525467

research-article2014
JOBXXX10.1177/2329488414525467International Journal of Business CommunicationMacDonald et al.

Article
International Journal of
Business Communication
A Path Model of Workplace 2019, Vol. 56(1) 31­–49
© The Author(s) 2014
Solidarity, Satisfaction, Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Burnout, and Motivation DOI: 10.1177/2329488414525467
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525467
journals.sagepub.com/home/job

Patrick MacDonald1, Stephanie Kelly2,

and Scott Christen3

Abstract
Communication dynamics within the business world dictate that the formality of
interaction between supervisor and subordinate is determined by the supervisor.
The present study investigates the influence of negotiated formality and closeness
via supervisor-subordinate solidarity on subordinates’ burnout, motivation, and job
satisfaction. An online questionnaire was administered to subjects across various
occupations and organizations in the United States. The data are consistent with
a mediated model in which job satisfaction mediates the relationships between
solidarity-motivation and solidarity-burnout. These results are novel in that, first, job
satisfaction is identified as an input of motivation and burnout rather than outputs
of a shared induction, And, second, the results place renewed emphasis on the role
of supervisor communication in the workplace as subordinates are unable to initiate
solidarity.

Keywords
solidarity, motivation, burnout, satisfaction, communication

The present study seeks to investigate a unique form of rapport in the workplace via
communication: interpersonal solidarity. Interpersonal solidarity is both the perceived
synchronicity and closeness established through communication in a relationship

1West Virginia University, Whitsett, NC, USA

2North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA
3Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Patrick MacDonald, West Virginia University, 6862 Derby Run Drive, Whitsett, NC 27377, USA.
Email: patricksmacdonald@gmail.com
32 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

(Wheeless, 1978). Solidarity is a unique variable within the workplace, because though
both members of the supervisor-subordinate relationship must be willing to build soli-
darity for it to exist, rules of communication dynamics in the business world dictate
that only the supervisor has the authority to change the formality of workplace com-
munication such that solidarity can be formed (Newman & Ober, 2013; Sanders &
Schyns, 2006). The supervisor’s legitimate authority over the subordinate confers
more control on relational outcomes and influence (Dunbar, 2004). When subordi-
nates feel a lack of closeness or unsupportiveness from their supervisor, they are more
likely to remain silent because of anticipated negative outcomes (Milliken, Morrison,
& Hewlin, 2003), eliminating all chances to build solidarity. So, unlike solidarity
formed in any other context, only one party within the supervisor-subordinate dyad
has the power to most effectively initiate solidarity regardless of participant willing-
ness (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). For this reason (implicit power differences), supervi-
sors must put forth more effort than their subordinates to build solidarity (Willemyns,
Gallois, & Callan, 2003). As such, the present study seeks to better understand the
influence of supervisor communication, as it contributes to perceived interpersonal
solidarity, on internalized subordinate variables related to productivity, including job
satisfaction, motivation, and burnout.

Interpersonal Solidarity
As a communication variable, solidarity has been identified as the best measurement
of relationship intimacy (Baus & Allen, 1996; Wheeless, Wheeless, & Baus, 1984).
Solidarity represents psychological and social closeness between persons generated
through trust and self-disclosure (Wheeless, 1978). In their meta-analysis of customer-
employee rapport, Gremler and Gwinner (2000) identified six studies that defined
rapport with the same terminology that Wheeless (1976, 1978) used to describe soli-
darity: perceived closeness, quality of relationship, harmony, and trust. Like solidarity,
rapport is built through verbal communication and self-disclosure (Gfeller, Lynn, &
Pribble, 1987), blurring the distinction between these variables. Because of this, soli-
darity can be conceptualized as an assessment of perceived rapport based on past com-
municative experiences, especially those experiences involving self-disclosure.
As communication within a relationship increases or decreases, so will the per-
ceived solidarity (Wheeless et al., 1984). Communication frequency has been found to
relate positively to solidarity in both friend and family relationships (Patterson, 1995).
Within high solidarity relationships, social comparison, perceived similarity, and feel-
ings of positivity are also high (Locke, 2003). Yet, solidarity is prevalent in interper-
sonal relationships across all contexts, including the workplace context.
Organizational culture dictates levels of solidarity (Bourgeois & Friedkin, 2001). It
is strongest when leaders promote informal communication and when employees are
invested long term in the organization (Sanders & Emmerik, 2004; Sanders, Flache,
van der Vegt, & van de Vliert, 2006). Additionally, organizations that encourage
upward and downward communication among its members increase positive relations
within that is conducive to solidarity (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). As such, solidarity is
MacDonald et al. 33

positively related to perceived closeness among organizational members (Myers &

Johnson, 2004).
Solidarity is a prevalent variable in team dynamics. Coworkers who are mutually
dependent, formally and informally, within an organization perceive higher solidarity
with each other (Koster, Stokman, Hodson, & Sanders, 2007). Organizational teams
that share responsibility of tasks among all team members have higher intermember
solidarity than teams that do not promote a culture of mutual dependence (Koster
et al., 2007). Though how well team members work together does not equate work-
place solidarity (Sanders & Schyns, 2006), putting in additional hours at work posi-
tively relates to employees’ perceived vertical solidarity (Sanders & Emmerik, 2004),
and high-solidarity coworkers relate better to their supervisors (Hodson, 1997).
Moreover, solidarity has an impact beyond employees. Organizational success is
contingent upon the solidarity between supervisors and subordinates, specific to the
solidarity perceived by the subordinate, because solidarity dictates the openness of
communication (Sanders et al., 2006). Supervisors are the influencers/power sources
for solidarity in supervisor-subordinate relationships (Sanders & Schyns, 2006). When
a person is interacting with high power, low solidarity leads subordinates to withhold
negatively perceived emotions such as anger, whereas high-solidarity subordinates
feel encouraged to openly display positively perceived emotions such as happiness
(Diefendorff, Morehart, & Gabriel, 2010). This openness and comfort of communica-
tion is likely related to subordinates’ job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is an employee’s level of positive emotional orientation toward their
job (Price, 1997), or “the feelings a worker has about his [or her] job” (Smith, Kendall,
& Hulin, 1996, p. 6). Job satisfaction is, generally, the overall sentiment that one has
for their job. It is of importance to organizations in that job satisfaction is a strong
predictor of productivity (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Malik, Ahmed,
Saif, & Safwan, 2010; Politis, 2006; Rose, Kumar, & Pak, 2009; Yousef, 2002). In
fact, job satisfaction is a stronger predictor of productivity than organizational com-
mitment (Malik et al., 2010).
Organizations must be continually cognizant of their employee’s job satisfaction
because it is a fluid variable, fluctuating throughout a career because of a number of
known and unknown influences (Jusoh, Simun, & Chong, 2011). Job satisfaction is
linked with employee turnover, absenteeism (Lawler & Porter, 1969), and desire to
withdraw from an organization (Yousef, 2002). A meta-analysis substantiated Lawler
and Porter’s (1969) finding by concluding that job satisfaction strongly contributed to
turnover intentions and withdrawal among employees (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Research
has further demonstrated that job satisfaction is negatively related to mental and physi-
cal ill health (Holdsworth & Cartwright, 2003) as well as stress (Yousef, 2002). It is
also positively related to life satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993), perceived gate-
keeping of pertinent information (Muchinsky, 1977), and job security (Reisel, Probst,
Chia, Maloles, & König, 2010).
34 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

Job satisfaction has also been attributed to organizational communication. It

decreases when expectations for workplace communication, decision making, and
motivation fall short (Jusoh et al., 2011). Conversely, job satisfaction has been found
to relate positively to communication satisfaction, perceived summarization (high-
lighting relevant portions and minimizing nonrelevant portions in communication;
Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010; Muchinsky, 1977), involvement in organiza-
tional learning (Rose et al., 2009), self-actualization (Watson, 2008), and perceived
organizational quality (Orpen, 1997).
Within the supervisor-subordinate dyad, subordinate trust, perceived influence of
supervisor, and mobility aspirations are positively correlated with job satisfaction of
the subordinates (Muchinsky, 1977). Furthermore, supervisor temperament is posi-
tively related to subordinates’ job satisfaction (Porter, Wrench, & Hoskinson, 2007).
Supervisors who are perceived to be more supportive of employees either directly or
indirectly through non-work demands (Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and supervisors who
are perceived as competent communicators (Madlock, 2008) garner increased job sat-
isfaction in their subordinates. Notably, supervisors’ use of negative communication
behaviors, such as verbal aggression, has a greater effect on subordinate job satisfac-
tion than does the use of positive communication behaviors (Madlock & Kennedy-
Lightsey, 2010).
Because supervisor-subordinate communication has been linked to the success of
an organization, it likely relates to organizational productivity. The more satisfied a
person is at work, the more productive that person is (Judge et al., 2001; Malik et al.,
2010; Politis, 2006; Rose et al., 2009; Yousef, 2002). Given the positive social out-
comes associated with solidarity, it is reasonable that supervisor-subordinate solidarity
influences job satisfaction. As such, it is predicted that perceived supervisor solidarity
induces subordinate job satisfaction, which in turn induces subordinate predictors of
productivity, namely, motivation and burnout.

Motivation
Motivation, the force that prompts an individual (Martin, 2004), is a variable key to
organizational productivity. Initial theories on work motivation lacked complexity and
were characterized by basic reward and punishment systems (Katzell & Thompson,
1990). It was thought that rewards for productive behaviors and punishment for non-
productive behaviors were sufficient for producing motivation in employees. Current
motivational theories have expanded beyond simplistic models, separating intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, recognizing that motivation is derived from both internal
self-determined factors (expectancies, attitudes, etc.) and external factors (organiza-
tional rewards, bonuses, time off, etc.; Katzell & Thompson; Porter & Lawler, 1968).
As such, work motivation is the sum of both internal and external motivation factors
such as feelings of competency (Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002), economic
influence (Kolonoski, 2011), and age (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004).
There are a number of variables associated with change in employee motivation.
Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand (2002) found that low motivation and emotional
MacDonald et al. 35

exhaustion produce increased turnover intentions and actual turnover behaviors.

Contrariwise, highly intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to have higher
commitment to the organization (Barbuto & Story, 2011; Chak & Gurland, 2008).
Quality of communication within an organization relates positively to work motiva-
tion (Orpen, 1997).
Within the supervisor-subordinate dyad, perceptions of a supervisor’s temperament
are positively related to subordinates’ motivation (Porter et al., 2007). Immediate
supervisors have strong influence on generating subordinate motivation (Caldwell,
1978). Additionally, supervisors that exert lesser control and greater autonomy can
increase employees’ motivation (Caldwell; Chak & Gurland, 2008; Richer et al., 2002;
Richer & Vallerand, 1995).
Employees who are satisfied with their jobs have higher desires to keep those jobs
(Barbuto & Story, 2011; Chak & Gurland, 2008). Because performance dictates job
security and placement (Bernhardt, 1995) motivation to keep one’s job should be
higher in satisfied workers than unsatisfied workers. Therefore, it is predicted that
subordinate job satisfaction is positively related to subordinate motivation, such that
satisfaction induces motivation.

Burnout
Burnout is defined as a state of emotional exhaustion derived from interpersonal inter-
actions (Jackson, Schuler, & Schwab, 1986). Depersonalization and feelings of low
personal accomplishment also contribute to burnout (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993;
Malach-Pines, 2005; Maslach, 1982; Maslach & Jackson, 1981: Pines & Maslach,
1980). Most individuals report experiencing burnout as emotional exhaustion
(Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).
A number of factors contribute to burnout. Younger employees early in their careers
are more likely to experience burnout without the support garnered from past experi-
ence; likewise, single individuals are more likely to feel burnout without interpersonal
support at home (Maslach et al., 2001). Negative life events such as illness and inter-
personal breakup increase the likelihood or severity of burnout, whereas positive
events decrease it (Justice, Gold, & Klein, 1981; Omdahl & Fritz, 2006). Experience
with defensive communication from supervisors also contributes to subordinate burn-
out (Becker, Halbesleben, & O’Hair, 2005).
Employees experiencing burnout behave differently than those who are not.
Employees who reported higher levels of burnout also reported complaining less to
coworkers or supervisors and demonstrating a sense of apathy toward their job (Avtgis,
Thomas-Maddox, Taylor, & Patterson, 2007). Experiencing burnout increases work-
ers’ thoughts of leaving their organization, absenteeism, and employee turnover
(Jackson, Schuler, & Schwab, 1986; Maslach et al., 2001). Additionally, burnout has
been linked to lower productivity, decreased job satisfaction, and decreased OCBs
(Maslach et al., 2001).
Increased emotional awareness and control helps individuals resist burnout (Snyder,
2012). Furthermore, organizational engagement and job satisfaction decrease burnout
36 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

+ Motivation

+ Job
Solidarity
Satisfaction -

Burnout

Figure 1.  Proposed model.

(Hoeven, Jong, & Peper, 2006). Overall, employees who are satisfied with their jobs
are unlikely to experience burnout (Reisel et al., 2010; Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers,
2010). Thus, satisfaction at work may alleviate emotional exhaustion. Given this, there
is likely a negative relationship between subordinate job satisfaction and subordinate
burnout, where satisfaction influences burnout.

Proposed Model
Little research has investigated the impact of perceived supervisor solidarity on subor-
dinate work outcomes. Previous research has established that supervisors, as the
empowered half of the supervisor-subordinate dyad, are the communicators who can
most effectively establish solidarity within this type of relationship (Sanders & Schyns,
2006). Furthermore, subordinates have been observed to be more emotionally trans-
parent in the presence of supervisors with whom they perceive solidarity (Diefendorff
et al., 2010). From this, the literature concludes that supervisor solidarity is related to
workplace comfort for subordinates.
The present study seeks to expand understanding of supervisor communication on
subordinates, by specifically investigating the relationships between perceived super-
visor solidarity, subordinate job satisfaction, subordinate motivation, and subordinate
burnout. To reiterate, it has been predicted that increased perceived supervisor solidar-
ity will positively change subordinates’ view of their work, thereby increasing their
job satisfaction. This increase in subordinate job satisfaction will then increase their
motivation while also enabling them to better cope with work situations that could
lead to burnout. As such, the present study predicts that job satisfaction mediates the
solidarity-motivation and solidarity-burnout relationships. The proposed model can be
found in Figure 1. To reiterate, the model specifically tests the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of supervisor solidarity will directly, positively influ-

ence subordinate job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Subordinates’ job satisfaction will directly, positively influence their
motivation.
Hypothesis 3: Subordinates’ job satisfaction will directly, negatively influence their
burnout.
MacDonald et al. 37

Method
Subjects
A total of n = 343 subjects participated in this study. Among those participants,
149 were male and 194 were female. The breakdown of occupations was as fol-
lows: 18.4% sales, 16.4 % skilled labor, 16.4% clerical, 8.5% professional/mana-
gerial, 7% education, 2.5% transportation, 2% factory, 1% nonfarm labor, and
27.9% other. On average, subjects were M = 26.8 (SD = 9.3) years old and had
worked at their job for M = 3.3 (SD = 3.6) years. Of all participants, 54.8%
responded regarding their past supervisor and 45.2% responded in reference to
their present supervisor.

Procedure
Participants received a hyperlink via the researchers’ social network status on
facebook. This method of solicitation resulted in a 23% response rate. The link
took each participant to a welcome screen containing the informed consent.
Participants were informed that by clicking next to continue to the survey, they
were giving their consent. The survey was described to participants as an attempt
to understand communication in the workplace. Participants spent approximately
15 minutes completing the questionnaire and received no incentive for their
participation.

Instrumentation
Wheeless’s (1976) revised Solidarity Scale was used to assess interpersonal solidarity.
The measure consisted of 20 items with a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging
from disagree to agree. Reliability of this measure was α = .93. Rubin, Palmgreen, and
Sypher (2009) report that the measure has good concurrent validity.
Lawler and Hall’s (1970) Job Motivation Scale was used to assess subordinates’ job
motivation. The measure consisted of four items with a 7-point Likert-type response
scale ranging from disagree to agree. Reliability of this measure was α = .93.
Andrews and Withey’s (1976) Satisfaction Scale was used to assess the partici-
pant’s level of job satisfaction. This section contained five items that were measured
on a 7-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from terrible to delighted.
Reliability of the measure was α = .81. Rentsch and Steel (1992) report that the mea-
sure has good convergent validity.
Malach-Pines’s (2005) Burnout Measure: Short Version (BMS) was used to
assess subjects’ job burnout. The measure consisted of 10 items with a 7-point
Likert-type scale with responses ranging from never to always. Reliability of this
measure was α = .91. Malach-Pines found the BMS to have good face and construct
validity. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for all measures.
38 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics.

Minimum–
Measure Mean SD Maximum Skew Kurtosis Cronbach’s α
Job satisfaction 5.05 1.16 1.00–7.00 –0.54 0.36 .81
Motivation 5.64 1.10 1.00–7.00 1.10 1.65 .93
Burnout 2.73 1.35 1.00–7.00 0.71 –0.16 .91
Solidarity 2.4.07 1.41 1.00–7.00 –0.15 –0.79 .93

Results
Measurement Models
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess each unidimensional measure-
ment model. Items were tested for both internal consistency and parallelism. The inter-
nal consistency within a construct is the extent to which each indicator correlates
systematically with other indicators in that set. Interitem correlation matrices for each
measure were examined for signs of obvious internal consistency issues. The mea-
sures were then tested for parallelism issues, where parallelism is the extent to which
indicators purported to measure the same construct correlate systematically with indi-
cators purported to measure a different construct.
Each measurement model was tested with the AMOS maximum likelihood param-
eter estimation algorithm, which estimates factor loadings for items based on an a
priori hypothesized measurement model. These factor loadings were used to generate
a predicted interitem correlation matrix to compare with the observed interitem cor-
relation matrix so that items displaying less obvious evidence of invalidity could be
removed. Each time an item was removed, the model was respecified without the
problematic item. This process was repeated until the remaining items demonstrated
fit with the hypothesized measurement models. All problematic items were removed
from all subsequent analyses.
The final measurement models for motivation and job satisfaction are as originally
proposed. Nine items were removed from the solidarity measure and three from the
burnout measure. Notably, this study marks the first examination of the solidarity mea-
sure through CFA. The solidarity measure was refined in 1976, before CFA was a com-
mon practice to test for content validity. As such, the removal of nearly half of the
original items presents an opportunity to refine and shorten the measure through the
statistical tools available more than three decades after its publication. The final model
yielded acceptable fit statistics, χ2(318, N = 367) = 794.80; goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
= .86; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06. Fit statistics are listed
in Table 2. Finally, the appendix contains the finalized solidarity and burnout measures.

Moderator Check
To collect subjects with greater ease, the solicitation asked for participation from any-
one who had ever held a job, not just individuals who held a job at the time the
MacDonald et al. 39

Table 2.  Fit Statistics.

χ2 GFI RMSEA
Job Satisfaction χ 2(5, N = 367) = 25.43, p < .05 .97 .11
Motivation χ 2(2, N = 367) = 0.81, p < .05 .99 0.00
Burnout χ 2(14, N = 367) = 52.61, p < .05 .96 .09
Solidarity χ 2(54, N = 367) = 193.00, p < .05 .91 .08

Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

Table 3.  Correlations: Observed and Corrected for Attenuation due to Measurement
Error.

Factor Correlations
Correlations observed  
 Solidarity  
 Motivation 0.31*  
 Satisfaction 0.40* 0.49*  
 Burnout –0.24* –0.26* –0.59*
Correlations corrected for attenuation due to measurement error
 Solidarity  
 Motivation 0.33*  
 Satisfaction 0.46* 0.56*  
 Burnout –0.26* –0.28* –0.69*

*p < .05.

questionnaire was administered. Therefore, subjects who did not have a job at the time
of solicitation were asked to respond regarding their most recent supervisor. Because
time can distort memory, the first analyses tested whether responses were moderated
according to whether subjects responded to past or present supervisors. Four indepen-
dent t tests were run to identify whether solidarity, t(365) = –.24, p > .05; motivation,
t(3365) = –.21, p > .05; burnout, t(365) = .60, p > .05; or satisfaction, t(341) = –.95,
p > .05, were moderated between these groups. The results support that responding to
the questionnaire in reference to a past or present supervisor did not moderate the data.

Hypothesis Testing
The first hypothesis predicted that perceived solidarity between the supervisor and
subordinate would be positively related to subordinate satisfaction. A Pearson correla-
tion was run to test this hypothesis. Data supported a moderate positive relationship
between solidarity and satisfaction: r = .40, P(.31 ≤ ρ ≤ .48) = .95; corrected for attenu-
ation due to measurement error (ŕ) ŕ = .46, P(.37 ≤ ρ ≤ .54) = .95. Corrected and uncor-
rected correlations can be seen in Table 3.
40 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

.56 Motivation

.46 Job
Solidarity
Satisfaction -.69

Burnout

Figure 2.  Supported model.

The second hypothesis predicted that subordinate job satisfaction and motivation
would be positively related. A Pearson correlation was run to test this hypothesis. Data
supported a moderate positive relationship between satisfaction and motivation:
r = .49, P(.41 ≤ ρ ≤ .56) = .95; ŕ = .56, P(.48 ≤ ρ ≤ .63) = .95.
The final hypothesis predicted that subordinate job satisfaction and burnout would
be negatively related. A Pearson correlation was run to test this hypothesis. Data sup-
ported a moderate positive relationship between solidarity and satisfaction: r = –.69,
P(–.74 ≤ ρ ≤ –.63) = .95; ŕ = –.68, P(–.73 ≤ ρ ≤ –.62) = .95.

Model Testing
It was also predicted that perceived supervisor solidarity would induce job satisfac-
tion, which would in turn induce both subordinate motivation and burnout. As such, it
was predicted that job satisfaction would mediate the relationship between solidarity
and the output variables. Ordinary least squares estimation was used to estimate the
path coefficients (Boster, 2003; Kelloway, 1995). The standard path coefficients are
reported in Figure 2. Both direct and indirect effects are statistically significant
(Table 3). The observed relationship between solidarity and motivation (r = .20) has a
confidence interval of P(.10 ≤ ρ ≤ .30) = .95, which is within the sampling error of the
predicted relationship (r = .20). Furthermore, the observed relationship between soli-
darity and burnout (r = –.24) has a confidence interval of P(–.33 ≤ ρ ≤ –.14) = .95,
which is within the sampling error of the predicted relationship (r = –.23).
Notably, the model also fits when effects are corrected for attenuation due to mea-
surement error. The observed relationship between solidarity and motivation (ŕ = .33)
has a confidence interval of P(.23 ≤ ρ ≤ .42) = .95, which is within the sampling error
of the predicted relationship (r = .26). Likewise, the observed relationship between
solidarity and burnout (ŕ = –.26) has a confidence interval of P(–.36 ≤ ρ ≤ –.16) = .95,
which is within the sampling error of the predicted relationship (r = –.32). As such, the
model fits well.

Discussion
The present study furthers understanding within the organizational communication
research in two ways. First, the data are consistent with a causal relationship from
MacDonald et al. 41

perceived supervisor solidarity to positive workplace outcomes for subordinates.

Previous studies have not provided evidence to address the possibility of spurious
relationships, in which an unidentified variable simultaneously increased solidarity,
motivation, and job satisfaction as well as decreased burnout in the workplace. The
data suggest that perceptions of increased supervisor solidarity actually directly or
indirectly cause these desirable workplace outcomes. This is important both theoreti-
cally and pragmatically, as it suggests that a variable at the root of all of these subor-
dinate outputs is interpersonal solidarity, notably a variable that is most effectively
induced through supervisor communication in the business context.
Second, this research gives insight into the job satisfaction literature, which is
highly descriptive and often fails to identify inputs and outputs rather than direction-
ally specified relationships. The data are consistent with a mediated relationship such
that perceptions of supervisor solidarity increase job satisfaction; job satisfaction, in
turn, causes subordinates to be more motivated and less burntout at work. This identi-
fies supervisor-subordinate solidarity as a direct input and both motivation and burn-
out as direct outputs of job satisfaction. Although the organizational behavior literature
has repeatedly established that job satisfaction, burnout, and motivation are strongly
related variables, little evidence has been provided that is consistent or inconsistent
with causality.

Implications for the Workplace

The supported model has pragmatic implications for the workplace as well as research.
Solidarity, the exogenous variable in this model, is controlled by the supervisor who
has the power to influence subordinates’ workplace outputs. As such, supervisors can
directly influence their subordinates’ job satisfaction and indirectly influence their
motivation and burnout. More specifically, by supervisors increasing solidarity with
their subordinates, subordinate job satisfaction will be increased. Increases in job sat-
isfaction will then increase subordinate motivation and decrease burnout. Thus, super-
visor communication influences the homeostasis of subordinates at work.
This notion is different from previous findings that focus on how to directly influ-
ence subordinates to increase their workplace homeostasis. Yes, the influence of
supervisor-subordinate solidarity would in fact increase subordinate homeostasis
directly. However, to increase the solidarity, the organizational change must be placed
upon the supervisor, not the subordinate. Organizations who wish to use this finding
must focus on training supervisors to develop higher levels of solidarity.
It is especially important that supervisors be cognizant of efforts to increase percep-
tions of solidarity with new/younger employees, particularly those without support at
home. These employees have been identified as the groups that tend to experience
burnout more frequently than employees that have better support systems (Maslach
et al., 2001). Perceptions of supervisor solidarity is also especially important with
employees who have faced a recent negative life event (death in the family, illness,
etc.; Justice et al., 1981; Omdahl & Fritz, 2006). Because these groups have higher
turnover risk due to general life dissatisfaction, perceptions of supervisor solidarity
can be used to increase job satisfaction and ultimately decrease turnover.
42 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

Behaviors that supervisors can exhibit to increase perceptions of solidarity within

their subordinates include the following:

•• Be aware of subordinate well-being (Elst, Baillien, de Cuyper, & de Witte,

2010).
•• Encourage employees to share their ideas (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).
•• Always make it clear that you are listening to the employee during face-to-face
communication by giving eye contact, nodding, and paraphrasing what the
employee has said (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).
•• Be friendly; supervisors who are perceived as friendly are more likely to be
perceived as mentors (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010).

Implications for the Classroom

Ultimately, educators should be mindful to teach their students about this interpersonal
workplace dynamic through active and passive means. In business, professional, and
organizational communication courses, students should be introduced to supervisor-
subordinate solidarity so that they will understand the benefits of building rapport with
their subordinates when it is their time to take on a leadership role. As they emerge out
of college into entry-level jobs though, they should also be aware that not all supervi-
sors can or will develop solidarity with them. Because developing an interpersonal
relationship requires relational maintenance, not all supervisors will or can put forth
the cognitive or emotional work needed to perform relational maintenance with subor-
dinates. Students should be encouraged to not take this personally, but rather be patient
and be taught to show their willingness to develop solidarity without forcing the
matter.
Showing willingness to initiate solidarity can be taught both through active lessons
(practice nonverbally displaying friendliness and approachability) as well as passively
through educator demonstration. Educators should model the behaviors that they
expect their students to exhibit in the workplace (Ruppert & Green, 2012). Students
recognize communication traits of their professors that they will carry over as best
practices to utilize for the workplace. Because solidarity is measured by perceived
closeness, perception of psychological distance in the classroom is decreased most
effectively through teacher displays of immediacy behaviors (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless,
2006). These behaviors include

•• smiling,
•• eye contact,
•• relaxed body posture, and
•• speaking with vocal inflection (Martin & Mottet, 2013).

By simply displaying these behaviors while teaching and during interpersonal

interaction with students, professors can decrease psychological distance. The sense of
MacDonald et al. 43

solidarity students feel with their teacher leads to increased motivation and learning,
similar to the influence of solidarity in the workplace (Richmond & McCroskey,
2000), improving the learning environment, and providing students with examples of
behaviors to mimic later in the workplace.

Implications for Future Research

That the data suggest that job satisfaction is the direct influence of motivation and
burnout holds substantive implications for future research. Job satisfaction, as a psy-
chological variable internal to the subordinate, cannot be directly influenced as an
independent variable. As such, the manipulation of job satisfaction has been largely
absent from previous literature because of practical limitations. Therefore, researchers
who wish to control job satisfaction in future studies can do so by manipulating super-
visor-subordinate solidarity.
Likewise, researchers can potentially use solidarity to indirectly influence the psy-
chological states of motivation and burnout in behavioral research. The current data
indicate that a subordinate’s perception of supervisor solidarity is the exogenous vari-
able within the supported model, which can be controlled to influence subordinates’
motivation and burnout through job satisfaction. This manipulation can be used to
induce these outputs in both behavioral research as well as the workplace setting.
Notably though, the fit statistics for the tested model are equivalently when the
direction of the model is reversed. Therefore, the data are equally supportive that moti-
vation and burnout jointly influence subordinate job satisfaction, which ultimately
induces subordinate burnout. The model makes no logical sense in this direction, but
the fact that the data are consistent with this directionality demonstrate the major limi-
tation of the study: that causality is implied and supported by the data, but not con-
firmed. The model must be tested through behavioral data to conform causality.
Future studies should also consider expanding the model. Although the identified
contribution of satisfaction is both theoretically and pragmatically important, the cur-
rent model only accounts for 8% of the variance in burnout and 24% of the variance in
motivation. Therefore, there are still additional variables influencing job satisfaction,
motivation, burnout, and potentially even solidarity that were beyond the scope of the
present study. A sensible next step in expanding this model would be to investigate
subordinate influences on supervisor solidarity. Although the dynamics of the business
world dictate that the supervisor has the authority to set the communication dictating
solidarity, subordinate behaviors create part of the organizational climate, which
induces changes in communication overall (Sue-Chan, Au, & Hackett, 2012; Werbel
& Henriques, 2009). As such, additional influences to the present model may be sub-
ordinate behaviors.
The findings of this study have theoretical implications for future research as well
as pragmatic implications for the workplace. Yet, the model is incomplete. Future
research should move toward behavioral data to confirm causality and seek to identify
additional exogenous workplace influences.
44 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

Appendix
Solidarity
  1. We are very close to each other.
  2. This person has a great deal of influence over my behavior.
  3. I trust this person completely.
  4. I willingly disclose a great deal of positive and negative things about myself
honestly and fully (in depth) to this person.
  5. I seldom interact/communicate with this person.
  6. I love this person.
  7. I understand this person and who he (she) really is.
  8. I interact/communicate with this person much more than with most people I
know.
  9. We share a lot in common.
10. We do a lot of helpful things for each other.
11. I feel very close to this person.
12. We share some private ways of communicating with each other.
Burnout
  1. Disappointed with people
 2. Hopeless
 3. Trapped
 4. Helpless
 5. Depressed
  6. Worthless/like a failure
  7. Difficulties sleeping

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motiva-
tional factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication
Education, 55, 21–31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American’s percep-
tions of life quality. New York, NY: Plenum.
Avtgis, T. A., Thomas-Maddox, C., Taylor, E., & Patterson, B. R. (2007). The influence of
employee burnout syndrome on the expression of organizational dissent. Communication
Research Reports, 24, 97–102. doi:10.1080/08824090701304725
MacDonald et al. 45

Barbuto, A. E., Jr., & Story, J. S. P. (2011). Work motivation and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 23–34. doi:10.1002/jls
Baus, R. D., & Allen, J. R. (1996). Solidarity and sexual communication as selective filters: A
report on intimate relationship development. Communication Research Reports, 13, 1–7.
doi:10.1080/08824099609362064
Becker, J. A. H., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & O’Hair, H. D. (2005). Defensive communication and
burnout in the workplace: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Communication
Research Reports, 22, 143–150. doi:10.1080/00036810500130653
Boster, F. J. (2003). Advanced communication research design and analysis. East Lansing:
Michigan State University.
Bourgeois, M., & Friedkin, N. E. (2001). The distant core: social solidarity, social distance and
interpersonal ties in core-periphery structures. Social Networks, 23, 245–260. doi:10.1016/
S0378-8733(01)00033-8
Bernhardt, D. (1995). Strategic promotion and compensation. The Review of Economic Studies,
62, 315-339.
Caldwell, D. (1978). Employee motivation under merit systems. Public Personnel Management,
7, 65–71.
Chak, F. L., & Gurland, S. T. (2008). Self-determined work motivation predicts job outcomes,
but what predicts self-determined work motivation? Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
1109–1115. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.002
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burn-
out. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–656. doi:10.2307/258593
Diefendorff, J., Morehart, J., & Gabriel, A. (2010). The influence of power and solidarity
on emotional display rules at work. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 120–132. doi:10.1007/
s11031-010-9167-8
Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based the-
ory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248. doi:10.1207/
s15327698jfc0403&4_8
Elst, T. V., Baillien, E., de Cuyper, N., & de Witte, H. (2010). The role of organizational com-
munication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association with
work-related well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 249–264. doi:10.1177/
0143831X09358372.
Gfeller, J. D., Lynn, S. J., & Pribble, W. E. (1987). Enhancing hypnotic susceptibil-
ity: Interpersonal and rapport factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 586–595. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy
&id=1987-21010-001
Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships.
Journal of Service Research, 3, 82–102. doi:10.1177/109467050031006
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Hodson, R. (1997). Group relations at work: Solidarity, conflict, and relations with manage-
ment. Work and Occupations, 24, 426–452. doi:10.1177/0730888497024004003
Hoeven, C., Jong, M., & Peper, B. (2006). Organizational communication and burnout symp-
toms. International Communication Association Conference Proceedings, June 19–23,
Dresden, Germany.
Holdsworth, L., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Empowerment, stress and satisfaction: An exploratory
study of a call centre. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24, 131–140.
doi:10.1108/01437730310469552
46 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Schwab, R. L. (1986). Toward an understanding of the
burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630–640. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.71.4.630
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job per-
formance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127,
376–407. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction–life satisfaction rela-
tionship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 939–948. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.78.6.939
Jusoh, M., Simun, M., & Chong, S. C. (2011). Expectation gaps, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment of fresh graduates. Education + Training, 53, 515–530.
doi:10.1108/00400911111159476
Justice, B., Gold, R. S., & Klein, J. P. (1981). Life events and burnout. Journal of Psychology,
108, 219–226. doi:10.1080/00223980.1981.9915266
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.13670969
Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American
Psychologist, 45, 144–153. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.144
Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16, 215–224. doi:10.1002/job.4030160304
Kolonoski, R. (2011). Work motivation, culture and economic development: Is work moti-
vation shaped by its socio-economic context? International Journal of Management and
Information Systems, 15, 91–99.
Koster, F., Stokman, F., Hodson, R., & Sanders, K. (2007). Solidarity through networks: The
effects of task and informal interdependence on cooperation within teams. Employee
Relations, 29, 117–137. doi:10.1108/01425450710719978
Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satis-
faction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305–312. doi:10.1037/
h0029692
Lawler, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1969). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial
Relations, 7, 20–28. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.1967.tb01060.x
Locke, K. D. (2003). Status and solidarity in social comparison: Agentic and communal values
and vertical and horizontal directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
619–631. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.619
Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communication compe-
tence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61–78.
doi:10.1177/0021943607309351
Madlock, P. E., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. (2010). The effects of supervisors’ verbal aggressive-
ness and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 42–62.
doi:10.1177/0021943609353511
Malach-Pines, A. (2005). The burnout measure, short version. International Journal of Stress
Management, 12, 78–88. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78
Malik, M. I., Ahmed, M., Saif, M. I., & Safwan, M. N. (2010). Relationship of organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and layoff survivors’ productivity. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 200–211.
Martin, A. J. (2004). The role of positive psychology in enhancing satisfaction, motivation,
and productivity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24,
113–133. doi:10.1300/J075v24n01_07
MacDonald et al. 47

Martin, L., & Mottet, T. P. (2013). The effect of instructor nonverbal immediacy behaviors
and feedback sensitivity on Hispanic students’ affective learning outcomes in ninth-grade
writing conferences. Communication Education, 60, 1–19. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.4
96868
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee
silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management
Studies, 40, 1453–1476. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organiza-
tional climate and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 592–607.
doi:10.2307/255359
Myers, S. A., & Johnson, A. D. (2004). Perceived solidarity, self-disclosure, and trust
in organizational peer relationships. Communication Research Reports, 21, 75–83.
doi:10.1080/08824090409359969
Newman, A., & Ober, S. (2013). Business communication: In person, in press, online (8th ed.).
Mason, OH: Houghton Mifflin.
Omdahl, B. L., & Fritz, J. M. H. (2006, June). Coping with problematic relationships in the
workplace: Strategies that reduce burnout. Paper presented at annual meeting of the
International Communication Association Conference Proceedings, Dresden International
Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany.
Orpen, C. (1997). The interactive effects of communications quality and job involvement on
managerial job satisfaction and work motivation. Journal of Psychology, 131, 519–522.
Patterson, B. R. (1995). Communication network activity: Network attributes of the young and
elderly. Communication Quarterly, 43, 155–166. doi:10.1080/01463379509369966
Pines, A., & Maslach, C. (1980). Combatting staff burn-out in a day care center: A case study.
Child Care Quarterly, 9, 5–16. doi:10.1007/BF01555032
Politis, J. D. (2006). Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance: The
mediating influence of job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
27, 203–216. doi:10.1108/01437730610657721
Porter, H., Wrench, J. S., & Hoskinson, C. (2007). The influence of supervisor tempera-
ment on subordinate job satisfaction and perceptions of supervisor sociocommu-
nicative orientation and approachability. Communication Quarterly, 55, 129–153.
doi:10.1080/01463370600998517
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL:
Irwin-Dorsey.
Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of
Manpower, 18, 305–558. doi:10.1108/01437729710182260
Reisel, W. D., Probst, T. M., Chia, S.-L., Maloles, C. M., & König, C. J. (2010). The effects of
job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and
negative emotions of employees. International Studies of Management and Organization,
40, 74–91. doi:10.2753/IMO0020-8825400105
Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1992). Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and
Withey job satisfaction questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52,
357–367. doi:0.1177/0013164492052002011
48 International Journal of Business Communication 56(1)

Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089–2113. doi:10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2002.
tb02065.x
Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Supervisors’ interactional styles and subordinates’
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 707–722. doi:10.108
0/00224545.1995.9713974
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The impact of supervisor and subordinate imme-
diacy on relational and organizational outcomes. Communication Monographs, 67, 85–95.
doi:10.1080/03637750009376496
Rose, R. C., Kumar, N., & Pak, O. G. (2009). The effect of organizational learning on organi-
zational commitment, job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of Applied Business
Research, 25, 55–65.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (Eds.). (2009). Communication research mea-
sures. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ruppert, B., & Green, D. (2012). Practicing what we teach: Credibility and alignment in the
business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 29–44.
doi:10.1177/1080569911426475
Sanders, K., & Emmerik, H. V. (2004). Does modern organization and governance threat soli-
darity? Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 351–372. doi:10.1007/s10997-004-
4128-9
Sanders, K., Flache, A., van der Vegt, G., & van de Vliert, E. (2006). Employees’ organi-
zational solidarity within modern organizations: A framing perspective on the effects of
social embeddedness. In D. Fetchenhauer, A. Fleche, A. Buunk, & S. Lindenberg (Eds.),
Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and psychological per-
spectives (pp. 141–156). New York, NY: Springer.
Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (2006). Leadership and solidarity behavior: Consensus in perception of
employees within teams. Personnel Review, 35, 538–556. doi:10.1108/00483480610682280
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Snyder, J. L. (2012). Extending the empathic communication model of burnout: Incorporating
individual differences to learn more about workplace emotion, communicative responsive-
ness, and burnout. Communication Quarterly, 60, 122–142. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.
641837
Sue-Chan, C., Au, A. K. C., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between leader/member behavior and leader-member-exchange quality. Journal of World
Business, 47, 459-468. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.012
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover inten-
tion, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,
46, 259–293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-
family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6
Watson, L. M. (2008). Factors influencing job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Radiological Technology, 80, 113–122.
Werbel, J. D., & Henriques, P. L. (2009). Different views of trust and relational leadership:
Supervisor and subordinate perspectives. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 780–796.
doi:10.1108/02683940910996798
MacDonald et al. 49

Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement, valida-

tion, and relationships. Human Communication Research, 3, 47–61. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2958.1976.tb00503.x
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclo-
sure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143–157.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00604.x
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. R., & Baus, R. (1984). Sexual communication, communication
satisfaction, and solidarity in the developmental stages of intimate relationships. The Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 217–230. doi:10.1080/10570318409374158
Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2003). Trust me, I’m your boss: Trust and power
in supervisor-supervisee communication. International Journal of Human Resources
Management, 14, 117–127.
Ybema, J. F., Smulders, P. G. W., & Bongers, P. M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences
of employee absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction
and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 102–124.
doi:10.1080/13594320902793691
Yousef, D. A. (2002). Job satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between role stress-
ors and organizational commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 250–266.
doi:10.1108/02683940210428074

Author Biographies
Patrick MacDonald is a master’s student in instructional design and technology at West
Virginia University.
Stephanie Kelly is an assistant professor of business communication at North Carolina A&T
State University.
Scott Christen is an instructor of communication at Tennessee Technological University.
Copyright of International Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association
for Business Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.