Rudi Azwan (008201300076)

The role of supervisory behavior, job satisfaction

and organizational commitment on employee
turnover
Motivation
Research has been conducted to identify how leadership behaviors can be
used to encourage employees to achieve better organizational outcomes (Locke,
2000). However, very few studies have tried to better understand the impact of
leadership behaviors on organizational predictors of turnover (such as job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and intention to quit job). Then, this
study was conducted to address the gap.
Theory
Turnover models: The role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
Some researchers present the view that organizational commitment
develops through job satisfaction and that organizational commitment mediates
the influence of job satisfaction on turnover intentions (Price & Mueller, 1986;
Williams & Hazer, 1986). Other authors have stated the reverse relation; namely
that organizational commitment precedes job satisfaction (Bateman & Strasser,
1884). However this view has not been supported by later research (Williams &
Hazer, 1986). In fact, in their meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and
consequences of organizational commitment, Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and
Topolnytsky (2002) have entered job satisfaction as a correlate (rather than an
antecedent) of commitment in their model explaining turnover and turnover
intentions.
Impact of leadership on employees and employee behaviors
In a study on the relationship between supervisor behavior and employees
mood, Miner, Glomb, and Hulin (2005) found that employees rated their
interactions with their supervisor as 80% positive and 20% negative. However,
the 20% negative interactions affected the employees mood five times more
than the positive interactions. In his article on the role of the supervisor in
creating a healthy workplace, Gilbreath (2004) states: Although not yet
recognized in the management literature, it is clear that positive supervision is
fundamental component of a psychologically healthy work climate.
Organizational support theory
Organizational support theory (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997;
Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) relates to the global belief employees develop
concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and
cares about their well-being. In a meta-analysis on perceived organizational
support (POS), Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) have found that POS was related
to job satisfaction, affective commitment, performance and fewer withdrawal
behaviors in employees.

Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: Supervisory behavior is positively and significantly related

to job satisfaction, not to organizational commitment or to turnover
intentions.
Hypothesis 2: Supervisory behavior is positively and significantly related
to organizational commitment through job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Supervisory behavior predicts turnover intentions only
indirectly, through job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Research Methodology
Procedure and participants: In total, 763 individuals thus participated in
the study by completing the questionnaire.
Measures: Job satisfaction, Organizational
intention, Supervisory behavior

commitment,

Turnover

SEM was used to assess the research model, using Bentler and Weeks
(1980) approach as implemented in the EQS computer program (Byrne,
2006).
Conclusion
Overall, our results support a similar model proposed by Williams and
Hazer (1986) that job satisfaction does not have a direct significant
predictive effect on turnover intentions. Rather, job satisfaction seems to
predict organizational commitment which, in turn, negatively predicts
turnover intentions. Our model seems to support the view that
commitment mediates the relationship between job satisfaction and
turnover intentions (Price & Mueller, 1986). This finding seems to replicate
what Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner (2000) found in their meta-analysis of
antecedents and correlates of employee turnover, namely that
organizational commitment predicted turnover better than job
satisfaction.
Limitation
The limit relates to the use of self-administered questionnaires (e.g., risk
of common method bias). Measuring all variables through a selfadministered questionnaire may pose a risk of common method variance
and lead to an overestimation of the relationships between attitudinal and
behavioral constructs.
Future Research
The instrument used to measure leadership was built by our research
team and presented eight leadership behaviors. Although this instrument

yielded acceptable psychometric properties, it would be interesting in

future research to use a validated instrument measuring leadership styles.