The Effect of Supervisor Support, Coworker Support and Cultural Values on Job Satisfaction

Factors of Job Satisfaction

RUNNING HEAD: FACTORS OF JOB SATISFACTION

The Effect of Supervisor Support, Coworker Support and Cultural Values on Job Satisfaction

Gizem TURGUT

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Carnot E. Nelson

Bilkent University

In partial fulfilment of the requirements Senior Thesis – II for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Applied Psychology

May, 2012

1


Acknowledgements

My first thanks go to my supervisor whose name is Prof. Dr. Carnot E. Nelson for all his

facilitations, encouragements to continue our statistics. Your feedback is so useful not only

my thesis but also my future career.

I do not know whether Asst. Prof. Emre Ozgen inspect our thesis or not but I want to thank

him because he taught how to do statistics for an academic research well in last semesters.

I would like to thank to Merve Ermemis due to her feedback to my Senior Thesis I. It really

helps me to understand and correct my mistakes and develop me.

My another thanks go to my family and my friends due to their encouragements.

Finally my last thanks go to Jennifer Schroeder because if contribution of Schroeder which is

sending us data had not been, this thesis would not have become a thesis.

2


Contents

Page

Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………….2

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………...4

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...5 - 10

Methods……………………………………………………………………………...…10 – 13

Results ……………………………………………………………………………….....13 – 19

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………...19 - 20

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….20 - 21

References……………………………………………………………………………….22 - 23

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………...24 - 31

3


Abstract

The purpose of the current study is that to find that there is a relationship between job

satisfaction and supervisor, coworker support and organizational values by mentioning the

difference between collectivist and individualist cultures especially Turkey and USA because

we have a sample from both Turkey and US as you can see details in participants subtitle in

method section.

4


The Effect of Supervisor Support, Co-worker Support and Cultural Values on Job

Satisfaction

The purpose of the current study is that to identify that there is a relationship between job

satisfaction and supervisor, coworker support and organizational values by mentioning the

difference between collectivist and individualist cultures especially Turkey and US because

we have a sample from both Turkey and US as you can see details in participants subtitle in

method section. Although American management theory emphasized that a person who is

“good” manager in US will indisputably be a good manager in everywhere (Paşa, Kabasakal

and Bodur, 2001), in the last two decades studies in the field of social assisting and its helpful

influence in organizations has become more interesting and just know the attitude of studying

various forms of support such as supervisor support that refers to a behavior is generally in

the view of positive relationship between particular administrative form and positive

convectional result (Nijman, 2004) and coworker support which refers as social support that

can be supplied in four areas which are emotional support that consists caring, empathy and

trust; instrumental support that consists providing an observational aid or equipments;

informational support that includes assisting in finding solution to problems and appraisal

support that includes assertion or participating self estimation supplied by coworkers in a

work place have aroused interest because various type of support can affect differently other

factors for instance coworker support is much more related to all success in the job while

supervisor support is important for some job areas (Bateman, 2009). Job satisfaction is

defined convincing and constructive inner state due to the evaluation of worker’s job or job

practice (Tella, Ayeni and Popoola, 2007). Hence, there are three crucial criteria for job

satisfaction which are being an affecting feedback to job situation, being identified by how fit

consequence fulfill anticipations and showing various relevant ideas that are major properties

5


a job (Tella, Ayeni and Popoola, 2007). Therefore, for high job satisfaction in the light of

cultural values the expectations from supervisor and coworker is very important.

Cultural values that vary from country to country are influential on from beliefs of human

being to relationships in organizations. These values contribute the expectancy of people from

others who live in the same society. For instance, for collectivist countries, workers like

leaders who behave paternally. If these values correspond to expectancies, the level of

happiness, the level of performance both in social life and organizations increase. Therefore,

when we examine with cultural values such as individualism that refers to a community where

people are desired to interest themselves and their close family (Gooden and Preziosi, 2004)

versus collectivism that refers to having a close social structure in which there is a difference

between splinter group and out group (Gooden and Preziosi, 2004); uncertainty avoidance

refers to how people in a society react to dangerous, unclear and indefinate circumstances

(Gooden and Preziosi, 2004) ; masculinity refers to the is derived from a society is

“Masculine” which is determination, designation of money and goods and ignoring others

(Gooden and Preziosi, 2004); versus femininity refers to a more supportive community in

which there is a more polite approach to coping with others, more regarding, satisfactory

coworkers and good working climate (Gooden and Preziosi, 2004); power distance come

from a society agrees that power is dissolved equally in cooperations (Gooden and Preziosi,

2004); and long term orientation which are characterized by values regarding the future that

consists sparingness and determination (Galetkanycz, 1997) versus short term orientation

that has tendency to focus on the present and past (Galetkanycz, 1997). Therefore, lots of

leadership styles like paternalistic leadership style occurs. To begin with, whereas in

individualistic cultures people distinguish themselves mostly as personal roles, in collectivist

countries, interactions between individuals and team work are important (Galetkanycz, 1997).

Moreover, countries where uncertainty avoidance is high people feel unpleasant coping with

6


ambiguity (Galetkanycz, 1997). Thus in these countries it needs clear rules. Furthermore,

while countries where masculinity is dominant factor administrative stability and giving

importance to productivity is crucial, countries where femininity is dominant interpersonal

relationship is important (Galetkanycz, 1997). In addition, whereas cultures where power

distance is low are advocators of equal rights in society, cultures where power distance is high

have inequalities among their members (Galetkanycz, 1997). Beside all of these, countries

remaining a long term orientation regard the future. However, countries remaining a short

term orientation care about thinking present or past (Galetkanycz, 1997). Also Schwartz

mentioned in his article seven forms of cultural values which are conservatism that is a

cultural highlight on continuation of the statue, harmony and control of actions or tendency

that may damage the groups or traditional system (Schwartz, 1999); intellectual autonomy

which means a cultural highlight on the attraction of people uncommitedly sustaining their

own ideas and rational directions (Schwartz, 1999); affective autonomy refers to a traditional

emphasis on the demand of people freely maintaining emotionally beneficial experience

(Schwartz, 1999); hierarchy is a cultural point on the lawfulness of an disparate range of

power roles and equipments (Schwartz, 1999); egalitarianism means a cultural highlights on

superiority of self concerns in defence of disposed allegiance to supporting the well being of

others (Schwartz, 1999); mastery is a cultural stress on improving through real sef defense

(Schwartz, 1999); and harmony means a cultural highlight on adapting congruent into the

nature (Schwartz, 1999). To introduce, conservative cultures care about pursuing of the

existing condition, comformity and inhibiting actions or affections which might be

retrograded to the traditional rules (Schwartz, 1999). In addition, people live in a country that

emphasizes intellectual autonomy of its members attach importance to demands of people,

freely declaring and thoughts (Schwartz, 1999). Also cultures pay importance to affective

autonomy of individuals take into consideration desires of people freely maintaining

7


influentially positive practice (Schwartz, 1999). Furthermore, cultures where hierarchical

systems are important legality of a diverse distribution of power (Schwartz, 1999). Also,

cultures whose members are support egalitarianism regard to hegemony, is a circumstance

where one nation, constitute or group is more dominance, controller or important than others

(Collins, 2003), of self-centered thoughts to the advantage of disposed engagement the well-

being of others (Schwartz, 1999). Moreover, in cultures which masters are crucial heed to

being successful thanks to self-affirmation (Schwartz, 1999). Beside to all, harmonic cultures

emphasize harmonic convenience in the society (Schwartz, 1999).

When we accommodate these cultural values that mentioned above to Turkey and US we can

classify Turkey as a sample of eastern cultures although it is developing country and US as a

sample of western cultures. That is to say that there are cultural difference between Turkey

and US. For example, to begin with, through dealing with Turkey as a good sample for

eastern cultures, Turkey is a “family” culture where people eastern others without regarding

their position, are warm and their leaders behave paternally (Tompkins, Galbraith &

Tompkins, 2010). Also cultural values of Turkey, especially in back-countries parts of the

country, are inheriting from ancestors, collectivistic, having stereotypical beliefs,

collaborative, having little endurance to obscurity, dependent, centralistic, militarist, prayeful,

submissive to fate, agricultural, dependent to leaders, esteerning to relationships among

people and bureaucratic (Arbak, 2005). Another example is that, on the other hand,

mentioning to cultural values of US countries might be a good perpetuation in order to

understand western cultures and compare with the Turkey in terms of leadership styles, types

of co-worker support and their impact on job satisfaction. US countries heed supervision of

people, the notion of time and its effective sparing, civil rights, adequacy by own self, rivalry,

focusing on future, focusing on action, gumption and corporealism(Leighton, 2009).

8


As both Galetkanycz and Schwartz mentioned there are lots of different cultural values,

people’s expectancies from each other vary. Thus lots of leadership styles emerges which are

paternalistic (Lok and Crawford, 2004) and transactional leadership (Ardichvili and

Kuchinke, 2010). To begin with, paternalistic leaders encourage their workers by transfusing

them, suggesting copings and promoting personal improvement (Ardichvili and Kuchinke,

2010). Moreover, transactional leaders emphasize definitive advantage that their employees

would accept by achieving constituted by stipulation or agreement duties. Leadership or

supervisors have a crucial role in organizing the work field and obtaining the transformation

of information and criticism to workers (Griffin, Patterson and West, 2001). Supervisor

support means the criteria to which supervisors appreciate their worker’s improvements and

attach importance to welfare (Bullock, 2011). When we consider not only these cultural

differences between Turkey and US which mentioned above and leadership styles but also we

can infer that paternalistic leaders will be accepted more in Turkey than US.

Co-worker support means co-workers helping each other in their duties when sharing

information or experience is necessary and strengthening colleague’s hand (Bateman, 2009).

Also co-worker support can make a working field enjoyable or unappealing environment in

order to waste your time (Bateman, 2009). Moreover co-worker support has been improved

lately because of variety in the work environment and an increasing importance to teams’

styles of work structures (Bateman, 2009). Beside all, co-worker support is high employees

can debate views more obviously and fairly and a positive impact on job satisfaction

(Bateman, 2009).

All in all, cultural values differ from country to country especially from eastern countries like

Turkey to western countries like US and they are effective on people’s beliefs and

expectancies from each other in social life. If these values overlap to expectancies, the level of

happiness, the level of performance both in social life and organizations increase. That is to

9


say that if expectancies are congruent with cultural valuse the job satisfaction will increase.

Also it is mentioned in Bateman article that co-worker support is much more related to all

success in the job while supervisor support is important for some job areas. Therefore studies

focused on more different leader behaviors than co-worker behaviors. However, all these

factors which are cultural values, supervisor support and co-worker support are influential for

determining satisfaction. By aparting from the informations which are mentioned above about

difference between cultural values of Turkey and US and leadership styles two hypothesis

emerge.

Hypothesis 1: Paternalistic leadership style will more positive impact on Turkey than US to

have high job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: For coworker support, sharing knowledge is more emphasized in Turkey than

US to reach have a higher job satisfaction.

Methods

Participants:

In this study, as seen in coding procedure, there were seven samples of participants including

USA, Turkey, Lithunia, Armenia and other participants whose country is not indicated.

However in our data, we had just two samples; one participated from USA and the other

participated from Turkey. In our data, participants from USA were separated into three

subgroups. In our data participants from USA were students but worked at least 20 hours per a

week. There were totally 560 participants and 202 of them were male and others were female.

The mean of age was approxiamtely 28 and generally they worked in Retail Service Sector

approximately a 41 hours per a week and approximately 44 months in a job. 203 of them

supervised somebody else and the rest did not do. Among all participants, 9 of them were

graduated from elementary school, 10 of them were graduated from middle school, 134 of

them were graduated from high school, 88 of them were graduated from two year vocational

10


school, 292 of them got their Bachelor’s degree, 21 of them got their Master’s degree and the

education level is not indicated for 7 participant.

Materials:

A questionnaire that consist 144 items was applied to the participants. The questionnaire

consists 13 subscales that calls Emotional Labour Scale, Organizational Support Scale,

Supervisor Support Scale, Co-worker Support Scale, 3- Item Job Satisfaction Scale, 3- Item

Turnover Intention, 12- Item Paternalism Scale, Multidimensional Culture Scale, Emotional

Well-being Scale, , Organizational Justice-procedural Scale, Organizational Commitment

Scale and Trust in Organization Scale. The other items of the questionnaire are demographic

variables and about drug use.

The Supervisor Support Scale consists 6 items. The reliability of the scale is ,90. In the scale

the most influential item is the fifth item because if it is deleted, the reliability of the scale will

be ,87 and the least influential item is the sixth item because if it is deleted, the reliability of

the scale will be ,90. The Coworker Support Scale has 4 items. The reliability of the scale

is ,32. However when we look at the inter-item correlation matrix, the forth item is negative

correlative with other items. Therefore, an item or some items should be reversely coded. The

most powerful item in the scale is second item because if it is deleted, the reliability of the

scale will be ,03 and the least powerful item in the scale is first item because if it is deleted,

the reliability of the scale will be ,16. In addition to these, the original scales to measure both

supervisor and coworker support consist 4 items and are attributed to analytical and emprical

study of Pinneau, Taylor and Bowers, Likert and Gore in different years (Grandey, 1999). The

3-Item Job Satisfaction Scale includes 3 items as specified its name. The reliability of the

scale is equals to -,74. Thus an item or some items must be reversely coded. The most

effective item in the scale is third item because if it is deleted, the reliability of the scale will

be -2,94 and the least effective item in the scale is first item because if it is deleted, the

11


reliability of the item will be ,87. In addition to these, in 1983 Seasore defined the job

satisfaction as a positive attitude of feelings connected to own job (McCook, 2002). The 3-

item Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale is used to

measure the whole job satisfaction (McCook, 2002). There are 30 items in the

Multidimensional Culture Scale. The reliability of the scale is ,86. However when we look at

inter-item correlation matrix, items call 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27

and 30 are negative correlative with other items. Thus an item or some items should be

reversely coded. The most influential item in the scale is twenty second item because if it is

deleted, the reliability of the scale will be ,87 and the least influential items are seventh and

eleventh items because if they are deleted, the reliability of the scale will be ,85. In addition to

these, the Multidimensional Culture Scale scale composed of five dimensions which are

responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, religion and achievement (Jamali, Khoury and

Sahyoun, 2006).

Procedures:

A questionnaire that consist 144 items were applied to participants. There were three groups

of collectors. Whereas for data from US one collector collects data, data from Turkey were

collected by two collector. Answering the questionnaire took approximately 16 minutes.

Therefore the questionnaire were applied in a one session. There were 13 scales and each of

them has likert scales. In addition, all scales required self evaluation. In our data, there were

some null datum. Hence the participants did not have to reply the whole questionnaire. In the

Coworker Support Scale just fourth question have to be reversely coded. In the 3- Item Job

Satisfaction Scale both second and third items should be reversely coded. In the scale named

with Multidimensional Culture Scale items that numbered with 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16,

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27 and 30 should be reversely coded.

12


The demographic variables consist country, age, sex, educational level, what the participant

does at his/her work, whether the participant’s job deal with customer service, which industry

sector best fits the participant job, the work hour per a week, whether the participant supervise

somebody in the course of the participant’s job, how long the participant has been working in

the same organization, how long the participant has been working at the same position, how

long the participant has been working with the same supervisor and substance abuse.

Results

A. Reliability Analysis

As mentioned in the method section, some items should be reversely coded. After the

reverse coding, the reliability of the scales as in the following:

Table 1: Cronbach’s Alphas and number of items for each scales by comparing USA

sample, Turkey sample and The Whole.

Scales

Cronbach’s Alpha

N of ItemsUSA Turkey The Whole

Supervisor Support Scale ,92 ,89 ,90 6

Coworker Support Scale ,65 ,52 ,55 4

3-Item Job Satisfaction Scale ,53 ,46 ,48 3

Multidimensional Culture Scale ,59 ,61 ,60 30

Table 1 indicates the reliability of each four scales calls the Supervisor Support Scale,

the Supervisor Support Scale, the 3-Item Job Satisfaction Scale and the

Multidimensional Culture Scale by comparing the reliability of scales for USA

sample, Turkey sample and the whole. In addition, it includes the number of items in

each scales. As seen in table 1, when the reliability of the Supervisor Support Scale for

the USA sample is ,92, the reliability of the same scale for the Turkey sample and the

13


whole sample are respectively ,89 and ,90. Therefore, the Supervisor Support Scale

should be predisposed for the Turkey sample. Moreover, while the reliability of the

Coworker Support Scale for the USA sample is calculated as ,65, the reliability of the

same scale for the Turkey sample and the whole participants are calculated as ,52

and ,55. Thus, the Coworker Support Scale should be adapted for the Turkey sample.

Furthermore, meanwhile the reliability of 3-Item Job Satisfaction Scale for the USA

sample is found as ,53, the reliability of the same scale for the Turkey sample and the

whole participants are found as respectively ,46 and ,48. Consequently, the 3-Item Job

Satisfaction Scale needs to be more adaptable for the Turkey sample. In addition to

these, whereas the reliability of the Multidimensional Culture Scale for the USA

sample is ,59, the reliability of the same scale for the Turkey sample and the whole

sample is ,61 and ,60. Hence, the Multidimensional Culture Scale should be

predisposed for the USA sample. Besides, except of the Multidimensional Culture

Scale the number of items in the scales is not enough.

B. Comparing Means (Independent Sample T-Test: USA vs. Turkey)

Supervisor Support:

Table – 2: Group Statistics for Supervisor Support by comparing USA and

Turkey

Country Code N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SupSupp USF Sona

Turkey

200

360

21,70

21,70

5,63

5,50

,39

,29

Table – 3: Independent Samples Test for Supervisor Support

Levene’s Test for

t-test for Equality of Means

14


Equality of VariancesF Sig. t df Sig.

(2- tailed)Means Difference

SupSupp Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

,015 ,901 -,016

-,016

558

403,35

,987

,987

-,008

-,008

Table 2 shows group statistics based on cultures which are USA and Turkey

sample for Supervisor Support. Table 3 shows independent samples test based

on equal variances assumed and not for Supervisor Support. As seen in the

Table 2, meanwhile the number of participant from USA is 200, the number of

participant from Turkey is 360. Whereas the mean and the standard deviation

of Supervisor Support for USA sample is equals to 21,70 and 5,63, the mean

and the standard deviation of Supervisor Support for Turkey sample is equals

to 21,70 and 5,50. That indicates there is no difference between USA and

Turkey sample in terms of Supervisor Support. As seen in the Table 3, the

difference between USA and Turkey Sample for the Supervisor Support is

statistically not significant t(df=558, p=,987)= -,016.

Co-worker Support:

Table – 4: Group Statistics for Coworker Support by comparing USA and

Turkey


CwkrSupp USF Sona

Turkey

200

360

14,15

14,07

2,43

3,14

,17

,16

Table – 5: Independent Samples Test for Coworker Support

Levene’s t-test for Equality of Means

15


Test for Equality of VariancesF Sig. t df Sig.


CwkrSupp Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

,009 ,925 ,28

,30

558

500,47

,77

,76

,07

,07

Table 4 indicates group statistics based on cultures which are USA and Turkey

sample for Coworker Support. Table 5 indicates independent samples test

based on equal variances assumed and not for Coworker Support. As shown in

the Table 4, while the number of participant from USA is 200, the number of

participant from Turkey is 360. When the mean and the standard deviation of

Coworker Support for USA sample is equals to 14,15 and 2,43, the mean and

the standard deviation of Coworker Support for Turkey sample is equals to

14,07 and 3,14. That shows that there is no difference between USA sample

and Turkey sample in the way of Coworker Support. As shown in the Table 5,

the difference between USA and Turkey Sample for the Coworker Support is

not statistically significant t(df=558, p=,77)= ,28.

Organizational Value:

Table – 6: Group Statistics for Organizational Values by comparing USA and

Turkey


OrgVals USF Sona

Turkey

200

360

108,28

114,10

12,33

17,75

,872

,936

Table – 7: Independent Samples Test for Organizational Values

16


Levene’s Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig.(2- tailed)

Means Difference

OrgVals Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

2,06 ,15 -4,11

-4,54

558

530,92

,00

,00

-5,82

-8,82

Table 6 points out group statistics based on cultures which are USA and

Turkey sample for Organizational Values. Table 7 points out independent

samples test based on equal variances assumed and not for Organizational

Values. As seen in the Table 6, whereas the number of participant from USA

is 200, the number of participant from Turkey is 360. When the mean and the

standard deviation of Organizational Value for USA sample is equals to 108,28

and 12,33, the mean and the standard deviation of Organizational Values for

Turkey sample is equals to 114,10 and 17,75. That is to say that USA and

Turkey is different in terms of cultural values. As shown in the Table 7, the

difference between USA and Turkey Sample in lights of Organizational Values

is statistically significant t(df=558, p=,00)= -4,11.

Job Satisfaction:

Table – 8: Group Statistics for Job Satisfaction by comparing USA and Turkey


JobSat USF Sona

Turkey

200

360

9,46

10,08

1,31

1,73

,09

,09

Table – 9: Independent Samples Test for job satisfaction

Levene’s t-test for Equality of Means

17


Test for Equality of VariancesF Sig. t df Sig.


JobSat Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

5,06 ,02 -4,38

-4,74

558

508,91

,00

,00

-,61

-,61

Table 8 shows group statistics based on cultures which are USA and Turkey

sample for Job Satisfaction. Table 9 shows independent samples test based on

equal variances assumed and not for Job Satisfaction. As seen in the Table 8,

when the number of participant from USA is 200, the number of participant

from Turkey is 360. While the mean and the standard deviation of Job

Satisfaction for USA sample is equals to 9,46 and 1,31, the mean and the

standard deviation of Job Satisfaction for Turkey sample is equals to 10,08 and

1,73. That indicates the Job Satisfaction is more important in Turkey than

USA. As shown in the Table 9, the difference between USA and Turkey

Sample for the Job Satisfaction is statistically significant t(df=558, p=,00)= -

4,38.

C. Correlation Analysis:

Table – 10: Zero Order Correlation by Cultures

Mean SD SupSupp CwkrSupp OrgVals JobSat

Supervisor Support – USA Supervisor Support – Turkey

Coworker Support – USACoworker Support – Turkey

Organizational Values – USAOrganizational Values – Turkey

Job Satisfaction – USA

21,7021,70

14,1514,07

108,28114,10

9,46

5,635,50

2,433,14

12,3317,75

1,31

(,92)(,89)

,43,14

,45,39

,25

(,65)(,52)

,33,28

,21

(,59)(,61)

,11 (,53)

18


Job Satisfaction – Turkey 10,08 1,73 ,19 -22 ,14 (,46)Correlation significant at the ,05 level (2-tailed)Note: USA sample N=200; Turkey sample N=360

Table 10 is a Zero Order Correlation Table. Zero order correlations for study variables

consisting job satisfaction are displayed cultures which are USA and Turkey. For all statistics,

meanwhile the sample size from USA is 200, the sample size form Turkey is 360. All tests are

two tailed and p=,05 is practically used as a significanc level. Job Satisfaction and Supervisor

Support is positively correlated for both two cultures (USA r= ,25 and Turkey r=,19). That is

to say that, while the Supervisor Support for Job Satisfaction is more important in USA than

Turkey. Furthermore, there is a positive correlation between Job Satisfaction and Coworker

Support for not only USA sample but also Turkey sample (USA r= ,21 and Turkey r= ,22).

That is to say that, the expectation about relationship between Coworker Support and Job

Satisfaction that claims that the Coworker Support is more influential in collevtivist cultures

than individualist cultures, is verified. Besides, there is a positive correlation between Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Values for both USA and Turkey samples (USA r= ,11 and

Turkey r=,14). That is to say that Job Satisfaction in Turkey is more dependent on

Organizational Values than USA.

Conclusion

Although there were limitted items in the scales except for the Multidimensional Cultural

Scale which has 30 items, the reliability of the scales is so high.

Meanwhile the difference between USA and Turkey samples in terms of Supervisor Support

and Coworker Support, the difference between USA sample and Turkey sample in lights of

Organizational Values and Job Satisfaction is statistically significant. Although, the

difference between USA and Turkey samples in terms of Supervisor Support is not

statistically significant, the means shows that the Supervisor Support in individualist cultures

is as influential as in collectivist cultures. That is disprove the Hypothesis 1. Moreover,

19


despite of the fact that the difference between USA and Turkey samples for the Coworker

Support is not statistically significant, the Coworker Support is more influential in

individualist countries than collectivists. That indicates that the Hypothesis 2 is not verified.

However USA sample and Turkey sample are different in terms of cultural values and

depending on Organizational Values are more important in Turkey than USA. Besides all, in

terms of Job Satisfaction, collectivist cultures like Turkey are more satisfied that individualist

ones like USA.

On the Job Satisfaction, the most influential factor is Supervisor Support for both USA and

Turkey. There is a positive correlation between Job Satisfaction and both Supervisor Support

and Coworker Support. Whereas getting support from the supervisor is more important for

Job Satisfaction in USA than in Turkey that requires to change the Hypothesis 1, getting

support from coworker is more influential for Job satisfaction in Turkey than USA is verified

the Hypothesis 2. Beside all of these, there is a positive correlation between the Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Values; depending to Organizational Values are more

important factor in Turkey than USA in terms of Job Satisfaction.

Discussion

The goal of this study is to identify a relationship between job satisfaction and supervisor

support, coworker support and organizational values by comparing the collectivist and

individualist cultures especially Turkey and US because we have a sample from both Turkey

and US.

Despite of the fact that particularly scales consisted limitted questions like just three

questions, the reliability of scales is so high except for just one scale that calls 3-Item Job

Satisfaction Scale.

Whereas the difference of means for Supervisor Support and Coworker Support based on

cultures is not statistically significant, the difference of means for the Organizational Values

20


and Job Satisfaction based on cultures is statistically significant. Among these variables,

Supervisor Support is the most affective. When collectivist cultures specify importance to

Coworker Support and Organizational Values, the individualists take heed of Supervisor

Support for job satisfaction.

On the Job Satisfaction, Supervisor Support is the most affective determinant for both USA

and Turkey. There is a positive correlation between Job Satisfaction and both Supervisor

Support and Co-worker Support. Therefore this result is verified the expectation that claims

that there is a positive correlation between all kinds of support and Job Satisfaction. Coworker

Support is much more important than Supervisor Support for people who lives in collectivist

cultures like Turkey. That is verified the Hypothesis 2. Getting the support from supervisor is

important for people who lives in individualist cultures like USA. That requires to change

Hypothesis 1.

Overall, the weakness of this study is every single scales consists limitted questions.

Moreover, in this research, it is not mentioned to the leadership styles in a detailed way.

Besides, in this study, in order to compare individualistic cultures and collectivist cultures,

data are just collected from USA and Turkey. Thus, the future researchs may study in depth

about what leadership style is more influential on what cultures not just mentioning to

paternalistic leadership style, transformational leadership style and the difference between

collectivist and individualistics cultures.

21


References

Arbak, Y. (2005). Dominant Values of Turkish Organizations: A Contradictory Phenomenon. Review of Social, Economic and Business Studies, Vol. 5/6, 69-88

Ardichvili, A. & Kuchinke, K. P. (2010). Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany and the US. Human Resource Development International

Bateman, G. (2009). Employee Perceptions of Co-worker Support and Its Effect on Job Satisfaction, Work Stress and Intention to Quit. Department of Psychology in University of Canterbury

Brotheridge, C. M. & Lee, R. T., (2003). Development and Validation of the Emotional Labour Scale, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 365-379.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P. Jr., Harrison, R. V. & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job Demands and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Caplan, K. D., Cobb, French, Van Harrison & Pinneau. (1980). Job Demands and Worker Health, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbour, MI.

Collins, H. (2003). Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary. HarperCollins Publishers.

Colquitt, J. A., (2001). On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3, 386-400.

Cropanzano, R., James, K. & Konovsky, M. A., (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. (14) 6, 595-606. DOI: 10.1002/job.4030140609

Erdem, F. & Ozen, J. (2009). Trust in Organization Scale. Akdeniz University Press.

Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The Salience of “Culture”s Consequences: The Effects of Cultural Values on Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18:8, 615-634

Gooden, D.J. & Preziosi, R.C. (2004). Cultural Values And Leadership Behavior In The United States, Jamaica, And Bahamas. International Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol:3:3, 15-26

Göncü, A., Aycan, Z., & Johnson, R. (in press). Effects of paternalistic and transformational leadership on follower outcomes. International Journal of Management and Business.

Grandey, A. A., (2003). When "The Show Must Go on": Surface Acting and Deep Acting as Determinants of Emotional Exhaustion and Peer-Rated Service Delivery, Academy of Management Journal, 46, 1, 86-96.

22


Grandey, A. A., (2000). Emotion Regulation in the Workplace: A New Way to Conceptualize Emotional Labor, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 1. 95-110.

Grandey, A. (1999). The Effects of Emotional Labour: Employee Attitudes, Stress and Performance. Unpublished Dissertation, Colorado State University.

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

Gross, J. J. & John, O. P., (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 2 348-362. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

Jamali, D., Khoury, G. & Sahyoun, H. (2006). From Bureaucratic Organizations to Learning Organizations: An Evolutionary Roadmap. The Learning Organization, 13, 4, 337-352.

Leighton, J. (2009). Why do Americans act that way? U.S. Cultural Values and the impact on American behavior. Montclair State University

Lok, P. & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A cross national comparison. The Journal of Management Development; 23, 3/4; 321-338

McCook, K.D. (2002). Organizational Perceptions and Their Relationships to Job Attitudes, Effort, Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Meyer, J. Allen, N. And Smith, C. 1993. Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 538-551.

Nijman, D.J.M. (2004). Supporting Transfer of Training: Effects of the Supervisor. University of Twente, Enschede; 1-269

Paşa, S. F., Kabasakal, H. & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, Organizations and Leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 559-589

Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York: Wiley.

Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O. & Popoola, S. O. (2007). Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment of Library Personnel in Academic and Research Libraries in Oyo State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice

Tompkins, D., Galbraith, D. & Tompkins, P. (2010). Universalism, Particularism and Cultural Sef-Awareness: A Comparison of American and Turkish University Students. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 1-8

23


APPENDIX

We are interested in people's experiences with, and attitudes about their current job . Listed below are questions for this survey. Please provide a response for every question.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

On an average day at work, how frequently do you do each of the following when interacting with customers?

Nev

er

Rare

ly

Som

etim

es

Ofte

n

Alw

ays

1. Make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display to others. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Try to actually experience the emotions that I must show. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Really try to feel the emotions I have to show as part of my job. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Resist expressing my true feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Hide my true feelings about a situation. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Put on an act in order to deal with customers in an appropriate way. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Fake a good mood when interacting with customers. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Put on a “show” or “performance” when interacting with customers. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Just pretend to have the emotions I need to display for my job. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Put on a “mask” in order to display the emotions I need for the job. 1 2 3 4 5

Please indicate your opinion about each supervisor behavior by thinking TO WHAT EXTENT YOUR SUPERVISOR performs that behavior

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Nei

ther

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

11. Provides advice to employees like a senior family member. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Creates a family environment in the workplace. 1 2 3 4 513. Places importance to knowing every employee in person (e.g. personal

problems, family life etc.). 1 2 3 4 5

14. Closely monitors the development and progress of his or her employees. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Places importance to establishing one-to-one relationship with every employee. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Is disciplinarian and at the same time nurturing, (sweet & bitter). 1 2 3 4 5

17. Feels responsible from employees as if they are his or her own children. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Protects employees from outside criticisms. 1 2 3 4 5

24


19. Expects loyalty and deference in exchange for his or her care and nurturance. 1 2 3 4 520. Despite establishing close relationships with employees, keeps his or her

distance. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Is ready to help employees with their non-work problems (e.g.housing, education of the children, health etc.) whenever they need it. 1 2 3 4 5

22. Behaves like a family member (father/mother or elder brother/sister) towards his / her employees. 1 2 3 4 5

25


Please consider the following questions and circle the one response that most closely matches your opinion.

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Nei

ther

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

23. I am responsible if I do something wrong 1 2 3 4 5

24. I think people should be held responsible for their own actions 1 2 3 4 5

25. The individual is responsible for the consequences of his/her actions 1 2 3 4 5

26. We are affected by our own actions 1 2 3 4 5

27. I must pay for the consequences of my actions 1 2 3 4 5

28. My personal development makes me feel strong and secure 1 2 3 4 5

29. My group is important to me 1 2 3 4 5

30. The group I belong to is a significant part of who I am 1 2 3 4 5

31. I always keep in contact with my group 1 2 3 4 5

32. I feel it is important to belong to a social group 1 2 3 4 5

33. Being part of a group makes me happy 1 2 3 4 5

34. I prefer being with other people 1 2 3 4 5

35. I gain a sense of security by associating with a strong group 1 2 3 4 5

36. I derive a sense of security from myself 1 2 3 4 5

37. Poverty is the result of the failure of society as whole 1 2 3 4 5

38. Mutual help within my group means a lot for my well-being 1 2 3 4 5

39. Society is obligated to help those who can’t help themselves 1 2 3 4 5

40. It is important to share wealth and property for the common good 1 2 3 4 5

41. Sharing one’s wealth is better than keeping it for oneself 1 2 3 4 5

42. The fortunate members of society should help the less fortunate 1 2 3 4 5

43. I think members of a group should care for each other’s welfare 1 2 3 4 5

44. Established religion strives to control the individual 1 2 3 4 5

45. I do not share my prayers with others, they are a personal matter 1 2 3 4 5

46. Religion is ultimately a highly private matter 1 2 3 4 5

47. Religious beliefs and practices are private 1 2 3 4 5

48. My religion concerns only me 1 2 3 4 5

49. Things get done better when I work with others 1 2 3 4 5

26



Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Nei

ther

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

50. It is more effective to work alone than it is to work in a group 1 2 3 4 5

51. I do things best when I work alone 1 2 3 4 5

52. It is more efficient to work in a group than to work alone 1 2 3 4 5

For the questions below, please circle the one response for each question that comes closest to your opinion about it.

Nev

er o

r a li

ttle

of

the

time

Som

e of

the

time

A go

od p

art o

f the

tim

e

Mos

t of t

he ti

me

53. I feel sad 1 2 3 4

54. I feel unhappy 1 2 3 4

55. I feel good 1 2 3 4

56. I feel depressed 1 2 3 4

57. I feel blue 1 2 3 4

58. I feel cheerful 1 2 3 4

59. I feel nervous 1 2 3 4

60. I feel jittery 1 2 3 4

61. I feel calm 1 2 3 4

62. I feel fidgetly 1 2 3 4

63. I get angry 1 2 3 4

64. I get aggravated 1 2 3 4

65. I get irritated or annoyed 1 2 3 4

27


Please consider the following questions about PROCEDURES at your workplace; and circle the one response that most closely matches your opinion.

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Nei

ther

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

66. Have you been able to express your views and feelings during those procedures? 1 2 3 4 5

67. Have you had influence over the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures? 1 2 3 4 5

68. Have those procedures been applied consistently? 1 2 3 4 5

69. Have those procedures been free of bias? 1 2 3 4 5

70. Have those procedures been based on accurate information? 1 2 3 4 5

71. Have you been able to appeal the(outcome) arrived at by those procedures? 1 2 3 4 5

72. Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards? 1 2 3 4 5

73. Does your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work? 1 2 3 4 5

74. Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed? 1 2 3 4 5

75. Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the organization? 1 2 3 4 5

76. Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance? 1 2 3 4 5

Please consider the following questions about YOUR Manager and Coworkers and circle the one response that most closely matches your opinion.

Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Nei

ther

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee77. My manager is loyal 1 2 3 4 5

78. My manager is always sensitive to my priorities 1 2 3 4 5

79. What I trust most in my manager is that s/he is fair 1 2 3 4 5

80. My manager evaluates the performance of his/her staff, impartially 1 2 3 4 5

81. I trust that my coworker will keep his/her promises 1 2 3 4 5

82. My coworker acts fairly to others they work with 1 2 3 4 583. My coworker is good in seizing opportunities to look good in front of

management, even if is at the expense of others 1 2 3 4 5

28



Stro

ngly

Disa

gree

Disa

gree

Som

ewha

t Disa

gree

Nei

ther

Disa

gree

or

Agre

e

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Agre

e

Stro

ngly

Agr

ee

84. I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

85. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

86. I do not feel like "part of the family" at my organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

87. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 788. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as

much as desire 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

89. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

90. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

91. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

92. I am staying with my current organization because I would have a difficult time finding a better job elsewhere 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

93. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

94. This organization deserves my loyalty 1 2 3 4 5 6 795. I would not leave my organization right now because I have a

sense of obligation to the people in it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

96. I owe a great deal to my organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29


Please provide the following information:

97. Age, (in years): ________

98. Male ____ Female _____

99. Education level:

Elementary school _______Middle school _______High school _______2 year vocational sch. _______Bachelor’s degree _______ Graduate education _______

100. What do you do at your job? _________________________________________

101. Does your job deal with customer service? Yes _____ No _____ If Yes, please complete

next item.

102. Which industry or sector best fits your job?

Retail Sales ______Call Center ______Hospitality, (Ex: foodservice, hotels, guest relations) _____Insurance _____Other Services ______

103. If “Other Services” please describe: _______________________________

104. About how many hours do you work every week? ________________

105. In the course of doing your job, do you supervise anyone? Yes ____ No _____

106. How long have you been working in this organization? In years and months:

_________________

107. How long have you been working at your current position? In years and months:

__________________

30


108. How long have you been working with your current supervisor? In years and months:

_________________

Your responses will be completely anonymous. Please know – there is NO way to tie your answers back to any identifying information. Your name is not recorded

109. How often do you have any drink containing alcohol?a. Never – [if Never then please skip # 130--136 and go to #137]b. Once or twice a monthc. Once or twice a weekd. Once or twice a daye. Several times a day

Alcohol:130. In the past 12 months have you found yourself drinking alcohol more

than you intended? YES NO

131. Have you neglected some of your responsibilities because of drinking? YES NO132. Have you wanted to cut down on the amount of your drinking? YES NO133. In the last 12 months has anyone objected to your drinking? YES NO134. Have you frequently found yourself thinking about drinking? YES NO135. Have you used alcohol to relieve feelings such as sadness, anger or

boredom? YES NO

136. Have you used alcohol to relieve the stress you feel as the result of your employment? YES NO

137. How often do you use any illegal drug?f. Never – [if Never then please skip #4]g. Once or twice a monthh. Once or twice a weeki. Once or twice a dayj. Several times a day

Illegal drugs:138. In the past 12 months have you found yourself using illegal drugs more

than you intended? YES NO

139. Have you neglected some of your responsibilities because of using illegal drugs? YES NO

140. Have you wanted to cut down on the amount of your drug use? YES NO141. In the last 12 months has anyone objected to your drug use? YES NO142. Have you frequently found yourself thinking about using drugs? YES NO143. Have you used illegal drugs to relieve feelings such as sadness, anger

or boredom? YES NO

144. Have you used illegal drugs to relieve the stress you feel as the result of your employment? YES NO

THANK YOU very much for your participation!

31

Documents

The Effect of Supervisor Support, Coworker Support and Cultural Values on Job Satisfaction