Is My Boss Really Listening to Me? The Impact of Perceived Supervisor Listening on Emotional Exhaustion, Turnover Intention, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Abstract

Little is known empirically about the role of supervisor listening and the emotional conditions that listening facilitates. Having the opportunity to speak is only one part of the communication process between employees and supervisors. Employees also react to whether they perceive the supervisor as actively listening. In two studies, this paper examines three important outcomes of employee perceptions of supervisor listening (emotional exhaustion, turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the organization). Furthermore, positive and negative affect are investigated as distinct mediating mechanisms. Results from Study 1 revealed that employee perceptions of supervisor listening reflected supervisors’ self-ratings of how they listen to their employees and these perceptions were associated with the three work outcomes. Study 2 replicated the findings in a larger sample and found evidence for two explanatory mechanisms. Positive affect mediated the effects of perceived supervisor listening on organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention, whereas negative affect mediated listening effects on emotional exhaustion and turnover intention. Implications for organizational research and managerial practice concerning workforce sustainability are discussed.

Full text

Is My Boss Really Listening to Me? The Impact of Perceived
Supervisor Listening on Emotional Exhaustion, Turnover
Intention, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Karina J. Lloyd •Diana Boer •Joshua W. Keller •
Sven Voelpel
Received: 7 January 2014 / Accepted: 28 May 2014
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Little is known empirically about the role of
supervisor listening and the emotional conditions that lis-
tening facilitates. Having the opportunity to speak is only
one part of the communication process between employees
and supervisors. Employees also react to whether they
perceive the supervisor as actively listening. In two studies,
this paper examines three important outcomes of employee
perceptions of supervisor listening (emotional exhaustion,
turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behavior
directed toward the organization). Furthermore, positive
and negative affect are investigated as distinct mediating
mechanisms. Results from Study 1 revealed that employee
perceptions of supervisor listening reflected supervisors’
self-ratings of how they listen to their employees and these
perceptions were associated with the three work outcomes.
Study 2 replicated the findings in a larger sample and found
evidence for two explanatory mechanisms. Positive affect
mediated the effects of perceived supervisor listening on
organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention,
whereas negative affect mediated listening effects on
emotional exhaustion and turnover intention. Implications
for organizational research and managerial practice con-
cerning workforce sustainability are discussed.
Keywords Supervisor listening Work affect 
Affect-driven work outcomes Emotional exhaustion 
Organizational citizenship behavior Turnover intentions
Introduction
We have long known that employee voice is important
(e.g., Hirschman 1970). However, in emphasizing the pri-
macy of voice, research on leader–subordinate relations
may have overemphasized traditional perspectives on
assertive communication (Billing and Alvesson 2000;
Grant 1988). In particular, less is known empirically about
the role of leaders’ listening and the emotional conditions
that listening facilitates in employees. The opportunity to
speak is only one part of the communication process
between employees and supervisors. Employees also react
to whether they perceive their supervisor as actively lis-
tening. Yet while there has been a lot of discussion and
research on the antecedents and outcomes of voice (e.g.,
Morrison 2011), we know little about the outcomes of
listening and their underlying mechanisms.
Previous literature suggested listening as an important
behavior that signals managerial openness (Ashford et al.
1998) and motivates employees to speak up (Milliken et al.
2003). It encourages productive two-way communication
(Bass and Riggio 2006; Dutton et al. 1997) and elicits
speaker self-disclosure (Miller et al. 1983). The listening
process may also have important relational implications.
Attentive listeners foster an atmosphere of safety to speak
openly, create intimacy, and elicit positive perceptions of
the listener (Beukeboom 2009; Edmondson and Moingeon
K. J. Lloyd (&)S. Voelpel
Department of Business Administration, School of the
Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen,
Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
e-mail: k.lloyd@jacobs-university.de
D. Boer
Department of Social Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt,
Frankfurt, Germany
J. W. Keller
Division of Strategy, Management and Organisation, College of
Business (Nanyang Business School), Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, Singapore
123
J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2242-4

1999). For instance, this affects perceptions of consider-
ation and respect (Bass and Riggio 2006), justice (Blader
and Tyler 2003), as well as trust and liking of the listener
(Collins and Miller 1994; Lloyd et al., in press). Addi-
tionally, psychological benefits have been claimed for lis-
tening with empathy, acceptance, and non-judgemental
attitude (Rogers 1951,1957,1975) on (psychological)
well-being (Reis et al. 2000; Lloyd et al., in press; Lun
et al. 2008) and personal development (Pasupathi and Hoyt
2009). However, whether these positive effects of listening
are applicable to employee–supervisor relations and how
supervisor listening affects important organizational work
outcomes has rarely been empirically investigated (for
some exceptions see Ellinger et al. 2003; Kluger and Zaidel
2013; Mineyama et al. 2007; Stine et al. 1995).
The purpose of this paper is to address this theoretical
and empirical gap by showing that employee perceptions of
supervisor listening are important for three different
important outcomes: one proximal (emotional exhaustion)
and two more distal (organizational citizenship behavior
and turnover intention). More importantly, we additionally
address the question of how employee perceptions of
supervisor listening affects these outcomes and suggest
positive and negative affect as two distinctive mediating
mechanisms.
Clearly, employee citizenship behavior, turnover inten-
tions, and emotional exhaustion are important organizational
outcomes and determinants of overall organizational func-
tioning (Motowidlo and Van Scotter 1994) and organiza-
tional success (Cropanzano et al. 2003; Organ et al. 2006;
Schlesinger and Heskett 1991). Empirical work in the
organizational behavior field indicates that individuals may
be more favorably influenced by supervisors who listen well
(Ames et al. 2012), be it in terms of reactions toward their
superiors (Detert and Burris 2007), their work (Ellinger et. al.
2003), or the organization (Ashford et al. 2009). Moreover,
existing theory and research suggest that employee feelings
about work (affect) tend to drive some work behaviors (Brief
and Weiss 2002; Weiss and Cropanzano 1996). In this paper,
we suggest that employees recognize how supervisors listen,
and employee perceptions of being listened to are related to
positive and negative affective reactions to their supervisor’s
listening, which—in turn—translate into work outcomes
such as turnover intentions, citizenship performance, and
emotional exhaustion.
Contributing to mutual exchange of information, fruitful
interactions, and strong relationships, effective listening
may create a positive interpersonal work experience that
reflects positively on the organization and translates into
more positive work outcomes. However, establishing trust-
ing relationships with employees that influence employee
attitudes and work behavior are long-term processes. Given
the importance of work outcomes such as citizenship
behavior, voluntary turnover, and employee well-being for
overall organizational functioning, it is essential to under-
stand how supervisor listening unfurls its effects.
Based on theory and prior research, we investigate short-
term positive and negative affective reactions as underlying
mechanisms of perceived supervisor listening. For instance,
experimental research revealed that a short interaction with a
non-responsive superior elicits significant affective speaker
reactions (Bavelas et al. 2000; Beukeboom 2009). If experi-
enced repeatedly, these short-term affective reactions may
translate into long-term effects on employee attitudes and
behavior. This is in line with evidence from organizational
research that suggests some work behaviors (e.g., organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and counterproductive work
behavior) are direct reactions to employees’ affective expe-
riences at work (Brief and Weiss 2002; Dalal et al. 2009;
Spector and Fox 2002). Employees may react emotionally to
whether they believe the supervisor is effectively listening (or
not) which, in turn, may distinctively affect work outcomes.
This paper examines the mediating mechanisms—the psy-
chological underpinnings—that may explain listening
effects.
The main focus of this research is to examine whether
perceptions of supervisor listening are associated with
proximal and distal work outcomes and the distinctive
mediating mechanisms that may explain listening effects. To
this purpose, we first present a multi-rater organizational
study that examines the relationship between supervisor
listening, employee perceptions of supervisor listening, and
the three work outcomes. Then, we examine the distinctive
mediating mechanisms of positive and negative affect in a
larger cross-sectional employee survey. For the two studies,
we predict that perceived supervisor listening is (a) related to
supervisors’ listening behaviors (Study 1), (b) associated
with employee work outcomes (Study 1 and Study 2) and
(b) that these latter relationships are mediated by distinctive
affective mechanisms (Study 2). Drawing from affective
events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano 1996), the basic tenet
of our theoretical argument is that employee observations of
supervisor listening and employees’ affective reactions to
these observations provide a basis for understanding how
supervisor listening may lead to various work-related out-
comes. Accordingly, we first discuss the relationship
between perceived listening and affect. Then, we will
introduce our two studies.
Affect and Perceived Listening
In this paper, affect is conceptualized as a generic term that
encompasses both emotion and mood (Brief and Weiss
2002) and refers to a short-term state with negative and
positive affect representing distinct and independent
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123

domains of emotions (Watson and Clark 1997; Watson
et al. 1988; for more general frameworks of two-dimen-
sional affect theory, e.g., valence and activation, see Rus-
sell and Barrett 1999). Negative affect describes a state of
subjective distress which subsumes a variety of aversive
mood states such as feeling upset, guilty, and jittery
(Watson and Clark 1984; Watson et al. 1988). Positive
affect, in contrast, includes positive emotional states such
as interested, proud, and determined (for an extensive list
see Watson et al. 1988).
According to affective events theory (Weiss and Cro-
panzano 1996), employees’ affective experiences at work
can lead to consecutive work behavior such as helping
coworkers or withdrawing effort. Organizational research
has already demonstrated such links between affect and a
variety of work outcomes, including employees’ decisions
to quit (George 1996; George and Bettenhausen 1990;
Shaw 1999), employee health (Janssen et al. 2010), orga-
nizational citizenship behavior (George 1991), and coun-
terproductive work behavior (Lee and Allen 2002).
Although positive affect is likely to elicit positive behav-
iors such as helping others (e.g., Isen and Baron 1991),
voluntary work (Spector and Fox 2002), and extra-role
contributions (George and Brief 1992; Parker and Collins
2010; Warr et al. 2014), negative affect is likely to elicit
negative work behaviors such as social withdrawal and
effort withdrawal, theft, sabotage, and workplace violence
(Dalal et al. 2009; Fox et al. 2001; Warr et al. 2014). This
implies there is some valence specificity between affect
(i.e., positive or negative) and the valence of behavioral
reaction (positive behavior or negative behavior). In fact,
social psychological research has found that positive
affective states are related to more positive behaviors (e.g.,
helping others, see Isen and Baron 1991) and negative
affect to negative behavioral reactions (e.g., aggressive
behavior, Baron 1971).
As previously discussed, perceptions of listening can
elicit positive and negative affective reactions (e.g., Beu-
keboom 2009). Effective listeners may be more positively
experienced by their employees and drive short-term
positive affect. For instance, listening supervisors may be
perceived as more open, interested, and supportive (Ash-
ford et al. 2009), and make employees feel more com-
fortable to approach. Hence, effective listeners may elicit
more positive affective reactions in employees. This, for
instance, may positively motivate or energize employees to
show initiative and demonstrate more positive work
behaviors such as increased organizational citizenship
behavior (Spector and Fox 2002).
Not being listened to is an unpleasant experience which
can be frustrating and distressing, and lead to negative
perceptions of the source of listening. Social psychological
evidence suggests that states of negative affectivity (e.g.,
anger or frustration, Robinson and Bennett 1997), induced
by unpleasant stimuli (e.g., pain or insults) influence
aggression (Berkowitz 1998). In the workplace, negative
affect (e.g., elicited by insults) has been related to norm-
nonconformity and deviant behavior including aggressive
behavior toward clients, coworkers, and the organization
(e.g., Robinson and Bennett 1995,1997). Employee per-
ceptions of not being listened to may constitute a similarly
unpleasant stimulus that induces (short-term) negative
affect. Occurring repeatedly, this may have long-term
negative effects on employees and work outcomes.
In sum, we suggest that employee perceptions of
supervisor listening have distinct effects on work outcomes
via the relationships to positive and negative affect. We
argue that effective listening is related to positive affect
which has a constructive, energizing effect on employees.
In contrast, low listening quality is a negative experience
related to negative affect which has deconstructive, dem-
otivating effects on employees and work outcomes.
We present two studies. In Study 1, we examine the
relationship between supervisor listening and employee
perceived supervisor listening and whether there is a main
effect of employee perceived supervisor listening on work
outcomes (H1–H3). In Study 2, we examine the mediating
effects of positive affect and negative affect (H4–H6).
Study 1
The relationship between supervisors and their employees
is a social-perceptual process (Lord and Maher 2002). The
effects of supervisors’ listening behavior on their
employees’ subsequent behavior depend on how their
employees perceive the listening. When a supervisor
attentively listens to an employees’ concerns and demon-
strates interest and care while listening, the employee is
more likely to make an overall assessment that the super-
visor is a good listener. When a supervisor pays little
attention or demonstrates little interest or care while lis-
tening, the employee is likely to make an overall assess-
ment that the supervisor is a bad listener. Perceptions of
supervisors create affective responses (Fitness 2000;
Newcombe and Ashkanasy 2002), which in turn lead to
behavioral outcomes. Therefore, the extent to which an
employee perceives the supervisor as a good or bad listener
will influence the employees’ affective response to their
supervisor’s listening efforts, which in turn will lead to
various behavioral outcomes.
Emotional Exhaustion and Listening
The frustrating or distressing nature of not being listened
suggests that emotional exhaustion is a proximal outcome
Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?
123

of the perception that the supervisor is a poor listener.
Emotional exhaustion refers to the extent that individuals
feel emotionally overextended and ‘‘drained’’ by their
work, often caused by long-term involvement in situations
that are emotionally demanding (Maslach 1982; Maslach
and Jackson 1986; Wright and Cropanzano 1998; Zohar
1997). Cordes and Dougherty (1993) describe this experi-
ence as ‘‘a lack of energy and a feeling that one’s emo-
tional resources are used up’’ (p. 623). The consequences
of emotionally overworked employees can be costly for the
individual and the organization, including, for instance,
lower job performance and lower organizational commit-
ment (Cropanzano et al. 2003; Grandey et al. 2004; Wright
and Cropanzano 1998).
Several factors within the individual or the work envi-
ronment determine the extent to which employees feel
emotionally exhausted, such as personal resources, coping
strategies, emotional culture, and supervisory regulation of
‘‘display rules’’ (Grandey et al. 2004,2005; Wilk and
Moynihan 2005). Supervisors, in particular, are likely to be
a strong source of influence on the work environment since
they set goals and expectations about demands, provide
social, emotional or material support, and resources.
Additionally, the supervisor sets ‘‘display rules’’ (e.g.,
appraisal or suppression of emotions) that guide employ-
ees’ regulation of emotional expression and influence the
organizational emotional culture (Diefendorff and Richard
2003).
Supervisors who are perceived as poor listeners may
increase the risk of emotional exhaustion. For instance,
employees may perceive such supervisors as less socially
and emotionally supportive and approachable (Ashford
et al. 2009). Employees may also feel less comfortable and
safe to open up to ineffective listeners and thus refrain from
sharing burdensome thoughts early in time, and feel dis-
couraged to safely express emotions in the workplace
(Cooper et al. 2003; Wilk and Moynihan 2005). Taken
together, this can hamper early resolution of problems and
necessary changes that otherwise may prevent further
emotional draining. Therefore, we posit:
Hypothesis 1 Perceived supervisor listening is associated
with low emotional exhaustion.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Listening
Listening effects, although primarily at the interpersonal
level between employees and supervisors, might also
extend beyond that and affect employee behavior toward
coworkers and the organization (i.e., employee citizenship
behaviors, OCB). OCB refers to ‘‘individual behavior that
is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes
the effective functioning of the organization’’ (Organ 1988,
p. 4). The distinctive aspects to this construct are that these
behaviors are not critical to the task or job but exceed core
obligations and are performed as a result of personal choice
and proactive initiative (Katz 1964; Smith et al. 1983).
They can be directed toward the individual (OCB-I) or the
organization (OCB-O) and include, for instance, helping
coworkers or offering ideas to improve the functioning of
the organization (Smith et al. 1983; Williams and Anderson
1991). Clearly, these are behaviors that are beneficial for
organizations. Researchers have demonstrated that OCB is
positively related to organizational success, including sales
performance (Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994), product
quality (Podsakoff et al. 1997), operating efficiency and
performance quality (Yen and Niehoff 2004), and overall
profits (Koys 2001).
Previous research has found that supervisor behavior
does not only influence employees’ organizational citi-
zenship behaviors toward the supervisor (e.g., Sparrowe
et al. 2006) but to the organization as a whole (Organ and
Ryan 1995; Podsakoff et al. 2000). This is because
employee attitudes to the organization are shaped by their
supervisors’ actions (e.g., Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002).
Since perceived supervisor listening can influence
employee work experiences, it is likely to also influence
employees’ attitude toward the organization and thus
employees’ OCB-O. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2 Perceived supervisor listening is positively
related to employee organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB-O).
Listening and Turnover Intentions
Perceived supervisor listening is also likely to influence
turnover intentions. Happy employees are likely to be
committed to their job regardless of other opportunities
(Meyer et al. 2002), whereas unhappy employees may be
motivated to quit their job and leave the company (e.g.,
Allen et al. 2010). This is a particularly salient issue
because voluntary turnover can be costly to organizations
due to required training, lost productivity, loss of critical
knowledge, and damage to the company’s image (Mitchell
et al. 2001; Shaw et al. 2005).
Previous research has found that supervisor behaviors can
influence turnover intention (e.g., Allen et al. 2010; Aquino
et al. 1997; Griffeth et al. 2000). Perceived supervisor lis-
tening is likely to play a particularly important role con-
cerning voluntary turnover decisions because strong
relationships between supervisors and employees are key
drivers of voluntary turnover (Allen et al. 2010). For
instance, by fostering open communication, listening
enables early detection of dissatisfaction and facilitates early
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123

resolution of problems. Effective listeners may also be per-
ceived as more caring and supportive and may establish
stronger relationships with employees. Interactions of this
kind create a positive experience, which—in turn—may
influence employee attitudes toward their supervisor and the
work place. In fact, Kluger (2013) presented meta-analytical
findings which suggest that supervisor listening is positively
related to employee satisfaction. In contrast, employees who
continuously experience bad listeners may develop a nega-
tive attitude toward their supervisor and the organization. As
a result, this negative experience may motivate employees to
seek a different work environment. Similarly, a lack of
positive experience may also reduce the incentive of staying
at their job when employees have the opportunity to leave the
organization in pursuit of a potentially more fulfilling posi-
tion. Therefore:
Hypothesis 3 Perceived supervisor listening is negatively
associated with employee turnover intention.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Study 1 contained data from 18 directors and department
managers as well as their subordinates (n=43) collected
at a midsized North German sports company. Average
team size was 2.4 employees. Of the employees, 41.7 %
were female and 58.2 % male. The average age of the
employees was 34.4 years (SD =8.6), average organiza-
tional tenure was 7 years (SD =6.1), and the average
tenure within the team was 4.6 years (SD =3.63). In terms
of education, 8.3 % of the employees reported to have a
certificate of basic secondary education, 25 % had done an
apprenticeship or vocational education, while 66.7 % had a
university degree. With respect to the supervisors, 70 %
were male and the average age was 42 years (SD =8.3).
Their average organizational tenure was 12 years
(SD =7.9), 23.3 % had completed vocational training, and
76.5 % held a university degree.
Data were collected within the framework of leadership
trainings targeted at directors and department managers.
Questionnaires were filled out directly or taken back to the
office. Team members received sealed questionnaires at the
company which they returned anonymously to the
researchers. Participation was voluntary and anonymous;
supervisors and teams were matched via a matching code.
Only matching data from supervisors and their subordi-
nates were considered for the analysis, resulting in 18
complete teams, including their supervisors.
Our main independent variable was employees’ assess-
ment of their supervisor’s listening. However, employee
perceptions may not necessarily be consistent with the
actual supervisor behavior. Hence, supervisor self-ratings
provided an additional and complementary measure.
Measures
Questionnaires were designed in German. All measures
had been adapted to German using the method of transla-
tion and back translation (Brislin 1970) by a team of
bilingual psychologists and professional translators. We
measured items using 5-point scales, with response cate-
gories ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly
agree). Employees provided self-ratings on all measures
that referred to internal psychological states (e.g., turnover
intentions).
Employee Perceived Supervisor Listening Employees
rated the extent to which they perceived being listened to
by their supervisor using 8 items that had been developed
in previous studies (Lloyd et al., in press) and adapted to
the supervisor–employee interactions (Lloyd et al. 2013).
Items referred to ‘‘Generally, when my supervisor listens to
me,’’ and sample items included ‘‘is interested in what I
have to say’’ and ‘‘makes me comfortable so I can speak
openly’’ (Appendix). The 8 items’ internal reliability was
good (a=.96).
Supervisor Listening Supervisors rated their own listen-
ing behavior toward their subordinates on the same 8-item
listening scale (Lloyd et al., in press, 2013;Appendix)
which was adapted to refer to the employees. Accordingly,
items were prefaced with ‘‘Generally, when I listen to my
employees,’’ and a sample item was ‘‘I am interested in
what they have to say.’’ The scale revealed acceptable
internal reliability (a=.93).
Emotional Exhaustion We measured emotional exhaus-
tion using the 5-item subscale from Maslach’s burnout
inventory (Maslach 1982; Maslach and Jackson 1986).
Sample items included ‘‘I feel emotionally drained from
my work’’ and ‘‘I feel tired when I get up in the morning
and have to face another day on the job.’’ Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was .85.
Turnover Intentions Employee intentions to leave the
company were measured using the three items from Ko-
novsky and Cropanzano (1991). Sample items were ‘‘I
often think about quitting my job at this company’’ and ‘‘I
would like to get a new job.’’ This 3-item scale had a
Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior We assessed orga-
nizational citizenship behavior directed toward the
Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?
123

organization (OCB-O) using six items from Lee et al.
(2002). Sample items were ‘‘Defend the organization when
other employees criticize it’’ and ‘‘Offer ideas to improve
the functioning of the organization.’’ Cronbach’s alpha for
this measure was marginally acceptable, .63 (Lance et al.
2006).
Analytical Strategy Since all employees were nested
within teams and the supervisors, we employed two-level
analysis techniques. Intraclass correlation coefficients
(Bliese 2000) were calculated examining the ratio of
between-group to total variance (ICC), corrected for
average team size (Biemann et al. 2012). The ICC indicates
the amount of variance in a variable attributable to group
membership. We examined the hypothesized links of our
model using two-level path modeling procedures in
Mplus6. Thus, we simultaneously accounted for the nested
data structure and the relatedness of all outcome variables.
Observed variables were analyzed due to sample size
considerations.
Results and Discussion
Results presented in Table 1include descriptive statistics,
scale reliabilities, and zero-order correlations between
employee ratings of listening quality and work-related
outcomes.
The zero-order correlations reveal significant associa-
tions of perceived listening quality and work outcomes.
However, these results do not account for the nestedness of
employees in teams and supervisors. The ICC results
confirmed that 49 % of the variance in employee perceived
supervisor listening is explained by workgroup/supervisor
membership (ICC =.49). The ICCs for the three outcome
variables were .27 for OCB-O, for turnover intentions .18,
and for emotional exhaustion .10. Consequently, to test our
hypothesis (Fig. 1), we conducted two-level path analysis,
analyzing both employee perceptions of supervisor listen-
ing and the outcome variables on the individual level,
while accounting for workgroup membership.
Results show first that supervisor listening (i.e., the
supervisor’s self-ratings on listening) and employee per-
ceived supervisor listening were highly correlated (r=.93).
This result demonstrated that the employees’ perceptions
were not simply self-constructed, but reflected reliable
observations of supervisors’ behaviors. Furthermore,
employee perceived supervisor listening was associated with
citizenship behaviors (OCB-O), turnover intention, and the
extent to which they felt emotionally exhausted. The model-
data fit was good (RMSEA =.000; SRMR =.001 (within)/
.004 (between); TLI =1.00; CFI =1.00) and all of our
hypotheses (H1–H3) were confirmed.
Alternative models, which either included additional
direct paths from supervisor self-ratings to work outcomes
or that tested solely a direct link between supervisor self-
ratings (without employee ratings in the model) and out-
come variables, yielded nonsignificant results. For
instance, when the direct link between supervisor self-rat-
ings and work outcomes was included, supervisor self-
ratings did not significantly predict any of the organiza-
tional outcomes—emotional exhaustion (b=-.59;
p=.90), OCB-O (b=.45; p=.30), or turnover inten-
tions (b=-.55; p=.76). Nor did the model which con-
sidered only the direct link between supervisor self-ratings
and the three work outcomes—emotional exhaustion
(b=-.31; p=.88), OCB-O (b=.39; p=.56), or
turnover intentions (b=-.38; p=.77). The effects all
are in the predicted direction though, and they may have
failed to reach significance because of a) the small sample
size and b) the analysis took into account all three direct
effects and intercorrelations between the outcomes, which
reduces the degrees of freedom as compared to simple
correlations. Hence, while employee perceptions of
supervisor listening were in line with supervisors’ self-
perceptions of their listening behavior, the results suggest
Table 1 Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics of the study variables
a
MSD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Listening (supervisor self-rating)
b
4.15 .35 (.94)
2. Listening (employee rating)
a
3.87 .58 – (.96)
3. Emotional exhaustion 2.38 .81 – -.35* (.85)
4. Turnover intentions 1.51 .77 – -.66** .38* (.91)
5. OCB-O 4.14 .40 – .34* -.32* -.56** (.63)
Values in brackets represent Cronbach’s a
*p\.05, two-tailed, ** p\.01, two-tailed
a
n=43 (employees);
b
n=18 (supervisors)
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123

that foremost employees’ perceived supervisor listening
has an influence on all three work outcomes.
Taken together, the results indicated how important it is
for employees to feel listened to by their supervisors.
Supervisors who actively engage in listening behaviors that
demonstrate attention, interest, and care will be noticed by
their employees. And employees who believe they are
listened to appear to be more motivated to support the
organization, less prone to leave the organization, and
experience less emotional exhaustion. These main effects
provide a basis to examine how perceived supervisor lis-
tening influences these work outcomes and specifically the
mediating mechanisms of positive and negative affect.
Study 2
For Study 2, we increased the sample size and sought to
generalize the findings to a wider range of professions than
covered in Study 1. We expect the main effect of perceived
supervisor listening to parallel the effects found in Study 1
in predicting employee citizenship behavior, turnover
intention, and emotional exhaustion (H1 to H3). More
importantly, we examine the specific mediating mecha-
nisms associated with positive and negative affect. As
discussed earlier, PA and NA are independent constructs,
and thus, they may play different mediating roles. As found
in Study 1, employees’ perceptions that supervisors are
poor listeners were associated with employees’ emotional
exhaustion. One primary reason might be that the percep-
tion that one is not being listened to is emotionally dis-
tressing and hence elicits negative affect. Constantly
occurring, these emotionally distressing situations might
transfer into long-term negative effects on emotional well-
being. Similarly, research on supervisor support showed
strong links of supervisor behavior on emotional exhaus-
tion and physiological stress reactions (Mineyama et al.
2007). We propose that perceived supervisor listening
elicits a strong negative affective reaction—which if
experienced repeatedly—can translate into emotional
exhaustion. Specifically, we predict that the perception of
poor supervisor listening elicits negative affect and this in
turn facilitated emotional exhaustion. We do not, however,
predict a similar mediating effect of positive affect, as
employees can have a lack of positive affect without
feeling emotionally exhausted. Therefore:
Hypothesis 4 The relationship between employee per-
ceived supervisor listening and emotional exhaustion is
mediated by negative affect.
In Study 1, we also found that employee perceived
supervisor listening was associated with citizenship
behaviors aimed at the organization (OCB-O). A potential
factor is that supervisor listening exerts its effects on
constructive work behavior via its effects on positive
affect. As discussed earlier, listening perceptions can sig-
nificantly influence speakers’ affective reactions and atti-
tudes toward the listener (Beukeboom 2009). Immediate
positive affective experiences in turn have been suggested
as important drivers for positive (constructive) employee
work behaviors (Brief and Weiss 2002; Dalal et al. 2009;
George 1991; Warr et al. 2014). Helping behavior is one of
the most widely studied types of social behaviors, and the
strong role of positive affect in stimulating this behavior
has been well established (e.g., George and Brief 1992;
Isen and Levin 1972). Individuals in a positive mood tend
to be more likely to help others (Brief and Weiss 2002; see
Isen and Baron 1991), exhibit affiliated altruistic behaviors
(Isen and Levin 1972), and increased levels of prosocial
behavior at work (George 1991). Hence, positive affect
could also increase levels of other extra-role behaviors
directed toward the overall organizational functioning such
as protecting the organization or making suggestions for
improvement (George and Brief 1992). Positive affect has
been suggested as an energizing motivation (Watson et al.
1999) that gives the necessary impetus to perform beyond
Fig. 1 Two-level path model of
listening effects.
n(employees) =43;
n(supervisors) =18; m(team
size) =2.39 employees;
covariances between the
outcome variables were
included in the two-level path
modeling analysis; standardized
coefficients reported;
***p\.001, **p\.01;
*p\.05, two-tailed
Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?
123

routine in-role performance (Dalal et al. 2009; Spector and
Fox 2002). This link between positive affect and positive
work behavior has received support from organizational
research findings between positive affect and employee
initiative (Den Hartog and Belschak 2007; Fritz and Son-
nentag 2009), proactive behavior (Tsai et al. 2007), and
citizenship behaviors (Dalal et al. 2009). We therefore
predict that the link between perceived supervisor listening
and OCB-O is mediated by positive affect. In addition,
since research indicates that organizational citizenship
behavior is distinctively driven by positive affect, we do
not expect negative affect (related to the absence of
effective listening) to be related to positive behavior since
they lack the necessary impetus for positive action (for a
more extensive review see Warr et al. 2014). In sum,
effective listeners, perceived as caring and respectful, may
constitute a positive affective experience for the employee
which, in turn, plays out on employee citizenship behavior
and motivates employees to ‘walk the extra mile’ for the
organization. Therefore:
Hypothesis 5 The relationship between employee per-
ceived supervisor listening and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB-O) is mediated by positive affect.
Finally, Study 1 results also revealed that employee
perceived supervisor listening was associated with turn-
over intention. Unlike the effect on emotional exhaustion,
which we predict will be mediated by negative affect, and
the effect on OCB-O, which we predict will be mediated
by positive affect, positive and negative affect are both
possible mediators that link perceived supervisor listening
to turnover intention. Experiencing non-perceptive
supervisors can be frustrating and dissatisfying and drive
employees to seek a different workplace. That is, non-
responsive supervisors may stimulate negative affect
which in turn is related to employee turnover intentions.
Similarly, it is possible that a lack of or absence of
positive affect (low PA) has similar effects on turnover
intentions, particularly because many employees seek a
workplace that entails professionally and affectively sat-
isfying working conditions. Hence, the lack of positive
affective experiences due to poor supervisor listening can
encourage employees to seek new job opportunities.
Therefore:
Hypothesis 6a The relationship between employee per-
ceived supervisor listening and turnover intention is med-
iated by negative affect.
Hypothesis 6b The relationship between employee per-
ceived supervisor listening and turnover intention is med-
iated by positive affect.
Method
Participants and Procedure
328 German employees from different companies volun-
tarily participated in this survey study without monetary
reward. The sample consisted of 58.8 % women (mean
age =34.4, SD =8.9). Approximately 60 % had a uni-
versity degree or equivalent, their average tenure at the
company was 4.76 years (SD =5.4) and the average time
they had been working for their current supervisor was
3.2 years (SD =2.6). Participants were recruited by con-
venience sampling methods in order to get a more heter-
ogeneous sample. Online surveys were administered
through various online platforms and discussion forums to
reach a maximum variety in participant age, educational
background, job position, and industry. For instance, we
addressed general work forums in which employees discuss
and exchange work-related information as well as specific
forums for occupational groups (e.g., police officers,
mechanics, and engineers.). We obtained permission to
post an invitation to participate in our study from the web
administrators. The order of scales as well the item order
within the scale was randomized to account for order
effects (Bishop 2008). Only questionnaires that were fully
completed were included in the analysis. The final sample
included employees from a wide range of job functions and
jobs including administration, engineering, finance, mar-
keting, and teaching.
Measures
To increase comparability between the studies, we applied
the same measures and scales for perceived listening
supervisor listening (Appendix), emotional exhaustion,
turnover intention, and OCB-O as in Study 1. Positive and
negative affect were measured using the 20-item Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al.
1988). The positive affect (PA) measure includes items
such as ‘‘attentive’’ and ‘‘strong,’’ while the negative affect
(NA) measure includes items such as ‘‘irritated’’ and
‘‘upset.’’ Respondents were asked to think of their inter-
actions with their supervisor in general (i.e., most of the
times) and asked to indicate how they generally felt in
those interactions. PANAS was paraphrased with ‘‘Gener-
ally, in the interaction with my supervisor I feel.’’ The
measure captures short-term state affect (versus trait or
dispositional affectivity) related to the general supervisor–
employee interaction. Cronbach’s alphas for both positive
and negative affect were .93.
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123

Analytical Strategy
Structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus6 was con-
ducted to test the effects of perceived supervisor listening on
PA and NA as well as on the three work outcomes simulta-
neously in one model (see Fig. 2). To evaluate model fit, we
followed recommendations by Vandenberg and Lance (2000).
Prior to that, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to
examine the adequacy of the measurement components and to
evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs used.
Next, since all measures were obtained from the same
source, we employed techniques to account for potential
effects of common method variance (Podsakoff et al.
2003). Following prior research, we controlled for the
effects of a single unmeasured latent method factor by
including it directly in the SEM model (MacKenzie et al.
1999; Moorman et al. 1998). All item loadings were con-
strained to be equal in their loadings on the method factor
(Conger et al. 2000; Elangovan and Xie 1999; MacKenzie
et al. 1999). Finally, to explicitly examine the mediating
effects of PA and NA, we conducted indirect effects ana-
lysis (Preacher and Hayes 2008; Preacher et al. 2007).
Results and Discussion
Table 2presents means, standard deviations, and zero-
order correlations of all study variables. All scale reli-
abilities were above .80.
Perceived supervisor listening was linearly correlated to
all variables. We used confirmatory factor analysis to
determine the distinctiveness of all outcome measures. The
five-factor model revealed a moderate overall fit (chi
square (df =485) =1335.41, p\.01), the standardized
root mean square of the residuals (SRMR) was .065, the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) .07, the
non-normed fit index—Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
1
—was
.88, and the comparative fit index (CFI) was .89. In com-
parison, the baseline model in which all items loaded on
one factor did not reveal satisfactory fit, chi square
(df =495) =4,331.09, p\.001; RMSEA =.154;
SRMR =.125; TLI =.47; CFI =.51, and differed sig-
nificantly from the five-factor model (Dchi
square =2,995.68, Ddf =9, p\.001). Taken together,
the results indicate discriminant validity of the study
variables.
Consecutively, we examined the hypothesized media-
tion mechanisms. Figure 2displays the results of the SEM
analysis.
Overall, the SEM model displayed in Fig. 2revealed an
acceptable model fit (chi square (df =763) =1,763.28,
p\.001; RMSEA =.06; SRMR =.06; TLI =.91;
Fig. 2 Latent path model of
listening effects. N=328; SEM
analysis accounted for
covariation among outcome
variables; standardized
coefficients reported,
controlling for a common
method factor. ***p\.001
Table 2 Zero-order
correlations of the study
variables
N=328; values in brackets
represent Cronbach’s a
** p\.01, two-tailed
MSD123456
1. Perceived supervisor listening 4.48 1.72 (.95)
2. Emotional exhaustion 3.79 1.74 -.38** (.92)
3. Turnover intentions 3.31 2.21 -.53** .46** (.82)
4. OCB-O 5.04 1.28 .31** -.20** -.30** (.82)
5. PA 4.27 1.20 .70** -.32** -.53** .37** (.93)
6. NA 2.79 1.39 -.62** .54** .54** -.21** -.51** (.93)
1
The values of the CFI and TLI are below the conventionally
accepted value of .90 (Vandenberg and Lance 2000). However, this is
acceptable since all constructs and no distinctive paths (e.g.,
differentiated indirect effects) had been included in the model.
Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?
123

CFI =.90). As indicated by the standardized coefficients
(Fig. 2), perceived supervisor listening was positively
associated with PA (b=.79, p\.001) and negatively
with NA (b=-.66, p\.001).
In accordance with our predictions, we found distinct
associations for PA and NA on the outcome measures. PA
was positively related to employee OCB-O (b=.44,
p\.001) and related negatively to turnover intentions
(b=.40, p\.001). However, PA was not significantly
associated with emotional exhaustion. NA, in turn, had a
positive association with emotional exhaustion (b=.50,
p\.001) and turnover intentions (b=.35, p\.001), but
no effect on OCB-O. Overall, these results already indi-
cated mediation effects of PA and NA.
Next, we examined the potential for mediation in detail
running a bootstrap indirect effects analysis (Preacher and
Hayes 2008; Preacher et al. 2007) with PA and NA.
Mediation is based on a point estimate and bootstrapped
99 % confidence interval (CI based on 1,500 bootstrap
iterations). A mediator effect is significant if zero is not
included in the CI. PA mediated the link between perceived
supervisor listening and OCB-O (point estimate =.19,
CI =.08/.29) and turnover intentions (point estimate =
-.30, CI =-.44/-.16). As already indicated by the SEM
results, PA did not mediate the link to emotional exhaus-
tion (point estimate =-.04, CI =-.14/.06). Concerning
NA, the analysis revealed that NA mediated the link
between perceived supervisor listening and emotional
exhaustion (point estimate =-.32, CI =-.42/-.21) as
well as turnover intentions (point estimate =-.30,
CI =-.42/-.17). As predicted, NA did not mediate the
link to OCB-O (point estimate =.01, CI =-.07/.09). In
sum, Hypotheses 4–6 were all supported.
Furthermore, we tested an alternative model that addi-
tionally included the direct links between perceived
supervisor listening and work outcomes; this revealed
almost identical model fit (chi square
(df =762) =1,761.82, p\.001; RMSEA =.06;
SRMR =.06; TLI =.91; CFI =.90) and did not differ
significantly from our hypothesized albeit simpler model
(Dchi square =1.46, Ddf =1). Based on the parsimony
principle, the model without direct links between perceived
supervisor listening and outcomes is superior.
Finally, we included a first-order common method factor
(CMF) while estimating the model again to control for
common method variance. Table 3displays the standard-
ized parameter estimates before and after controlling for
this common method factor.
All relationships were significant and of similar if not
the same magnitude, which indicated that the data were not
influenced by common method variance. Average loading
of all standardized estimates with CMF was -.76. Taken
together, the results provide further evidence for our
hypothesized model of listening effects. Replicating Study
1 findings, employees who perceived their supervisors as
effective listeners also demonstrated higher levels of citi-
zenship behavior, lower turnover intentions, and less
emotional exhaustion. Additionally, we revealed first evi-
dence for affect as a mediating mechanism. Perceived
supervisor listening was associated with employee positive
and negative affectivity. PA and NA appeared to operate in
distinctive ways that go beyond a simple mirroring of the
two dimensions. High PA had an energizing effect on
employees that was related to increased levels of citizen-
ship behavior. High NA was related to increased emotional
exhaustion and explained the relationship between per-
ceived supervisor listening and emotional exhaustion.
Voluntary turnover was related to both low PA and high
NA. This was in line with theoretical considerations that
employees may be motivated to quit their job in order to
leave behind the negative work environment or because
they want to find an optimally positive one.
General Discussion
In two studies, we demonstrated how perceived supervisor
listening is important for employee work-related outcomes.
We found that supervisors’ listening efforts were reflected
in the perceptions that employees have of their supervisor’s
listening. We found that these perceptions were associated
with emotional exhaustion, citizenship behaviors, and
turnover intention. Moreover, the relationship between
perceived supervisor listening and work outcomes was
mediated by affect. Negative affect mediated the effect on
emotional exhaustion, positive affect mediated the effect
on citizenship behavior, and both negative and positive
affect mediated the effect on turnover intention. Therefore,
Table 3 Standardized parameter estimates with and without con-
trolling for common method variance
Not controlling
for CMF
Controlling
for CMF
Description
Listening ?PA .78*** .79***
Listening ?NA -.68*** -.66***
PA ?Emotional exhaustion -.08 -.01
PA ?OCBO .42*** .44***
PA ?Turnover -.40*** -.40***
NA ?Emotional exhaustion .51*** .50***
NA ?OCBO .01 .01
NA ?Turnover .35*** .34***
N=328; standardized coefficients reported
CMF common method factor
*** p\.001
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123

while we found that perceived supervisor listening trig-
gered both positive and negative emotions, each of the
emotions was associated with different outcomes.
Theoretical Implications
One purpose of this research was to investigate the effects
of perceived supervisor listening on three important orga-
nizational work outcomes. Each of these work outcomes
(emotional exhaustion, citizenship behavior and turnover)
substantially influences organizational performance, which
highlights the importance of these results for organizational
research. Since listening is ultimately linked to the dyadic
interaction between individuals (e.g., employee–supervi-
sor), most research has focused on leader-referenced vari-
ables, such as supervisor support or responsiveness. Since
the value of listening was first suggested in clinical psy-
chology, positive effects on employee well-being appeared
obvious. Our finding that perceived supervisor listening
was associated with emotional exhaustion is in line with
previous research that indicated effects of supportive
supervisor behavior on emotional exhaustion (Rafferty
et al. 2001) and physiological stress reactions (Mineyama
et al. 2007). We broadened and extended these findings by
showing that effects of supervisor listening go beyond such
proximal outcomes and also affect more distal work out-
comes such as turnover intentions and organizational citi-
zenship behavior. Citizenship behavior (OCB-O) and
turnover intentions have not been empirically addressed in
the listening literature before. Clearly, these outcomes
contribute to overall organizational functioning. By
investigating these three work outcomes simultaneously,
we contribute to a more holistic understanding of the det-
rimental and beneficial effects of perceived supervisor
listening.
Foremost, we revealed two mechanisms that explain
how supervisor listening affects proximal and distal out-
comes in distinctive ways. Our results suggest that
employees’ emotional reactions serve a complex and
nuanced role. Negative affect mediated the listening effects
on emotional exhaustion, while positive affect mediated
the effects on organizational citizenship behavior, and both
positive and negative affect explained the relationship to
turnover intentions. Therefore, positive and negative affect
provide distinct mechanisms in explaining why perceived
supervisor listening is important within organizations.
These findings on the distinctive role of positive and neg-
ative affect in driving specific work outcomes are in line
with previous research that indicated work behavior as
reactions to affective experiences at work (e.g., Dalal et al.
2009; Tsai et al. 2007; Warr et al. 2014). This is the first
study that introduced an affect paradigm (Weiss and Cro-
panzano 1996; Spector and Fox 2002) to explain listening
effects at work. It advances not only the current research on
listening but also the field of organizational behavior in its
search for understanding employee behavior.
Last, our findings may also be significant for related
topics in which supervisor listening effects have been
implied but yet not tested. Concerning the organizational
voice literature, for instance, supervisor listening might
present a positive lever to employee voice behavior.
Supervisor behavior has been extensively discussed as an
important antecedent to subordinate voice behavior,
including employees’ decisions to speak up or their beliefs
about when and why speaking up at work is safe or
appropriate (Detert and Burris 2007; Detert and Edmond-
son 2011; Detert Detert and Trevin
˜o2010; Walumbwa and
Schaubroeck 2009). Perceived supervisor listening may be
one decisive factor that facilitates positive voice behavior.
Limitations and Future Research
As in most research, several limitations should to be taken
into consideration when interpreting the results. First, the
listening measure we used reflected perceptions of natu-
rally occurring variance in listening. We encourage future
research to include experimental manipulations of listening
behavior (e.g., a listening confederate in the organization)
and to add additional objective measures of listening
behavior such as behavioral observations rated by external
coders. For instance, team meetings or dyadic interactions
(e.g., appraisal interviews) could be soundlessly filmed and
compared to perceptual ratings of listening and associated
reactions.
These suggestions might also counteract our studies’
second limitation of the cross-sectional design of both
studies, which does not allow for causal inferences of the
effects. Our model suggests that employees react more
favorably to those who listen well. Although our analyses
support this, it may also be possible that supervisors listen
more to employees who are highly motivated and com-
mitted or express positive emotions. Yet, the available data
reflect only a specific point in time. In the long run, a
mutual interaction should be expected: Effective listeners
might elicit positive affectivity and create positive work
relationships which both, in turn, affect the quality of
future listening.
An important avenue for future research is the investi-
gation of determinants or moderating factors of effective
listening. For instance, the research by Ames et al. (2012)
suggested a link between (leader) personality and listening
behavior. Their research indicated that highly ‘‘agreeable’’
individuals who tend to be more cooperative, empathic,
and concerned (Graziano et al. 2007) may also be better
listeners. Employees may feel more comfortable
approaching those supervisors and speak openly (Detert
Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?
123

and Burris 2007). In sum, effects may evolve in the com-
plex interplay of individual characteristics (e.g., personality
dimensions) and much work remains to understand what
distinguishes good listener.
Similarly, moderators associated with the listening
recipient (e.g., employee) need further investigation to
define boundary conditions of listening effects. For
instance, employees’ dispositional affectivity—their
‘‘emotional baseline’’ or trait affect (e.g., George 1991,
1996)—may determine the extent of listening effects on
short-term affective experiences. High-trait positive affec-
tivity has been proposed to be a personal resource that can
buffer ongoing challenges and crises and decrease the risk
of emotional exhaustion (Fredrickson et al. 2003; Janssen
et al. 2010). Similarly, employees who are generally more
motivated may be more prone to engage in extra-role
activities that contribute to organizational functioning.
Concerning ‘‘state affect,’’ research by Dalal et al. (2009)
indicates the importance of within person variability for
determining effects on productive and counterproductive
work behavior. In this context, it is also noteworthy that
recent research has called for deeper differentiation of
affect in terms of valence and activation to better under-
stand the link between affect and work outcomes (Warr
et al. 2014). Future research is needed to provide a fine-
grained understanding of the emotion-related factors within
the individual and the environmental context.
Managerial Implications
Besides the theoretical contributions, our findings con-
cerning effects of perceived supervisor listening on
employee work outcomes also have important managerial
implications. Each of the three work outcomes, we exam-
ined significantly contribute to overall organizational
functioning which highlights the importance of this topic
for managers and organizations more broadly. Moreover,
because our results point to a strong association between
supervisors’ listening efforts and employees’ perceptions
of listening, our results suggest that work outcomes can be
improved through changes in supervisors’ behavior. This
suggests that listening should become an integral part of
leadership education, training, and development. Tech-
niques of active listening or non-defensive communication
can be trained successfully (e.g., Ikegami et al. 2010;
McNaughton et al. 2008). Our results suggest that such
training may have an impact on important organizational
outcomes.
Second, when it comes to improving listening behavior,
it is important to pay attention to the emotional well-being
of the employee. If leaders can engage in listening
behaviors that can make employees more happy and
excited about their job, while also reducing sorrow and
anxiety, both the employees’ overall well-being and the
employees’ contribution to the organization may improve.
Conclusion
To conclude, when it comes to listening, our results dem-
onstrate that supervisor listening is important and it is the
employees’ perceptions of supervisory listening that mat-
ters. And it matters because of how employees feel emo-
tionally about being listened to (or not being listened to).
Creating the conditions that facilitate employees’ recog-
nition that the supervisor is listening can have major con-
sequences for employees’ well-being and the organization
as a whole, including whether employees are proactive and
whether they choose to stay.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Anika Deinert from
Jacobs University Bremen for her support in the data collection
process of study 1.
Appendix
Measure of Supervisor Listening (Supervisor Self-
rating)
The response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)to5
(strongly agree).
Think of a typical interaction with your employees.
Generally, when I listen to my employee, …
1. I am interested in what he/she has to say.
2. I make him/her comfortable so he/she can speak
openly.
3. I make it easy for him/her to open up.
4. I understand his/her feelings.
5. I am interested in him/her personally.
6. I accept him/her for what he/she is.
7. I care about him/her.
8. I don’t judge him/her.
Measure of Perceived Supervisor Listening (Employee
Rating)
2
The response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)to5
(strongly agree).
Think of a typical interaction with your supervisor.
Generally, when my supervisor listens to me, I feel my
supervisor…
2
In Study 2, the response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123

1. is interested in what I have to say.
2. makes me comfortable so I can speak openly.
3. makes it easy for me to open up.
4. understands my feelings.
5. is interested in me personally.
6. accepts me for what I am.
7. cares about me.
8. doesn’t judge me.
References
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining
talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies.
The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64.
Ames, D., Maissen, L. B., & Brockner, J. (2012). The role of listening
in interpersonal influence. Journal of Research in Personality,
46(3), 345–349.
Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Hom, P. W. (1997).
Integrating justice constructs into the turnover process: A test of
a referent cognitions model. Academy of Management Journal,
40(5), 1208–1227.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998).
Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management
in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 43(1), 23–57.
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009).
Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice
in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice
and silence in organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley, England:
Emerald.
Baron, R. A. (1971). Magnitude of victim’s pain cues and level of
prior anger arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,17(3), 236–243.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-
narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6),
941–952.
Berkowitz, L. (1998). Affective aggression: The role of stress, pain,
and negative affect. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.),
Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for
social policy (pp. 49–72). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective
expressions of listeners change a speaker’s language use.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 747–756.
Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group
agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rwg and rwg (j) in
leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 66–80.
Billing, D. Y., & Alvesson, M. (2000). Questioning the notion of
feminine leadership: A critical perspective on the gender
labelling of leadership. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(3),
144–157.
Bishop, G. F. (2008). Item order randomization. In P. J. Lavrakas
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (p. 398).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of
procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘‘fair’’ process.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability. In K. J. Kline & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect
in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279–307.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic
leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21(7), 747–767.
Cooper, D., Doucet, L., & Pratt, M. (2003, August). I’m not smiling
because I like you: Cultural differences in emotional displays at
work. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Seattle,
WA.
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an
integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management
Review, 18(4), 621–656.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship
of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 88(1), 160–169.
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E., & Hulin, C. L. (2009).
A dynamic approach to organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior: Behavioral co-occurrence and
switching, and dynamic relationships with mood and overall job
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1051–1066.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative,
commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 601–622.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and
employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories:
Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488.
Detert, J. R., & Trevin
˜o, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups:
How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee
voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249–270.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and
consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(2), 284–294.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E.
E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the
context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(5), 407–423.
Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1999). Learning, trust and
organizational change. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. L. Araujo, &
J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the learning
organization (pp. 157–175). London: Sage.
Elangovan, A., & Xie, J. L. (1999). Effects of perceived power of
supervisor on subordinate stress and motivation: The moderating
role of subordinate characteristics. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20(3), 359–373.
Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory
coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse
employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution
industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4),
435–458.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script
approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors,
co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 21(2), 147–162.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work
behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational
Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?
123

justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and
emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309.
Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R.
(2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective
study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks
on the united states on September 11th, 2001. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365–376.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive
behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the
workday. Journal of Management, 35(1), 94–111.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on
prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
299–307.
George, J. M. (1996). Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.),
Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp.
145–171). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial
behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level
analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75(6), 698–709.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A
conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organizational spon-
taneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310–329.
Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. (2004). The customer is not
always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of
service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3),
397–418.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must ‘‘service
with a smile’’ be stressful? The moderating role of personal
control for American and French employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(5), 893–904.
Grant, J. (1988). Women as managers: What they can offer to
organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 16(1), 56–63.
Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M.
(2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person 9sit-
uation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 93(4), 583–599.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis
of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update,
moderator tests, and research implications for the next millen-
nium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to
decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ikegami, K., Tahara, H., Yamada, T., Mafune, K., Hiro, H., & Nagata,
S. (2010). Effects of a mental health training program for
manufacturing company managers. Journal of UOEH, 32(2),
141.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in
organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (13th ed., pp. 1–53).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping:
Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 21(3), 384–388.
Janssen, O., Lam, C. K., & Huang, X. (2010). Emotional exhaustion
and job performance: The moderating roles of distributive justice
and positive affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6),
787–809.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior.
Behavioral science,9(2), 131–146.
Kluger, A. N. (2013, June). Dyadic listening effects: Meta-analyses
and theory. Paper presented at the International Listening
Association Convention, Montreal.
Kluger, A. N., & Zaidel, K. (2013). Are listeners perceived as
leaders? International Journal of Listening, 27(2), 73–84.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of
employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5),
698–707.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organiza-
tional citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational
effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psy-
chology, 54(1), 101–114.
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of
four commonly reported cutoff criteria what did they really say?
Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior
and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.
Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Kluger, A. N., & Voelpel, S. C. (in press).
Building trust and feeling well—Examining intraindividual and
interpersonal outcomes and underlying mechanisms of listening.
International Journal of Listening.
Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., & Voelpel, C. (2013). From listening to
leading: Initial evidence of construct validity. Manuscript
submitted for publication (copy on file with author).
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information
processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London:
Routledge.
Lun, J., Kesebir, S., & Oishi, S. (2008). On feeling understood and
feeling well: The role of interdependence. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42(6), 1623–1628.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do
citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for
salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
27(4), 396–410.
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Engelwood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory
(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., &
Schreiner, M. (2008). Learning to listen: Teaching an active
listening strategy to preservice education professionals. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 223–231.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L.
(2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers:
Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1234–1244.
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(6), 1453–1476.
Mineyama, S., Tsutsumi, A., Takao, S., Nishiuchi, K., & Kawakami,
N. (2007). Supervisors’ attitudes and skills for active listening
with regard to working conditions and psychological stress
reactions among subordinate workers. Journal of Occupational
Health, 49(2), 81–87.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez,
M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict
voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6),
1102–1121.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does
perceived organizational support mediate the relationship
between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behav-
ior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351–357.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and
directions for future research. The Academy of Management
Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task
performance should be distinguished from contextual perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480.
Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). The role of affect and
affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: An experimental
study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 601–614.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. New York: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Personnel psychology,48(4), 775–802.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and
differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Man-
agement, 36(3), 633–662.
Pasupathi, M., & Hoyt, T. (2009). The development of narrative
identity in late adolescence and emergent adulthood: The
continued importance of listeners. Developmental Psychology,
45(2), 558–574.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997).
Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality
of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(2), 262–270.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination of the
psychometric properties and nomological validity of some
revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 702–713.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review
of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in
multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
879–891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing
moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and pre-
scriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
Rafferty, Y., Friend, R., & Landsbergis, P. A. (2001). The association
between job skill discretion, decision authority and burnout.
Work & Stress, 15(1), 73–85.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M.
(2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
26(4), 419–435.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87(4), 698.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its
definition, its manifestations, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, R.
J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
organizations (6th ed., pp. 3–27). US: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centred therapy: Its current practice,
implications and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of
therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychol-
ogy, 21(2), 95–103.
Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The
Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 2–10.
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical
emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting
the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(5), 805–819.
Schlesinger, L. A., & Heskett, J. L. (1991). The service-driven service
company. Harvard Business Review, 69(5), 71–81.
Shaw, J. D. (1999). Job satisfaction and turnover intentions: The
moderating role of positive affect. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 139(2), 242–244.
Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative
conceptualizations of the relationship between voluntary turn-
over and organizational performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(1), 50–68.
Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.
Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do
leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It
depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(6), 1194–1208.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of
voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2),
269–292.
Stine, M., Thompson, T., & Cusella, L. (1995). The impact of
organizational structure and supervisory listening indicators on
subordinate support, trust, intrinsic motivation, and performance.
International Journal of Listening, 9(1), 84–105.
Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Liu, H. L. (2007). Test of a model linking
employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1570–1583.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of
the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices,
and recommendations for organizational research. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits
and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275–1286.
Warr, P., Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-
quadrant investigation of job-related affects and behaviours.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
23(3), 342–363.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The
disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 96(3), 465–490.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasure-
ment of mood: Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68(2), 267–296.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54(6), 1063–1070.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two
general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolu-
tionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820–838.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences
of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L.
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior: an
annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. Green-
wich, CT: JAI.
Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?
123

Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display rule ‘‘regulators’’:
The relationship between supervisors and worker emotional
exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 917–927.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17(3), 601–617.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a
predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486–493.
Yen, H. R., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). Organizational citizenship
behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Examining relation-
ships in Taiwanese banks. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34(8), 1617–1637.
Zohar, D. (1997). Predicting burnout with a hassle-based measure of
role demands. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2),
101–115.
K. J. Lloyd et al.
123