized interaction term of expressiveness and face-to-face communication. The moderating effect was insignificant, b* = -.01, t = .10, p = .915, 95% CI[-.12, .14]. The second regression analysis used Preciseness, face-to-face communication and the interaction term of the latter variables as the independent variables. However, no significant moderation was found, b* = -.12, t = -1.49, p = .137, 95% CI[-.20, .03]. The third regression analysis used Verbal Aggressiveness and face-to-face

communication as the independent variables, together with the centralized interaction term of the variables. Again, the moderation was insignificant, b* = .02, t = .34, p = .736, 95% CI [-.08, .12]. Next, hypothesis 3b was tested, and again used Job Satisfaction as the dependent variable within the regression analysis. For every regression an interaction term was made between the two variables that were tested. The first regression used expressiveness, e-mail and their interaction term as the independent variable. However, the model was not deemed significant, F(3,135) = 2.35, p = .075. The second regression analysis used preciseness, e-mail and their interaction term to test the moderation. However, no significant effect was found, b* = -.13, t = -1.67, p = .09, 95% CI [-.21, .02]. The third regression used verbal aggressiveness-mail and their interaction term as the independent variables, and showed an insignificant effect, b* = -.02, t = -.37, p = .711, 95% CI [-.12, .08]. Thus, hypothesis 3a and 3b are rejected: when a leader often uses face-to-face communication or e-mail to

communicate with his subordinates, it does not enhance or reduce the relationship between communication styles and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4a proposed that face-to-face communication by leaders would reduce the relationships between leader communication styles and job stress, whereas hypotheses 4b

proposed that communication by e-mail would enhance this relationship. Again six multiple regressions were conducted to test hypothesis 4a and 4b, with job stress as the dependent variable for all regressions. In the first regression analysis, Expressiveness and face-to-face communication were used as independent variables, together with the centralized interaction term of expressiveness and face-to-face communication. The model however, did not deemed to be significant, F(3, 135) = 1.12, p = .340. The second regression analysis used

Preciseness, face-to-face communication and the interaction term of the latter variables as the independent variables. Again, the model was insignificant and could therefore not be used to explain variance, F(3, 135) = .95, p = .419. The third regression analysis used Verbal Aggressiveness and face-to-face communication as the independent variables, together with the centralized interaction term of the variables, yet no significant moderation effect was found, b* = -.01, t = -.13, p = .894, 95% CI [-.12, .10]. Next, hypothesis 4b was tested, and again used Job Satisfaction as the dependent variable within the regression analysis. The first regression used expressiveness, e-mail and their interaction term as the independent variable. However, the model was not deemed significant, F(3,135) = 1.45, p = .230. The same

accounted for the second regression analysis, where preciseness, e-mail and their interaction term were used to test the moderation, F(3,135) = 2.15, p = .097. Finally, the third regression used verbal aggressiveness-mail and their interaction term as the independent variables, and showed an insignificant effect, b* = -.13, t = -1.7, p = .089, 95% CI [-.21, .01]. Thus,

hypothesis 4a and 4b are rejected: when a leader often uses facto-face communication or e-mail to communicate with his subordinates, it does not enhance or reduce the relationship between communication styles and job stress.

This paper examined the relationship between leader communication styles and job satisfaction and job stress at work. Additionally, the communication channel a leader uses at work was included to examine if it would enhance or reduce this relationship, as previous research had shown this had positive influence on employee satisfaction (Men, 2014). Control variables such as sex, age, highest achieved level of education, length of employment, and how many hours a week someone was working, were also taken into account in the research. A survey was conducted to answer the main research question: “To what extent are leadership communication styles related to job satisfaction and job stress, and what is the role of media channel use of managers in this relationship?”

The main conclusion of this research paper is that Preciseness and Verbal

Aggressiveness have significant effects on either job satisfaction or job stress, or both, and no significant relationship was found for Expressiveness. This means that being expressive as a leader, i.e. making jokes, addressing people in a casual way , or coming across somewhat stiff, does not have a significant influence on job satisfaction and job stress. Preciseness on the other hand did show a significant effect on job satisfaction and job stress. However, with regards to job stress, being precise as a leader was positively related, which was not in line with the hypothesis. Why does being precise as a leader elicit job stress? When looking at the statements in the scale, a possible explanation could be that some people with maybe more chaotic personality traits, have a hard time dealing with leaders being very thorough and conscientious. In the future studies, personality inventories could be taken into account, as they might have a share in explaining why employees experience job stress. Thus, a precise leader enhances job satisfaction among employees, yet it also enhances job stress among employees. Verbal aggressiveness had significant effects on both job satisfaction and job stress: when a manager is verbally aggressive, it reduces job satisfaction and enhances job stress.

Furthermore, when looking at the role of the use of face-to-face communication or communication by e-mail , and whether it enhances or reduces the relationship between leader communication styles and job satisfaction and job stress, no moderation has been found in any case. In other words, whether a leader uses e-mail or a face-to-face approach to communicate with his or her employees, it does not make any difference regarding job satisfaction and job stress, and regardless of how expressive, precise, or verbally aggressive a leader is. Concluding for control variables, only three moderations were found. One

moderation occurred at the relationship between expressiveness and job stress, and between verbal aggressiveness and job stress. Hours of work both enhanced those relationships, indicating that an employee with a verbally aggressive leader, experiences more job related stress, when he or she worked more hours a week, and that an employee with an expressive leader, also experiences more job stress when he or she worked more hours a week. Thus, working hours is among others a variable that also explains why job stress occurs among employees. The third moderation was found in the relationship between verbal

aggressiveness and job satisfaction. Length of employment slightly reduced this relationship, meaning that an employee with a verbally aggressive leader, experiences less job satisfaction, when he or she works for a longer period of time at an organization. This could imply that employees might get irritated by their leader the longer they work at the same organization. For future research it can therefore be suggested to conduct a qualitative research to

determine the attitude employees have about their leaders.

Limitations and future research

As with all studies, this study suffers from some limitations. First, there are much more factors that may explain the level of job satisfaction and job stress among employees. The JSS by Spector (1984) also measured job satisfaction through subscales such as ‘pay’, ‘promotion’, ‘fringe benefits’, ‘contingent rewards’, ‘operating conditions’, and their

‘coworkers’. Other external factors, such as personality characteristics and environment, also could have been an explanatory factor in predicting job satisfaction. Thus, for future research, it is recommended when measuring job satisfaction, to consider all subscales of the JSS and consider more external factors, such as personal characteristics.

Second, the sample was mainly distributed through the means of the researcher’s personal network. As this network mainly consists of undergraduates, and the results show that 75 % of the participants were between 19 and 25 years old, it indicates that most participants of the sample were students. Thus, the results are mainly based on answers by undergraduates, which indicates an over-representation of a certain subpopulation, which jeopardizes the external validity. Additionally, In the future, it is advised to collect data through a probability sample, to have a more divided and representative population. Also, it is recommended to take more time to reach a delimited public which is more valid to answer the research question.

Third, the fact that leaders use e-mail or face-to-face interactions apparently has no significant value to enhance or reduce job satisfaction and/or job stress. It may be of more value to look at which leader’s communication channels are preferred by employees, and whether if these preferred communication channels are being used, enhance or reduce the relationship between leader communication styles and job satisfaction and job stress. Men (2014) shows in her research that employees prefer interpersonal communication with managers and that employees usually prefer e-mails to receive updates and notices from the organization. When leaders use the communication channel of preference, this might also affect job satisfaction.

Finally, the survey was conducted in English, yet most of the participants’ native language is Dutch. This means that respondents could have interpreted some of the questions differently,

or not have understood the question at all, which could have had an influence on the answer the participant gave. In the future, it is recommended to either conduct this survey in Dutch among Dutch speaking people, or when conducting the survey in English, warn participants that the survey will be conducted in English.

Overall, a rare amount of studies have used the CSI, or a part thereof, to measure leader communication styles. With this being one of the first studies to use the CSI, any

expectations regarding the influence of communication styles on job satisfaction and job stress were mostly based on previous academic studies concerning leadership styles. Thus, future research suggests to take in-depth interviews with leaders and employees to find a certain pattern in leader communication styles. At this point, some of the communication styles from the CSI are linked to characteristics leaders possess (Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013), however, more evidence is needed to confirm that these are actual leader

communication styles.

Though this research has some limitations, it remains to be one of the first studies using the CSI to measure leader communication styles. Future studies could try and expand on this study by including more variables that may also explain the presence and/or absence of job satisfaction and job stress among employees.

Practical and theoretical implications

Results of the present study suggest some managerial implications. First, to enhance job satisfaction among employees, managers should be trained to be as precise as possible in explaining expectations and upcoming activities. Preciseness encompasses being structured, thoughtful, concise, and substantive, and should be considered as important features a manager should set as a priority when maintaining job satisfaction. Additionally, managers can also be trained to be less verbally aggressive. Results of the present study indicate that

verbally aggressive managers reduce job satisfaction. Verbal Aggressiveness encompasses being angry, authoritarian, derogatory, and non-supportive as a manager. Second, it is advised to train managers to reduce job-related stress, as this work outcome has been

associated with causing burnouts, which is very costly for an organization as it has to provide personal assistance, allowances and the re-integration of an employee (Jick & Payne, 1980, Schabracq, Winnubst & Cooper, 2003). According to the results of the present study, being verbally aggressive as a manager, elicits job related stress among employees. Thus, managers should be trained to lower their verbal aggressiveness to enhance job satisfaction, and reduce job related stress. More satisfied and less stressed employees are for the benefit of an

organization, as they are the foundation of the activities and performances of an organization, and therefore its continuity.

References

Bakker-Pieper, A., & de Vries, R. E. (2013). The incremental validity of communication styles over personality traits for leader outcomes. Human Performance, 26(1), 1-19.

Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: A multi-method, cultural analysis of the role of internal communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(4), 217-250.

CBS en TNO: een op zeven werknemers heeft last van burn-outklachten. (2015, November 11). Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/47/cbs-en-tno-een-op-de-zeven-werknemers-heeft-burn-outklachten.

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Alting Siberg, R., Van Gameren, K., & Vlug, M. (2009). The content and dimensionality of communication styles. Communication Research, 36, 178-206.

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E., & Schouten, B. (2011). The

Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality.Communication Research, 0093650211413571.

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership= communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of business and psychology, 25(3), 367-380.

Elias, S. M., Smith, W. L., & Barney, C. E. (2012). Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace: work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5), 453-467.

Erickson, J. M., Pugh, W. M., & Gunderson, E. K. (1972). Status congruency as a predictor of job satisfaction and life stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6), 523.

Fink, A. (2012). How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide: A Step-by-Step Guide. Sage Publications.

Firth, L., Mellor, D. J., Moore, K. A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit? Journal of managerial psychology, 19(2), 170-187.

Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking

teleworkers' communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 79(2), 205-231.

Gaertner, S. (2000). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment in turnover models. Human resource management review, 9(4), 479-493.

Griffin, M. L., Hogan, N. L., Lambert, E. G., Tucker-Gail, K. A., & Baker, D. N. (2009). Job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Hicks, J. M. (2011). Leader communication styles and organizational health. The health care manager, 30(1), 86-91.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories.

Iacovides, A., Fountoulakis, K. N., Kaprinis, S., & Kaprinis, G. (2003). The relationship between job stress, burnout and clinical depression. Journal of affective

Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment. Organizational behavior and human performance, 33(1), 1-21.

Jick, T. D., & Payne, R. (1980). Stress at work. Journal of Management Education, 5(3), 50-56.

Kalliath, T., & Morris, R. (2002). Job satisfaction among nurses: a predictor of burnout levels. Journal of nursing administration, 32(12), 648-654.

Men, L. R. (2014). Strategic internal communication: transformational leadership,

communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 264-284.

Miller, K. I., Ellis, B. H.,- Zook, E. G., & Lyles, J. S. (1990). An integrated model of communication, stress, and burnout in the workplace. Communication

research, 17(3), 300-326.

Parker, D. F., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational behavior and human performance, 32(2), 160-177.

Ray, E. B., & Miller, K. I. (1991). The influence of communication structure and social support on job stress and burnout. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(4), 506-527.

Schabracq, M. J., Winnubst, J. A., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of work and health psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science,4(4), 577-594.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(1), 19-48.

Shukla, A., & Srivastava, R. (2016). Development of short questionnaire to measure an extended set of role expectation conflict, coworker support and work-life balance: The new job stress scale. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1.

Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job‐related stress: a conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 365-390.

Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000). Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. The journal of socio-economics, 29(6), 517-538.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Job satisfaction survey. Tampa, Florida: Department of Psychology, University of South Florida.

Vries, R.E., Roe, R.A. and Taillieu, T.C.B. (1998), “Need of supervision: its impact on leadership effectiveness”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(4), 486-501.

White, C., Vanc, A., & Stafford, G. (2010). Internal communication, information satisfaction, and sense of community: The effect of personal influence. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 21, 65-84.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.

Appendix A Table 1 represent an overview of the demographics.

Table 1.

Overview of demographic data.

Variable N Mean SD

Age 140 1.74 .44

Gender 140 25.06 6.26

Level of Education 140 3.29 .71

Hours of working per week (in hourse) 140 3.10 1.72

Sector 140 1.54 .66

Length of employment at org. (in months) 140 18.09 34.68

Table 3.

Simple linear regression with job satisfaction as the dependent variable, and control variables (N = 140)

Variable B SE B b* t p

Expressiveness

Age .001 .010 .006 .06 .964

Gender .108 .138 .065 .77 .438

Level of Education -.026 .085 -.025 -.30 .762

Hours of work per week .029 .035 .067 .80 .420

Lenght of employment -.002 .002 -.098 -1.15 .249

Preciseness

Age -.004 .009 -.032 -.40 .689

Gender .118 .131 .071 .89 .371

Level of Education -.023 .081 -.023 -.28 .77

Hours of work per week -.001 .034 -.003 -.03 .973

Lenght of employment -.003 .002 -.126 -1.57 .119

Verbal Aggressiveness

Age .003 .008 .022 .31 .753

Gender -.018 .117 -.011 -.15 .888

Level of Education -.043 .071 -.042 -.61 .545

Hours of work per week .034 .030 .080 1.15 .253

Lenght of employment -.003 .001 -.150 -2.15 .033

Table 5.

Simple linear regression with job stress as the dependent variable, and control variables (N = 140)

Variable B SE B b* t p

Expressiveness

Hours of work per week .071 .034 .173 2.071 .040

Verbal Aggressiveness

Age .000 .009 -.004 -.05 .958

Gender .211 .126 .132 1.67 .097

Level of Education -.068 .078 -.069 -.88 .380

Hours of work per week .067 .032 .164 2.11 .037

Lenght of employment -.002 .002 -.079 -.98 .328

Appendix B

General instruction Dear participant,

I would like to invite you to participate in a research study for my Master thesis at the University of Amsterdam. The research is about leadership and work outcomes. The

following survey will first ask you to fill in a couple of demographic questions. Afterwards, some questions about your leader and your work experiences will follow. This survey will take about 10 minutes. All answers will be completely anonymous and please note that there are no wrong or right answers, just answer the questions according to your honest feelings. As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, guaranteed is that:

Participation is voluntary and careful handling of all information that will be obtained is ensured. No personal information will be passed on to third parties under any conditions. With participating in this survey you have the right to withdraw at any moment without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.

With kind regards, Carlijn van der linden

Informed Consent

I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of this research, as described at the start of this survey.

I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. By doing so, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties.

By clicking on the ‘Next’ button, you understand the text presented above, and you agree to participate in the research study.

Part 1: Leaders’ Communication Channels

The following questions refer to the communication channels your supervisor uses to communicate with you. Questions are answered on a scale from 1 to 6

(1 = Never , 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Very often, 6 = Always)

Q1_1 How often does your leader use e-mail to communicate with you?

Q1_2 How often does your leader use face-to-face interactions to communicate with you?

Part 2: Leader Communication styles

The following statements will be regarding the communication style of your supervisor. It will consist of 3 times 16 questions. Questions are answered on a scale from 1 to 5

(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree or disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree)

The following statements refer to your supervisor’s expressiveness at work: Q2_1 My supervisor often takes the lead in a conversation

Q2_2 Most of the time, other people determine what the discussion is about, not my supervisor.

Q2_3 My supervisor often determines which topics are talked about during a conversation.

Q2_4 My supervisor often determines the direction of the conversations Q2_5 Because of his/her humor, my supervisor is often the centre of attention

among a group of people.

Q2_6 My supervisor has a hard time being humorous in a group. Q2_7 My supervisor’s jokes always draws a lot of attention

Q2_8 My supervisor often manages to make others burst out laughing. Q2_9 My supervisor communications with others in a distant manner

Q2_10 My supervisor behaves somewhat formally when he or she meets someone. Q2_11 My supervisor addresses others in a very causal way.

Q2_12 My supervisor comes across as somewhat stiff when dealing with people.

The following statements refer to your supervisor’s preciseness at work:

Q2_13 When my supervisor tells a story, the different parts are always clearly related to each other.

Q2_14 My supervisor finds it hard to tell a story in an organized way.

Q2_15 My supervisor always expresses a clear chain of thoughts when he/she argues a point.

Q2_16 His/her stories always contain a logical structures.

Q2_17 My supervisor thinks carefully before he/she says something Q2_18 My supervisor weighs his/her answers carefully.

Q2_19 The statements my supervisor makes are not well thought out. Q2_20 My supervisor chooses his/her words with care.

Q2_22 You won’t hear my supervisor chatting about superficial or shallow matters. Q2_23 My supervisor is someone who can often talk about trivial or unimportant

things.

Q2_24 My supervisor rarely if ever just chatters away about something.

Q2_25 My supervisor doesn’t need a lot of words to get his or her message across. Q2_26 Most of the time, my supervisor only needs a few words to explain something. Q2_27 My supervisor is somewhat long-winded when he or she needs to explain

something.

Q2_28 With a few words, my supervisor can usually clarify his or her point to everybody.

The following statements refer to your supervisor’s verbal aggressiveness at work:

Q2_20 If something displeases my supervisor, he or she sometimes explodes with anger.

Q2_31 Even when my supervisor is angry, he or she won’t take it out on someone else.

Q2_32 My supervisors tends to snap at people when he or she gets annoyed. Q2_33 My supervisor can sometimes react somewhat irritably to people. Q2_34 My supervisor is not very likely to tell someone what they should do. Q2_35 My supervisor sometimes insists that others do what he/she says. Q2_36 My supervisor expects people to obey when he or she asks them to do

something.

Q2_37 When my supervisor feel others should do something for him/her, he/she asks for it in a demanding tone of voice.

Q2_38 My supervisor never makes fun anyone in a way that might hurt their feelings. Q2_39 My supervisor has at times made people look like fools.

Q2_40 My supervisor has been known to be able to laugh at people in their face. Q2_41 My supervisor has humiliated someone in front of a crowd.

Q2_42 My supervisor can listen well.

Q2_43 My supervisor always shows a lot of understanding for other people’s problems.

Q2_44 My supervisor always takes time for someone if they want to talk to him/her. Q2_45 My supervisor always treats people with a lot of respect.

Part 3: Measuring Job Satisfaction

The following statements refer to the extent in which you are satisfied with your job and the extent to which your job causes you stress.

Statements are measures on a scale of 1 to 6 (1 = Disagree very much, 2 = Disagree

moderately, 3 = Disagree slightly, 4 = Agree slightly, 5 = Agree moderately, 6 = Agree very much).

Q3_1 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. Q3_2 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.

Q3_3 Communications seem good within this organization. Q3_4 My supervisor is unfair to me.

Q3_5 I like doing the things I do at work.

Q3_6 The goals of this organization are not clear to me.

Q3_7 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. Q3_8 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.

Q3_9 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. Q3_10 I like my supervisor.

Q3_11 My job is enjoyable.

Q3_12 Work assignments are not fully explained.

Part 5: Measuring Job Stress

The following statements refer to the extent how much stress your full-time or part-time job causes. Statements are measures on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree or disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree).

Q4_1 I have a lot of work and fear that very little time to do it Q4_2 I feel so burdened that even a day without work seems bad Q4_3 I feel that I never take a leave

Q4_4 Many people at my office are tired of the company demand Q4_5 My job makes me nervous

Q4_6 The effect of my job on me is too high Q4_7 Many a times, my job becomes a big burden.

Q4_8 Sometimes when I think about my job, I get a tight feeling in my chest. Q4_9 I feel bad when I take a leave.

Part 5: Demographics Q5_1 What is your gender (male = 1, female = 2).

Q5_2 How old are you? (e.g. 24)

(1 = none or elementary school, 2 = high school, 3 = Bachelor HBO/WO, 4 = Master , 5 = Research Master).

Q5_4 What sector do you work in?

(1 = Private, 2 = Public, 3 = Non-profit) Q5_5 How many hours a week do you work?

(1= 0-8 hours, 2 = 9-16, 3 = 17-24, 4 = 25-32, 5 = 33-40, 6 = 40 hours or more) Q5_6 How long have you been working at the organization in which you are currently employed? (in months)

Q5_7 I am…

(1 = a freelancer, 2 = a salaried employee in a non-managerial function, 3 = a salaried employee in a managerial function, 4 = my own boss).