Power Values and Power Distance Moderate the Relationship Between Workplace Supervisory Power and Job Satisfaction
Abstract
Abstract. Person–job (or needs–supplies) discrepancy/fit theories posit that job satisfaction depends on work supplying what employees want and thus expect associations between having supervisory power and job satisfaction to be more positive in individuals who value power and in societies that endorse power values and power distance (e.g., respecting/obeying superiors). Using multilevel modeling on 30,683 European Social Survey respondents from 31 countries revealed that overseeing supervisees was positively associated with job satisfaction, and as hypothesized, this association was stronger among individuals with stronger power values and in nations with greater levels of power values or power distance. The results suggest that workplace power can have a meaningful impact on job satisfaction, especially over time in individuals or societies that esteem power.
References
(2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574–601. 10.1037/a0038781
(2018). Small and negligible? Evidence on the relation between individuals’ power in the job situation and their satisfaction with life and job. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 40, 374–383. 10.1080/01973533.2018.1510779
(2016). Motivational incongruence and well-being at the workplace: Person–job fit, job burnout, and physical symptoms. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1153. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01153
(2018). Warmth and competence are parallels to communion and agency: Stereotype content model. In A. E. AbeleB. Wojciszke (Eds.), Agency and communion in social psychology (pp. 39–51). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203703663-4
(2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156–168. 10.1177/2515245919847202
(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill.
(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and personsupervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
(2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 507–526. 10.1037/a0022151
(1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309–336. 10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0
(2018). Agentic and communal social motives. In A. E. AbeleB. Wojciszke (Eds.), Agency and communion in social psychology (pp. 65–78). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203703663-6
(2017). Communal and agentic interpersonal and intergroup motives predict preferences for status versus power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 71–86. 10.1177/0146167216675333
(2018). The burden of power: Construing power as responsibility (rather than as opportunity) alters threat-challenge responses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1024–1038. 10.1177/0146167218757452
(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6
(2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In Questionnaire Development Report of the European Social Survey [Chapter 7]. London, UK: ESS ERIC. Retrieved from https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf
(2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41, 136–163. 10.1177/0149206314555769
(2020). Power and status across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 12–17. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.05.005
