Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 126, Issue 3, pp 1143–1156 | Cite as

The Role of Co-worker and Supervisor Support in the Relationship Between Job Autonomy and Work Engagement Among Portuguese Nurses: A Multilevel Study

  • María VeraEmail author
  • Isabel M. Martínez
  • Laura Lorente
  • Mª José Chambel
Article

Abstract

The objective is to analyze the relationship between job resources (i.e., job autonomy and social support) and work engagement in nurses. Hypotheses have been tested through hierarchical linear modeling using data from 313 Portuguese nurses (individual level) nested in 33 work teams (team level), after aggregating individual perceptions to the group level and testing the agreement among these perceptions using the rwg(j) and the intraclass correlations indices. Results confirmed first, that individual job autonomy and team-level social support (from the supervisor as well as from co-workers) are positively related to individual work engagement and second, that team-level social support has a moderating effect on the relationship between individual job autonomy and individual work engagement (but not in the case of co-workers’ support). This study provides evidence that nurses’ work engagement results from individual job autonomy and collective social support. Accordingly, fostering job autonomy and social support in order to promote work engagement among nurses can be useful for both hospital managers and practitioners.

Keywords

Job autonomy Social support Work engagement Nurses 

References

  1. Abualrub, R. F., Omari, F. H., & Abu Al Rub, A. F. (2009). The moderating effect of social support on the stress–satisfaction relationship among Jordanian hospital nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 870–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ângelo, R. P., & Chambel, M. J. (2014). The role of proactive coping in the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargagliotti, L. A. (2012). Work engagement in nursing: a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68, 1414–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blancero, D., Boroski, J., & Dyer, L. (1996). Key competencies for a transformed human resource organization: Results of a field study. Human Resource Management, 35, 383–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Whithin-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: A. Wiley Company.Google Scholar
  6. Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support: multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work & Stress, 14, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Buchan, J. (1999). Still attractive after all these year? Magnet hospitals in a changing healthcare environment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, R., Moodie, S., Dolan, S. L., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2012). Job demands, social support, work satisfaction and psychological well-being among nurses in Spain. Barcelona: ESADE.Google Scholar
  10. Carmel, S., Yakubovich, I. S., Zwanger, L., & Zaltcman, T. (1988). Nurses autonomy and job satisfaction. Social Science and Medicine, 28, 1315–1320.Google Scholar
  11. Castanheira, F., & Chambel, M. J. (2010). Reducing burnout in call centers through HR practices. Human Resource Management, 49, 1047–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambel, M. J., & Oliveira-Cruz, F. (2010). Breach of psychological contract and the development of burnout and engagement: A longitudinal study among soldiers on a peacekeeping mission. Military Psychology, 2, 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relationships among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cortese, C. G., Colombo, L., & Ghislieri, C. (2010). Determinants of nurses’ job satisfaction: the role of work–family conflict, job demand, emotional charge and social support. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisenberg, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-Lamastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finn, C. P. (2001). Autonomy: An important component for nurses’ job satisfaction. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gentry, W. A., Kuhnert, K. W., Mondore, S. P., & Page, E. E. (2007). The influence of supervisory-support climate and unemployment rate on part-time employee retention: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Management Development, 26, 1005–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A. Bakker & M. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A Handbook of Essential theory and research (pp. 102–118). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  23. Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Rotondo, D. M. (2007). Developing social support in employees: Human resource development lessons from same-career couples. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 544–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hart, G., & Rotem, A. (1995). The clinical learning environment: nurses’ perceptions of professional development in clinical settings. Nurse Education Today, 15, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hox, J. (1995). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: TT-Publikaties.Google Scholar
  28. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job content instrument: Questionnaire and user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: University of South California.Google Scholar
  31. Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The job content questionnaire: An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 34, 322–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social support: Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M., & Donaldson, M. S. (2000). To Err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. 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, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Langford, C. P., Bowsher, J., Maloney, J. P., & Lillis, P. P. (1997). Social support: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laschinger, H. K. S., Wilk, P., Cho, J., & Greco, P. (2009). Empowerment, engagement and perceived effectiveness in nursing work environments: Does experience matter? Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 636–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lebreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manley, J. (1995). Sex-segregated work in the system of professions: the development and stratification of nursing. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maslove, L., & Fooks, C. (2002). Our health, our future: Creating quality workplaces for Canadian nurses. Ottawa: Advisory Committee on Health Human Resources.Google Scholar
  41. Oermann, M., & Bizek, K. (1994). Job satisfaction among critical care preceptors. Critical Care Nurse, 14, 103–106.Google Scholar
  42. Othman, N., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2013). Social support and work engagement: A study of Malysian nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 21, 1083–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Persson, R., Hansen, A. M., Garde, A. H., Kristiansen, J., Nordander, C., Balogh, I., et al. (2012). Can the job content questionnaire be used to assess structural and organizational properties of the work environment? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 85, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal Applied of Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES—Utrecht work engagement scale: Test manual. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Psychology, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  47. Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (volume 5): Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135–177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shuck, B., & Reio, T. J. (2010). The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do we link theory and scholarship to current practice? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Sora, B., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2011). Consecuencias de la inseguridad laboral. El papel modulador del apoyo organizacional desde una perspectiva multinivel [Consequences of job insecurity. The moderating role of organizational support from a multilevel perspective]. Psicothema, 23, 394–400.Google Scholar
  54. Stamps, P., & Piedmonte, E. (1986). Nurses and work satisfaction: An index for measurement. Michigan: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sundin, L., Hochwälder, J., & Lisspers, J. (2011). A longitudinal examination of generic and occupational specific job demands, and work-related social support associated with burnout among nurses in Sweden. Work, 38, 389–400.Google Scholar
  56. Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Kummerling, A., Van der Van Dam, K., Schoot, E., Estryn-Behar, M., & Hasselhorn, H. M. (2010). The impact of social support upon intention to leave among female nurses in Europe: Secondary analysis of data from the NEXT survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 434–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vinje, H. F., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2007). Job engagement’s paradoxical role in nurse burnout. Nursing and Health Sciences, 9, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 4–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Vera
    • 1
    Email author
  • Isabel M. Martínez
    • 2
  • Laura Lorente
    • 3
  • Mª José Chambel
    • 4
  1. 1.Research and Technological Development CenterInstituto Tecnológico Superior CordilleraQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.Universitat Jaume ICastellón de la PlanaSpain
  3. 3.Universitat de València, IDOCALValenciaSpain
  4. 4.University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations