HOW REMOTE MANAGEMENT AFFECTS THE
OCCUPATIONAL WELL-BEING OF EMPLOYEES
Master thesis, MSc specialization Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
Distributed work is a common phenomenon in modern companies, as are situations where managers and workers are physically separated. In other words, this kind of interaction is characterized by the mediation of digital devices and by the absence of face-to-face contact.
The following study looked at the influence of remote management on the degree of employees’ occupational well-being. The model wants to show that the managers-workers’ separation affects the degree of employees’ occupational well-being and that this relationship is mediated by the degree of support the subordinate receives from his supervisor. Hence, the
term perceived organizational support is used as a mediating mechanism. Moreover, the degree of occupational well-being is defined by four different components, particularly occupational stress, occupational burnout, job satisfaction and work engagement. In an online
questionnaire, participants whose occupational status, age, tenure, work experience and the frequency of face-to-face contact with their supervisors varies rated the extent of remote management as well as their occupational well-being. The findings show that the degree of
support the employees receive from their supervisors, even when their interaction is characterized by reduced face-to-face contact defines the degree of their occupational
well-being. In practice, my findings suggest that companies should take into more careful consideration managers-workers’ interaction, especially in cases when they are physically
separated and that they must ensure that managers act in supportive way towards their subordinates.
Key words: Remote management, Perceived organizational support, occupational stress,
INTRODUCTION
One of the biggest issues businesses face today, is the existence of employees who feel dissatisfied at the workplace. Employees in the twenty-first century are characterized by scepticism related to organizations’ missions, visions and values (Hemingway & Maclagan, 2004). The importance of occupational well-being has been increasing for organizations in recent years. Thus, I introduce the terms employee burnout, employee engagement at work, occupational stress and job satisfaction as four significant components to measure and conceptualize employee’s occupational well-being. Occupational well-being refers to the individual’s sense of meaning, behaviour, social relationships and interconnectedness with the environment (Kirsten et al., 2009). According to Tellegen and Watson (1985),
occupational well-being is composed of positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects are associated with the degree to which the individual feels great happiness and exhilaration and the negative aspects refers to the individual’s feeling of dissatisfaction.
The term “employee burnout” came up four decades ago in the United States and is still being used to describe mainly the degree of employees’ exhaustion. Dysfunctional
management, labour weakness to be integrated into the company's strategy and the negative working environment lead employees to feel exhausted. Also, long working hours and poorly payment are two factors that can cause employees’ exhaustion to increase (Dishman, 2017). Employee burnout has become an epidemic and while many companies are trying to manage employee tiredness, there had been fewer attempts to manage burnout in proactive way. (DeWitt, 2017)
and some types of cancer. Chronic depression harms the immune system of workers and in some cases, associated with premature death
Occupational stress is the second factor that determines the degree of employee occupational well-being. This kind of stress exists when there is a difference between employee’s skills and abilities on the one hand and pressure and demands of the working environment on the other hand (Eggerth & Cunningham, 2012). It can be described as a disturbance of the balance between the claims employees are subjected to and the resources they hold in order to accomplish these tasks (Rothmann, Mostert, & Strydrom, 2006). Job requirements may have a negative impact on occupational well-being (Bakker, Demerouti, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). In contrast, the existence of work-related resources strengthens the
occupational well-being (Bakker et al., 2001). A moderate amount of stress into the job leads to higher individual performance but after this point, this relationship tends to be negative (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Simon and Amarakoon (2015) recommended that by holding a good amount of occupational stress, the engagement of employee could be increased. Conversely, high amount of stress can harm the mental health of employee and therefore decreases his performance.
In the present study the term occupational well-being was conceptualized also by the degree of employees’ engagement at work. According to a survey conducted in Virgin Pulse (2017) employees’ engagement can be achieved when they feel crucial part of the company’s culture and future, when they realize that their jobs provide them with a feeling of purpose and when they have established high quality relationships with their fellow workers. (Employee
wellbeing, critical to the health of your business, 2017). Employees are characterized by emotional commitment to the company, also display high performance, low absenteeism and they don’t quit their jobs (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & he Allen, 1997; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982). Work engagement is described by vigour, dedication and absorption. Firstly, vigour is described by high degree of energy and mental resilience. It is the readiness to contribute to the task execution and to insist in the faces of barriers. Secondly, dedication refers to activities in the workplace and accompanied by a sense of significance, pride and challenge. Thirdly, the term absorption associated with full concentration and with happy absorption in activities at workplace (Bakker et al., 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Schaufeli et al., 2006).
The last component of occupational well-being is job satisfaction. Job satisfaction can be described as the enjoyable and positive situation of an employee, that comes as a result of his job experiences or his job evaluation (Tsigilis, Koustelios & Togia, 2004). Remuneration, work relationships, working conditions, job security, promotional prospects, training
opportunities and the nature of the job compound this particular term (Warr, 2002). Distinct aspects of job satisfaction seem to be correlated (Warr, 2002., Tsigilis et al., 2004).
to encourage flexible working, to establish supportive management style and to manage risks. The guiding question in my study was whether the remote management affects employee’s occupational well-being and how this relationship mediated by perceived organizational support. The term Perceived organizational support (POS) describes the degree to which, the worker considers that his/her company concerns about them and appreciates his/her
contributions to the company (Eisenberger, Hutington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Remote management
Managers, to the degree that they act as supervisors, affect individuals’ output. They establish targets to be reached, support, assist, give feedback to employees, evaluate workers’
performance and coach their subordinates (Sias, 2008). In the past, this kind of relationship between manager and subordinate was occurring in the same physical workplace, while at present, face-to-face communication is often impossible (Gallup, 2013). Many organizations assign tasks to workers who are based in distinct locations and their choice is determined by availability, cost and ability (Huckman & Staats, 2011; Cummings & Haas, 2012.). Although the technological devices help managers to communicate with and monitor their
subordinates, a high number of superiors continue considering remote management as a challenge. For instance, by asking 407 superiors working in multinational companies, a study of Economist Intelligence Unit (2009), found that almost half of the participants consider remote management as a leading challenge. Similarly, for the purpose of a study conducted of the Institute of Leadership and Management (2015), 1008 superiors participated and 80% of them agreed that superior- subordinate separation prevent them from establishing
coherence of practices, from recognizing issues forthwith and from avoiding misconceptions related to instructions and directions.
Subordinate- manager’s distance leads to a kind of communication, that characterized by mediation of technological devices and deficit of verbal interactions (Burgoon et al., 2002). A consequence of this sort of physical distance, is the reduced ability of managers to control, to coach, to help and to set performance standards to workers (Napier & Ferris 1993, Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Moreover, in the case that the manager and worker are physically
to encourage their subordinates and to recognize immediately when the employee feels unhappy (Ashford & Cummings, 1985; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Gassmann & Zedtwitz, 2003). Last but not least, manager- worker’s distance decreases the interaction between the two parts regarding non-task issues. In this regard, the manager is unable to get insights about employees’ virtues, their unique characteristics and their general and social state, which has as an outcome, manager’s inability to attain employee engagement. (Crouch & Yetton, 1988; Collinson, 2005; Hinds & Cramton, 2014).
HYPOTHESIS 1: Remote management affects negatively occupational well-being.
Perceived Organizational Support (POS)
Workers are inclined to evaluate interactions with their managers either positively or negatively in order to structure a spherical POS assessment of how they rank at their
HYPOTHESIS 2: The perceived organizational support associated with occupational well-being.
Occupational well-being
In my study I considered the following World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of mental health as a useful definition of overall occupational well-being. Particularly, occupational well-being can be defined as “a state of wellbeing in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work
productively and fruitfully and is able to make a contribution to her or his community”. The affective dimension of occupational well-being is conceptualized and measured by means of burnout, work engagement, occupational stress and job satisfaction. Burnout refers to the vigour/fatigue dimension, work engagement to enthusiasm/depression dimension,
occupational stress to anxiety/comfort dimension and job satisfaction to pleasure/displeasure dimension (Warr, 2002).
Last but not least, the findings suggested that remote management might decrease employees’ occupational well-being because it undermines the relationship between manager and
employee. Actually, in the present study POS is a mediating mechanism of the proposed direct effect of remote management to employees’ occupational well-being.
The model (Figure 1) provides a better understanding of the way the manager- worker separation affects the quality of occupational well-being and how their relationship mediated
by subordinate’s perceived organizational support (POS).
Figure 1
METHODOLOGY
Population and sample description
In this study participated 202 employees (male 111, female 91). The data was gathered via a Qualtrics survey that was distributed through MTurk. Full employment was a precondition for participation. Respondents’ level of education and the business their current organization operates in varied. Particularly, the majority of the participants held a bachelor’s degree (BSc, BA) 58.4 %, while 29.2 % of them are qualified only with High school (or equivalent) diploma. Moreover, the Business & Finance and the Technology were the sectors where the highest percentage of the respondents were working in (Business & Finance 21.3 %,
Technology 22.3 %). Respondents’ average age was 38.48 years (SD=10.02) with a range from 22-71 years. The average amount of hours the participants of my study work every week was 42.05 (SD=5.00), their tenure to the current job title for their current employer ranged from 0-24 years and their total work experience varied from 2-45 years. Last but not least, the number of years they have received supervision from their current supervisor ranged from 0-22 years with an average of 4.58 years (SD=3.60).
Perceived organizational support (POS)
Measures
Manager- Worker Separation (M-W Separation): For each task was coded whether or not
the task belongs to a project whose project manager operates from a different unit than the worker. I thus measured manager- worker separation by asking the participants to indicate the frequency of face-to-face contact they have with their supervisor. Particularly the different choices were given to them were 1= “every day”, 2= “more than once per week”, 3= “approximately once per week”, 4= “more than once per month”, 5= “approximately once per month”, 6= “1-3 times every three months” and 7= “less than once every three months”. In other words, higher values in this variable mean less contact between manager- worker.
Perceived organizational support (POS): I assessed the perceived organizational support
using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (from strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It indicates the extent of participants’ agreement with each item. A short version of the
questionnaire has been used (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, Sowa, 1986). Questions such as “the organization values my contribution to tis well-being”, “Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice”, “The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work”, “The organization shows very little concern for me” and “The
organization really cares about my well-being” were given to the respondents. This variable composed by 8 items which were combined into a reliable scale (α= .96)
Occupational stress: The occupational stress was measured with a four-item scale created by
(Motowidlo et al., 1986). The four items were “My job is extremely stressful, “Very few stressful things happen to me at work” (reverse scored), “I feel a great deal of stress because of my job”, and “I almost never feel stressed because of my work” (reverse scored).
Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These items were combined into a reliable scale (α= .95)
Occupational burnout: The construct occupational burnout was measured with the
Abbreviate Maslach burnout inventory. The responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The abbreviate MBI includes nine items, which in turn divided into three subscales. In the Emotional Exhaustion subscale, there exist three items related to emotional overextension and exhaustion of a worker. These items are “I feel emotionally drained from my work”, “I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job” and “Working with people all day is really a strain for me”. Secondly, the
one’s preoccupation or service. For instance, “I feel I treat some of my customers and colleagues as if they were impersonal objects”, “I've become more callous towards people since I took this job” and “I don't really care what happens to some of my customers and colleagues”. For both of these subscales, the higher the mean scores, the higher the degrees of burnout suffering. Lastly, the third subscale, typify sentiments of competence and successful performance in one’s reacting with people in the job. For instance, “I deal very effectively with the problems of my customers and colleagues”, “I feel I'm positively influencing other people's lives through my work” and “I feel exhilarated after working closely with my customers and colleagues” (Maslach, Leiter, & Schaufeli, 2008).
Job satisfaction: The construct job satisfaction was measured with a 4-items scale (α=.96) and the responses were ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items were “I find real enjoyment in my job”, “I like my job better than the average person”. “Most days I am enthusiastic about my job” and “I feel fairly well satisfied with my job”. (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951)
Occupational engagement: Employees’ occupational engagement measured using the
Gallup’s standard Q12 instruments. Responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This measure describes outcomes such as satisfaction, loyalty, pride and so on and therefore these items defining the degree of employee engagement at work. On a 5-point scale is described the overall job satisfaction of worker and ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. How satisfied are you with (your company) as a place to work? “I know what is expected of me at work”, “At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day”, “My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as person”, “In the last six months someone at work has told me about my progress” and “In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work” were some statements which were introduced to the participants of the present study.( Harter, Schmidt, Agrawal, & Plowman, 2013). Last but not least, these 12 items were combined into a reliable scale (α=.90)
Header Control variables
For this study the following control variables were selected gender, age, work experience and tenure. These control variables were included as they are believed possibly affect the
mediator and the dependent variable
answer a question about the amount of years they have held the current job title for their current employer.
RESULTS
Descriptive analysis
The correlations among the different constructs are reported in Table 2. Firstly, age negatively correlated with POS and significantly positively correlated with occupational stress. Secondly, as expected, age significantly positively correlated with work experience and tenure. Old employees usually have a lot of years of work experience and furthermore they are likely to work for the same company for a long period of time. Moreover, both the control variables age and work experience significantly negatively correlated to occupational burnout. Tenure and work experience are two control variables that I used in my analysis that positively significantly correlated to one another and the same time both significantly
positively correlated to POS. In fact, my independent variable Face-to-Face contact not correlated with job satisfaction and work engagement. The table depicts also that the Occupational stress and the Occupational burnout significantly negatively related to Perceived Organizational Support (POS). As opposed to these two components of
Table 2
Legend: ** significant p< .01 (2-tailed)
* significant p< .05 (2-tailed)
First of all, it is worth mentioning that the frequencies of-face-to face contact between the participants of the present study and their supervisors varied. Particularly, according to their responses, it can be clearly seen that in the majority of cases (51%), managers and workers
were not interacting remotely. In other words, they had face-to-face contact in a daily basis. In contrast, 33,2 % of them indicated that they were meeting face-to-face their managers more than once per week, while 8.4 % of them approximately once per week. Last but not least, 7 of the surveyed employees pointed out that were significantly separated by their managers, given that their face-to-face interplay were taking place less than once every three months.
Overall, I found no correlation between the mediator variable POS and the independent variable frequency of face-to-face contact with the supervisor. In order to create more variance in the independent variable, I selected only those respondents with less than every-day contact. Hence, by excluding this particular category of employees, I had 99 people left, for whom the mediator and the independent variable were significantly correlated. This pattern of correlations is illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.Face-to-face contact 1.00 2.POS -.36** 1.00 3.Occupational Stress .15 -.17 1.00 4.Occupational Burnout .22* -.62** .43** 1.00 5.Job Satisfaction -.20* .70** -.26* -.73** 1.00 6.Work engagement -.37** .78** -.08 -.66** .70** 1.00
Legend: ** significant p< .01 (2-tailed)
* significant p< .05 (2-tailed)
subordinate-supervisor was the independent variable, which in all cases turned out to be a strong predictor of the perceived organizational support β = -.27, SE = .07, t = -3.97, p <.001 . Secondly, the Perceived organizational support was used as the mediator in all models as well. Thirdly, the four different constructs that represented the degree of occupational well-being of employees, particularly the occupational stress, the occupational burnout, the job satisfaction and the work engagement were the respective outcome variables per mediation model. Overall, the mediation models except from the one, in which was used as dependent variable the
occupational stress, were all significant. Initially, according to the first model, the results indicated that the perceived organizational support β = -.15, SE = .11, t = -.1.32, p = .186 and the independent variable frequency of face-to face contact between manager-worker β = .09, SE = .09, t =.98, p = .321 were not significant predictors of occupational stress. Last but not least, the indirect coefficient was not significant, β = .03, SE = .04, Z =1.22, p = .221, CI = (-.016, .136). (see figure 1) Figure 1 -.27** -.15 .09 (without POS) .03 (with POS) .
Regarding to the second model the mediator perceived organizational support significantly negatively predicted the dependent variable occupational stress β = -.74, SE = .10, t = -7.53, p <.001 . On the other hand, the independent variable face to face contact was not a
significant predictor of occupational burnout β = -.02, SE =.07, t =-.28, p = .781. In contrast, this relationship was characterized by significance when there was the mediation of perceived organizational β = .20, SE = .06, Z = 3.49, p <.001, CI = (.080, .350). Obviously, the degree of support the employees receive from their supervisors associated with symptoms of occupational burnout. High levels of occupational burnout associated with low levels of
Perceived
Organizational Support
employees’ occupational well-being. The illustration of the above analysis can be seen in figure 2. Figure 2 -.27*** -.74*** -.02 (without POS) .20*** (with POS)
Thirdly, to illustrate, in figure 3 was used as dependent variable the construct job satisfaction. Furthermore, the mediator variable perceived organizational support significantly positively predicted job satisfaction β = .84, SE = .08, t = -.9.13, p <.001 . Although, the frequency of face-to-face contact between manager and worker was not a direct predictor of job
satisfaction β = .05, SE = .07,, t =.71, p = .471 however, when this relationship was mediated by POS there existed significant negative relationship β = -.23, SE = .05, Z =-3.62, p <.001 . CI = (-.392, -.102). Similarly, to the previous model, the results indicated that there was a negative impact on the degree of occupational well-being of employees, who were separated of their supervisors. The degree of their job satisfaction decreased (see Figure 3).
Perceived
Organizational Support
Figure 3
-.27*** .84***
.05 (without POS)
-.23*** (with POS)
Last but not least, the fourth model I conducted to test the relationship between remote management and occupational well-being included as dependent variable the fourth construct with which I defined the degree of occupational well-being, particularly work engagement. Similarly to the previous models the frequency of manager-worker’s face-to-face contact was a strong predictor of perceived organizational support β = -.27, SE = .07, t = -3.97, p <.001 Furthermore, the perceived organizational support positively predicted work engagement β = .58, SE = .04, t = 10.77, p <.001, The direct effect of face-to-face contact to work
engagement was not significant β = -.04, SE = .04, t = -1.30, p = .195 but the results supported the mediating role of the perceived organizational support. Hence, the indirect effect was notable β = -.14, SE = .03, Z = -3.71, p <.001, CI = (-.257, -.068). Taking everything into consideration, the more support a supervisor provides to his subordinates, even in cases that he is able to give directions, advices, to assign tasks and generally to communicate with them face-to-face in less than daily basis, the more likely is the employees to feel engaged on their work, on their department or on their organization. Obviously, high levels of employee work engagement into the companies are always desirable and strongly
Perceived
Organizational Support
associated with high levels of overall occupational well-being of employees. (see figure 4). By means of this analysis above it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is not confirmed because we didn’t identify any direct effect from the independent to the dependent variable. In contrast, the mediation model was verified as expected in the hypothesis 3 and lastly the results of the analysis also support the hypothesis 2 regarding to the influence of the mediator perceived organizational support to the dependent variable.
Figure 4 -.27*** .58*** -.04 (without POS) -.14*** (with POS)
Perceived
Organizational Support
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study is to identify the degree to which the occupational well-being of employees is affected by the physical distance between manager-subordinate. More than ever before, a great number of workers are assigned projects by their managers who are operate from a different building, city or country. Past research acknowledged the impact of remote management to worker’s performance, but it had no concern about its impact to occupational well-being of employees.
The main assumption that my model wanted to clarify was that in cases that employees don’t have every day face-to-face contact with their supervisors, the degree of their occupational well-being is affected negatively. The operationalisation of the occupational-well being made by measuring it in terms of occupational stress, occupational burnout, job satisfaction and employee work engagement. The data analysis showed that the direct effect of remote supervision to the occupational well-being of employees was not possible. However, when there exists the mediation by perceived organizational support was observed a clear impact on three of the four constructs the term occupational well-being is represented by,
particularly occupational burnout, job satisfaction and work engagement.
Regarding to the mediator used in my analysis, particularly perceived organizational support, it became clear that the degree of support the subordinates receive of their supervisors, regardless of the distance that separates them, plays an essential role to the overall degree of their occupational well-being. In other words, this study revealed that the frequency of face-to-face contact between manager-worker, even in cases that is characterized as low, has no direct implications on the level of employee’s occupational well-being. The results indicated that the more supportive a manager is, the more likely is his subordinate to feel more satisfied by and more engaged in the particular job position. In contrast, is less likely to feel exhausted and symptoms of burnout. These findings are in line with the findings of Buchman (1974) regarding to employees who were holding managerial positions on business and on government sectors. These workers’ specific perceptions that the company they work for acknowledges their contribution and could be contingent on accomplishing promises, were positively associated with their affective dedication levels as it was measured according to the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.
In this study, as it has already been said, the four constructs that I measured the degree of occupational well-being was occupational stress, occupational burnout, job satisfaction and work engagement. Rothmann (2008) investigated the same constructs as components of occupational well-being in a sample of police force in South Africa and he recommended that similar studies should be conducted in other environments to confirm the strength of this model. Moreover, a great number of other studies taken place have been investigating the relationships between these particular constructs over the years (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Van der Colff & Rothmann, 2009; Hoigaard, Giske & Sundsli, 2011). These studies provide evidence that the model and particularly the dependent variables I used, could be considered accurate in order to be testified the impact of remote management to the occupational well-being of employees.
Companies could look more at the impact that the separation between manager-worker has to the latter’s degree of occupational well-being. Initiatives should be taken in order the workers to be more satisfied with their work environment and more engaged in the organization. This in turn will improve the levels of their work/life balance, which is one of the most
fundamental issues current companies struggling with. Moreover, their performance regarding to work-related issues will be increased significantly and undeniably the benefits that the company would gain are going to be remarkable.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association, Mind/body health: Job stress. Retrieved December 10,2017 from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/job-stress.aspx
Anderson, C.M. & Martin, M.M. 1995. Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses: Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction. The Journal of Business
Communication, 32(3): 249-265.
Beehr, T.A. & Newman, J.E. 1978. Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel psychology, 31(4): 665-699.
Bonet, R., Salvador, F. 2017. When the Boss Is Away: Manager–Worker Separation and Worker Performance in a Multisite Software Maintenance Organization. Organization Science 28(2): 244-261.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311
Brimeyer, T.M. Perrucci, R. & Wadsworth, S.M. 2010. Age, tenure, resources for control, and organizational commitment. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2): 511-530.
Conway, J. Effects of supervisor-employee relationship on job performance. Retrieved January 2, 2018 from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/opus/issues/2011/fall/effects
Crowley, M.C. 2015. Six Surprising insights of employee engagement. Retrieved December 12,2017 from https://www.fastcompany.com/3048503/6-surprising-insights-of-successful-employee-engagement
Dishman, L. 2015. What motivates employees across the globe. Retrieved December 17, 2017 from https://www.fastcompany.com/3048047/what-motivates-employees-across-the-globe
Dishman, L. 2017. How employee burnout became an epidemic and what it might take to
fix it. Retrieved December 14, 2017 from https://www.fastcompany.com/3067319/how-employee-burnout-became-an-epidemic-and-what-it-might-take-to-fix-it
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3): 500-507.
Gallup, Inc. Gallup Daily: U.S. Employee engagement. Retrieved December 12,2017 from
http://news.gallup.com/poll/180404/gallup-daily-employee-engagement.aspx
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Agrawal, S. & Plowman, S.K. 2013. The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Gallup Poll Consulting University Press, Washington.
Hassard, J., Teoh, K., Cox, T., Dewe, P., Cosmar, M., Gründler, R., Flemming, D., Cosemans, B., & Van den Broek, K. 2014. Calculating the cost of work-related stress and psychosocial risks. European risk observatory, 1-41.
Kennedy, T.S. 2017. Employee wellbeing: Critical to the health of your business. Retrieved December 12, 2017 from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-wellbeing-critical-health-your-business-t-scott-kennedy/
Knight, R. 2015. How to manage remote direct reports. Retrieved December 13,2017 from https://hbr.org/2015/02/how-to-manage-remote-direct-reports
Kompaso, S.M. & Sridevi, M.S. 2010. Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International journal of business and management, 5(12): 89-96.
Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B. 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
organizational Psychology, 1(1): 3-30.
MacLeod, D. & Clarke, N. 2014. The evidence: Well-being and employee engagement.
Maroney, J. 2017. The top three factors driving employee burnout. Retrieved December 21, 2017 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2017/02/01/the-biggest-workplace-challenge-employee-burnout/#2ab806c33549
Maslach, C., Leiter, M.P. & Schaufeli, W. 2008. Measuring burnout. In The Oxford
handbook of organizational well-being. 86-108.
Narainsamy, K. & Van Der Westhuizen, S. 2013. Work related well-being: Burnout, work engagement, occupational stress and job satisfaction within a medical laboratory
setting. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(3): 467-474.
Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. & Maslach, C. 2009. Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career development international, 14(3): 204-220.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of
applied psychology, 81(3): 219-227.
The employee burnout crisis: Study reveals big workplace challenge in 2017. Retrieved
December 12, 2017 from https://www.kronos.com/about-us/newsroom/employee-burnout-crisis-study-reveals-big-workplace-challenge-2017
Tillman, J., Hamill, L., Dungan, B., Lopez, S., & Lu, S. 2017. Employee stress, engagement and work outcomes. Retrieved December 12,2017 from
https://www.limeade.com/content/uploads/2017/04/EMPLOYEE-STRESS-ENGAGEMENT-AND-WORK-OUTCOMES
APPENDIX I: Operationalization table
Concept Dimensions Indicators Calculation of scores
Remote management Frequency of face to
face contact
1) Every day 2) more than once per week
3) Approximately one per week 4) More than once per month
5) Approximately once per month 6)1-3 times every three months 7) Less than once every three months
Perceived Organizational Support
Workers are inclined to evaluate
interactions with their managers either positively or
negatively in order to structure a spherical POS assessment of how they rank at their company (Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002).
The degree of support the
employee receives from his supervisor.
Based on Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison and Sowa (1986). 1) The organization values my contribution to its well-being. 2) The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R)
3) The organization would ignore any complaint from me. (R)
4) The organization really cares about my well-being. 5) Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice. (R) 6) The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. 7) The organization shows very little concern for me. (R) 8) The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work. (R) scored in the reversed direction. Perceived organizational support is calculated by ta using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (from strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It indicates the extent of participants’ agreement with each item.
Occupational Stress This kind of stress exists when there is
The degree of which work-related issues
a difference between employee’s skills and abilities on the one hand and pressure and demands of the working
environment on the other hand (Eggerth & Cunningham, 2012). lead to employee’s occupational stress. 1) My job is extremely stressful.
2) Very few stressful things happen to me at work. (R)
3) I feel a great deal of stress because of my job
4) I almost never feel stressed because of my work (R).
(Motowidlo et al., 1986).
Occupational stress is calculated by a four-item scale. Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Occupational burnout
Based on Maslach, Leiter and Schaufeli (2008).
1) I feel emotionally drained from my work.
2) I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job.
3) Working with people all day is really a strain for me.
5) I've become more callous towards people since I took this job.
6) I don't really care what happens to some of my customers and colleagues. 7) I deal very effectively with the problems of my customers and colleagues. (R) 8) I feel I'm positively influencing other people's lives through my work. (R) 9) I feel exhilarated after working closely with my customers and colleagues. (R) Job Satisfaction The degree to which
the employees feel satisfied in the work environment.
Based on Brayfield, and Rothe (1951)
1)I find real enjoyment in my job.
2) I like my job better than the average person.
The construct job satisfaction was
3) Most days I am enthusiastic about my job.
4) I feel fairly well satisfied with my job.
Work engagement Work engagement
Outcomes such as satisfaction, loyalty, pride defining the degree of employee engagement at work. Based on Harter, Schmidt, Agrawal, and Plowman, (2013). 1) I know what is expected of me at work. 2) I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. 3) At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
4) In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
5) My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
Employees’ occupational
engagement measured using the Gallup’s standard Q12
6) There is someone at work who encourages my development. 7) At work, my opinions seem to count. 8) The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important. 9) My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.
10) I have a best friend at work.
11) In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
12) This last year, I have had
APPENDIX II: Descriptive
Gender What is your gender?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
0 Male 111 55.0 55.0 55.0
1 Female 91 45.0 45.0 100.0
Total 202 100.0 100.0
Education What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 High School (or equivalent) 59 29.2 29.2 29.2 2 bachelor’s Degree (BSc, BA) 118 58.4 58.4 87.6 3 Graduate or Professional Degree (MSc, MA) 12 5.9 5.9 93.6 4 Master of Business Administration (MBA) 9 4.5 4.5 98.0 5 Doctorate Degree (PhD) 4 2.0 2.0 100.0 Total 202 100.0 100.0
Industry Please indicate the business your current organization operates in.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
1 Healthcare 25 12.4 12.4 12.4
3 Manufacturing 25 12.4 12.4 24.8
4 Business & Finance 43 21.3 21.3 46.0
How often do you have face-to-face contact with your supervisor?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Every day 100 51.0 51.0 51.0
More than once per week 67 33.2 33.2 84.2 Approximately once per
week 17 8.4 8.4 92.6
More than once per month 3 1.5 1.5 94.1 Approximately once per
month 3 1.5 1.5 95.5
1-3 times every three
months 2 1.0 1.0 96.5
Less than once every three
months 7 3.5 3.5 100.0
Total 202 100.0 100.0
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Age What is your current age
in whole years? 202 22 71 38.48 10.025
Hours.0 How many hours do you work per week? (in whole hours)
202 30 65 42.05 5.009
Years.0 How many years have you held the current job title for your current employer (in while years)?
202 0 24 5.65 4.324
Work experience How many years of total work experience do you have (in whole years)?
202 2 45 17.85 9.709
Years supervision How many years have you received supervision from your current supervisor (in whole years)?
202 0 22 4.58 3.601
