Applied Nursing Research 33 (2016) 61–66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Nursing Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apnr

The role of supervisor emotional support on individual job satisfaction:

A multilevel analysis
Sabine Pohl a, Maura Galletta b,⁎
a
Centre de Recherche en Psychologie du Travail et de la consommation, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
b
Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: Supervisor emotional support is a strong determinant of job satisfaction. There is no study
Received 27 July 2016 examining the effect of supervisor emotional support at the group level on job satisfaction. Multilevel
Accepted 3 October 2016 statistical techniques can help disentangle the effects of subjective assessments from those of group
Available online xxxx factors.
Aim: The study's aim was to examine the moderating role of supervisor emotional support (group-level
Keywords:
variable) on the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction (individual-level
Job satisfaction
Multilevel analysis
variables).
Nurses Method: A cross-sectional study was performed in 39 units from three Belgian hospitals. A total of 323 nurses
Supervisor emotional support completed a self-reported questionnaire. We carried out a multilevel analysis by using Hierarchical Linear
Work engagement Modeling.
Results: The results showed that the cross-level interaction was significant. Hence, at individual-level, the nurses
with high levels of work engagement showed high levels of job satisfaction and this relationship was stronger
when supervisor emotional support at group-level was high.
Conclusions: Contextual differences among groups had an impact on the form of the work engagement-job sat-
isfaction relationship. This relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction is an individual and
group level phenomenon. Ways to enhance emotional supervisor support include training supervisors in provid-
ing support and enhancing communication between nurses and supervisors.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

What is already known about the topic? 1. Introduction

• Supervisor support is recognized as an important source of workers'
Work engagement is defined as a persistent, pervasive and positive
satisfaction.
affective-motivational state of fulfilment (Maslac, Schaufeli, & Leiter,
• Supervisors have an impact on the affective reactions of team members.
2001). Work engagement was introduced as the conceptual opposite
• Employees who received high emotional supervisor support experi-
to a burnout (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). Employees achieve their
ence high levels of congruence between their goals and their abilities.
best when they are engaged in their work (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). Pre-
vious papers in nursing literature have called for more research on work
What this paper adds engagement because it is still misunderstood among the nursing work-
force (Freeney & Tiernan, 2009). In effect, a lack of recent literature on
• Supervisor emotional support at the group level moderates the the topic reflects an important gap for which further investigation is
relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction at the needed. A better understanding of nurses' engagement is needed in
individual level. order to increase healthcare organizational outcomes (Simpson,
• Emotional supervisor support perceptions are shared by members 2009). The first aim of the study is to analyse how work engagement
within workgroups and interact with work engagement at the at the individual level and supervisor emotional support at the group
individual level in affecting job satisfaction. level are related to nurses' satisfaction with their job. Although the ben-
• Emotional supervisor support at the group level is an effective efits of work engagement are widely recognized, liminal conditions lim-
resource for enhancing nurses' well-being. iting their impact have yet to be fully examined. The second objective is
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health,
to analyse the moderating effect of supervisor emotional support at the
University of Cagliari, SS554 bivio per Sestu, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy. group level. A multi-level approach was used to test a model of nurse
E-mail address: maura.galletta@gmail.com (M. Galletta). job satisfaction.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2016.10.004
0897-1897/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
62 S. Pohl, M. Galletta / Applied Nursing Research 33 (2016) 61–66

2. Work engagement perceptions of perceived supervisor support differ significantly among

teams, due to different levels of support across the team (Bliese &
Work engagement encompasses three dimensions; vigour, dedica- Castro, 2000). Bliese and Castro (2000) recommended to use the aggre-
tion, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, gate of group member's perceptions of supervisors support because em-
2002). Vigour is characterized by “a high level of energy and mental re- ployees are embedded within teams that in turn influence them.
silience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one's work, Aggregate construct reflects higher level of contextual influences that
and persistence even in the face of difficulties” (Schaufeli, Bakker, & are not captured by individual constructs (Sora, Caballer, Peiró, & De
Salanova, 2006; p. 4). Dedication consists in one's strong involvement Witte, 2009). Employees in teams are exposed to common environmen-
in work, accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm, significance and tal stimuli such as shared leadership (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). An
pride. Finally, absorption consists in being fully focused, happy, and is individual's perception of supervisors' support reflects an individual's
characterized by time passing quickly and having difficulty detaching dyadic relationship with his or her own supervisor. Shared individual
oneself from work (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). Work engage- perceptions of a supervisor among team members reflect a shared social
ment is a persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not reality (Thomas, Bliese, & Jex, 2005). The interaction between team
focused on a particular object, event, individual or behaviour members creates collective norms and gives rise to the collective per-
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Nurse work engagement is focused on personal ception of supervisor support through repeated cycles of individual in-
achievement and it is patient-centred (Freeney & Tiernan, 2009). teractions and influence. When perceived supervisor support is high,
Engaged employees often experience positive emotions. Engaged team members engage in mutually benefiting actions within the team,
employees feel often high positive affect such as enthusiasm, energy, thus giving rise to the collective perception of supervisor support at
and happiness (Bakker & Bal, 2010). Prior research on the consequences group level (Degoey, 2000). In healthcare organizations, nurses' direct
of work engagement has demonstrated it is related to job satisfaction supervisors influence behaviours toward the team as a whole. It is rea-
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2008). Similarly, in the sonable to consider supervisory support as a shared group property. In
context of healthcare, Giallonardo, Wong, and Iwasiw (2010) the present research, we have conceptualized emotional supervisor
demonstrated that when nurses perceived higher work engagement, support as the contextual property of each team, and our interest lies
they reported increased job satisfaction. in determining the role that this supportive emotional supervisory envi-
ronment has on the relationship between work engagement and job
Hypothesis 1. At the individual level, work engagement is positively satisfaction.
related to job satisfaction. Supervisor support at group-level extends beyond the norm of reci-
procity in that high supervisor support provides employees with addi-
tional resources to better accomplish their goals and facilitates
3. Perceived emotional supervisor support cooperation among group members (Hochwarter, Witt, Treadway, &
Ferris, 2006). When team members work in a supportive environment,
Perceived supervisor support (PSS) refers to employees' beliefs they will feel more competent and valued (Pohl, Dal Santo, & Battistelli,
about the degree to which their supervisors care about them and 2013). Supervisor support at the group level may offer additional re-
value their contribution to work outcomes (Golden & Veiga, 2008). sources in the long run (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Supervisor support
Employees would view their supervisor's favourable or unfavourable at the group level could buffer the relationship between organizational
treatment toward them as indicative of the perceived support received constraints and job satisfaction (Stetz, Stetz, & Bliese, 2006). When su-
from their supervisors (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, pervisor support at the group level is high and when employee interac-
Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Supervisors have an impact on the tions are positive, supervisor support could have a beneficial influence
affective reactions of team members (Durham, Knight, & Locke, 1997). on the relationship between work engagement and job outcomes by
Supervisor support is recognized as an important source of an providing extra socio-emotional resources (Wallace, Edwards, Arnold,
employee's satisfaction (Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001). Empirical Frazier, & Finch, 2009).
studies show effectively that evaluation of supervisor support is an Following this discussion, we argue that emotional supervisor
important determinant of job satisfaction (Galletta, Portoghese, Penna, support (at the group level) positively affects work engagement-job
Battistelli, & Saiani, 2011; Griffin et al., 2001; Ng & Sorensen, 2008). satisfaction relationships above and beyond individual perceptions of
Support is often further broken into instrumental support and emo- emotional supervisor support (at the individual level). Therefore, it is
tional support. Employees will often prefer certain types of support over suggested that the relationship between work engagement and job
others depending on the situation (Thoits, 1985). Supervisors dispense satisfaction will be stronger in the context of higher levels of emotional
instrumental support by providing work-related information and feed- supervisor support due to the augmented availability of resources and
back (Reblin & Uchino, 2008). Supervisors can also give employees to the increased socio-emotional support.
emotional advice and support in order to help them regulate their emo-
tions (Ury, 1991). Emotional support takes the form of sympathy, car- Hypothesis 3. Supervisor emotional support at the group level
ing, comfort, and encouragement (Reblin & Uchino, 2008). Employees moderates the positive relationship between work engagement and
who received high emotional supervisor support experience high levels job satisfaction at the individual level.
of congruence between their goals and their capabilities. Individuals
with such goal self-concordance are more satisfied (Xanthopoulou, Fig. 1 summarizes the investigated relationships between variables.
Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). We argue that emotional super- The figure distinguishes the examined measures at the individual level
visor support is positively associated with job satisfaction. of analyses (work engagement, job satisfaction and emotional supervi-
sor support at the individual level) from those obtained at the group
Hypothesis 2. At the individual level, emotional supervisor support is level (emotional supervisor support at the group level).
positively related to job satisfaction.
5. Method

4. Emotional supervisor support at the group level 5.1. Design

All the research conducted to date has focused on individual percep- This research included a cross-sectional study proposal with
tion of perceived supervisor support. But it is likely that individual self-reported questionnaires. Hierarchical linear modelling (HLM:
 S. Pohl, M. Galletta / Applied Nursing Research 33 (2016) 61–66 63

Supervisor 5.4. Ethical approval

emotional
support The approval to carry out the research was obtained from ethical
committees of the University of Brussels according to the Code of Ethics
of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki). Formal con-
H3
sent to conduct the study was attained from the Health Management of
Group-level: nursing work unit each hospital. Then, nurses were contacted. They were informed about
Individual-level: single nurses the study's purpose and that their participation was anonymous.
Work Job Informed consent was assured when participants returned filled-out
H1
engagement satisfaction questionnaires.

H2 5.5. Data analysis

Supervisor
emotional In line with previous similar studies (e.g. Galletta, Portoghese,
support Battistelli, & Leiter, 2013; Galletta, Portoghese, Carta, D'Aloja, &
Campagna, 2016; Portoghese, Galletta, Battistelli, & Leiter, 2015), as
the data derived from the same source, we performed a number of
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model for cross-level moderation effect. H=hypothesis. The variables
measured at Individual-level refer to the perception of each single nurse. Supervisor steps to ensure their reliability. First, confirmatory factor analysis
emotional support measured at Group-level represents the common perception shared (CFA) of the measures was performed via structural equations model-
by work group members. ling (SEM), based on fit indices such as the incremental fit index (IFI),
the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of ap-
Raundenbush & Bryk, 2002) was used to analyse the multilevel data re- proximation (RMSEA). Then, a structural model was tested by using
ferring to the relationship between variables at the individual and group competing models. Specifically, we compared a three-factor model
levels. with a one-factor alternative model in which the items of work engage-
ment, job satisfaction, and supervisor emotional support were set to
load on a common factor. Finally, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was cal-
5.2. Sample and data collection
culated to assess the internal consistency of all the measures.
The HLM approach was used to test a cross-level model by using
Participants to the study consisted of 323 nurses out of 459 (70.1%
HLM 6.02 statistics software. To justify the aggregation of supervisor
response rate) working in 39 units from three Belgian urban hospitals.
emotional support as a group-level variable, we followed Klein et al.
A structured paper questionnaire was given to the participants during
(2000)'s approach by assessing both within-group agreement and
working hours. Participation to the study was voluntary and all the
between-group variability. Precisely, the intra-class correlations
filled-out questionnaires were returned in a locked box.
ICC(1) and ICC(2) were used to estimate between-group variability.
More specifically, ICC(1) refers to reliability of individuals' ratings with-
5.3. Measures in each group (Bliese, 2000). ICC(2) denotes the reliability of the group
mean rates (Bliese, 1998). A significant value for ICC(1) is included in a
Questionnaires included a section with demographical data such as range of 0.05–0.20 (Bliese, 2000). The cut-off value for ICC(2) should be
gender, age, and organizational tenure. A different section included a ≥0.60 (Glick, 1985; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998). The within-group
set of scales regarding study variables. Following Brislin (1980)'s indica- concordance was calculated by using rwg(j) values (James, Demaree, &
tions, the back-translation was carried out to translate the instrument Wolf, 1984). To test our hypotheses, our first step was to estimate two
from English to French and Dutch. Null baseline models without the individual- or group-level predictors.
Then, we were able to analyse whether between-group variance in the
5.3.1. Job satisfaction dependent variables was significant or not. In this way, we had informa-
The Index of Work Satisfaction (Cortese, 2007; Stamps, 1998) was tion on the quantity of variance associated to individuals within and
used. This measure included 22 items that investigated various ele- between teams. Also, we calculated the random effects (τ00) only for
ments of job satisfaction in nursing context, such as job content and the intercepts. We performed all the analyses by using grand mean
work relationships with supervisors and colleagues. A five-point scale centring.
was used to answer each item (e.g.: I am satisfied with a sense of fulfil- Hofmann and Gavin's (1998) technique was performed to test
ment generated by my job). cross-level interaction. We investigated whether the supervisor emo-
tional support (group-level) moderation on the work engagement-job
satisfaction relationship at the individual level represented a cross-
5.3.2. Work engagement
level or between-group interaction. Hence, we explored the cross-
Work engagement was assessed by using Utrecht Work Engagement
level interaction by computing group-mean centring with the
Scale (UWES: Schaufeli et al., 2006). The scale consists of 9 items with a
between-group variance in work engagement, which was inserted
three-factor structure which includes the vigour, dedication, and ab-
in the group level intercept model. Therefore, we separated the
sorption sub-dimensions. Each item was answered on a seven-point
total variance of work engagement into the two within- and
scale. A sample item included: “I'm full of energy while I'm working”.
between-group components to examine which of the two sources
of variance interacted with supervisor emotional support. We tested
5.3.3. Supervisor emotional support two models to explore the cross-level interaction. The preliminary
Four items adapted from the perceived organizational support (POS) model analysed the relationship between work engagement and job
scale (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) were used to satisfaction at the individual level, as well as the effect of supervisor
measure perceived supervisor emotional support. The items were emotional support. This model tested the variability in the relation-
modified in a similar manner as described in Rhoades, Eisenberger, ship between work engagement and job satisfaction across teams.
and Armeli (2001). The survey items were measured using a five- In a second model we tested the interacting effect of supervisor emo-
point scale ranging from 1 (‘Completely disagree’) to 5 (‘Completely tional support on the work engagement-job satisfaction relationship
agree’). (=Hypothesis 3).
64 S. Pohl, M. Galletta / Applied Nursing Research 33 (2016) 61–66

Table 1 Table 3
Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables. Results for cross level interaction.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 Model 1 Model 2

1. Job satisfaction 3.77 0.52 (0.92) Dependent variable Job satisfaction

2. Work engagement 3.66 0.63 0.502** (0.86)
Fixed effects Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
3. Individual supervisor emotional 3.31 0.75 0.455** 0.301** (0.88)
support Intercept
4. Group supervisor emotional 3.31 0.37 0.144** 0.120* 0.485** – Individual-level
support Work engagement 0.39** 0.03 0.41** 0.04
Group-level
Note. N = 323, Cronbach's Alpha values are shown in parentheses, **p b 0.01, *p b 0.05.
Supervisor emotional support 0.14 0.07 0.54 0.45
Italiced values ≥ 0.70 are considered acceptable whereas ≥ 0.80 are preferred.
Mean Work engagement 0.49** 0.10 0.83* 0.33
Mean Work engagement*Supervisor -0.11 0.12
emotional support
Finally, the structure of the interaction was tested according to Aiken
Cross-level moderation
and West's (1991) technique. We plotted regression lines for the asso- Work engagement*Supervisor 0.10* 0.03
ciation between predictor and outcome variable at the low and high emotional support
levels of moderator variable. δ2 0.19 0.19
τ00 0.02 0.02
τ11 0.01 0.01
6. Results
Note. δ2 = Variance in Level 1 residual; τ00 = Variance in Level 2 residual; τ11 = Variance
in Level 2 residual. **p b 0.001, *p b 0.05.
The majority of the participants (82%) were female. On average, the
age of the nurses was 27.3 years (SD = 19.8), employed for 8.24 years in
the current unit (SD = 8.25, range = 1–40) The average number of that there was an embedding effect in the data, thus legitimizing the
nurses in 39 units was 8 nurses. use of cross-level analysis.
Table 1 shows correlations, means, and standard deviations for all Hypothesis 1 assumed that, at the individual level, work engage-
the study variables. The Cronbach's Alpha values reported for each mea- ment was positively related to job satisfaction. The results gave support
sure are very good and meet the threshold of 0.70—as indicated by for this hypothesis (β = 0.40, p b 0.001). Hypothesis 2 postulated that
Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). emotional support from supervisor at the individual level was positively
related to job satisfaction. Also Hypotheses 2 was supported (β = 0.35,
6.1. Testing measurement model p b 0.001).

The measurement model fitted the data well: χ2 (df = 116, N = 6.3.1. Hypothesis 3: cross-level interaction
323) = 356.1, IFI = 0.91; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.08. Comparing the We examined whether the interaction between work engagement
three-factor model to the one-factor model, we found that a χ2 differ- at individual-level and supervisor emotional support at group-level
ence test was significant: Δχ2(5) = 876.7, p b 0.001. The results for the was significant. Supervisor emotional support was inserted as a
one-factor model were significantly worse than the three-factor predictor variable of the variance in the slopes relating work engage-
model (Table 2). Factor validity was supported. ment to job satisfaction at individual-level. The analysis highlighted
that there was no evidence for a significant between-group interaction
6.2. Testing intraclass correlation (β = − 0.12, ns), but the cross-level interaction was significant (β =
0.10, p b 0.05), thereby supporting Hypothesis 3. The overall R2 of the
To test how supervisor emotional support at the group level affected moderation model was 0.19 (Table 3).
the work engagement-job satisfaction relationship at the individual We plotted regression lines for the association between work en-
level, we aggregated the average scores of supervisor emotional support gagement and job satisfaction at the low and high levels of supervisor
as a cluster variable at the group level. The scores of the scale showed a emotional support. We found that the form of the moderation
high agreement. Specifically, the ICC(1) value for supervisor emotional conformed to our expectations. Fig. 2 shows that nurses who demon-
support was 0.13. The ICC(2) coefficient was 0.56. The average r⁎wg(j) strated high work engagement levels were more satisfied with their
of supervisor emotional support across 39 units was 0.64 (median = job, and this association was stronger when the common perception
0.69, group size mean = 8). These results indicate that it is statistically of emotional support from supervisor was high (simple slope for high
reasonable to consider supervisor emotional support as a variable per- value of moderator = 0.45, t = 2.54, p b 0.05). When the value of the
ceived at the group level. moderator was low the relationship was significantly less strong
(simple slope for a low value of moderator = 0.37, t = 2.06, p = 0.046).
6.3. Test of the hypotheses
7. Discussion
We found a significant within-group variation for work engagement
[τ00 = 0.03, χ2 (38) = 59.32, p b 0.05 and ICC(1) = 0.07], thus showing The first purpose of the current research was to examine the rela-
that work engagement had 7% between-group variance. Similar find- tionship between both work engagement and emotional supervisor
ings were observed also for job satisfaction [τ00 = 0.03, χ2 (38) = support at the individual level and job satisfaction. Findings highlighted
75.52, p b 0.001 and ICC(1) = 0.12], thereby displaying that 12% of var- that both emotional supervisor support and work engagement were
iance in job satisfaction exists between the teams. We are able to say positively related to job satisfaction.
Nurses are confronted with a variety of patients that can stimulate
various emotional responses. Nurses consider emotional support by
Table 2
Confirmatory factor analysis. their supervisor as an indication that their efforts are considered, and
it means that emotional support is available when needed. One result
Model χ2 df Δχ2 Δdf IFI CFI RMSEA
of emotional supervisor support is to experience positive emotions
Three-factor measurement model 356.1 116 0.91 0.91 0.08 (Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006). The findings of this research are in line
One-factor model 1232.8 121 876.7 5 0.57 0.57 0.17 with other studies which showed that supervisor emotional support is
Note. N = . an important well-being factor which increases job satisfaction
 S. Pohl, M. Galletta / Applied Nursing Research 33 (2016) 61–66 65

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

Job satisfaction
Low Supervisor
emotional support
2.50 (-1 SD)
2.00
High Supervisor
1.50 emotional support
(+1 SD)
1.00

0.50

0.00
Low Work engagement (-1 SD) High Work engagement (+1 SD)

Fig. 2. Moderating (cross-level) effect of supervisor emotional support on the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction.

(Griffin et al., 2001). In another study, they were important factors in- evidence connecting work engagement and emotional supervisor sup-
creasing team commitment (e.g. Galletta, Portoghese, Coppola, Finco, port with job satisfaction, longitudinal studies are needed. Thus, future
& Campagna, 2016). This study adds to the literature the importance research should measure work engagement at multiple time intervals
of the group dimension: group dynamics are shared within the work to reveal if, when, and how the relationships between work engage-
group, as well as emotional supervisor support perceptions. If team ment, emotional supervisor support and job satisfaction may be
members share positive perceptions of emotional support from supervi- changing. Future investigations could also examine the influence of
sors, they can perceive a common sense of satisfaction with their work emotional supervisor support on other main work factors such as
unit. Thus, providing acknowledgement, trust, and empathy can be an organizational citizenship behaviour, for example. Second, data was
important supervisor strategy to promote quality of the interpersonal merely based on self-reports, which might have overstated the relation-
relationship at work. ships between variables. Future research could integrate additional ob-
A second objective of this research was to identify workgroup factors jectives, especially regarding job outcomes. A third limitation regards
that contribute to the relevance of the relationship between work en- the fact that we did not examine instrumental supervisor support, but
gagement and job satisfaction. The results showed that the relationship only the emotional support. A more complete investigation should
between work engagement and job satisfaction did vary across teams. combine both emotional and instrumental supports.
In other words, work environment differences among teams had an im-
pact on the form of the work engagement-job satisfaction relationship. 7.2. Implications for nursing management
Therefore, the relationship between work engagement and job satisfac-
tion is an individual and group level phenomenon. Nurses' perception This research provides additional evidence about the advantages
regarding the quality of supervisor emotional support can be in some that hospitals can achieve by emotionally supporting their staff, and
way shared within the same team. In this sense, the study makes a valu- suggests the importance to promote supervisor training to increase
able addition to the scientific literature by analyzing a multilevel model how they can be more supportive towards their workers. Therefore,
in which both group-level and individual-level factors affect nurses' job this study provides valuable insights for hospital health managers who
satisfaction. Specifically, our findings revealed that the relationship be- should consider emotional supervisor support as an effective means of
tween work engagement and job satisfaction at the individual level enhancing nurses' well-being. Based on our results, implementing inter-
was buffered by supervisor emotional support at the group level. This vention strategies designed exclusively at the individual level may not
means that high level of engagement with one's own work in terms of be adequate. Reasonably, it could be also important to reflect on inter-
energy, vigour, and dedication was related to a high level of job satisfac- vention policies aimed at improving emotional supervisor support at
tion, and this relationship was stronger when common perceptions of the team level. Team members' shared perceptions of emotional super-
supervisor emotional support were high. In other words, shared super- visor support determine the intensity of the link between work engage-
visor emotional support interacts with work engagement in affecting ment and job satisfaction. Potential ways to increase emotional
nurses' job satisfaction. This cross-level moderation highlights that the supervisor support involve training supervisors in providing support
work experience of a single nurse can be conditioned by team-specific and enhancing communication between nurses and supervisors.
characteristics such as good interpersonal relationships and good super- Although emotional supervisor support is a powerful resource, its utility
visor emotional support. Furthermore, this result emphasizes the im- is also group-specific.
portance of feelings such as acceptance, caring and trust by supervisor
in fostering engagement, interest, and satisfaction with the work activ- 8. Conclusions
ity. In this way, emotional support from a supervisor plays an important
role in increasing work attitudes, which contribute to increase organiza- This study showed that supporting emotionally nurses is important
tional well-being among all nurse staff (Daniels & Guppy, 1994; Wong & to promoting team well-being and increase an individual's job
Cheuk, 2005). satisfaction.

7.1. Limitations of the study and future research Sources of funding

This study is not without limitations. Firstly, the study was cross- This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in
sectional and thus causality cannot be inferred. Although there is strong the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
66 S. Pohl, M. Galletta / Applied Nursing Research 33 (2016) 61–66

Conflict of Interest Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engage-
ment be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?
European Psychologist, 11, 119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119.
No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interaction of so-
cial skill and organizational support on job performance. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 482–489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.482.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:
Appendix A. Supplementary data Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. Journal of
Management, 24, 623–641.
James, D. L., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliabil-
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. ity with and without response bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2016.10.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85.
Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Griffin, M. A., ...
Bligh, M. C. (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences,
and continuing questions. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
References research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions
(pp. 512–553). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
Newbury Park: Sage Publications. organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J.
Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations,
among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
189–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596. Maslac, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simula- Psychology, 52, 397–422.
tion. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
109442819814001. Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implica- between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group &
tions for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Mul- Organization Management, 33, 243–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307.
tilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jossey-Bass. Pohl, S., Dal Santo, L., & Battistelli, A. (2013). Perceived organizational support, job charac-
Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support: teristics and intrinsic motivation as antecedents of organizational citizenship behav-
Multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work and Stress, 14, 65–73. http:// iours of nurses. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 25, 39–52.
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.272. Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., Battistelli, A., & Leiter, M. P. (2015). A multilevel investigation
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. on nursing turnover intention: The cross-level role of leader-member exchange.
Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. 2. (pp. 389–444). Journal of Nursing Management, 23, 754–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12205.
Allyn & Bacon: Boston. Raundenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data anal-
Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between ysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Reblin, M., & Uchino, B. N. (2008). Social and emotional support and its implication for
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 463–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.381. health. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 21, 201–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/YCO.
Cortese, C. G. (2007). Job satisfaction of Italian nurses: An exploratory study. Journal of 0b013e3282f3ad89.
Nursing Management, 15, 303–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organiza-
00694.x. tion: The contribution of perceived organizational support. The Journal of Applied
Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psy- Psychology, 86, 825–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825.
chological well-being. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
Sciences, 47, 15–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404701205. with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in orga- Behavior, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248.
nizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
S0191-3085(00)22003-0. with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal diffi- Measurement, 66, 701–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471.
culty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measure-
Decision Processes, 72, 203–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2739. ment of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326.
support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work
0021-9010.71.3.500. engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Psychology. An International Review, 57, 173–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-
Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support 0597.2007.00285.x.
and employee retention. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. http://dx. Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer per-
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565. ceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
Freeney, Y. M., & Tiernan, J. (2009). Exploration of the facilitators of and barriers to work 83, 150–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150.
engagement in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1557–1565. Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.05.003. of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012–1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003.
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Carta, M. G., D'Aloja, E., & Campagna, M. (2016). The effect of Sora, B., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity climate's influence on em-
nurse-physician collaboration on job satisfaction, team commitment, and turnover ployees' job attitudes: Evidence from two European countries. European Journal of Work and
intention in nurses. Research in Nursing & Health, 39, 375–385. http://dx.doi.org/10. Organizational Psychology, 18, 125–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320802211968.
1002/nur.21733. Stamps, P. L. (1998). Nurses and work satisfaction: An index for measurement. The
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Coppola, R. C., Finco, G., & Campagna, M. (2016). Nurses well- American Journal of Nursing, 98, 16KK-16LL. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000446-
being in intensive care units: Study of factors promoting team commitment. Nursing 199803000-00017.
in Critical Care, 21, 146–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12083. Stetz, T., Stetz, M., & Bliese, P. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the moderating
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Battistelli, A., & Leiter, M. P. (2013). The roles of unit leadership effects of social support on stressor–strain relationships. Work and Stress, 20, 49–59.
and nurse-physician collaboration on nursing turnover intention. Journal of Advanced http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370600624039.
Nursing, 69, 1771–1784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.12039. Thoits, P. A. (1985). Social support and psychological well-being: Theoretical possibilities.
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Penna, M. P., Battistelli, A., & Saiani, L. (2011). Turnover inten- In I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications
tion among italian nurses: The moderating roles of supervisor support and organiza- (pp. 51–72). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
tional support. Nursing & Health Sciences, 13, 184–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2005). Interpersonal conflict and organizational
1442-2018.2011.00596.x. commitment: Examining two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators.
Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of preceptors: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2375–2398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
Predictor of new graduate nurses' work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of 1816.2005.tb02107.x.
Nursing Management, 18, 993–1003. Ury, W. L. (1991). Getting past no: Negotiating with difficult people. New York: Bantam.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors,
climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. The
601–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4279045. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 254–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013090.
Golden, T., & Veiga, J. (2008). The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the Wong, K. S., & Cheuk, W. H. (2005). Job-related stress and social support in kindergarten
commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. The Leadership principals: The case of Macau. International Journal of Educational Management, 19,
Quarterly, 19, 77–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.009. 183–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540510590977.
Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: The Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal
role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 537–550. http://dx. relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal
doi.org/10.1002/job.101. of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121.