The role of supervisor emotional support on individual ...

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 b

Centre de Recherche en Psychologie du Travail et de la consommation, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 27 July 2016 Accepted 3 October 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Job satisfaction Multilevel analysis Nurses Supervisor emotional support Work engagement

a b s t r a c t Introduction: Supervisor emotional support is a strong determinant of job satisfaction. There is no study examining the effect of supervisor emotional support at the group level on job satisfaction. Multilevel statistical techniques can help disentangle the effects of subjective assessments from those of group factors. Aim: The study's aim was to examine the moderating role of supervisor emotional support (group-level variable) on the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction (individual-level variables). Method: A cross-sectional study was performed in 39 units from three Belgian hospitals. A total of 323 nurses completed a self-reported questionnaire. We carried out a multilevel analysis by using Hierarchical Linear 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 satisfaction 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 providing support and enhancing communication between nurses and supervisors. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

What is already known about the topic? • Supervisor support is recognized as an important source of workers' satisfaction. • Supervisors have an impact on the affective reactions of team members. • Employees who received high emotional supervisor support experience high levels of congruence between their goals and their abilities.

What this paper adds • Supervisor emotional support at the group level moderates the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction at the individual level. • Emotional supervisor support perceptions are shared by members within workgroups and interact with work engagement at the individual level in affecting job satisfaction. • Emotional supervisor support at the group level is an effective resource for enhancing nurses' well-being. ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, SS554 bivio per Sestu, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Galletta).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2016.10.004 0897-1897/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Work engagement is defined as a persistent, pervasive and positive affective-motivational state of fulfilment (Maslac, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Work engagement was introduced as the conceptual opposite to a burnout (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006). Employees achieve their best when they are engaged in their work (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). Previous papers in nursing literature have called for more research on work engagement because it is still misunderstood among the nursing workforce (Freeney & Tiernan, 2009). In effect, a lack of recent literature on the topic reflects an important gap for which further investigation is needed. A better understanding of nurses' engagement is needed in order to increase healthcare organizational outcomes (Simpson, 2009). The first aim of the study is to analyse how work engagement at the individual level and supervisor emotional support at the group level are related to nurses' satisfaction with their job. Although the benefits of work engagement are widely recognized, liminal conditions limiting their impact have yet to be fully examined. The second objective is to analyse the moderating effect of supervisor emotional support at the group level. A multi-level approach was used to test a model of nurse job satisfaction.

62

S. Pohl, M. Galletta / Applied Nursing Research 33 (2016) 61–66

2. Work engagement Work engagement encompasses three dimensions; vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Vigour is characterized by “a high level of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one's work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties” (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006; p. 4). Dedication consists in one's strong involvement in work, accompanied by feelings of enthusiasm, significance and pride. Finally, absorption consists in being fully focused, happy, and is characterized by time passing quickly and having difficulty detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). Work engagement is a persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on a particular object, event, individual or behaviour (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Nurse work engagement is focused on personal achievement and it is patient-centred (Freeney & Tiernan, 2009). Engaged employees often experience positive emotions. Engaged employees feel often high positive affect such as enthusiasm, energy, and happiness (Bakker & Bal, 2010). Prior research on the consequences of work engagement has demonstrated it is related to job satisfaction (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2008). Similarly, in the context of healthcare, Giallonardo, Wong, and Iwasiw (2010) demonstrated that when nurses perceived higher work engagement, they reported increased job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1. At the individual level, work engagement is positively related to job satisfaction.

3. Perceived emotional supervisor support Perceived supervisor support (PSS) refers to employees' beliefs about the degree to which their supervisors care about them and value their contribution to work outcomes (Golden & Veiga, 2008). Employees would view their supervisor's favourable or unfavourable treatment toward them as indicative of the perceived support received from their supervisors (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Supervisors have an impact on the affective reactions of team members (Durham, Knight, & Locke, 1997). Supervisor support is recognized as an important source of an employee's satisfaction (Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001). Empirical studies show effectively that evaluation of supervisor support is an important determinant of job satisfaction (Galletta, Portoghese, Penna, Battistelli, & Saiani, 2011; Griffin et al., 2001; Ng & Sorensen, 2008). Support is often further broken into instrumental support and emotional support. Employees will often prefer certain types of support over others depending on the situation (Thoits, 1985). Supervisors dispense instrumental support by providing work-related information and feedback (Reblin & Uchino, 2008). Supervisors can also give employees emotional advice and support in order to help them regulate their emotions (Ury, 1991). Emotional support takes the form of sympathy, caring, comfort, and encouragement (Reblin & Uchino, 2008). Employees who received high emotional supervisor support experience high levels of congruence between their goals and their capabilities. Individuals with such goal self-concordance are more satisfied (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). We argue that emotional supervisor support is positively associated with job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2. At the individual level, emotional supervisor support is positively related to job satisfaction.

perceptions of perceived supervisor support differ significantly among teams, due to different levels of support across the team (Bliese & Castro, 2000). Bliese and Castro (2000) recommended to use the aggregate of group member's perceptions of supervisors support because employees are embedded within teams that in turn influence them. Aggregate construct reflects higher level of contextual influences that are not captured by individual constructs (Sora, Caballer, Peiró, & De Witte, 2009). Employees in teams are exposed to common environmental stimuli such as shared leadership (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). An individual's perception of supervisors' support reflects an individual's dyadic relationship with his or her own supervisor. Shared individual perceptions of a supervisor among team members reflect a shared social reality (Thomas, Bliese, & Jex, 2005). The interaction between team members creates collective norms and gives rise to the collective perception of supervisor support through repeated cycles of individual interactions and influence. When perceived supervisor support is high, team members engage in mutually benefiting actions within the team, thus giving rise to the collective perception of supervisor support at group level (Degoey, 2000). In healthcare organizations, nurses' direct supervisors influence behaviours toward the team as a whole. It is reasonable to consider supervisory support as a shared group property. In the present research, we have conceptualized emotional supervisor support as the contextual property of each team, and our interest lies in determining the role that this supportive emotional supervisory environment has on the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction. Supervisor support at group-level extends beyond the norm of reciprocity in that high supervisor support provides employees with additional resources to better accomplish their goals and facilitates cooperation among group members (Hochwarter, Witt, Treadway, & Ferris, 2006). When team members work in a supportive environment, they will feel more competent and valued (Pohl, Dal Santo, & Battistelli, 2013). Supervisor support at the group level may offer additional resources in the long run (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Supervisor support at the group level could buffer the relationship between organizational constraints and job satisfaction (Stetz, Stetz, & Bliese, 2006). When supervisor support at the group level is high and when employee interactions are positive, supervisor support could have a beneficial influence on the relationship between work engagement and job outcomes by providing extra socio-emotional resources (Wallace, Edwards, Arnold, Frazier, & Finch, 2009). Following this discussion, we argue that emotional supervisor support (at the group level) positively affects work engagement-job satisfaction relationships above and beyond individual perceptions of emotional supervisor support (at the individual level). Therefore, it is suggested that the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction will be stronger in the context of higher levels of emotional supervisor support due to the augmented availability of resources and to the increased socio-emotional support. Hypothesis 3. Supervisor emotional support at the group level moderates the positive relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction at the individual level. Fig. 1 summarizes the investigated relationships between variables. The figure distinguishes the examined measures at the individual level of analyses (work engagement, job satisfaction and emotional supervisor support at the individual level) from those obtained at the group level (emotional supervisor support at the group level). 5. Method

4. Emotional supervisor support at the group level

5.1. Design

All the research conducted to date has focused on individual perception of perceived supervisor support. But it is likely that individual

This research included a cross-sectional study proposal with self-reported questionnaires. Hierarchical linear modelling (HLM:


5.4. Ethical approval

Supervisor emotional support

H3

Group-level: nursing work unit Individual-level: single nurses Work engagement

63

H1

Job satisfaction

H2

Supervisor emotional support

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 emotional support measured at Group-level represents the common perception shared by work group members.

Raundenbush & Bryk, 2002) was used to analyse the multilevel data referring to the relationship between variables at the individual and group levels. 5.2. Sample and data collection Participants to the study consisted of 323 nurses out of 459 (70.1% response rate) working in 39 units from three Belgian urban hospitals. A structured paper questionnaire was given to the participants during working hours. Participation to the study was voluntary and all the filled-out questionnaires were returned in a locked box. 5.3. Measures Questionnaires included a section with demographical data such as gender, age, and organizational tenure. A different section included a set of scales regarding study variables. Following Brislin (1980)'s indications, the back-translation was carried out to translate the instrument from English to French and Dutch. 5.3.1. Job satisfaction The Index of Work Satisfaction (Cortese, 2007; Stamps, 1998) was used. This measure included 22 items that investigated various elements of job satisfaction in nursing context, such as job content and work relationships with supervisors and colleagues. A five-point scale was used to answer each item (e.g.: I am satisfied with a sense of fulfilment generated by my job). 5.3.2. Work engagement Work engagement was assessed by using Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES: Schaufeli et al., 2006). The scale consists of 9 items with a three-factor structure which includes the vigour, dedication, and absorption sub-dimensions. Each item was answered on a seven-point scale. A sample item included: “I'm full of energy while I'm working”. 5.3.3. Supervisor emotional support Four items adapted from the perceived organizational support (POS) scale (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) were used to measure perceived supervisor emotional support. The items were modified in a similar manner as described in Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli (2001). The survey items were measured using a fivepoint scale ranging from 1 (‘Completely disagree’) to 5 (‘Completely agree’).

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 consent to conduct the study was attained from the Health Management of each hospital. Then, nurses were contacted. They were informed about the study's purpose and that their participation was anonymous. Informed consent was assured when participants returned filled-out questionnaires. 5.5. Data analysis In line with previous similar studies (e.g. Galletta, Portoghese, 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 steps to ensure their reliability. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the measures was performed via structural equations modelling (SEM), based on fit indices such as the incremental fit index (IFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Then, a structural model was tested by using competing models. Specifically, we compared a three-factor model with a one-factor alternative model in which the items of work engagement, job satisfaction, and supervisor emotional support were set to load on a common factor. Finally, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was calculated to assess the internal consistency of all the measures. The HLM approach was used to test a cross-level model by using HLM 6.02 statistics software. To justify the aggregation of supervisor emotional support as a group-level variable, we followed Klein et al. (2000)'s approach by assessing both within-group agreement and between-group variability. Precisely, the intra-class correlations ICC(1) and ICC(2) were used to estimate between-group variability. More specifically, ICC(1) refers to reliability of individuals' ratings within 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 range of 0.05–0.20 (Bliese, 2000). The cut-off value for ICC(2) should be ≥0.60 (Glick, 1985; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998). The within-group concordance was calculated by using rwg(j) values (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). To test our hypotheses, our first step was to estimate two Null baseline models without the individual- or group-level predictors. Then, we were able to analyse whether between-group variance in the dependent variables was significant or not. In this way, we had information on the quantity of variance associated to individuals within and between teams. Also, we calculated the random effects (τ00) only for the intercepts. We performed all the analyses by using grand mean centring. Hofmann and Gavin's (1998) technique was performed to test cross-level interaction. We investigated whether the supervisor emotional support (group-level) moderation on the work engagement-job satisfaction relationship at the individual level represented a crosslevel or between-group interaction. Hence, we explored the crosslevel interaction by computing group-mean centring with the between-group variance in work engagement, which was inserted in the group level intercept model. Therefore, we separated the total variance of work engagement into the two within- and between-group components to examine which of the two sources of variance interacted with supervisor emotional support. We tested two models to explore the cross-level interaction. The preliminary model analysed the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction at the individual level, as well as the effect of supervisor emotional support. This model tested the variability in the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction across teams. In a second model we tested the interacting effect of supervisor emotional support on the work engagement-job satisfaction relationship (=Hypothesis 3).

64


Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables.

Table 3 Results for cross level interaction.

Variable

M

SD

1

1. Job satisfaction 2. Work engagement 3. Individual supervisor emotional support 4. Group supervisor emotional support

3.77 3.66 3.31

0.52 0.63 0.75

(0.92) 0.502** 0.455**

2

3

4

(0.86) 0.301**

(0.88)

3.31

0.37

0.144**

0.120*

0.485**

–

Note. N = 323, Cronbach's Alpha values are shown in parentheses, **p b 0.01, *p b 0.05. Italiced values ≥ 0.70 are considered acceptable whereas ≥ 0.80 are preferred.

Finally, the structure of the interaction was tested according to Aiken and West's (1991) technique. We plotted regression lines for the association between predictor and outcome variable at the low and high levels of moderator variable. 6. Results 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 nurses in 39 units was 8 nurses. Table 1 shows correlations, means, and standard deviations for all the study variables. The Cronbach's Alpha values reported for each measure are very good and meet the threshold of 0.70—as indicated by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). 6.1. Testing measurement model The measurement model fitted the data well: χ2 (df = 116, N = 323) = 356.1, IFI = 0.91; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.08. Comparing the three-factor model to the one-factor model, we found that a χ2 difference test was significant: Δχ2(5) = 876.7, p b 0.001. The results for the one-factor model were significantly worse than the three-factor model (Table 2). Factor validity was supported. 6.2. Testing intraclass correlation To test how supervisor emotional support at the group level affected the work engagement-job satisfaction relationship at the individual level, we aggregated the average scores of supervisor emotional support as a cluster variable at the group level. The scores of the scale showed a high agreement. Specifically, the ICC(1) value for supervisor emotional support was 0.13. The ICC(2) coefficient was 0.56. The average r⁎wg(j) of supervisor emotional support across 39 units was 0.64 (median = 0.69, group size mean = 8). These results indicate that it is statistically reasonable to consider supervisor emotional support as a variable perceived at the group level.

Model 1

Model 2

Dependent variable

Job satisfaction

Fixed effects

Coefficient

SE

Coefficient

SE

0.39**

0.03

0.41**

0.04

0.14 0.49**

0.07 0.10

0.54 0.83* -0.11

0.45 0.33 0.12

0.10*

0.03

Intercept Individual-level Work engagement Group-level Supervisor emotional support Mean Work engagement Mean Work engagement*Supervisor emotional support Cross-level moderation Work engagement*Supervisor emotional support δ2 τ00 τ11

0.19 0.02 0.01

0.19 0.02 0.01

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.

that there was an embedding effect in the data, thus legitimizing the use of cross-level analysis. Hypothesis 1 assumed that, at the individual level, work engagement was positively related to job satisfaction. The results gave support for this hypothesis (β = 0.40, p b 0.001). Hypothesis 2 postulated that emotional support from supervisor at the individual level was positively related to job satisfaction. Also Hypotheses 2 was supported (β = 0.35, p b 0.001). 6.3.1. Hypothesis 3: cross-level interaction We examined whether the interaction between work engagement at individual-level and supervisor emotional support at group-level was significant. Supervisor emotional support was inserted as a predictor variable of the variance in the slopes relating work engagement to job satisfaction at individual-level. The analysis highlighted that there was no evidence for a significant between-group interaction (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 moderation model was 0.19 (Table 3). We plotted regression lines for the association between work engagement and job satisfaction at the low and high levels of supervisor emotional support. We found that the form of the moderation conformed to our expectations. Fig. 2 shows that nurses who demonstrated high work engagement levels were more satisfied with their job, and this association was stronger when the common perception of emotional support from supervisor was high (simple slope for high value of moderator = 0.45, t = 2.54, p b 0.05). When the value of the 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 that work engagement had 7% between-group variance. Similar findings were observed also for job satisfaction [τ00 = 0.03, χ2 (38) = 75.52, p b 0.001 and ICC(1) = 0.12], thereby displaying that 12% of variance in job satisfaction exists between the teams. We are able to say Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis. Model

χ2

df

Δχ2

Δdf IFI

Three-factor measurement model 356.1 116 One-factor model 1232.8 121 876.7 5 Note. N = .

CFI

RMSEA

0.91 0.91 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.17

The first purpose of the current research was to examine the relationship between both work engagement and emotional supervisor support at the individual level and job satisfaction. Findings highlighted that both emotional supervisor support and work engagement were positively related to job satisfaction. Nurses are confronted with a variety of patients that can stimulate various emotional responses. Nurses consider emotional support by their supervisor as an indication that their efforts are considered, and it means that emotional support is available when needed. One result of emotional supervisor support is to experience positive emotions (Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006). The findings of this research are in line with other studies which showed that supervisor emotional support is an important well-being factor which increases job satisfaction


65

4.50 4.00

Job satisfaction

3.50 3.00

Low Supervisor emotional support (-1 SD)

2.50 2.00

High Supervisor emotional support (+1 SD)

1.50 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 increasing team commitment (e.g. Galletta, Portoghese, Coppola, Finco, & Campagna, 2016). This study adds to the literature the importance of the group dimension: group dynamics are shared within the work group, as well as emotional supervisor support perceptions. If team members share positive perceptions of emotional support from supervisors, they can perceive a common sense of satisfaction with their work unit. Thus, providing acknowledgement, trust, and empathy can be an important supervisor strategy to promote quality of the interpersonal relationship at work. A second objective of this research was to identify workgroup factors that contribute to the relevance of the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction. The results showed that the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction did vary across teams. In other words, work environment differences among teams had an impact on the form of the work engagement-job satisfaction relationship. Therefore, the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction is an individual and group level phenomenon. Nurses' perception regarding the quality of supervisor emotional support can be in some way shared within the same team. In this sense, the study makes a valuable addition to the scientific literature by analyzing a multilevel model in which both group-level and individual-level factors affect nurses' job satisfaction. Specifically, our findings revealed that the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction at the individual level was buffered by supervisor emotional support at the group level. This means that high level of engagement with one's own work in terms of energy, vigour, and dedication was related to a high level of job satisfaction, and this relationship was stronger when common perceptions of supervisor emotional support were high. In other words, shared supervisor emotional support interacts with work engagement in affecting nurses' job satisfaction. This cross-level moderation highlights that the work experience of a single nurse can be conditioned by team-specific characteristics such as good interpersonal relationships and good supervisor emotional support. Furthermore, this result emphasizes the importance of feelings such as acceptance, caring and trust by supervisor in fostering engagement, interest, and satisfaction with the work activity. In this way, emotional support from a supervisor plays an important role in increasing work attitudes, which contribute to increase organizational well-being among all nurse staff (Daniels & Guppy, 1994; Wong & Cheuk, 2005).

evidence connecting work engagement and emotional supervisor support with job satisfaction, longitudinal studies are needed. Thus, future research should measure work engagement at multiple time intervals to reveal if, when, and how the relationships between work engagement, emotional supervisor support and job satisfaction may be changing. Future investigations could also examine the influence of emotional supervisor support on other main work factors such as organizational citizenship behaviour, for example. Second, data was merely based on self-reports, which might have overstated the relationships between variables. Future research could integrate additional objectives, especially regarding job outcomes. A third limitation regards the fact that we did not examine instrumental supervisor support, but only the emotional support. A more complete investigation should combine both emotional and instrumental supports. 7.2. Implications for nursing management This research provides additional evidence about the advantages that hospitals can achieve by emotionally supporting their staff, and suggests the importance to promote supervisor training to increase how they can be more supportive towards their workers. Therefore, this study provides valuable insights for hospital health managers who should consider emotional supervisor support as an effective means of enhancing nurses' well-being. Based on our results, implementing intervention strategies designed exclusively at the individual level may not be adequate. Reasonably, it could be also important to reflect on intervention policies aimed at improving emotional supervisor support at the team level. Team members' shared perceptions of emotional supervisor support determine the intensity of the link between work engagement and job satisfaction. Potential ways to increase emotional supervisor support involve training supervisors in providing support and enhancing communication between nurses and supervisors. Although emotional supervisor support is a powerful resource, its utility is also group-specific. 8. Conclusions This study showed that supporting emotionally nurses is important to promoting team well-being and increase an individual's job satisfaction.

7.1. Limitations of the study and future research

Sources of funding

This study is not without limitations. Firstly, the study was crosssectional and thus causality cannot be inferred. Although there is strong

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

66


Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors

Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2016.10.004.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596. Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 109442819814001. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support: Multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work and Stress, 14, 65–73. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.272. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. 2. (pp. 389–444). Allyn & Bacon: Boston. Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 463–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.381. Cortese, C. G. (2007). Job satisfaction of Italian nurses: An exploratory study. Journal of Nursing Management, 15, 303–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007. 00694.x. Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psychological well-being. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 47, 15–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404701205. Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 51–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0191-3085(00)22003-0. Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 203–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2739. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.71.3.500. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. http://dx. doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565. Freeney, Y. M., & Tiernan, J. (2009). Exploration of the facilitators of and barriers to work engagement in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1557–1565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.05.003. Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Carta, M. G., D'Aloja, E., & Campagna, M. (2016). The effect of nurse-physician collaboration on job satisfaction, team commitment, and turnover intention in nurses. Research in Nursing & Health, 39, 375–385. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/nur.21733. Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Coppola, R. C., Finco, G., & Campagna, M. (2016). Nurses wellbeing in intensive care units: Study of factors promoting team commitment. Nursing in Critical Care, 21, 146–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12083. Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Battistelli, A., & Leiter, M. P. (2013). The roles of unit leadership and nurse-physician collaboration on nursing turnover intention. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69, 1771–1784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.12039. Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., Penna, M. P., Battistelli, A., & Saiani, L. (2011). Turnover intention among italian nurses: The moderating roles of supervisor support and organizational support. Nursing & Health Sciences, 13, 184–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1442-2018.2011.00596.x. Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of preceptors: Predictor of new graduate nurses' work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 993–1003. Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4279045. Golden, T., & Veiga, J. (2008). The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 77–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.009. Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: The role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 537–550. http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/job.101.

Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11, 119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119. Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interaction of social 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: 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 reliability with and without response bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. 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, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 512–553). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Maslac, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33, 243–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Pohl, S., Dal Santo, L., & Battistelli, A. (2013). Perceived organizational support, job characteristics and intrinsic motivation as antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviours of nurses. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 25, 39–52. Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., Battistelli, A., & Leiter, M. P. (2015). A multilevel investigation on nursing turnover intention: The cross-level role of leader-member exchange. Journal of Nursing Management, 23, 754–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12205. Raundenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Reblin, M., & Uchino, B. N. (2008). Social and emotional support and its implication for health. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 21, 201–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/YCO. 0b013e3282f3ad89. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology. An International Review, 57, 173–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14640597.2007.00285.x. Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.150. Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012–1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003. Sora, B., Caballer, A., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity climate's influence on employees' job attitudes: Evidence from two European countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 125–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320802211968. Stamps, P. L. (1998). Nurses and work satisfaction: An index for measurement. The American Journal of Nursing, 98, 16KK-16LL. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000446199803000-00017. Stetz, T., Stetz, M., & Bliese, P. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the moderating effects of social support on stressor–strain relationships. Work and Stress, 20, 49–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370600624039. Thoits, P. A. (1985). Social support and psychological well-being: Theoretical possibilities. In I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 51–72). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2005). Interpersonal conflict and organizational commitment: Examining two levels of supervisory support as multilevel moderators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2375–2398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.2005.tb02107.x. Ury, W. L. (1991). Getting past no: Negotiating with difficult people. New York: Bantam. Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 254–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013090. Wong, K. S., & Cheuk, W. H. (2005). Job-related stress and social support in kindergarten principals: The case of Macau. International Journal of Educational Management, 19, 183–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540510590977. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121.