C2D119120 Marlina Alini PDF

TUGAS FINAL
ANALISIS MULTIVARIAT
OLEH
MARLINA ALINI
G2D1 19 120
PROGRAM STUDI ILMU MANAJEMEN

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS HALU OLEO
KENDARI
2020
The Mediating Role of Work Atmosphere in the Relationship Between
Supervisor Cooperation, Career Growth and Job Satisfaction
Mohammad Ali Ashraf
Keterbatasan Penelitian
Penelitian ini mempertimbangkan hanya dua anteseden untuk suasana kerja
menuju kepuasan karyawan. Mungkin ada orang lain yang harus
dipertimbangkan dalam penelitian masa depan, seperti aspek lain dari faktor
sumber daya manusia, seperti Ashraf dan Joarder (2010) memeriksa dalam studi
mereka. Namun, skala yang valid dan andal untuk konstruksi ini perlu
dikembangkan untuk memasukkannya dalam studi mendatang. Seperti halnya
studi, ada batasan untuk studi yang dijelaskan di sini. Salah satu kelemahan
yang mungkin adalah penggunaan satu perusahaan saja sebagai karyawan.
Kedua, ukuran sampel tidak terlalu besar, karena responden diamati lalai
mengisi kuesioner yang diberikan kepada mereka. Jika ukuran sampel dapat
ditingkatkan sedikit lebih banyak, maka kita mungkin memiliki hasil yang lebih
baik daripada yang diperkirakan dalam penelitian ini. Namun demikian,
peringatan itu biasa tentang over-generalisasi temuan dari sampel ini, untuk
populasi yang tidak sepenuhnya mewakili, berlaku. Sampel tidak diambil secara
acak untuk mewakili populasi yang temuannya dapat digeneralisasi. Alih-alih,
itu adalah sampel yang praktis, dan dengan demikian, kemampuan untuk
menggeneralisasi temuan sangat jauh di luar sampel terbatas.

1. TEMA/JUDUL PENELITIAN
“Pengaruh Supervisor Corporation dan Pertumbuhan Karier Terhadap

Atmosphere Kerja Dan Kepuasan Kerja”
2. TEORI RELEVAN
2.1 Supervisor Terhadap Atmosphere Kerja
Profesional manajemen sumber daya manusia, eksekutif tingkat atas dan
pengawas yang peduli dengan organisasi, keunggulan kompetitif telah berjuang
dengan identifikasi dan pengembangan bakat kepemimpinan (Porter et al.,
2016; Day, 2000; Macneil, 2001). Di tempat kerja, kerja sama penyelia
dianggap sebagai langkah maju bagi karyawan dalam suatu organisasi, karena
hal itu dapat menciptakan suasana kerja yang menyenangkan dan produktif
(Fern ndez-Ar oz, 2018; Farr-Wharton et al., 2011; Tan , 2008). Ada sejumlah
studi yang berfokus pada hubungan antara kerja sama pengawas dan suasana
kerja seperti Qureshi dan Hamid (2017); Day et al. (2017); Cortini (2016),
Brunetto et al. (2014), Lin et al. (2007) dan Darcy et al. (2006)
2.2 Pertumbuhan karier terhadap atmosphere kerja
Suasana kerja yang menyenangkan secara substansial bergantung pada jalur
karier yang sukses (Okoshi et al., 2013), yang pada akhirnya berdampak
signifikan pada kepuasan kerja (Fern ndez-Ar oz, 2018; Greenan, 2016; Kong
et al., 2015; Lisa, 2014) .
2.3 Supervisor terhadap kepuasan kerja
Seperti yang disebutkan sebelumnya dalam literatur yang diulas sebelumnya,
kerja sama penyelia tidak hanya bertanggung jawab untuk menghasilkan

suasana kerja yang produktif dan menyenangkan tetapi juga mengarah pada
kepuasan kerja yang mendalam dalam suatu organisasi (Cortini, 2016; Macneil,
2001; Herzberg, 1987). Kerjasama dari rekan kerja juga penting untuk
mendapatkan inspirasi dan dorongan terus-menerus untuk pertumbuhan dan
perkembangan (Fern ndez-Ar oz, 2018)
2.4 Pertumbuhan karier terhadap kepuasan kerja
Seperti kerja sama pengawas, pertumbuhan karier juga memiliki dampak
penting pada kepuasan kerja (Fern ndez-Ar oz, 2018; Greenan, 2016; Kong et
al., 2015; Lisa, 2014). Seperti yang disebutkan sebelumnya, Kong et al. (2015)
dan Fern ndez-Ar oz (2018) khususnya menunjukkan bahwa pertumbuhan karir
memiliki efek signifikan pada suasana kerja yang sehat dan kepuasan kerja
secara keseluruhan.
2.5 Atmosphere kerja terhadap kepuasan kerja
Teori motivasi (Herzberg, 1987; McClelland, 1985; Maslow, 1943),
secara umum, selalu mengadvokasi tempat kerja yang menyenangkan di mana
karyawan dimotivasi melalui kepuasan pribadi dan profesional (Raziq dan
Maulabakhsh, 2015). Beberapa penelitian sebelumnya menunjukkan secara
empiris bahwa atmosfer kerja memiliki hubungan positif dengan kepuasan kerja
(Baeza et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2018; Gkorezis dan Kastisti, 2017; Melissa, 2015;
Naiman, 2009, Margolis, 2008)..

3. KERANGKA KONSEPTUAL
4. RUMUSAN MASALAHAN PENELITIAN
a. Apakah supervisor corporation, atmosfir kerja dan pertumbuhan karir
berpengaruh signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja
b. Apakah atmosfir kerja berperan memediasi pengaruh atmosfir kerja dan
supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja.

5. HIPOTESIS PENELITIAN
a. Supervisor corporation, atmosphere kerja dan pertumbuhan karier berpengaruh
signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja
b. Atmosphere kerja berperan mediasi pengaruh atmosphere kerja dan supervisor
corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja.
6. SIMULASI JAWABAN RESPONDEN
Supervisi Pertumbuhan Karier Atmosphere Kerja Kepuasan Kerja

Resp
x11 x12 x13 x14 x21 x22 x23 x24 y11 y12 y13 y14 y15 y16 y17 y21 y22 y23 y24
1 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
2 4 3 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
4 4 1 4 4 2 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 4
5 5 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 3 3
6 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3
8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
9 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3
11 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3
12 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
13 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4
14 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
15 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4
16 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
17 4 4 5 5 3 2 2 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4
18 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
19 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 3 5
20 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
21 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
22 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
23 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
24 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4
25 5 4 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 2 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
26 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3
27 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 4
28 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4
29 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
30 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
7. GRAND TABEL PERTANYAAN
Variabel Item Sumber

Supervisor Corporation 4 Delery and Doty (1996)
Kepuasan Kerja 4 Ashraf and Joarder (2010);
Atmosphere kerja 6 Edgar and Geare (2005);
Pertumbuhan Karier 4 Tan (2008)
8. ANALISIS
Untuk membuktikan hipotesis dengan menggunakan analisis SEM-PLS dan
SEM AMOS akan dijelaskan sebagai berikut:
8.1 SEM PLS
Dalam analisis SEM PLS terdapat dua model yang dibangun, yaitu outer model
dan inner model. Outer model menggambarkan model pengukuran setiap variabel
laten dan inner model menggambarkan hubungan atau pengaruh antar variabel laten
dalam model penelitian. Hasil pengolahan data SEM PLS dengan Smart PLS 2.0
terlihat pada Gambar di bawah ini.
8.2 SEM AMOS
Dalam analisis SEM AMOS terdapat dua model yang dibangun, yaitu
pengukuran model (confirmatory factor analysis/CFA) dan pengaruh antar variabel

laten. CFA menggambarkan model pengukuran setiap variabel laten yang
diindikasikan oleh setiap indikator yang mengukurnya. Suatu indikator dikatakan valid
dalam mengindikasikan variabel laten yang diukurnya jika nilai loading factor lebih
besar 0.5 (Ferdinand, 2005).
Hubungan antar variabel laten menggambarkan hubungan atau pengaruh antar
variabel laten dalam model penelitian. Pengaruh antar variabel laten dikatakan
signifikan jika nilai probability t-statistik lebih kecil dari 0.05. Hasil pengolahan data
SEM AMOS dengan AMOS 23.0 terlihat pada Gambar di bawah ini
8.3 INTEPRETASI
8.3.2 SEM PLS
A. Outer model
Hasil uji t-statistik terhadap semua indikator dari setiap variabel laten adalah
semua indikator lebih besar dari 1.95. Artinya bahwa semua indikator dari setiap
variabel laten adalah valid dalam mengindikasikan setiap variabel laten yang
diukurnya. Hasil uji outer model terlihat pada Tabel 1.
Tabel 1 Hasil Uji Outer Model

Standard Standard
Loading Mean T Statistics
Deviation Error
Factor (M) (|O/STERR|)
(STDEV) (STERR)
x11 <- SUPERVISOR COPERATION 0.8061 0.8066 0.0331 0.0331 24.3674
x21 <- PERTUMBUHAN KARIR 0.8395 0.8062 0.1221 0.1221 6.878
y11 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.5982 0.5892 0.1001 0.1001 5.9775
y12 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.7267 0.724 0.0677 0.0677 10.7285
y13 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.6045 0.5885 0.1204 0.1204 5.0203
y14 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.4852 0.4717 0.1386 0.1386 3.5001
y15 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.639 0.6342 0.0651 0.0651 9.8086
y16 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.6904 0.6911 0.062 0.062 11.1327
y17 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.6215 0.621 0.0838 0.0838 7.4198
y21 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.8497 0.8499 0.0362 0.0362 23.4717
y22 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.8898 0.8885 0.0198 0.0198 44.8328
y23 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.803 0.7975 0.0695 0.0695 11.5469
y24 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.5099 0.5069 0.1084 0.1084 4.7015
Tabel 1, menunjukkan bahwa semua indikator dari variabel laten supervisor
corporation, pertumbuhan karier, atmosphere kerja, dan kepuasan kerja memiliki nilai
t-statistik lebih besar 1.96. Artinya bahwa semua indikator valid dalam mengukur
variabel laten yang diukurnya.
B. Inner Models
Hasil uji pengaruh antar variabel laten dengan SEM PLS terlihat pada Tabel 2 di
bawah ini.
Tabel 2 Hasil uji Inner Model
Original Sample Standard Standard

T Statistics
Sample Mean Deviation Error
(|O/STERR|)
(O) (M) (STDEV) (STERR)
ATMOSFIR KERJA -> KEPUASAN KERJA 0.3734 0.3803 0.0773 0.0773 4.8286
PERTUMBUHAN KARIR -> ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.0727 0.1038 0.1172 0.1172 0.6203
PERTUMBUHAN KARIR -> KEPUASAN KERJA 0.0895 0.0915 0.0946 0.0946 0.9464
SUPERVISOR COPERATION -> ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.5725 0.5592 0.111 0.111 5.1591
SUPERVISOR COPERATION -> KEPUASAN KERJA 0.3839 0.3808 0.0867 0.0867 4.4281
Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik dari hasil uji dengan metode
bootstapping dan kemudian dibandingkan dengan nilai z scores 1.96 untuk melakukan
uji hipotesis:
1. Pengaruh supervisor corporation terhadap atmosphere kerja
Berdasarkan Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik pengaruh supervisor
corporation terhadap atmosphere kerja adalah sebesar 5.159 dan nilai ini lebih besar
dari 1.96. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel supervisor corporation
mempunyai pengaruh signifikan terhadap atmosphere kerja.
2. Pengaruh pertumbuhan karier terhadap atmosphere kerja
Berdasarkan Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik pengaruh pertumbuhan
karier terhadap atmosphere kerja adalah sebesar 0.6208 dan nilai ini lebih kecil dari
1.96. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel pertumbuhan karier
mempunyai pengaruh tidak signifikan terhadap atmosphere kerja.
3. Pengaruh supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja
Berdasarkan Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik pengaruh supervisor
corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja adalah sebesar 4.828 dan nilai ini lebih besar dari
1.96. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel supervisor corporation
mempunyai pengaruh signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja.

4. Pengaruh pertumbuhan karier terhadap kepuasan kerja
Berdasarkan Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik pengaruh pertumbuhan
karier terhadap kepuasan kerja adalah sebesar 0.946 dan nilai ini lebih kecil dari 1.96.
Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel pertumbuhan karier mempunyai
pengaruh tidak signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja
5. Pengaruh atmosphere kerja terhadap kepuasan kerja
Berdasarkan Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik pengaruh atmosphere kerja
terhadap kepuasan kerja adalah sebesar 4.828 dan nilai ini lebih besar dari 1.96.
Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel atmosphere kerja mempunyai
pengaruh signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja.
6. Peran mediasi variabel atmosphere dalam pengaruh supervisor corporation
terhadap kepuasan kerja.
Uji peran mediasi dilakukan dengan membandingkan total efek pengaruh
langsung dengan total efek pengaruh tidak langsung. Berdasarkan tabel 2 dapat
dihitung:
a. Total efek pengaruh langsung supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja
= (0.3839 x 0.3839) = 0.147
b. Total efek tidak langsung pengaruh supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja
melalui atmosphere kerja.
= (0.5725 x 0.3734) = 0.214
c. Total efek tidak langsung pengaruh pertumbuhan karier terhadap kepuasan kerja
melalui atmosphere kerja.
= (0.0895 x 0.3734) = 0.027

Berdasarkan hasil perhitungan, atmosphere berperan mediasi dalam pengaruh
supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja, sedangkan dalam pengaruh
pertumbuhan karier terhadap kepuasan kerja, atmosphere tidak berperan mediasi.
8.3.3 SEM AMOS
Hasil uji CFA dan pengaruh antar variabel laten terlihat pada Tabel 3.
Tabel 3 Hasil Uji CFA dan Pengaruh Antar Variabel Laten

Koefisien Regresi Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Atmosfir_Kerja <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir -0.146 0.329 -0.443 0.658 par_18
Atmosfir_Kerja <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.372 0.178 2.091 0.037 par_19
Kepuasan_Kerja <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.118 0.603 0.196 0.845 par_1
Kepuasan_Kerja <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.742 0.339 2.192 0.028 par_2
Kepuasan_Kerja <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir -0.135 0.509 -0.266 0.790 par_3
Indikator Loading Factor Estimate S.E. C.R. P
x11 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.723 1.000
x12 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.781 1.144 0.298 3.832 ***
x13 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.687 0.839 0.247 3.403 ***
x14 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.646 0.820 0.256 3.205 0.001
x24 <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir 0.223 1.000
x23 <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir 0.884 4.567 3.893 1.173 0.241
y21 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.836 1.000
y22 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.801 0.995 0.217 4.595 ***
y23 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.707 0.994 0.250 3.977 ***
y24 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.397 0.430 0.208 2.066 0.039
y16 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.487 1.000
y15 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.674 1.121 0.498 2.251 0.024
y14 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.416 1.027 0.606 1.696 0.090
y13 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.489 1.305 0.691 1.890 0.059
y12 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.729 1.896 0.816 2.325 0.020
y11 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.623 1.026 0.473 2.169 0.030
A. Analisis Konfirmatori Faktor
Berdasarkan Tabel 3, diketahui bahwa nilai loading indikator variabel
pertumbuhan karier (X24) , Kepuasan kerja (Y24), Atmosphere kerja (Y14, Y16) lebih
kecil dari 0.5. Artinya bahwa indikator tersebut tidak valid dalam mengukur atau
mengindikasikan variabel laten yang diukurnya. Sedangkan selain keempat indikator

tersebut adalah valid dalam mengukur atau mengindikasikan variabel laten yang
diukurnya.
B. Uji Pengaruh Antar Variabel Laten
Tabel 3, diketahui hasil uji pengaruh antar variabel laten dengan cara
membandingkan nilai probability dari pengaruh antar variabel laten dengan nilai alpha
5%. Hasil uji hipotesis dijelaskan sebagai berikut:
1. Pengaruh supervisor corporation terhadap atmosphere kerja
Berdasarkan Tabel 3 diketahui bahwa nilai probability t-statistik pengaruh
supervisor corporation terhadap atmosphere kerja adalah sebesar 0.037 dan nilai ini
lebih kecil dari 0.05. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel supervisor
corporation mempunyai pengaruh signifikan terhadap atmosphere kerja.
2. Pengaruh pertumbuhan karier terhadap atmosphere kerja
pertumbuhan karier terhadap atmosphere kerja adalah sebesar 0.658 dan nilai ini lebih
besar dari 0.05. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel pertumbuhan
karier mempunyai pengaruh tidak signifikan terhadap atmosphere kerja.
3. Pengaruh supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja
supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja adalah sebesar 0.028 dan nilai ini lebih
kecil dari 0.05. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel supervisor
corporation mempunyai pengaruh signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja.
4. Pengaruh pertumbuhan karier terhadap kepuasan kerja
pertumbuhan karier terhadap kepuasan kerja adalah sebesar 0.790 dan nilai ini lebih
besar dari 0.05. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel pertumbuhan
karier mempunyai pengaruh tidak signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja
5. Pengaruh atmosphere kerja terhadap kepuasan kerja
atmosphere kerja terhadap kepuasan kerja adalah sebesar 0.845 dan nilai ini lebih besar
dari 0.05. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa variabel atmosphere kerja
mempunyai pengaruh tidak signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja

LAMPIRAN
8.4 SEM PLS
8.4.2 Outer Model

T Statistics
(|O/STERR|)
y11 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.5982 0.5755 0.1128 0.1128 5.3041
y12 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.7267 0.7194 0.0753 0.0753 9.6564
y13 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.6045 0.5766 0.1298 0.1298 4.6569
y14 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.4852 0.4587 0.1477 0.1477 3.2845
y15 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.639 0.633 0.0795 0.0795 8.0368
y16 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.6904 0.6934 0.0619 0.0619 11.1515
y17 <- ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.6215 0.6288 0.0839 0.0839 7.4042
y21 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.8497 0.8463 0.0397 0.0397 21.4032
y22 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.8898 0.8897 0.0196 0.0196 45.4099
y23 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.803 0.7989 0.0645 0.0645 12.4591
y24 <- KEPUASAN KERJA 0.5099 0.5094 0.1117 0.1117 4.5637
8.4.3 Inner Model

T Statistics
(|O/STERR|)
ATMOSFIR KERJA -> KEPUASAN KERJA 0.3734 0.3816 0.0836 0.0836 4.4652
PERTUMBUHAN KARIR -> ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.0727 0.1051 0.1152 0.1152 0.6308
PERTUMBUHAN KARIR -> KEPUASAN KERJA 0.0895 0.1041 0.092 0.092 0.9732
SUPERVISOR COPERATION -> ATMOSFIR KERJA 0.5725 0.5616 0.1071 0.1071 5.3464
SUPERVISOR COPERATION -> KEPUASAN KERJA 0.3839 0.3726 0.0832 0.0832 4.6126
8.5 SEM AMOS
8.5.2 Confirmatory factor analysis
Loading Factor
x11 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.723
x24 <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir 0.223
y21 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.836
y16 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.487
8.5.3 Uji Pengaruh antar Variabel
Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
Atmosfir_Kerja <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir -0.146 0.329 -0.443 0.658 par_18
Atmosfir_Kerja <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.372 0.178 2.091 0.037 par_19
Kepuasan_Kerja <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 0.118 0.603 0.196 0.845 par_1
Kepuasan_Kerja <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.742 0.339 2.192 0.028 par_2
Kepuasan_Kerja <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir -0.135 0.509 -0.266 0.79 par_3
x11 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 1
x12 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 1.144 0.298 3.832 *** par_4
x13 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.839 0.247 3.403 *** par_5
x14 <--- Supervisor_Corpoeration 0.82 0.256 3.205 0.001 par_6
x24 <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir 1
x23 <--- Pertumbuhan_Karir 4.567 3.893 1.173 0.241 par_7
y21 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 1
y22 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.995 0.217 4.595 *** par_10
y23 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.994 0.25 3.977 *** par_11
y24 <--- Kepuasan_Kerja 0.43 0.208 2.066 0.039 par_12
y16 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 1
y15 <--- Atmosfir_Kerja 1.121 0.498 2.251 0.024 par_13
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332071331
The mediating role of work atmosphere in the relationship between

supervisor cooperation, career growth and job satisfaction
Article in Journal of Workplace Learning · March 2019

DOI: 10.1108/JWL-12-2017-0113
CITATIONS READS
0 317
1 author:
Mohammad A. Ashraf
United International University
75 PUBLICATIONS 120 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
UIU Research Grant Scheme View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad A. Ashraf on 29 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Workplace Learning
The mediating role of work atmosphere in the relationship between supervisor
cooperation, career growth and job satisfaction
Mohammad Ali Ashraf,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mohammad Ali Ashraf, (2019) "The mediating role of work atmosphere in the relationship between
supervisor cooperation, career growth and job satisfaction", Journal of Workplace Learning, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2017-0113
Downloaded by Doctor Mohammad Ali Ashraf At 22:03 28 March 2019 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2017-0113
Downloaded on: 28 March 2019, At: 22:03 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 94 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:Eprints:asB29F9D5yJHbq999z94:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm
Mediating role
The mediating role of work of work
atmosphere in the relationship atmosphere
between supervisor cooperation,

career growth and job satisfaction
Mohammad Ali Ashraf Received 14 December 2017
Revised 24 October 2018
Department of Economics, United International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh 27 January 2019
Accepted 8 February 2019
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the mediating role of work atmosphere which have a
positive influence on job satisfaction. Specifically, it focuses on how supervisor’s cooperation and career
growth affect job satisfaction mediating through work atmosphere in a private corporate entity.
Design/methodology/approach – To attain this objective, a research framework with a mediating
variable of work atmosphere was formulated. Using measurement scales created to assess different aspects of
job satisfaction, career growth, supervisor’s cooperation and work atmosphere, a survey instrument was
developed to test the various relationships implied by the framework. Data (n = 325) were collected from the
employees of a local chemical company in Bangladesh following convenience sampling procedure. The
analysis has been done by bootstrapping procedure following structural equation modeling (SEM).
Findings – The result shows that work atmosphere has a significant mediating role in linking supervisor
cooperation and job satisfaction of the employees in the organization.
Research limitations/implications – As with any study, there are limitations to the study described
here. One possible drawback is the use of a single company’s employees as respondents. Second, the sample
size is not very large, because respondents were observed to be negligent in filling the questionnaire provided
to them. If the sample size could be increased a bit more, then the authors might have better outcomes as
postulated in the paper. Nevertheless, the usual cautions about over-generalizing findings from this sample, to
populations for which it is not strictly representative, apply. The sample was not randomly drawn to
represent a population to which findings could be generalized. Instead, it was a convenience sample, and as
such, the ability to generalize the findings very far beyond the sample is limited.
Practical implications – From a practical perspective, as a cumulative body of work on job satisfaction
with mediating variable of work atmosphere emerges, the authors will be better able to advise employers on
the elements they need to address to increase their employee retention rate. In this study, the one area of
findings that may help business and commercial organizations the most concerns work environment in the
workplace. The authors found that supervisor cooperation and work atmosphere were associated with
positive path value toward job satisfaction. Similarly, career growth and work atmosphere also exhibit
positive path value towards job satisfaction. The implication is that employers can focus on supervisor
cooperation in rightly and duly promoting the deserving employees, and in doing so, they can generate
positive attitudes toward these activities.
Originality/value – This paper will add immense importance of work atmosphere to the organizational
learning and behavior.
Keywords Supervisors, Career development, Job satisfaction, Working conditions
Paper type Research paper
Introduction Journal of Workplace Learning

In the modern era, business organizations are facing several challenges because of the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1366-5626
dynamic nature of the work atmosphere (Raziq and Maulabakhsh, 2015). One of the many DOI 10.1108/JWL-12-2017-0113
JWL challenges for a business is to satisfy its employees to cope up with the ever-changing and
evolving work atmosphere and to achieve success and remain in competition (Mun et al.,
2017; Yildirim, Gulmez, and Yildirim, 2016; Devi and Rani, 2016; Raziq and Maulabakhsh,
2015). To increase efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and job commitment of employees,
the business must satisfy the needs of its employees by providing good working conditions
(Khoreva et al., 2017; Bexheti and Bexheti, 2016; Raziq and Maulabakhsh, 2015). A number
of past studies observed that most businesses ignore the work atmosphere within their
organization resulting in an adverse effect on the performance of their employees (Shu et al.,
2018; Li et al., 2018; Monga et al., 2015; Spector, 1997). According to those studies, work
atmosphere consists of safety to employees, job security, good relations with co-workers,
recognition for good performance, motivation for performing well and participation in the
decision-making process of the firm. They further expounded that once employees
understand that the firm considers them important, they will have high level of commitment
and a sense of ownership for their organization. Several past studies have examined the
effects of different factors on work atmosphere and job satisfaction (Raziq and
Maulabakhsh, 2015; Baeza et al., 2018; Zeffane and Melhem, 2017; Edgar and Geare, 2005),
but none of these studies have investigated the direct impacts of supervisor’s cooperation
and career growth on work atmosphere and their indirect impacts on job satisfaction
mediating through work atmosphere in the workplace.
The prime purpose of this paper is, therefore, to examine the mediating role of work
atmosphere which have a positive influence on job satisfaction. Specifically, how do
supervisor’s cooperation and career growth affect job satisfaction mediating through work
atmosphere in a private corporate entity? To answer this question, a research framework
with a mediating variable of work atmosphere was developed. Using measurement scales
created to assess different aspects of job satisfaction, career growth, supervisor’s
cooperation and work atmosphere, a survey instrument was developed to test the various
relationships implied by the framework. Data were collected from the employees of the
Advanced Chemical Industries (ACI) limited in Bangladesh and the analysis of these data
help answer questions about the relationships between the aforementioned constructs of the
model.
The plan for this paper is as follows: first, the Hygiene-Motivation theory is briefly
reviewed, as are the relevant literatures on job satisfaction, work atmosphere, career growth
and supervisor’s cooperation. Next, the research model and hypotheses are presented,
followed by a discussion of the research methods and findings from the data analysis. A
discussion of the meaning of the results and their implications ends the paper.
Theory and past research

The hygiene-motivation theory
Frederick Herzberg is famous for introducing a number of new concepts in management
science such as the workplace motivation, kick in the ass (KITA) and job enrichment.
However, he is best known for his hygiene-motivation theory which was first published in
the motivation to work in 1959. Herzberg’s work was focused on the motivation of individual
workers in the workplace, but it had become highly popular with managers, as it also
emphasized the importance of management knowledge and expertise.
The hygiene-motivation theory is also known as two-factor theory. Herzberg analyzed
employees’ attitudes to their works along with their stimulators that impact on the
motivation of an individual to work. Specific factors were identified what pleased and
displeased them about their jobs. Thus, Herzberg came to a conclusion that every individual
has two sets of needs – lower level of needs as an animal to avoid pain and deprivation and
higher level of needs as a human being to grow psychologically. Some factors in the Mediating role
workplace meet the first set of needs but not the second and vice versa. The first group of of work
factors he called “hygiene factors” and the second, “motivators” (Figure 1).
Herzberg used KITA to explain why managers become reluctant to motivate employees.
atmosphere
He showed that employees are not motivated by being kicked or by being provided more
money or benefits, a comfortable work atmosphere or reducing time spent at work. These
elements were referred by Herzberg as “satisfiers” or “hygiene factors” which concern the
context or environment in a person works. These factors are – company policy and
administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, personal life
and status and working conditions.
These factors are not for promoting job satisfaction but for serving primarily to prevent
job dissatisfaction. For instance, good hygiene does not produce good health by itself, but
the lacking of it may cause disease. Herzberg also speaks of them as dissatisfiers or
maintenance factors, as it is their absence or inadequacy which causes dissatisfaction at

work. However, some factors are not true motivators, as they need constant reinforcement.
In these cases, intrinsic motivation still lies only with the manager, while the employee is
merely being compelled to act to avoid punishment or gain reward. Additionally, the
rewards increasingly come to be regarded as rights to be expected, rather than incentives to
greater satisfaction and achievement. “Motivators” (also referred to as growth factors) relate
to what a person does at work, rather than to the context in which it is done. They include –
achievement, recognition, the work itself, level of responsibility, career advancement and
growth possibilities.
Herzberg explains that the two sets of factors are separate and distinct because they are
concerned with two different sets of needs. They are not opposites. The theory proposes that
most factors which contribute to job satisfaction are motivators and most factors which
contribute to job dissatisfaction are hygiene elements.
Herzberg’s hygiene-motivation theory is derived from the outcomes of several
investigations into job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, which are replicated from his
original research in Pittsburgh. Most of the evidence on which Herzberg grounded his
theory is relatively clear-cut. This is particularly the case with regard to achievement and
promotion prospects as potential job satisfiers and with regard to supervision and job
insecurity as factors which contribute principally to dissatisfaction.
Herzberg’s two factor theory has been used in many different studies in the human
resource management literature. The most recent studies are Velmurugan and Sankar
(2017); Bexheti and Bexheti (2016); Matei and Abrudan (2016); Filtvedt (2015); Ghanbahadur
(2014) and Tan and Waheed (2011). There are many studies that deal with different factors
of two factor theory such as moderating effect of support on employee well-being (Guidetti
et al., 2018), mediating effect of person-organization-fit on workplace spirituality (Afasar and
Badir, 2017), moderating impacts of supervisor support and job control on organizational
change (Day et al., 2017), job performance (Hambuda, 2017), emotional culture (Barsade and
O’Neill, 2016), green atmosphere and job satisfaction (Basol, 2016), job satisfaction (Monga
et al., 2015) and employee motivation and satisfaction (Ashraf and Joarder, 2010).
When seeking to construct the ideal workplace (Guidetti et al., 2018; Ashraf and Joarder,
2010), one might tend to focus on big cerebral concepts, such as purpose and shared values
Figure 1.
The hygiene-
motivation theory
JWL (Barsade and O’Neill, 2016). However, that might not be enough (Ignatius, 2016). Supervisors
also need to attend employee’s feelings or emotional state of a workplace which can
influence everything ranging from employee satisfaction to company profitability (Afasar
and Badir, 2017; Barsade and O’Neill, 2016). This may lead to a spotlight of emotional
organization which looks at some of the softer but critical aspects of corporate performance
(Ignatius, 2016; Waytz, 2016). Yet, many firms still pursue classic approaches to strategy
that are designed for more-stable times, emphasizing analysis and planning focused on
maximizing short-term performance rather than long-term robustness (Day et al., 2017;
Reeves and Levin, 2016). In this relation, supervisor’s cooperation is vital, but it should be
used judiciously (Shu et al., 2018; Cross et al., 2016). Nonetheless, conscientious leaders must
be prudent to accept free speech and to create more vocal workplace (Li et al., 2018; Detert
and Burris, 2016). In general, people leave their jobs because they do not like their boss, do
not see opportunities for promotion or career growth or are offered a better gig (and often
higher pay); these reasons have held steady for years (Green and Ayalan, 2017; Bohle, et al.,
2017). Together these ideas offer a blueprint for a culture that works better for employees in
a congenial working atmosphere of a business organization (Guidetti et al., 2018; Coupaud,
2017; Ignatius, 2016).
Several studies suggest that job satisfaction is a result of employee prospects of career
growth and fair employee treatment by the supervisors at work (Hu et al., 2018; Day et al.,
2017; Finkelstein, 2016; Sia and Tan, 2016; Iqbal, 2013; Usmani and Jamal, 2013; Thomas
and Nagalingappa, 2012). Hu et al. (2018) show how the interactive effect of job satisfaction
and labor relations climate on union participation was mediated by commitment. This study
confirms that unions could provide employees with alternative work resources to cope with
job dissatisfaction, even in a country where unions play a “transmission belt” role between
employees and employers. Day et al. (2017) discuss about organizational change and
employee burnout demonstrating the moderating effects of support and job control.
Finkelstein (2016) identifies distinguished supervisors or super bosses who do not build just
organizations, but deal with the employees to spot, train and develop a future generation of
leaders. Iqbal (2013) finds that employees who are treated fairly and justly at work tend to
exhibit positive work behavior such as loyalty, continuous self-improvement as an effort to
career growth and upholding the best interests of the organization with an utmost priority.
Sia and Tan (2016) report that distributive fairness such as pay, rewards and timely
promotion and interactional fairness such as supervisor’s collaborative satisfaction
positively in the case of the employees in a hotel setting. These findings square with the
results of studies such as Thomas and Nagalingappa (2012) and Usmani and Jamal (2013).
The concept of job satisfaction, as an outcome variable, first emerged in research
literature by Hawthorne in 1924 (Shu et al., 2018; Hambuda, 2017; Monga et al., 2015; Ashraf
and Joarder, 2010; Muchinsky, 2006). However, a conceptual definition was first provided by
Robert Hoppock in 1935 as to be a combination of a person’s psychological, physical and
environmental events from the job to obtain satisfaction (Hambuda, 2017; Ashraf and
Joarder, 2010; Yew, 2008). Afterwards, several definitions were followed some of which are:
job satisfaction is the orientation of the emotional state of an individual employed in a job
(Vroom, 1964); emotional gratification the worker obtains from the work (Locke, 1976); the
satisfaction or dissatisfaction workers get from their work (Herzberg, 1987; Levy and Davis,
1988); the degree in which expectations in the psychological agreement are met
(Schermerhorn et al., 1994); the degree of enjoyment workers get from their job (Spector,
1997); the combination of the worker’s emotional and cognitive reactions it gets from the
difference between what they already receive and what they want (Edgar and Geare, 2005;
Hellman, 1997).
However, dimensions of job satisfaction have not been confined to gratification or Mediating role
enjoyment or psychological agreement only, rather it encompasses many other facets of of work
attitude and socio-economic life as well (Edgar and Geare, 2005). Basol (2016) outlines job
satisfaction as the financial and moral satisfaction a worker gets (pay, richness of social life
atmosphere
and meaning of work) from its job, if a person is financially and morally content from hihe/
sher job, then it is possible to speak of job satisfaction. A worker is satisfied enough by its
job, enjoys life, displays positive actions, has a healthy psychology and is valued as an
individual having a growing success in business and private life (Demirel, 2014).
Notably, an opposite case of dissatisfaction can be experienced by the worker as well
(Herzberg, 1987). In this regard, several researchers found that if a worker does not get
enough satisfaction by its current job experiences, then negative feelings about job,
negligence, absenteeism and even turnover intentions are observed in her/his actual
behavior in the near future (Herzberg, 1987; Sageer et al., 2012; Saari and Judge, 2004).
Yet, exhilarating work atmosphere is no less important than other facets of job
satisfaction (Afasar and Badir, 2017; Ashraf and Joarder, 2010), because caring work surely
can create an atmosphere that fosters satisfaction and a sense of joy within individual
employees. Recently, Guidetti et al. (2018) and Barsade and O’Neill (2016) present new
research which tied caring work environments to higher employee satisfaction. According to
them, the more compassionate love – warmth, affection and connection – employees feel at
work, the better they do their jobs. Thus, lovely work atmosphere can serve as a bridge
between the dynamics of job satisfaction.
Adaptable working environments and working conditions, which belong to hygiene
factors (Herzberg, 1987), are fundamental actions to increase employee satisfaction in the
workplace (Baeza et al., 2018; Melissa, 2015), contingent on the collaborative leadership
which can create an atmosphere of positive and creative energy, even during the worst of
times. The key is to guide people to focus on something other than their woes and worries,
something that makes them feel useful and productive. When people are contributing and
can take pride in their accomplishments, they feel self-satisfied, energized and relieved to
have a respite from their concerns (Naiman, 2009). Thus, enjoyable work environment is the
pre-requisite of employee satisfaction. Then, how enjoyable work environment can be
created? The answer lays in Margolis (2008) which emphasized on employee engagement
and empowerment in the workplace. In this connection, the author mentioned the case of the
Federal Express’s vision statement: “When you absolutely, positively, have to get it there
overnight”, which reflected a deep commitment from management to engage and to
empower their employees to make it a reality. In absence of these traits in work atmosphere,
turnover intentions get it way forward and increase the cost and wastage of the funds used
in training and development of the employees to achieve the desired level of skilled human
resource (Delery and Doty, 1996). Of this formula, two important derivatives are in way. One
is supervisors’ or managers’ cooperation in every aspect of workplace where employee
engagement and empowerment can lead them toward certain direction of their career
growth in the job (Tan, 2008). Hence, supervisor’s cooperation and desired level of career
growth are two most important antecedents of a healthy workplace where employees are
observed to be satisfied (Margolis, 2008).
Workplace bullying is a widespread problem with serious individual, organizational and
social effects (Hyo and Hye, 2018; Ariza-Montes et al., 2017; Bohle et al., 2017; Cirilã and
Constantin, 2013). Abusive and exploitative working conditions are common in workplace
particularly in service industry (Green and Ayalan, 2017). Workplace bullying is also a
significant problem in service industry which diminishes job satisfaction and organizational
productivity and contributes to high rates of turnover, as leaving may be the only way for
JWL workers to escape abusive behavior (Hyo and Hye, 2018; Ariza-Montes et al., 2017; Bohle
et al., 2017). Similarly, flexible working environment is also very important which has a
significant relationship with job satisfaction (Baeza et al., 2018). Flexible working conditions
are more important for female professionals because women are more involved in family
caregiving roles than men are and, thus, should be more concerned with family balance
(Rubery, 2015).
Supervisor cooperation (hygiene factor) refers to the supervisor behavior which helps the
employees to demonstrate the skills, knowledge and attitudes collected from the training
program (Qureshi and Hamid, 2017). In fact, supervisor plays important roles in training
effectiveness. Without getting support from the supervisor, the transfer of training process
cannot be successful (Bhatti et al., 2013; Tan, 2008). This support can be in terms of
emotional and instrumental (Putter, 2013). In addition, supervisor is also responsible for
allocating budget for the employee’s career growth and developmental activities. The reason
is that every individual employee has the rights to increase her/his knowledge, skills and
abilities, and hence, this can only be achieved when the employees undergo the training
program provided by the organization (Ismail et al., 2010).
Past research suggests that closer supervisor’s support and cooperation with employees
brings employee satisfaction (Tan, 2008; Herzberg, 1987), more commitment and better
performance in the workplace (Park, 2018; Day et al., 2017; Cortini, 2016; Brunetto et al.,
2014; Lin et al., 2007; Darcy et al., 2006; Delery and Doty, 1996). Cortini (2016) evaluates the
effect of learning climate and workplace identity on job satisfaction during apprenticeship
and finds that the relationship between learning climate and job satisfaction was
significantly mediated by workplace identity. Brunetto et al. (2014) examine the impact of
the supervisor–subordinate relationship on the perceptions of employees’ morale and
affective commitment in the public as well as private health sector. The findings suggest
that private sector employees are more significantly satisfied with their supervision, enjoy
greater morals and are more committed to their organizations. Darcy et al. (2006) investigate
the effects of workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor and satisfaction with co-
workers on affective commitment (Tan, 2008). The results indicate that workplace bullying
has a significant negative correlation with affective commitment, while satisfaction with
supervisor and co-workers has a significant positive correlation with commitment. Similar
findings are also found in the study of Lin et al. (2007) in which cooperation has a mediating
effect on organizational citizenship behavior from procedural justice climate.
Career growth, as motivator (Herzberg, 1987), has also an important influence on
working atmosphere and its outcome of employee satisfaction in the workplace (Fernández-
Aráoz, 2018; Greenan, 2016; Ludviga and Kalvina (2016); Kong et al., 2015; Lisa, 2014; Ali
and Rehman, 2014). Fernández-Aráoz (2018) refers one of the generally overlooked topics of
proactively surrounding employees with people who will push them to succeed in
unexpected ways and, in so doing, build genuinely rich, purposeful lives of growth,
excellence and impact. These can be teachers of certain disciplines; inventors; entrepreneurs;
business, social or public leaders. An employee can have always been moved and inspired
by specific people, not just abstract professions. Greenan (2016) explores the implications of
using a personal development plan as a means of focusing on continuous feedback and
development to improve individual performance and ultimately organizational performance.
Okoshi et al. (2013) describe the ideal working environment required for a successful career
path and work-life balance.
The study of Kong et al. (2015) examines the impact of career expectation and growth on
working environment and subsequently on job satisfaction. The findings suggest that a
career management system and a stable work environment are important for a progressive
organization. It also indicates that intrinsic value provides greater contributions to job Mediating role
satisfaction. So it must provide a stable working condition and care more on intrinsic value. of work
Aside from providing high compensation, employers should provide career growth atmosphere
opportunities, challenging jobs to their employees, as they are important motivational
factors (Edgar and Geare, 2005). Similarly, Lisa (2014) offers a blueprint to build up a
stronger learning environment. As learning is a vital part of career growth, an emotionally
positive environment encourages learning by mitigating the big learning inhibitors such as
fear, ego defenses, complacency and arrogance.
Research model and hypotheses

The research model used in the study is shown in Figure 2. In the model, there are two
constructs which influence job satisfaction directly and indirectly to see whether there is any
mediating effect of work atmosphere, which is crucial to the talented employee retention in
the continual changing business arena (Ritter et al., 2018). The five hypotheses embodied in
the model are listed below. The directionality stated in each hypothesis is derived from the
prior discussion about the constructs in the literature review (Figure 2).
Motivational theories (Herzberg, 1987; McClelland, 1985; Maslow, 1943), in general,
always advocate for an enjoyable workplace where employees are motivated through
personal and professional gratifications (Raziq and Maulabakhsh, 2015). Several previous
studies demonstrated empirically that work atmosphere has a positive relationship with job
satisfaction (Baeza et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2018; Gkorezis and Kastisti, 2017; Melissa, 2015;
Naiman, 2009, Margolis, 2008). Thus, it can be hypothesized:
H1. There is a positive relationship between work atmosphere and job satisfaction.
Human resource management professionals, top level executives and supervisors
concerned with an organization’s competitive advantage have struggled with
identification and development of leadership talent (Porter et al., 2016; Day, 2000;
Macneil, 2001). In the workplace, supervisor cooperation is, thus, considered one step
forward for the employees in an organization, because it can create an enjoyable and
productive work atmosphere (Fernández-Aráoz, 2018; Farr-Wharton et al., 2011; Tan,
2008). There are a number of studies which focused on the relations between supervisor
cooperation and work atmosphere such as Qureshi and Hamid (2017); Day et al. (2017);
Cortini (2016), Brunetto et al. (2014), Lin et al. (2007) and Darcy et al. (2006). It can,
therefore, be hypothesized that:
H2. There is a positive relationship between supervisor cooperation and work

atmosphere.
Supervisor
Cooperation H4
H2
Work H1 Job
H3 Atmosphere Satisfaction
Figure 2.
Career H5
Growth Research model
JWL Congenial work atmosphere is substantially contingent on successful career path (Okoshi
et al., 2013), which ultimately impacts significantly on job satisfaction (Fernández-Aráoz,
2018; Greenan, 2016; Kong et al., 2015; Lisa, 2014). Thus, it can be hypothesized that:
H3. There is a positive relationship between career growth and work atmosphere.
As it was mentioned earlier in the past reviewed literature, supervisor cooperation is not
only liable to yield a productive and congenial work atmosphere but also to lead to profound
job satisfaction in an organization (Cortini, 2016; Macneil, 2001; Herzberg, 1987).
Cooperation from the co-workers is also important for getting continuous inspiration and
push-up for growth and development (Fernández-Aráoz, 2018), which finally enhances
employee job satisfaction. It can, therefore, be hypothesized that:
H4. There is a positive relationship between supervisor cooperation and job

satisfaction.
Like supervisor cooperation, career growth has also an important impact on job satisfaction
(Fernández-Aráoz, 2018; Greenan, 2016; Kong et al., 2015; Lisa, 2014). As mentioned earlier,
Kong et al. (2015) and Fernández-Aráoz (2018) particularly demonstrate that career growth
has significant effects on sound work atmosphere and overall job satisfaction. It is,
therefore, hypothesized that:
H5. There is a positive relationship between career growth and job satisfaction.
Based on the literature reviewed in the earlier section (Ali and Rehman, 2014 and Ludviga
and Kalvina, 2016), the remaining two hypotheses are formulated to direct the mediating
influence of work atmosphere in the relations between job satisfaction and supervisor
cooperation and career growth. Thus:
H6. Work atmosphere positively mediates between supervisor cooperation and job
satisfaction.
H7. Work atmosphere positively mediates between career growth and job satisfaction.
Methodology
Data collection took place in July and August 2017. A total of 325 employees of ACI
Company located in the capital region of Dhaka municipality of Bangladesh were contacted
to complete a questionnaire that contained measures of the constructs of concern. ACI
established as the subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries in 1968. The company
operates through a disciplined workforce and human resources management practices (ACI,
2017). As this organization is one of the oldest and largest conglomerates in Bangladesh, the
present study selected it to study on its human resource management practices and
accordingly collected data from the employees of this single company. The questionnaire
was pilot tested with a small number of employees of the organization. Table I lists the
profile of the respondents of the survey.
The constructs to testing the aforementioned research model were based on the study
done by Ashraf and Joarder (2010); Edgar and Geare (2005); Tan (2008) and Delery and Doty
(1996). Measures of job satisfaction (four items), work atmosphere (six), supervisor
cooperation (four) and career growth (four) were based on the instruments developed by
Ashraf and Joarder (2010); Edgar and Geare (2005); Tan (2008) and Delery and Doty (1996)
respectively. The study of Ashraf and Joarder (2010) focused on the determinants of
Demographic variables Valid (%)
Mediating role
of work
Gender atmosphere
Male 72.0
Female 28.0
Age
20-25 34.1
26-30 25.9
31-35 16.3
36-40 14.7
41-60 7.0
Position
Manager 17.0
Supervisor 35.0
Officer 48.0
Income (Bangladesh Taka)

10,000-25,000 7.0
25,001-35,000 12.0
35,001-45,000 13.0
45,001-60,000 16.0 Table I.
60,001-80,000 35.0 Respondents’
Above 80,000 17.0 demographic profiles
corporate work satisfaction in the mobile phone companies in Bangladesh. Delery and Doty
(1996) explained the modes in theorizing in strategic HRM focusing performance predictions
in higher education institute. Edgar and Geare (2005) and Tan (2008) outlined the
organizational support as mediator of career-related HRM practices and affective
commitment. As a matter of fact, except Ashraf and Joarder’s (2010) research, all of other
those three studies were done in the academic environment and none of them explored the
mediating role of work atmosphere which is vital to the ever-changing working environment
in the academia as well as in the business (Ritter et al., 2018). As the present study has
carried out in the manufacturing environment, it can claim its uniqueness in compare to
those four studies. The descriptive statistics for the scales including skewness and kurtosis
are included in Table II. The values for asymmetry and kurtosis between –2 and þ2 are
considered acceptable to prove normal univariate distribution (George and Mallery, 2010).
Hair et al. (2010) and Byrne (2010) argued that data are considered to be normal if skewness
is between –2 to þ2 and kurtosis is between 7 to þ7. Hence, it was suggested that the
absolute value of Skewness and Kurtosis should not be greater than 3 and 7. Based on this
recommendation, the absolute values of the Skewness and Kurtosis of all the items in this
study are within the acceptable range of less than 3 and less than 7, respectively.
Construct n Minimum Maximum Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Supervisor cooperation 325 1.50 7.00 5.5375 1.21718 0.49 0.35

Career growth 325 1.50 7.00 4.9700 1.31343 0.16 0.09 Table II.
Work atmosphere 325 1.83 7.00 5.6433 0.95435 0.50 0.11 Descriptive statistics
Job satisfaction 325 1.20 5.80 4.7780 0.88758 0.50 0.07 for constructs
JWL The data were analyzed by AMOS 20 using structural equation modeling (SEM). First, the
model in Figure 2 was run to have the path coefficients by using bootstrapping procedure to
have bias correction if there is any. The statistical significance of the paths in the model was
tested using bootstrapping procedure (Hair et al., 2010; Efron, 1979). The average variance
explained (AVE) for each construct was above the 0.5 cut-off level (Table III), which is
selected based on Hair et al. (2010). Internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were then
computed for each construct that had more than two indicators. The measurement model
with construct loadings appears in Figure 3. All constructs had ICRs of 0.9 or higher.
Measures of reliability for all scales are included in Table III. The statistical significance of
the paths in the model was also verified. Using one-tailed tests, four of five paths were
statistically significant, one at the p < 0.05 level, and three at p < 0.01, providing full
support for H1, H2, H3, H5, H6 and partial support for H7. The evaluated model is shown
in Figure 4, with adjusted t-statistics and path coefficients listed in Table IV.
Results and discussion

Several past studies investigated about employee or job satisfaction and its determinants,
but none of these studies have examined comprehensively the associations between
supervisor cooperation or career growth and job satisfaction mediating through work
atmosphere. This study has demonstrated, at least for this sample, that the work
atmosphere in the workplace is more important as a mediating variable than other concerns
over the association between supervisor cooperation or career growth and job satisfaction in
a manufacturing work environment. In the study, work atmosphere had a significant impact
on employee job satisfaction (H1), while supervisor cooperation in the workplace did not (no
support for H4). Supervisor cooperation and career growth, in turn, affected work
atmosphere (H2 and H3).
Construct Reliability SC CG WA JS
Table III.
Correlations, Supervisor cooperation (SC) 1.00 1.00
Career growth (CG) 0.74 0.769** 0.90
reliabilities and Work atmosphere (WA) 0.86 0.647** 0.645** 0.94
average variance Job satisfaction (JS) 0.82 0.566** 0.592** 0.634** 0.92
extracted (on
diagonal in italic) Notes: **Statistically significant at p < 0.01; *statistically significant at p < 0.05
Supervisor
Cooperation
0.14
2
2 R = 0.38
. 41 R = 0.34
0.39 Job
Work
Atmosphere Satisfaction
0.40
Figure 3. 0.26
Career
Path analysis Growth
Supervisor Mediating role
Cooperation H4 of work
H2 atmosphere
Work H1
Job
H3 Atmosphere Satisfaction
Career H5
Growth
Figure 4.
Notes: ns ; P > 0.05 ; P > 0.01 Evaluated model
Path Path coefficient T-value
H1. Work atmosphere to job satisfaction** 0.39 3.945

H2. Supervisor cooperation to work atmosphere** 0.41 5.067 Table IV.
H3. Career growth to work atmosphere** 0.40 4.945 Adjusted t-statistics
H4. Supervisor cooperation to job satisfactionns 0.14 1.514
and standardized
H5. Career growth to job satisfaction* 0.26 2.895
path coefficients for
Notes: **Statistically significant at p < 0.01; *statistically significant at p < 0.05; ns
statistically not hypothesized paths
significant in the model
However, career growth had a direct effect on job satisfaction (H5). These results imply that
work atmosphere mediated fully between supervisor cooperation and job satisfaction,
supporting H6. However, work atmosphere did not mediate fully (partial support) between
career growth and job satisfaction (H7). In short, respondents’ opinion about the work
atmosphere in the workplace to mediate between supervisor cooperation or career growth
and job satisfaction supported significantly and positively.
These findings are similar to those reported in other studies. Like Agbozo et al. (2017);
Ashraf and Joarder (2010); Darcy et al. (2006), Lin et al. (2007) and Raziq and Maulabakhsh
(2015), there was a strong relationship between workplace atmosphere and employee
satisfaction. Like Kong et al. (2015) and Lisa (2014), a strong relationship between career
growth and work atmosphere was found.
Similar to Awan and Tahir (2015) and Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015), there was also a
strong relationship among co-workers and job environment and satisfaction. As there are
scanty studies on the particular issues of mediating impact of work atmosphere in the link
between supervisor cooperation and career growth, only few similar studies such as Ali and
Rehman (2014) and Ludviga and Kalvina (2016) support the postulated outcomes of the
present study (Figure 4).
Much research has been done in the area of the link between work environment and job
satisfaction (Agbozo et al., 2017; Bockerman and Ilmakunnas, 2009; Raziq and Maulabakhsh,
2015). Yet, there are few studies that investigate the relationship between the quality of work
environment and intentions to quit from the job (Markey et al., 2012). Empirical analysis
suggests that poor quality of work atmosphere is crucial to retain the talented employees in the
organization. Hence, the weak features of work atmosphere could be deadly to equip the
organization with a quality class of employees who might be the key to the company survival.
JWL From a research perspective, the study results demonstrate once again the robustness of
the quality of work environment for helping to explain job satisfaction behavior in the
business organization. Other studies have also effectively showed that the construct of work
atmosphere could explain the job satisfaction and quit intentions of the employees (Markey
et al., 2012; Bockerman and Ilmakunnas, 2009; Ashraf and Joarder, 2010; Darcy et al., 2006;
Lin et al., 2007; and Raziq and Maulabakhsh, 2015). In addition to the importance of work
atmosphere toward the behavior in question, some of these studies have found supervisor
cooperation to also be important (Awan and Tahir, 2015 and Raziq and Maulabakhsh, 2015),
while others have found career growth and prospect of promotion to also be important
(Kong et al., 2015 and Lisa, 2014). Both cases demonstrate the increased power of work
atmosphere as a mediating variable to influence job satisfaction. As more and more studies
of job satisfaction and its antecedents are done within the relevant framework, we are more
able to discover and confirm which antecedents are most important, helping us build a
robust theory of retaining the talented employees in the business organization. Hence,
further research works have to be directed to rigorously focus on the importance of work
atmosphere which is most vital to employee’s motivation and intention to stay (Guidetti
et al., 2018). The more the talented employees are happy to work in the business, the more
the business would enjoy the competency in the competitive market environment.
From a practical perspective, as a cumulative body of work on job satisfaction with
mediating variable of work atmosphere emerges, we will be better able to advise employers
on the elements they need to address to increase their employee retention rate. In this study,
the one area of findings that may help business and commercial organizations the most
concerns work environment in the workplace. We found that supervisor cooperation and
work atmosphere were associated with positive path value toward job satisfaction.
Similarly, career growth and work atmosphere also exhibit positive path value towards job
satisfaction. The implication is that employers can focus on supervisor cooperation in
rightly and duly promoting the deserving employees, and in doing so, they can generate
positive attitudes toward these activities. Workplace is regarded as the second home for the
employees. As the boundaries between work and home life continue to blur, as work
assumes an ever greater part of our life, so too recruitment becomes a more emotional
experience, more akin almost to a relationship than a job and the workplace is becoming a
second family (Rooney, 2011). For startups it has, thus, always been about recruiting the
right person based not just on career goals, but on lifestyle and culture too. If you want the
best people to work for you, then you had better be the best workplace (Rooney, 2011).
The special emphasis should, therefore, have to be ascribed on promoting work atmosphere
which plays a mediating role in increasing job satisfaction and reducing quit rate from
the organization. Such a strategy can be accompanied by steps to train the managers of the
respective departments of the business entity to create a pleasant job environment through
cooperation and career growth opportunity.
This study considered only two antecedents to work atmosphere toward employee
satisfaction. There may well be others that should be considered in future research, such as
other aspects of human resource factors, such as Ashraf and Joarder (2010) examine in their
study. Valid and reliable scales for these constructs need to be developed, however, to
include them in future studies.
As with any study, there are limitations to the study described here. One possible
drawback is the use of a single company’s employees as respondents. Second, the sample
size is not very large, because respondents were observed to be negligent in filling in the
questionnaire provided with them. If the sample size could be increased a bit more, then we
might have better outcomes than as predicted in the study. Nevertheless, the usual cautions
about over-generalizing findings from this sample, to populations for which it is not strictly Mediating role
representative, apply. The sample was not randomly drawn to represent a population to of work
which findings could be generalized. Instead, it was a convenience sample, and as such, the
ability to generalize the findings very far beyond the sample is limited.
atmosphere
References
Afasar, B. and Badir, Y. (2017), “Workplace spirituality, person organization fit and innovative work
behavior: the mediating effects of person organization fit”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 95-109.
Agbozo, G.K., Owusu, I.S., Hoedafia, M.A. and Atakorah, Y.B. (2017), “The effect of work environment
on job satisfaction: evidence from the banking sector in Ghana”, Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 12-18.
Ali, N. and Rehman, M.Z. (2014), “Impact of job design on employee performance: mediating role of job
satisfaction: a study of FMCG’s sector in Pakistan”, International Journal of Business and
Ariza-Montes, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J.M., Law, R. and Han, H. (2017), “Incidence of workplace bullying
among hospitality employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1116-1132.
Ashraf, M.A. and Joarder, M.H.R. (2010), “Corporate work satisfaction: an empirical investigation on the
employees of mobile phone companies in Bangladesh”, The South East Asian Journal of
Awan, A.G. and Tahir, M.T. (2015), “Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: a case
study of banks and insurance companies in Pakistan”, European Journal of Business and
Baeza, M.A., Gonzalez, J.A. and Wang, Y. (2018), “Job flexibility and job satisfaction among
Mexican professionals: a socio-cultural explanation”, Employee Relations, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp. 921-942.
Barsade, S. and O’Neill, O.A. (2016), “Manage your emotional culture”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 58-66.
O. (2016), “Classic or modern? Enhancement of job satisfaction scale for green job workers”,
Basol,
Bexheti, L. and Bexheti, A. (2016), “The impact of Herzberg’s two-factor theory and efficiency at work”,
European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 378-385.
Bhatti, M.A., Battour, M., Sundram, P.K. and Aini, O.A. (2013), “Transfer of training: does it truly
happen? An examination of support, instrumentality, retention and learner readiness on the
transfer motivation and transfer of training”, European Journal of Training and Development,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 273-297.
Bockerman, P. and Ilmakunnas, P. (2009), “Job disamenities, job satisfaction, quit intentions and actual
separations: putting the pieces together”, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,
Vol. 48, pp. 73-96.
Bohle, P., Knox, A., Noone, J., McNamara, M., Rafalski, J. and Quinlan, M. (2017), “Work organization,
bullying and intention to leave in the hospitality industry”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 446-458.
Brunetto, Y., Shacklock, K., Teo, S. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2014), “The impact of management on the
engagement and well-being of high emotional labour employees”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 17, pp. 2345-2363.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, applications, and
Programming, Routledge, New York, NY.
JWL Cirilã, T. and Constantin, T. (2013), “Understanding workplace bullying phenomenon through its
concepts: a literature review”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 84,
pp. 1175-1179.
Cortini, M. (2016), “Workplace identity as a mediator in the relationship between learning climate and
job satisfaction during apprenticeship: suggestions for HR practitioners”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 54-65.
Coupaud, M. (2017), “Determinants of health at work in the EU15: elaboration of synthetic indicators of
working conditions and their impacts on the physical and mental health of workers”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 93-126.
Cross, R., Rebele, R. and Grant, A. (2016), “Collaborative overload”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94
No. 1, pp. 74-79.
Demirel, H. (2014), “An investigation of the relationship between job and life satisfaction among
teachers”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 116, pp. 4925-4931.
Darcy, M., Gian, C., Nikola, D. and Li, Y. (2006), “The concurrent effects of bullying, satisfaction with
supervisor and satisfaction with co-workers on affective commitment among schoolteachers in
China”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 316-331.
Day, G.S. (2000), “Managing market relationships”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Day, A., Crown, S.N. and Ivany, M. (2017), “Organizational change and employee burnout: the
moderating effects of support and job control”, Safety Science, Vol. 100, pp. 4-12.
Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes in theorizing in strategic HRM: tests of universalistic,
contingencies, and configurational performance predictions”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 802-835.
Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2016), “Can your employee speak freely?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 80-87.
Devi, K.R. and Rani, S.S. (2016), “The impact of organizational role stress and work family conflict:
diagnosis sources of difficulty at work place and job satisfaction among women in IT sector,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 219, pp. 214-220.
Edgar, F. and Geare, A. (2005), “HRM practice and employee attitudes: different measures- different
results”, Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 534-549.
Efron, B. (1979), “Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife”, The Annals of Statistics, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Farr-Wharton, R., Brunetto, Y. and Shacklock, K. (2011), “Professionals’ supervisor-subordinate
relationships, autonomy and commitment in Australia: a leader-member exchange theory
perspective”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 17, pp. 3496-3512.
Fernández-Aráoz, C. (2018), “The key career growth: surround yourself with people who will push you”,
Harvard Business Review, September.
Filtvedt, R.E. (2015), “Motivation and job satisfaction: does Herzberg’s ‘two-factor’ theory apply to
knowledge workers of today,” Master thesis, Faculty of Social Science, Norwegian University of
Life Science.
Finkelstein, S. (2016), “Secrets of the superbosses”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 104-107.
Ghanbahadur, R.R. (2014), “To test the effectiveness of hygiene-motivation factors of Irish Accountants
and American Engineers in predicting intrinsic-extrinsic job satisfaction,” MA thesis in HRM,
National College of Ireland.
Gkorezis, P. and Kastisti, A. (2017), “Employee expectations and intrinsic motivation: work- related
boredom as a mediator”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 100-111.
George, D. and Mallery, M. (2010), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0
Update, 10th ed., Pearson, Boston.
Greenan, P. (2016), “Personal development plans: insights from a case based approach”, Journal of Mediating role
Workplace Learning, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 322-334.
of work
Green, O. and Ayalan, L. (2017), “The contribution of working conditions and care recipients
characteristics to work-related abuse and exploitation of migrant home care workers”, Employee
atmosphere
Relations, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1001-1014.
Guidetti, G., Converso, D., Loera, B. and Viotti, S. (2018), “Concerns about change and employee wellbeing:
the moderating role of social support”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 216-228.
Hair, J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson
Educational International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hambuda, F.N. (2017), “Job satisfaction and job preference during the implementation of a performance
management system: the case of a Namibian Municipality,” Master Thesis, Faculty of Business
and Management Science, The Cape Peninsula University of Technology.
Hellman, M.C. (1997), “Job satisfaction and intent to leave”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 6,
pp. 677-689.
Herzberg, F.I. (1987), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
65 No. 5, pp. 109-120.
Hu, E., Zhang, M., Shan, H., Zhang, U. and Yue, Y. (2018), “Job satisfaction and union participation in
China: developing and testing a mediated moderation model”, Employee Relations, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 964-980.
Hyo, S.J. and Hye, H.Y. (2018), “Understanding workplace bullying: its effects on response and behavior
in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1453-1471.
Ignatius, A. (2016), “The softer side of performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94 Nos 1/2, pp. 14.
Iqbal, K. (2013), “Determinants of organizational justice and its impact on job satisfaction: a Pakistan
based survey”, International Review of Management and Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 48-56.
Ismail, A., Hasan, A.B. and Sulaiman, A.Z. (2010), “Supervisor’s role as an antecedent of training
transfer and motivation to learn in training programs”, Economica, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 18-37.
Khoreva, V., Vaiman, V. and Zalk, M. (2017), “Talent management and practice effectiveness:
investigating employee perspective”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Kong, H., Wang, S. and Fu, X. (2015), “Meeting career expectation: can it enhance job satisfaction of
Generation Y?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 147-168.
Levy, M.B. and Davis, K.E. (1988), “Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: their relations to each
other and to various relationship characteristic”, Journal for Social and Personal Relationships,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 439-471.
Li, J., Linah, Q. and Zhang, Z. (2018), “Leader humility and constructive voice behavior in China: a dual
process models”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 840-854.
Lin, S.P., Tang, T.W., Li, C.H., Wu, C.M. and Lin, H.H. (2007), “Mediating effect of cooperative norm in
predicting organizational citizenship behaviors from procedural justice climate”, Psychological
Reports, Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 67-78.
Lisa, Y.A. (2014), Workplace Mental Health Manual for Nurse Managers, Springer Publishing
Company, New York, NY.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), The Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand, Chicago, pp. 1297-1349.
Ludviga, I. and Kalvina, A. (2016), “Turnover of public sector employees and the mediating role of job
satisfaction: an empirical study in Latvia”, Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the
International Scientific Conference, Vol. 4, pp. 364-378.
JWL McClelland, D.C. (1985), Human Motivation, Scott, Foresman. Glenview, IL.
Macneil, C. (2001), “The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams”, Journal of
Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 246-253.
Margolis, J. (2008), “What will keep today’s teachers teaching? Looking for a hook as a new career cycle
emerges”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 160-194.
Markey, R., Ravenswood, K. and Webber, D.J. (2012), “The impact of the quality work environment on
employees’ intention to quit”, Economics Working Paper Series-1220, University of the West of
England, Bristol.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 370-396.
Matei, M. and Abrudan, M. (2016), “Adapting Herzberg’s two factor theory to the cultural context of
Romania”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 221, pp. 95-104.
Melissa, P. (2015), “Monitoring change in a new working environment: the importance of employee
satisfaction analysis”, Change Environment: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1-16.
Monga, A., Verma, N. and Monga, O.P. (2015), “A study on job satisfaction of employees of ICICI bank
in Himachal Pradesh”, Human Resource Management Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 18-25.
Muchinsky, P.M. (2006), Psychology Applied to Work, Thomson, Belmont.
Mun, C., Ying, C., Lew, S., Wei, T. and Ning, T. (2017), The Relationship between Work Environment and
Job Satisfaction in Hotel Industry, BBA Research Project, University Tunku Abdur Rahman,
Petaling Jaya.
Naiman, S. (2009), “Generating positive energy in the workplace during hard times”, Employment
Relations Today, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 49-55.
Okoshi, K., Tanabe, T. and Hisamoto, N. (2013), “The ideal working environment required for a
successful career path and work-life balance: results of survey on doctors working at Keyoto
university hospital”, Research and Reviews, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 246-252.
Porter, T.H., Reisenmy, K.D. and Fields, D. (2016), “Work environment and employee motivation to
lead”, American Journal of Business, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 66-84.
Putter, S.E. (2013), “Making training stick: a close examination of how trainee readiness, supervisor
support, and practice foster transfer in a mobile technology based training program,” PhD
dissertation, Colorado State University, CO.
Qureshi, M.A. and Hamid, K. (2017), “Impact of supervisor support on job satisfaction: a moderating
role of fairness perception”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Science, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 235 -242.
Raziq, A. and Maulabakhsh, R. (2015), “Impact of working environment and job satisfaction”, Procedia
Economics and Finance, Vol. 23, pp. 717-725.
Reeves, M. and Levin, S. (2016), “The biology of corporate survival”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94
No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Ritter, B.A., Small, E.E., Mortimer, J.W. and Doll, J.L. (2018), “Designing management curriculum for
workplace readiness: developing students’ soft skills”, Journal of Management Education,
Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 80-103.
Rooney, B. (2011), “Why your workplace is like second family”, The Wall Street Journal, New York,
Tech Europe page.
Rubery, J. (2015), “Change at work: feminisation, flexibilisation, fragmentation and financialisation”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 633-644.
Saari, L.M. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Employee attitudes and job satisfaction”, Human Resource
Sageer, A., Rafat, S., P. and Agarwal, P. (2012), “Identification of variables affecting employee
satisfaction and their impact on the organization”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 32-39.
Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N. (1994), Managing Organizational Behavior, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Sia, L.A. and Tan, T.A. (2016), “The influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction in a hotel Mediating role
setting”, DLSU Business and Economics Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
of work
Shu, C., Chiang, Y. and Lu, C. (2018), “Authoritarian leadership, supervisor support and worker’s
compulsory citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 468-485. atmosphere
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tan, F.M. (2008), “Organizational support as the mediator of career related HRM practices and affective
commitment: evidence from knowledge workers in Malaysia”, Research and Practices in Human
Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 8-24.
Tan, T.K. and Waheed, A. (2011), “Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene and job satisfaction in the Malaysian
retail sector: mediating effect of love of money”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 73-94.
Thomas, P. and Nagalingappa, G. (2012), “Consequences of perceived organizational justice: an
empirical study of white-collar employees”, Researchers World: Journal of Arts, Science and
Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 2.
Usmani, S. and Jamal, S. (2013), “Impact of distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice,
temporal justice, spatial justice on job satisfaction of banking employees”, Review of Integrative
Business and Economics Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 351-383.
Velmurugan, T.A. and Sankar, J.G. (2017), “A comparative study on motivation theory with Maslow’s
hierarchy theory and two factor theory in organization”, Indo-Iranian Journal of Scientific
Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 204-208.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Waytz, A. (2016), “The limits of empathy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 68-73.
Yew, L.T. (2008), “Job satisfaction and affective commitment: a study of employees in the tourism
industry in Sarawak Malaysia”, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 85-101.
Yildirim, B., Gulmez, M. and Yildirim, F. (2016), “The relationship between the five-factor personality
traits of workers and their job satisfaction: a study on five star hotels in Alanya”, Procedia
Economics and Finance, Vol. 39, pp. 284-291.
Zeffane, R. and Melhem, S.J. (2017), “Trust, job satisfaction, perceived organizational performance and
turnover intention”, Employee Relation, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1148-1167.
Further reading
Cortini, M., Pivetti, M. and Cervai, S. (2016), “Learning climate and job performance among health
worker: a pilot study”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 1-6.
Weng, Q., McElroy, J.C., Morrow, P.C. and Liu, R. (2010), “The relationship between career growth and
organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 391-400.
Zimmerman, R.D. and Darnold, T.C. (2009), “The impact of job performance on employee turnover
intentions and the voluntary turnover process: a meta-analysis and path model”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 142-158.
Corresponding author
Mohammad Ali Ashraf can be contacted at: mashraf@eco.uiu.ac.bd
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
View publication stats

C2D119120 Marlina Alini PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

C2D119120 Marlina Alini PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TUGAS FINAL

PROGRAM STUDI ILMU MANAJEMEN

Penelitian ini mempertimbangkan hanya dua anteseden untuk suasana kerja

menuju kepuasan karyawan. Mungkin ada orang lain yang harus

dikembangkan untuk memasukkannya dalam studi mendatang. Seperti halnya

yang mungkin adalah penggunaan satu perusahaan saja sebagai karyawan.

baik daripada yang diperkirakan dalam penelitian ini. Namun demikian,

acak untuk mewakili populasi yang temuannya dapat digeneralisasi. Alih-alih,

menggeneralisasi temuan sangat jauh di luar sampel terbatas.

“Pengaruh Supervisor Corporation dan Pertumbuhan Karier Terhadap

2.1 Supervisor Terhadap Atmosphere Kerja

Profesional manajemen sumber daya manusia, eksekutif tingkat atas dan

pengawas yang peduli dengan organisasi, keunggulan kompetitif telah berjuang

dengan identifikasi dan pengembangan bakat kepemimpinan (Porter et al.,

2.2 Pertumbuhan karier terhadap atmosphere kerja

Suasana kerja yang menyenangkan secara substansial bergantung pada jalur

et al., 2015; Lisa, 2014) .

2.3 Supervisor terhadap kepuasan kerja

Seperti yang disebutkan sebelumnya dalam literatur yang diulas sebelumnya,

kerja sama penyelia tidak hanya bertanggung jawab untuk menghasilkan

mendapatkan inspirasi dan dorongan terus-menerus untuk pertumbuhan dan

perkembangan (Fern ndez-Ar oz, 2018)

2.4 Pertumbuhan karier terhadap kepuasan kerja

Seperti kerja sama pengawas, pertumbuhan karier juga memiliki dampak

dan Fern ndez-Ar oz (2018) khususnya menunjukkan bahwa pertumbuhan karir

2.5 Atmosphere kerja terhadap kepuasan kerja

Teori motivasi (Herzberg, 1987; McClelland, 1985; Maslow, 1943),

secara umum, selalu mengadvokasi tempat kerja yang menyenangkan di mana

karyawan dimotivasi melalui kepuasan pribadi dan profesional (Raziq dan

Maulabakhsh, 2015). Beberapa penelitian sebelumnya menunjukkan secara

Naiman, 2009, Margolis, 2008)..

4. RUMUSAN MASALAHAN PENELITIAN

a. Apakah supervisor corporation, atmosfir kerja dan pertumbuhan karir

berpengaruh signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja

b. Apakah atmosfir kerja berperan memediasi pengaruh atmosfir kerja dan

supervisor corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja.

a. Supervisor corporation, atmosphere kerja dan pertumbuhan karier berpengaruh

signifikan terhadap kepuasan kerja

b. Atmosphere kerja berperan mediasi pengaruh atmosphere kerja dan supervisor

corporation terhadap kepuasan kerja.

6. SIMULASI JAWABAN RESPONDEN

Supervisi Pertumbuhan Karier Atmosphere Kerja Kepuasan Kerja

7. GRAND TABEL PERTANYAAN

Variabel Item Sumber

Untuk membuktikan hipotesis dengan menggunakan analisis SEM-PLS dan

SEM AMOS akan dijelaskan sebagai berikut:

8.1 SEM PLS

terlihat pada Gambar di bawah ini.

8.2 SEM AMOS

pengukuran model (confirmatory factor analysis/CFA) dan pengaruh antar variabel

besar 0.5 (Ferdinand, 2005).

Hubungan antar variabel laten menggambarkan hubungan atau pengaruh antar

8.3.2 SEM PLS

diukurnya. Hasil uji outer model terlihat pada Tabel 1.

Tabel 1 Hasil Uji Outer Model

Tabel 1, menunjukkan bahwa semua indikator dari variabel laten supervisor

variabel laten yang diukurnya.

Original Sample Standard Standard

1. Pengaruh supervisor corporation terhadap atmosphere kerja

Berdasarkan Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik pengaruh supervisor

mempunyai pengaruh signifikan terhadap atmosphere kerja.

2. Pengaruh pertumbuhan karier terhadap atmosphere kerja

Berdasarkan Tabel 2 diketahui bahwa nilai t-statistik pengaruh pertumbuhan