Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Washington Libraries]On: 24 August 2014, At: 04:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Administration in Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wasw20
African-American Practitioners'Perceptions of Their Supervisors:Srinika Jayaratne PhD a , Howard V. Brabson DSW b , Larry M.Gant PhD c , Biren A. Nagda MSW d , Anup K. Singh PhD e &Wayne A. Chess PhD fa Professor, School of Social Work, The University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109b Associate Professor, School of Social Work, The Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109c Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109d Doctoral Candidate, School of Social Work, The Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109e Assistant Professor, Management Development Institute,New Delhi, Indiaf Professor, School of Social Work, University of Oklahoma,Norman, OK, 73019Published online: 25 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Srinika Jayaratne PhD , Howard V. Brabson DSW , Larry M. Gant PhD ,Biren A. Nagda MSW , Anup K. Singh PhD & Wayne A. Chess PhD (1992) African-AmericanPractitioners' Perceptions of Their Supervisors:, Administration in Social Work, 16:2, 27-43,DOI: 10.1300/J147v16n02_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J147v16n02_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
African-American Practitioners ' Perceptions of Their Supervisors:
Emotional Support, Social Undermining, and Criticism
Srinika Jayaratne, PhD Howard V. Brabson. DSW
Lany M. Gant. PhD Biren A. Nagda, MSW Anup K. Singh, PhD
Wayne A. Chess, PhD
An increasing number of studies have documented the ability of social support to help individuals deal with a variety of stressful life situations, including work-related stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985; House. 1981). These positive attributes of social support have been observed in numerous contexts, including the human service profession (Jayaratne & Chess. 1984; Koeske & Koeske, 1989; Pines. 1984; Shinn et a].. 1984). While social support is usually accepted as a multidimensional construct. "emotional support" -behaviors demonstrating caring, trust, and understanding-has been found to be the most pervasive and most important element of this construct (Cobb, 1976; Gottlieb, 1978; House, I98 I ) Therefore, the
Dr. Jayaratne is Professor. Dr. Brabson is Associate Professor, Dr. Ganl is Assistant Professor, and Mr. Nagda is a doctoral candidate. School of Social Work. The University of Michigan. AM Arbor. MI 48109. Dr. Singh is Assistant Professor. Management Development Institute. New Delhi, India. Dr. Chess is Professor, School of Social Work, University of Oklahoma, Notman, OK 73019.
The research for this study was supported by NIMH Grant MH-18773.
Administration in Social Work. Vol. 16(2) 1992 @ 1992 by The Haworth Press. Inc. All rights reserved. 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
28 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
present study will focus on emotional support as the primary ve- hicle of social support.
While there has been some attention paid to gender differences in the study of work stress and emotional support, most studies have been conducted with samples of caucasian workers (McNeely, 1989). On the other hand, there is no reason to doubt the universali- ty of the positive effects of social support in the workplace, or to consider it an ethnocentric or culture-specific phenomenon (Brab- son, Jones, & Jayaratne, in press).
In contrast, the study of negative social interactions, such as social undermining and criticism, are a relatively recent phenome- non, and has received far less attention in the literature (Abbey. Abramis, & Caplan, 1985; Vinokur & Vinokur Kaplan, 1989; Rook, 1984). Social undermining is defied as a negative form of social interaction characterized by active dislike and devaluing cd an individual. Criticism is defmed as non-constructive and punitive appraisal of a person's performance. Several studies focusing on marital relationships have examined the association between social undermining and social support (Abbey, Abramis, & Caplan, 1985; Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987; Depner & Ingersol-Dayton, 1985; Vinokur & Vinokur-Kaplan, 1989). These studies generally concur that there are gender differences in the receipt and delivery of supportive and undermining behaviors and, while social undermin- ing and criticism may be infrequent events, even one occurrence may be salient and potentially harmful (Rook, 1984). As is true with the support literature, the exploration of these latter concepts within minority populations is rare.
In providing a rationale for their study on the nature of support and undermining in the marital relationship, Vinokur and Vinokur- Kaplan (1989) note that: ". . .most persons in society live signifi- cant portions of their adult lives in marital relationships, in which the interaction with their spouses is often more frequent and intense than with other persons" (p. 4). A similar rationale can be suggest- ed for the workplace, an environment in which most adults spend a significant portion of their time. As Pottick (1989) points out, "work-related feelings, thoughts, and behaviors not only affect and are affected by other roles, they also directly affect individuals global mental health" (p. 488). As such, the relationship a worker
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
may have with their supervisor would more than likely have a direct impact on their work performance and their personal well- being (Hersey & Blanchard, 1972; Pottick. 1989; Patti, 1983). The supervisor-worker relationship may attain even a greater signifi- cance in the human service profession, where "people-work" makes the human service organization a unique endeavor (Hasen- feld & English, 1974; Patti, 1983), and "people problems" make the work context highly stressful (Maslach, 1981).
The present research was designed as an exploratory study on workers' perceptions of their supervisors supportive, undermining, and critical behaviors. The research strategy employed in this study was to obtain workers' perceptions of their supervisors on these domains, that is. their "subjective environment". ( k w h , 195 1 ). Thus, what is deemed important is the extent to which a worker perceived a situation as being supportive, undermining, or critical. In this context. Wethington and Kessler (1986) and Jayaratne, Himle, and'chess (1988) noted that the perception of support may be more important than the actual receipt of support. If the perception of support is important, it is reasonable to argue that the perception of a negative environment characterized by social undermining and criticism may be of equal importance.
McNeely (1989) notes that "almost nothing at all has been written in the empirical human services job satisfaction literature on race" (p. 76). Although the same can be said with regard to social support, social undermining, and criticism, the impetus for using a sample of African-American social workers in this investigation emerged as a function of research conducted with the membership of the National Association of Black Social Workers (Brabson, Jones. & Jayaratne, 1990).
In contrast to race, the effects of gender have been fairly well- documented in the literature. For example, Kessler and McLeod (1984) looked at gender differences in responses to undesirable life events; Jayaratne. Tripodi, and Chess (1984) and Shinn et al. (1984) examined gender differences on the effects of social support among human service professionals; Haynes (1983) looked at gender differences in social work administrators' job satisfaction; McNeely (1984) and Wright, King and Berg (1985) explored gender dif- ferences with respect to job satisfaction among minority human
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
30 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
service workers and managers. While most of these studies obviously included female r&pondents, only a handful employed minority female samples. and few of them systematically examined gender k a variable-in work place social ~ " ~ ~ o r t . ~ o n k examined the effects of social undermining and criticism.
Finally, research evidence suggests that the setting of practice may play a role in the assessment of these domains (Farber & Heifetz, 1983). For example, Jayaratne and Chess (1984) found differences in stress levels between workers in child welfare, family service, and community mental health settings. Shinn et al. (1984) found that private practitioners have fewer psychological stress symptoms than workers in mental health settings. Sze and Ivker (1986) noted that workers in hospital settings have the greatest level of stress-related symptoms. While much of this research concerned perceived stress levels across settings, questions can also be raised about the existence of differences between settings on perceptions of support, undermining, and criticism.
Given the exploratory nature of this study,, and the minimal research evidence available, we are not in a position to propose any formal hypotheses. On the other hand, we are assuming that the perception of social support is desirable and positive, while the perception of social undermining and criticism is undesirable and negative. We are also assuming that setting of practice, public versus private, may play a role in these perceptions.
STUDY DESIGN AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
The African-American social workers in this study are pan of a random sample of minority social workers selected from the Membership Directory of the National Association of Social Workers (1989). All social workers who answered the ethnic identification question in the Directory as being African-American. American Indian, Asian American, ChicanofMexican American, or Pueno Rican, were included in the population to be sampled. A 10- page questionnaire, cover letter, response confirmation postcard, and return envelope were mailed to 1000 randomly selected minority workers. All individuals who did not return the response confirma-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Joyaratne el al. J I
tion postcard within three weeks were sent a follow-up package containing the same materials. This procedure resulted in the return of 520 usable questionnaires. a response rate of 52.0%
While our sample of minority respondents had representatives from all of the identified ethnic groups, only African-American workers are used in this paper since this is the only proup with a sufficiently large numb& *to conduct the necessary Gatistical analyses. Of the 520 respondents, 288 individuals (55.4%) identified themselves as being ~f;ican-~merican. This proponion of African- American workers in the study sample is a little higher that the proportion of African-American social workers registered in the NASW Directory (49.6%). ,
For purposes of analyses. only workers with an MSW degree were included (N = 243). which represents 84.4% of the African- American respondents. In addition, the analyses were restricted to workers employed in public agencies (N = 119) and private non- profit and private for profit agencies (N = 91). A small number of workers in private practice (N = 11) and "other settings" (N = 29) were excluded in order to obtain as clear a picture as possible between public and private agency settings. The application of these criteria resulted in a sample of N = 210.
Since our analyses are concerned with supervisory relations. clearly only those workers who have a supervisor would be eligible. Of the 210 respondents. 201 (95.7%) answered affiumatively to the question: "Is there one particular person you think of i% your supervisor?" All of the analyses that follow reference this group of 201 African-American social workers in our sample, which is 69.8% of the total number of African-American respondents.
Of these 201 workers, 82.6% are female. The average age is 44.3 years. Nearly half the respondents (47.3%) are married, 23.4% are separated or divorced, and 24.4% have never been married. The majority of the respondents (43.5%) earn between 25,000-35,000 dollars from their social work job. On the average, a worker has been in their current position 5.6 years. works 40-hours per week, and has held four different social work positions. These character- istics do not vary across the private and public settings of practice.
With regard to their method of practice, 26.9% describe them- selves as administrators. 26.4% as caseworkers, 18.1 % as supervi-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
32 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
sors, and 14.5% as case managers. The remaining workers are engaged in a variety of other activities such as community organiza- tion or group work. The workers are employed in a variety of practice settings: for example, 31.5% are in mental health settings; 14.5% in healthcare settings; 10.0% in family service agencies; and 9.5% in school social work.
Since this sample was randomly drawn from the NASW Member- ship Directory, we assume it is reasonably representative of all African-American social workers who are members of the National Association of Social Workers. Fu~thermore, the sample of 201 workers used in the analyses does not differ from those not used on any of the demographics cited earlier. Considerable caution should be exercised, however, in generalizing from these data.
MEASURES
The measures employed in this study are briefly described below. In all instances, the scale items used in this study have been used in previous research. The social undermining and criticism items were used by Vinokur and Vinokur-Kaplan (1989); the emotional support items by Caplan et al. (1975); the appraisal support items by Himle. Jayaratne. and Chess (1989).
Emotional Support-is measured by the two items: "How true is it that your supervisor is warm and friendly when you are troubled about something?" and "How true is it your supervisor listens attentively when you need to talk about something?" The alpha coefficient is .59. The score range is from 2-8, with high scores indicating greater support.
Appraisal Support-is measured by the two items: "How true is it that your supervisor will show approval when you do something well?" and "How hue is it that your supervisor will give you credit for work well done?" The alpha coefficient is .59. The score range is from 2-8, with high scores indicating greater support.
Social Underminineis measured by the three items: "How true is it that your supervisor will make your life difficult?" "How true is it that your supervisor will act in an unpleasant and angry manner toward you?"; and "How tme is it that your supervisor will act in ways that show they dislike you?" The alpha coefficient is .73. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Iayaralne el a/. 33
score range is from 3-12, with high scores indicating greater under- mining.
Criticism-is measured by the single item, "How true is that your supervisor will criticize you?" The score range is from 1-4, with high scores indicating greater criticism. ,
'RESULTS
We fmt compared the African-American workers perceptions of their African-American and white supervisors. The results showed no significant differences in perceived levels of emotional support, appraisal suppon, and social undermining. However. the African- American workers reported greater criticism from their African- American supervisors (x = 2.96, sd = .99) compared to their white supervisors (x = 2.55, sd = 1.01) (t = 2.655, df = 68.1 17, p < .OI).
Given the possibility that there may be differential perceptions of male and female supervisors, we compared the reports of all workers regarding their male and female African-American super- visors, and male and female white supervisors. The results indicate that African-American female supervisors are viewed significantly more negatively by their workers. The African-American female supervisor is perceived as providing less emotional support (t = -1.971, df = 40,53, p < .05) and less appraisal support (t = -1.987. df = 40.53, p < -05) than the white female supervisors. In addition. the African-American female supervisor is also perceived as being more undermining (t = 2.425, df = 4033, p c .05) and more critical (t = 2.547. df = 40.53. p < .01). Given these findings. and the earlier fmding regarding the overall negative perception of African- American supervisors with regard to criticism, the question arises as to whether these results are a function of supervisor gender or supervisor race. We. therefore, conducted a two-way analysis of variance whereby we examined the effects of gender, race, and gender x race interaction.
The results from these analyses presented in Table I suggest that African-American female supervisors are perceived as being more undermining, while female supervisors are seen as being more critical. On the other hand, no differences are apparent with regard to emotional support and appraisal support. Overall, the analyses up
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
34 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
Table 1
Effects of Race and Gender on Support, Undermlning and Crltlclsm r
mi!.& Pf slEL
Emotlonel 3uIum Main effect 1.527 3,183 ns Saw 1.755 ns Race 0.379 ns Sax X Race 1.813 ns
Aooraisal suDlw Main effect 1.590 3,184 ns Sex 1.397 ns Race 0.613 ns Sex X Race 1.993 ns
S Q a Underminina Main effect 3.099 3,183 .05 Sex 0.344 ns Race 1.515 ns Sar X Race 8.270 ,005
Criticism Mah effect . 3.395 3,183 .05 Sex 5.521 .05 Race 2.826 ns Saw X Race 0.923 ns
to now suggest that being female and African-American results in being negatively perceived by the workers.
Given the possibility that there may be a further interaction of worker sex by supervisor sex, we conducted another two-way analysis of variance where we looked for effects of worker sex alone, supervisor sex alone, and the interaction of worker sex x supervisor sex. Due to small N's in these analyses the obtained results are questionable at best. However, we found only one significant effect in these analyses-African-American female
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Jayorotne el ol. 35
workers perceived their African-American female supervisors as being more undermining than their African-American male supervisors (t = 2.19, df = 33.21, p = < .05).~ Thus. within the total sample of African-American social workers, the generally negative perception of African-American female supervisors appears to be a relati;ely pervasive phenomenon.
In order to explore further the observed gender and race differences, we conducted a final analysis controlling for setting of practice, given the possibility of setting differences. The results are presented in Table 2. In the private agency setting one significant effect (race x sex) appears, although the main effect is not signifi- cant in this analysis. Here, the white male is seen as a source of undermining. In the public agency setting, race k sex interaction emerges significant for social undermining, and sex emerges significant for criticism (although the p = < .07 for the main effects). These results are similar to those reported earlier without controlling for setting of practice. Thus, it appears that the observed race and gender differences, that is, being African-American and female, appear to be operative only in the public agency setting.
When we looked at the mean scores on support, undermining, and criticism by race and gender within private and public settings. some interesting trends occur. While the N's are small and the observed differences nonsignificant across settings, the data present some interesting trends. Within the public agency setting. African- American female supervisors are perceived as being the least supportive and most undermining and critical. In the private sector, white male supervisors are perceived as being the least supportive and most undermining. The implications of these findings are discussed below.
DISCUSSION
Praclice Setting
Our data suggest a pattern of worker perceptions governed by the gender and race of the supervisor. While there could be numerous interpretations of these findings, our discussion is guided primarily by the observed differences between the perceptions of workers in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
36 ADMlNISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
Table 2
Effects of Race end Gender on Support, Undermining and Criticism: Public Agency and Private Agency
.emuwla
r-etat,gf E-stat. BE
Emotionel 3lRm Main erect 0.579 3,107 1.344 3,72 Sex 0.869 0.748 Race 0.058 1.412 Sex X Race 0.828 0.939
iEEF Maln effect 0.766 3,107 1.351 3,72 SW 1.024 0.341 Race 0.032 1.989 Sex X Race 1.245 0.772
C
Maln effect 3.223. 3,107 1.762 3,72 Sex 2.923 1.287 Race 2.543 0.003 Sex x Race 4.889. 4.336.
Criticism
Maln effect 2.338.. 3,107 I .a95 3,72 Sex 4.788. 0.578 Race 1.264 2.360 Sex X Race 0.002 2.944
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Joyaralne el a/. 37
the private and public sector. There is general consensus that public sector agencies are, for the most part, larger and more bureaucratic than private agencies. Both the size of organization and its auspices, may influence the willingness and rigor with which affimative action policies, such as the Title VII EEOC act of 1964 (as amended in 1972) are implemented. As Brieland, Costin, and Atherton (1985) note, "the public agency is the target of pressure from many quarters, including taxpayers' groups, the National Association of Social Workers, and recipients of services" (p -63). Therefore, the public sector will be under greater scrutiny by a variety of stakeholders, and as a result, effecied more by affmative action policies and other legislative actions, than employees in the private sector.
Historically, minority social workers have had more opportunity to enter higher echelon positions in public agencies compared to private agencies if for no other reason than their larger representa- tion in these agencies. But, when affirmative action is viewed within the context of dwindling resources and fewer opportunities for advancement, those workers on the line may begin to feel disadvantaged. In effect, the African-American female supervisors in our sample may be perceived by their co-workers as having a "triple advantage"-being a minority, beiig'a woman, and beiig in a position of authority. It is conceivable, therefore, that the African- American workers in our sample are perceiving their African- American female supervisors with some degree of envy (French. 1987; Mathii & Jackson, 1976).
In contrast, we do not see African-American workers in private agencies presenting a similar scenario regarding their female African-American supervisors. While the data in this instance are not as strong (not statistically significant), the trends do suggest a situation where the white male worker is perceived as beiig least supportive and most undermining. It is conceivable that the picture we presented with regard to female African-American supervisors in public agencies may fit the white male supervisor in the private agency.
It is also possible that some notion of "critical massv-having a sufficiently large number-may play a role here. In the public agency, where there are larger numbers of minority social workers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
38 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
it may be easier both personally and socially to be critical of one's supervisors. In contrast, the small number of minority practitioners in the private agency setting, and the even smaller number of minority supervisors, may render the criticism of minority supervi- sors a difficult task-from the perspectives of both personal and social values. Historically, private agencies have been the domain of the white worker, dominated by male administrators and supervisors (Fanshel, 1976; Zeitz & Erlich, 1976). Thus. the workers' perceptions of the white male supervisors may be biased by the same envy referred to earlier. To the extent that private agencies are not under the same pressures as public agencies for imolementation of affmative action ~olicies. the assumed frustra- tiin in the private sector may be justiked. ~okever , whether or not there is in fact a differential implementation of affmative action policies across the two types of settings remains an empirical question.
Perceptions of Discrimination
Some information on the above issue can be obtained by asking workers in the two different settings whether or not they perceive any discrimination because of their race or gender. We explored this possibility by looking at responses to the question: "Do you feel discriminated against in your job because of your sex?" The same question was posed with regard to race. We found no differences between settings on these two discrimination questions either for the total sample or when controlling for worker gender. Thus, any negative perceptions of the supervisors by these workers do not appear to be associated with perceptions of discriminatory practices in the agency.
Promotional Opportunities
In a fmal attempt to examine other factors associated with negative perceptions of the supervisors, we examined worker reports on their opportunities for promotion. Brabson et al. (in press). McNeely (1984). and Miller (1980). for example. reported associations between job satisfaction and promotional opportunity.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Jayararne er al. 39
In addition, McNeely (1984). Fanshel(1976). and Zeitz and Erlich (1976) reported gender differences in this regard. While few of these researchers explored the workerlsupervisor relationship, it is conceivable that a negative supervisory relationship is tied to perceptions of lowered promotional opportunity. For example, Brabson et al. (in press) found a negative relationship between worker satisfaction and intent to turnover, with promotional opportunity among a sample of African-American workers.
We found that the African-American workers in our public agency sample reported no differences in their opportunities for promotion in total, and controlling for gender. We did, however, find that the women in our private agency sample report significant- ly fewer opportunities for promotion. Thus, to the extent that gender is a factor in promotion, it appears to be more evident in the private agency domain.
On the basis of our analyses, we would have to conclude that neither perceptions of discrimitiation nor perceptions of diminished opportunities for promotion play a consistently significant role in the workers' negative view of their supervisors-the sole exception being female workers in private agencies who report fewer opportunities for promotion. It is important to note, however, that all of these subsidiary analyses were hampered by small N's and, therefore, our conclusions regarding the effects of discrimination and promotional opportunity are tentative at best.
CONCLUSION
These frndings lead to some interesting questions. Wright, King, and Berg (1985), studying African-American female supervisors in human service settings, concluded that job satisfaction in their sample was related to job authority, qualifications for the position, and their opportunities to advance in the organization. Given the functional authority and power associated with being a supervisor (compared to a line worker), and beirng an African-American female in a public agency and a white male in a private agency, one is left with the possibility of proposing a scenario of "self-protection." That is, those who possess the authority may want to use it for their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
40 ADMINlSTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
best competitive advantage. The fact that we are talking about African-American female supervisors in public agencies, and white male supervisors in private agencies may be almost incidental, although it may be of historical significance. While this is a somewhat negative perception of thesupervisor, it may also be realistic, given the current economic climate of diminished support for social-services and the continuous attacks on affmative G i o n policies. Thus, there may be a self-imposed pressure to be a "super supervisor." to be someone who can compete in an unequal system. As Sayles and Strauss (1981) have pointed out, women and African-American supervisors often become the targets of self- c o n f i g prophecy and prejudice, particularly when organizations are attempting to remedy earlier discriminatory practices.
It is also possible that o w perceptual measures simply reflect "professional envy." The workers may be hostile to their supervi- sors not because of the supervisors' inability to provide support or because of their undermining behaviors. Rather. it may reflect a sense of perceived supervisory inadequacy and incompetence, or alternatively, their own inadequacy. Weissman, Epstein, and Savage (1983). commenting on the organizational context of practice, noted that an attack on an idea is often taken as an attack on the person during supervision. From this perspective, the issue does not evolve around the supervisor, but rather,, around distorted images and perceptions held by the worker.
From a more pragmatic perspective, the data simply state that the existing worker-supervisor relationship is perceived to be less than desirable by the worker. Russell, Lankford, and Grime11 (1984), for example, cite as one of their most important concerns for adequate supervision, ". . . the ability to develop within each employee positive mental attitudes, interpersonal openness, and candid communication" (p. 14). Similarly, Gitterman (1972) argues that workers will give their supervisors "functional authority" as long as they view the supervisor as competent and positive. Our findings suggest a somewhat different relationship. Hidden agenda and suspicion. coupled with an unwillingness to openly discuss issues and concerns, may be systematically undermining the quality of work life. For example, research has tied absenteeism to supervisory behavior (Malka, 1989), and the lack of supervisory support to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
ashi
ngto
n L
ibra
ries
] at
04:
39 2
4 A
ugus
t 201
4
