Factors Related to Nurse Satisfaction with Supervisor Leadership
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Sampling
2.2. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
2.3. Scale Development
2.3.1. Forming Questions
2.3.2. Expert Assessment of Content Validity
2.3.3. Assessing Scale Validity
2.3.4. Assessing Scale Reliability
2.4. Statistical Methods
3. Results
3.1. Comparison of Nurse Personal Characteristics and Scores of the Latent Variables in the Questionnaire
3.2. Validation of the Relationships among the Latent Variables and Satisfaction with Supervisor Leadership
3.3. The Finalized Structural Equation Model
4. Discussion
5. Study Limitations
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kruk, M.E.; Gage, A.D.; Arsenault, C.; Jordan, K.; Leslie, H.H.; Roder-DeWan, S.; Adeyi, O.; Barker, P.; Daelmans, B.; Doubova, S.V.; et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: Time for a revolution. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e1196–e1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- López-Ibort, N.; Cañete-Lairla, M.A.; Gil-Lacruz, A.I.; Gil-Lacruz, M.; Antoñanzas-Lombarte, T. The quality of the supervisor-nurse relationship and its influence on nurses’ job satisfaction. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, L.F.; You, L.M.; Liu, K.; Zheng, J.; Fang, J.B.; Lu, M.M.; Lv, A.L.; Ma, W.G.; Wang, J.; Wang, S.H.; et al. The association of Chinese hospital work environment with nurse burnout, job satisfaction, and intention to leave. Nurs. Outlook 2014, 62, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, H.; Barriball, K.L.; Zhang, X.; While, A.E. Job satisfaction among hospital nurses revisited: A systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2012, 49, 1017–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feather, R. Tools assessing nurse manager behaviours and RN job satisfaction: A review of the literature. J. Nurs. Manag. 2015, 23, 726–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barrett, D.J. Leadership Communication: A Communication Approach for Senior-Level Managers; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2006; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1911/27037 (accessed on 22 December 2020).
- Jonathan, G.K.; Mbogo, R.W. Maintaining health and safety at workplace: Employee and employer’s role in ensuring a safe working environment. J. Educ. Pract. 2016, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, C.N.; Patel, S.H.; Day, R.W.; George, S.; Sweeney, C.; Monetes De Oca, G.A.; Aiss, M.A.; Grubbs, E.G.; Bednarski, B.K.; Lee, J.E.; et al. Implementation of a standardized electronic tool improves compliance, ac-curacy, and efficiency of trainee-to-trainee patient care handoffs after complex general surgical oncology procedures. Surgery 2017, 161, 869–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mlambo, M.; Silén, C.; McGrath, C. Lifelong learning and nurses’ continuing professional development, a metasynthesis of the literature. BMC Nurs. 2021, 20, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owens, P.L. One more reason not to cut your training budget: The relationship between training and organizational outcomes. Public Pers. Manag. 2006, 35, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nauman, S.; Bhatti, S.; Jalil, F.; Bint, E.R.; Riaz, M.B.E. How training at work influ-ences employees’ job satisfaction: Roles of affective commitment and job performance. Int. J. Train. Res. 2021, 19, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Souza, P.; George, A.; Nair, S.; Noronha, J.; Renjith, V. Effectiveness of an evidence-based practice training program for nurse educators: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2021, 18, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kurniawaty, K.; Ramly, M.; Ramlawati, R. The effect of work environment, stress, and job satisfaction on employee turnover intention. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 9, 877–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leineweber, C.; Chungkham, H.S.; Lindqvist, R.; Westerlund, H.; Runesdotter, S.; Smeds Alenius, L.; Tishelman, C.; RN4CAST consortium. Nurses’ practice environment and satisfaction with schedule flexibility is related to intention to leave due to dissatisfaction: A multi-country, multilevel study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 58, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wynendaele, H.; Gemmel, P.; Peeters, E.; Myny, D.; Trybou, J. The effect of self-scheduling on organizational justice and work attitudes through leader-member exchange: A cross-sectional study using propensity scores. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2021, 122, 104032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudasingwa, M.; Uwizeye, M.R. Physicians’ and nurses’ attitudes towards leadership and-based financial incentives in Burundi: A qualitative study in the province of Gitega. Glob. Health Action 2017, 10, 1270813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jankelová, N.; Joniaková, Z. Communication skills and transformational leadership style of first-line nurse managers in relation to job satisfaction of nurses and moderators of this relationship. Healthcare 2021, 9, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emerson, R.M. Social exchange theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1976, 2, 335–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleynhans, D.J.; Heyns, M.M.; Stander, M.W. Authentic leadership and flourishing: Do trust in the organization and organizational support matter during times of uncertainty? Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 955300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moura, A.A.; Bernardes, A.; Balsanelli, A.P.; Zanetti, A.C.; Gabriel, C. Leadership and nursing work satisfaction: An integrative review. Acta. Paul. Enferm. 2017, 30, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Movahedi, A.; Bidkhori, M.; Arazi, T.; Khaleghipour, M.; Amini, F. The relationship between positive perceptions toward organizational politics and the work-related outcomes of nurses. J. Nurs. Res. 2020, 28, e104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Haroon, H.I.; Al-Qahtani, M.F. The demographic predictors of job satisfaction among the nurses of a major public hospital in KSA. J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci. 2019, 15, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lake, E.T. Development of the practice environment scale of the Nursing Work Index. Res. Nurs. Health 2002, 25, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chiang, H.Y.; Lin, S.Y. Psychometric testing of the Chinese version of nursing practice environment scale. J. Clin. Nurs. 2009, 18, 919–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mueller, C.W.; McCloskey, J.C. Nurses’ job satisfaction: A proposed measure. Nurs. Res. 1990, 39, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 2006, 29, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice–Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wieke Noviyanti, L.; Ahsan, A.; Sudartya, T.S. Exploring the relationship between nurses’ communication satisfaction and patient safety culture. J. Public Health Res. 2021, 10, 2225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hariyati, R.T.; Safril, S. The relationship between nurses’ job satisfaction and continuing professional development. Enfermeria Clinica 2018, 28, 144–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaktin, U.S.; Azoury, N.B.; Doumit, M.A. Personal characteristics and job satisfaction among nurses in Lebanon. J. Nurs. Adm. 2003, 3, 384–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walumbwa, F.O.; Cropanzano, R.; Goldman, B.M. How leader–member exchange influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal-external efficacy perspectives. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 739–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kullberg, A.; Bergenmar, M.; Sharp, L. Changed nursing scheduling for improved safety culture and working conditions—patients’ and nurses’ perspectives. J. Nurs. Manag. 2016, 24, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dall’Ora, C.; Ejebu, O.Z.; Griffiths, P. Because they’re worth it? A discussion paper on the value of 12-h shifts for hospital nursing. Hum. Resour. Health 2022, 20, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kodama, Y.; Fukahori, H. Nurse managers’ attributes to promote change in their wards: A qualitative study. Nurs. Open 2017, 4, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caruso, C.C. Negative impacts of shiftwork and long work hours. Rehabil. Nurs. 2014, 39, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Karanges, E.; Beatson, A.; Johnston, K.; Ian, L. Optimizing employee engagement with internal communication: A social exchange perspective. J. Bus. Mark. Manag. 2014, 7, 329–353. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, C.C.; Samuels, M.E.; Alexander, J.W. Factors that influence nurses’ job satisfaction. J. Nurs. Adm. 2003, 33, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yue, C.A.; Men, L.R.; Ferguson, M.A. Examining the effects of internal communication and emotional culture on employees’ organizational identification. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2021, 58, 169–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, W.; Feng, Y.; Yue, Y.; Feng, L. Organizational structure, cross-functional integration and performance of new product development team. Procedia Eng. 2017, 174, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutonyi, B.; Slåtten, T.; Lien, G.; González-Piñero, M. The impact of organizational culture and leadership climate on organizational attractiveness and innovative behavior: A study of Norwegian hospital employees. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miao, Y.; Li, L.; Bian, Y. Gender differences in job quality and job satisfaction among doctors in rural western China. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2017, 17, 848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metwally, D.; Ruiz-Palomino, P.; Metwally, M.; Gartzia, L. How ethical leadership shapes employees’ readiness to change: The mediating role of an organizational culture of effectiveness. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xuecheng, W.; Iqbal, Q.; Saina, B. Factors affecting employee’s retention: Integration of situational leadership with social exchange theory. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 872105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, J.Y.; Tseng, Y.J.; Chao, L.F.; Chen, S.L.; Jane, S.W. Learning outcomes of a flipped classroom teaching approach in an adult-health nursing course: A quasi-experimental study. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, C.P.; Xian, J.; Li, B.; Huang, H. Transformational leadership and employees’ thriving at Work: The mediating roles of challenge-hindrance stressors. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Overall Fit Indices | Assessment Standard (p) | Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|
Absolute fit indices | |||
Likelihood ratio χ2 | ≥0.05 | 1928.82 *** (df = 392) | - |
GFI | ≥0.90 | 0.81 | Acceptable |
AGFI | ≥0.90 | 0.77 | Poor |
SRMR | ≤0.08 | 0.07 | Good |
RMSEA | ≤0.08 | 0.08 | Good |
Incremental fit indices | |||
NFI | ≥0.90 | 0.90 | Good |
NNFI | ≥0.90 | 0.91 | Good |
RFI | ≥0.90 | 0.89 | Acceptable |
IFI | ≥0.90 | 0.92 | Good |
CFI | ≥0.90 | 0.92 | Good |
Parsimony-adjusted indices | |||
PGFI | ≥0.50 | 0.68 | Good |
PNFI | ≥0.50 | 0.81 | Good |
PCFI | ≥0.50 | 0.83 | Good |
Likelihood ratio χ2/df | ≤3 | 4.92 | Acceptable |
Latent Variable | Manifest Variable | SFL | t Value | Individual Item Reliability (R2) | CR | AVE (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Policies and guidelines | Question item 1 | 0.78 | - | 0.606 | 0.92 | 0.70 |
Question item 2 | 0.82 | 22.55 *** | 0.678 | |||
Question item 3 | 0.86 | 23.92 *** | 0.742 | |||
Question item 4 | 0.84 | 23.29 *** | 0.712 | |||
Question item 5 | 0.87 | 24.17 *** | 0.753 | |||
Educational training | Question item 1 | 0.91 | - | 0.827 | 0.95 | 0.82 |
Question item 2 | 0.90 | 35.98 *** | 0.815 | |||
Question item 3 | 0.89 | 34.71 *** | 0.793 | |||
Question item 4 | 0.92 | 37.51 *** | 0.840 | |||
Shift schedule | Question item 1 | 0.90 | - | 0.812 | 0.87 | 0.69 |
Question item 2 | 0.90 | 31.40 *** | 0.801 | |||
Question item 3 | 0.67 | 19.06 *** | 0.443 | |||
Internal communication | Question item 1 | 0.85 | - | 0.729 | 0.93 | 0.72 |
Question item 2 | 0.87 | 28.34 *** | 0.755 | |||
Question item 3 | 0.81 | 24.98 *** | 0.653 | |||
Question item 4 | 0.89 | 29.57 *** | 0.790 | |||
Question item 5 | 0.83 | 26.04 *** | 0.686 | |||
Salary and benefits | Question item 1 | 0.88 | - | 0.781 | 0.91 | 0.71 |
Question item 2 | 0.88 | 29.77 *** | 0.766 | |||
Question item 3 | 0.88 | 30.15 *** | 0.776 | |||
Question item 4 | 0.73 | 21.57 *** | 0.529 | |||
Work environment | Question item 1 | 0.75 | - | 0.559 | 0.91 | 0.71 |
Question item 2 | 0.78 | 19.75 *** | 0.609 | |||
Question item 3 | 0.92 | 23.69 *** | 0.844 | |||
Question item 4 | 0.92 | 23.59 *** | 0.837 | |||
Supervisor leadership | Question item 1 | 0.93 | - | 0.872 | 0.96 | 0.83 |
Question item 2 | 0.95 | 46.82 *** | 0.899 | |||
Question item 3 | 0.92 | 42.34 *** | 0.852 | |||
Question item 4 | 0.84 | 31.89 *** | 0.702 | |||
Question item 5 | 0.90 | 38.95 *** | 0.811 |
Item | Total | Policies and Guidelines | Educational Training | Shift Schedule | Internal Communication | Salary and Benefits | Work Environment | Supervisor Leadership |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N (%) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | |
Gender | ||||||||
Female | 590 (97.2) | 13.2 (2.6) | 10.4 (2.2) | 7.6 (1.8) | 12.7 (2.8) | 9.3 (2.6) | 9.4 (2.2) | 13.1 (2.9) * |
Male | 17 (2.8) | 13.5 (2.6) | 10.8 (2.0) | 8.3 (1.5) | 13.4 (2.7) | 10.0 (2.2) | 10.1 (2.7) | 14.3 (2.5) |
Age | ||||||||
20–29 years old | 280 (46.1) | 13.1 (2.6) * | 10.2 (2.2) | 7.6 (1.8) | 12.6 (2.8) | 9.3 (2.6) | 9.4 (2.7) | 13.0 (3.0) |
30–39 years old | 240 (39.5) | 13.1 (2.7) | 10.4 (2.1) | 7.6 (1.7) | 12.8 (2.7) | 9.2 (2.5) | 9.3 (2.5) | 13.1 (2.9) |
40–49 years old | 82 (13.5) | 14.1 (2.3) | 11.0 (2.0) | 8.2 (1.8) | 13.3 (2.8) | 9.9 (2.5) | 9.8 (2.5) | 13.7 (2.6) |
Above 50 years old | 5 (0.9) | 14.0 (2.6) | 10.9 (2.5) | 8.3 (1.7) | 13.1 (3.0) | 10.3 (2.8) | 9.7 (2.8) | 13.8 (2.6) |
The highest degree or level of education | ||||||||
Associate Degree | 218 (35.9) | 13.6 (2.6) ** | 10.6 (2.1) * | 7.9 (1.7) * | 13.0 (2.7) | 9.6 (2.5) * | 9.7 (2.6) * | 13.4 (2.8) |
Bachelor’s Degree | 353 (58.2) | 13.0 (2.6) | 10.2 (2.2) | 7.5 (1.8) | 12.6 (2.8) | 9.1 (2.6) | 9.2 (2.6) | 13.0 (2.9) |
Master’s Degree | 36 (5.9) | 12.2 (2.7) | 9.7 (2.3) | 7.4 (1.9) | 12.0 (2.8) | 9.4 (2.5) | 8.9 (2.3) | 12.4 (2.9) |
The years of service | ||||||||
<1 year | 98 (16.2) | 13.8 (2.4) *** | 10.9 (2.0) ** | 8.4 (1.4) *** | 13.7 (2.4) *** | 9.7 (2.4) ** | 10.4 (2.2) *** | 14.3 (2.3) *** |
≥1 year but <3 years | 169 (27.8) | 13.3 (2.5) | 10.4 (2.1) | 7.7 (1.7) | 12.8 (2.7) | 9.6 (2.4) | 9.6 (2.5) | 13.1 (2.9) |
≥3 years but <5 years | 127 (20.9) | 12.4 (2.7) | 9.8 (2.2) | 7.1 (1.8) | 11.9 (3.0) | 8.6 (2.5) | 8.5 (2.5) | 12.2 (3.1) |
≥5 years | 213 (35.1) | 13.2 (2.6) | 10.3 (2.2) | 7.5 (1.9) | 12.6 (2.8) | 9.2 (2.7) | 9.1 (2.7) | 12.9 (2.9) |
Hypothesis | Path Relationship | Non-Standardized Coefficients | t Value | Standardized Coefficients | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Policies and guidelines→Internal communication | 1.07 | 21.50 *** | 0.92 | Supported |
H2 | Policies and guidelines→Work environment | 1.07 | 15.96 *** | 0.76 | Supported |
H3 | Internal communication→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | 0.40 | 5.90 *** | 0.34 | Supported |
H4 | Work environment→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | −0.04 | −0.99 | −0.04 | Not supported |
H5 | Educational training→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | 0.23 | 2.89 ** | 0.20 | Supported |
H6 | Shift schedule→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | 0.40 | 6.91 *** | 0.43 | Supported |
H7 | Salary and benefits→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | −0.09 | −1.84 | −0.09 | Not supported |
Hypothesis | Path Relationship | Non-standardized Coefficients | t Value | Standardized Coefficients | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Policies and guidelines→Internal communication | 1.04 | 21.29 *** | 0.90 | Supported |
H2 | Internal communication→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | 0.34 | 6.02 *** | 0.30 | Supported |
H3 | Educational training→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | 0.24 | 3.13 ** | 0.21 | Supported |
H4 | Shift schedule→Satisfaction with supervisor leadership | 0.34 | 6.60 *** | 0.37 | Supported |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chang, W.-P.; Wang, C.-H. Factors Related to Nurse Satisfaction with Supervisor Leadership. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3933. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053933
Chang W-P, Wang C-H. Factors Related to Nurse Satisfaction with Supervisor Leadership. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(5):3933. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053933
Chicago/Turabian StyleChang, Wen-Pei, and Chia-Hui Wang. 2023. "Factors Related to Nurse Satisfaction with Supervisor Leadership" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 5: 3933. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053933