Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale

Abstract

The Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale (SWS) is an established psychometric instrument designed to evaluate an employee’s appraisal of and affective satisfaction with their immediate supervisory authority. Developed by organizational psychologists Vida Scarpello and Robert J. Vandenberg in 1987, the instrument addresses a critical gap in organizational behavior and human resource assessment by moving beyond generic single-item satisfaction measures to capture the multidimensional nuances of frontline managerial interactions. The scale comprises 18 items scored on a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Very dissatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied). Across rigorous developmental cohorts consisting of more than 2,000 employees drawn from seven manufacturing plants and a cross-validation sample exceeding 1,000 personnel within the financial and insurance sectors, the SWS has demonstrated outstanding psychometric robustness. Internal consistency estimates reliably yield Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between .95 and .96. Although preliminary exploratory factor analyses revealed that items partitioned across two correlated factor dimensions representing interpersonal support and task-structuring behaviors, extensive structural modeling and high inter-factor correlations (mean r = .60 across multiple independent cohorts) demonstrate that the scale functions optimally as a unidimensional composite index of supervisory satisfaction. The instrument exhibits robust convergent and predictive validity, correlating systematically with leader–member exchange (LMX) quality, perceived organizational support, turnover intentions, and objective performance metrics. This article delivers a comprehensive psychometric review of the SWS, outlining its developmental history, conceptual architecture, theoretical foundations, structural parameters, scoring protocols, and operational utility across research and applied enterprise environments.

Keywords

Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale, SWS, supervisory satisfaction, job satisfaction, leader-member exchange, employee attitudes, psychometrics, organizational behavior, leadership assessment, personnel evaluation

Authors

The Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Dr. Vida Scarpello and Dr. Robert J. Vandenberg.

• Vida Scarpello, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Management and Human Resource Management at the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, and previously affiliated with Georgia State University. Dr. Scarpello has contributed pioneering research in compensation, job satisfaction taxonomy, performance appraisal validity, and organizational research methodologies.
• Robert J. Vandenberg, Ph.D.: Distinguished Research Professor and former Head of the Department of Management at the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. Dr. Vandenberg is internationally recognized for his advanced methodological contributions to structural equation modeling, measurement invariance across cultures and longitudinal panels, high-involvement work processes, and employee turnover dynamics.

Inquiries regarding the foundational validation studies and archival psychometric analyses can be directed to the Department of Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

Purpose

The foundational objective underlying the construction of the Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale (SWS) was the remediation of widespread psychometric inadequacies inherent in legacy instruments measuring job satisfaction. Throughout the mid-20th century, organizational researchers predominantly relied on omnibus measures, such as the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) or the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), which operationalized supervision either through abbreviated subscales or oversimplified operational definitions. These instruments frequently conflated an employee’s evaluation of their direct supervisor’s personal technical competence with higher-order organizational policies, macro-level leadership styles, or broader working conditions. Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987) sought to engineer a specialized, highly diagnostic measurement tool focused exclusively on the interpersonal, evaluative, and structural behaviors displayed by the immediate frontline manager.

From an applied human resource management perspective, the immediate supervisor serves as the psychological conduit between the executive leadership of an organization and the frontline workforce. The actions of the supervisor delineate an employee’s daily reality, directly influencing role ambiguity, task motivation, emotional well-being, and perceived psychological safety. When organizations attempt to diagnose operational turnover, low morale, or productivity deficits, broad organizational surveys frequently fail to identify whether dissatisfaction stems from enterprise-wide compensation systems or local, relational dysfunction between employees and supervisors. The SWS provides an actionable, standardized metric capable of benchmarking managerial competence, identifying specific training deficiencies in supervisory cohorts, and measuring the relational climate within workgroups.

In academic and behavioral research contexts, the SWS serves as an indispensable criterion and mediator variable. It is widely employed in structural equation models exploring the nomological network of organizational justice, leadership efficacy, psychological contract breach, and counterproductive work behaviors. By measuring specific facets of supervision—such as performance appraisal fairness, active listening, developmental feedback, and boundary-spanning advocacy—the scale allows researchers to isolate how specific managerial behaviors predict employee retention, job involvement, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and operational performance.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the SWS is satisfaction with immediate supervision, defined as an employee’s positive affective and cognitive evaluation of the relational, developmental, administrative, and technical behaviors exhibited by their direct superior. While the overall instrument operates psychometrically as an integrated, unidimensional construct reflecting aggregate supervisory satisfaction, Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987) constructed the scale to reflect the multi-faceted behavioral domain that constitutes effective supervision in modern work environments. The scale captures three primary operational dimensions of supervisory behavior:

1. Interpersonal Communication and Psychological Support

This dimension encompasses an employee’s assessment of the emotional and communicative safety established by their supervisor. Items targeting this domain assess whether the supervisor practices active listening when an employee communicates critical matters, how the manager responds to operational mistakes, and the frequency with which the supervisor acknowledges successful contributions through informal recognition (e.g., a “pat on the back”). An essential facet of this construct is psychological safety; when a supervisor treats employee errors as learning opportunities rather than occasions for punitive retaliation, employee trust and developmental engagement increase significantly.

2. Task Structuring, Technical Competence, and Goal Clarity

Beyond interpersonal warmth, effective supervision requires operational clarity and technical capability. This domain reflects how well the supervisor establishes explicit work goals, provides clear instructions, ensures adequate time for workers to master assigned tasks before transitioning to new demands, and coordinates workload requirements so that employees can execute their responsibilities correctly. Additionally, this construct captures the supervisor’s technical problem-solving capabilities and their proactive stance in notifying subordinates of forthcoming organizational adjustments, thereby directly mitigating role ambiguity and structural frustration.

3. Procedural Fairness, Career Advocacy, and Boundary Spanning

The final core domain involves systemic fairness and organizational advocacy. Employees evaluate their supervisor’s objectivity in appraising job performance, their behavioral consistency across subordinates (minimizing perceived favoritism or toxic in-group dynamics), and the supervisor’s willingness to give subordinates public credit for their innovative ideas. Furthermore, this facet examines “upward influence” and boundary spanning, specifically evaluating whether the supervisor actively champions the subordinate’s professional trajectory and defends the subordinate when dealing with higher organizational management.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework undergirding the Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale synthesizes three seminal organizational and social psychology paradigms: Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory, Organizational Justice Theory, and the Social Exchange Theory of workplace relationships.

Social Exchange and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Dynamics

Social Exchange Theory, established by George Homans (1958) and expanded by Peter Blau (1964), posits that human interactions are transactional exchanges based on reciprocal socio-emotional and material resources. Within organizational hierarchies, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) operationalized this mechanism through LMX Theory, which asserts that leaders develop differentiated relationships with subordinates based on mutual trust, respect, and obligation. High-quality LMX relationships yield extensive socio-emotional support, career advocacy, and autonomy, whereas low-quality relationships remain strictly bounded by formal employment contracts. The SWS operationalizes the evaluative outcome of this exchange: when a supervisor invests time in problem-solving, gives credit for ideas, and exhibits behavioral consistency, the employee reciprocates with heightened supervisory satisfaction, organizational commitment, and discretionary effort.

Organizational Justice Theory

The SWS relies deeply on the trichotomy of organizational justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional (informational and interpersonal) justice (Colquitt, 2001). Distributive justice pertains to outcome fairness, which the SWS captures through items measuring fair performance appraisals. Procedural justice reflects the transparency, consistency, and structural voice afforded to employees; the SWS integrates these principles through items measuring goal clarity, well-defined responsibilities, and advance notification of workplace alterations. Finally, interactional justice focuses on the dignity, respect, and explanations provided during interpersonal exchanges. Items on the SWS assessing how the supervisor listens, how they handle subordinate errors, and their behavioral consistency across the workgroup represent operational manifestations of interactional justice theory.

Path-Goal Leadership Framework

The functional items of the SWS mirror the core propositions of Robert House’s (1971) Path-Goal Theory of leadership. House postulated that a leader’s primary function is to clarify the path to personal and organizational goals, reduce organizational roadblocks, and adapt leadership styles (directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented) to subordinate needs. Items measuring whether a supervisor helps to get the job done, follows through to resolve emergent operational dilemmas, and gives explicit instructions represent behavioral confirmations of path-clearing behaviors that drive employee satisfaction.

Validity

The validity of the Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale was established through an exhaustive, multi-stage developmental and validation program conducted across multiple independent occupational samples (Scarpello & Vandenberg, 1987; Jones et al., 1999).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validation involved extensive multi-sample testing. Initial scale development utilized iterative item generation, content sorting by independent psychometric experts, and field testing across seven manufacturing organizations encompassing over 2,000 employees. Confirmatory testing was subsequently executed with a separate cohort of over 1,000 professional employees within the insurance industry. Structural analyses across eight diverse subsamples consistently revealed that all 18 items displayed substantial, statistically significant factor loadings on an overarching supervisory satisfaction dimension, establishing high construct validity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The SWS demonstrates robust convergent validity with established measures of organizational climate, leader behavior, and general job satisfaction. Research indicates strong, positive correlations between the SWS and the supervisory satisfaction subscales of both the Job Descriptive Index (r ranging from .68 to .78) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (r ranging from .70 to .81). Furthermore, the scale correlates substantially with multi-item measures of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX-7; r = .72 to .80), perceived supervisory support (PSS; r = .75), and interactional justice (r = .66 to .74).

Discriminant validity was established by contrasting the SWS against non-supervisory facets of work satisfaction and contextual variables. Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987) demonstrated that the SWS shared modest, non-redundant variance with satisfaction with pay (r = .22 to .35), satisfaction with physical working conditions (r = .28 to .38), and satisfaction with peer coworkers (r = .30 to .42). These empirical demarcations verify that the SWS isolates feelings specifically directed toward the immediate manager rather than functioning as a proxy for generalized positive affectivity or broad enterprise satisfaction.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The SWS consistently predicts critical behavioral, psychological, and organizational criteria:

• Turnover Intentions and Actual Turnover: The SWS displays an inverse relationship with employee turnover intentions (r = -.40 to -.52) and prospectively predicts voluntary turnover behavior over 12- and 24-month longitudinal windows (Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1990).
• Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs): Satisfied subordinates consistently display higher rates of altruism, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship targeted both at peers and the broader organization (r = .34 to .46).
• Employee Well-Being: Low supervisory satisfaction measured via the SWS correlates significantly with heightened job burnout, somatic health complaints, and psychological distress across various industrial and healthcare environments.

Reliability

The Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale exhibits exceptional internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse organizational, occupational, and demographic settings.

Internal Consistency

Across the developmental and cross-validation cohorts examined by Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987), the 18-item instrument achieved Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .95 and .96. In a subsequent comprehensive psychometric replication conducted across several diverse business environments, Jones et al. (1999) documented an alpha coefficient of .96, confirming the internal homogeneity of the instrument. Subsequent independent empirical studies in manufacturing, technology, banking, and healthcare have routinely reported internal consistency estimates exceeding .93, demonstrating that the scale maintains high precision across varied occupational contexts.

Test-Retest Stability

Vandenberg and Scarpello (1994) examined the temporal stability of the SWS across multiple longitudinal waves within organizational environments undergoing structural transitions. Across three-month test-retest test intervals, stability coefficients remained high (r = .74 to .82), indicating that while the scale reflects enduring employee evaluations of supervisory relationships, it remains sensitive to genuine alterations in supervisory behaviors or managerial reassignments.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the SWS has been extensively evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques across developmental and replication samples.

Exploratory Factor Structure

During initial scale development, Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987) conducted principal components and common factor analyses with oblique rotations across multiple manufacturing cohorts. In several exploratory solutions, an unconstrained factor extraction revealed two primary factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0:

• Factor 1: Relational and Developmental Supervision: Items concerning listening, mistake handling, consistency, praise, career progress, and organizational backing loaded predominantly on this factor.
• Factor 2: Task-Oriented and Structural Clarity: Items reflecting task mastery time, work time, clear instructions, goal clarity, and defined responsibilities exhibited secondary loadings on this factor.

However, despite this initial statistical bifurcation, Scarpello and Vandenberg noted that the correlation between these two exploratory factors was exceptionally high, demonstrating a mean inter-factor correlation of r = .60 across eight distinct industrial samples. Furthermore, substantial cross-loadings were consistently observed: items that loaded primarily on Factor 2 also loaded substantially (> .40) on Factor 1. This continuous structural overlap led the authors to conclude that the two apparent dimensions reflect shared behavioral facets of an integrated, higher-order latent construct rather than functionally independent psychometric dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing structural equation modeling (Jones et al., 1999; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1994) have compared a one-factor unconstrained model against multi-factor hierarchical formulations. Confirmatory factor analytic fit indices for the single-factor general model routinely achieve satisfactory to excellent structural thresholds across large organizational samples:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .93
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .045
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .060

Standardized item factor loadings across the single-factor model typically range from .62 to .86, demonstrating that each of the 18 items contributes substantial, statistically meaningful variance toward the underlying construct of supervisory satisfaction.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics, administrative protocols, and psychometric structure of the Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale (SWS)
• Authors: Vida Scarpello, Ph.D., and Robert J. Vandenberg, Ph.D.
• Year of Publication: 1987
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychometric survey / organizational assessment tool
• Target Population: Full-time and part-time employees across all occupational categories, including industrial, service, healthcare, corporate, and technological sectors
• Construct Measured: Overall satisfaction with immediate frontline supervisory leadership and administrative behavior
• Number of Items: 18 declarative behavioral items
• Administration Time: Approximately 4 to 7 minutes
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors:
  • 1 = Very dissatisfied
  • 2 = Dissatisfied
  • 3 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (Neutral)
  • 4 = Satisfied
  • 5 = Very satisfied
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All 18 items are positively keyed; no reverse scoring is required.
  • Total Score Calculation: Sum the individual item ratings to generate an aggregate score ranging from 18 to 90, where higher scores represent greater supervisory satisfaction.
  • Mean Score Calculation: Divide the sum total by 18 to produce a normalized scale mean between 1.00 and 5.00, enabling direct interpretation relative to the original Likert response anchors.
• Score Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Mean Scores 1.00 – 2.49 (Total 18 – 44): High Dissatisfaction. Indicates acute relational or structural friction between subordinate and supervisor, elevated turnover risk, and potential interactional justice violations.
  • Mean Scores 2.50 – 3.49 (Total 45 – 62): Moderate / Ambivalent Satisfaction. Reflects inconsistent managerial execution; basic operational directives may be met, but developmental support and fair appraisal may be lacking.
  • Mean Scores 3.50 – 5.00 (Total 63 – 90): High Satisfaction. Characterizes strong relational health, high leader–member exchange quality, transparent goal clarity, and effective psychological support.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Satisfaction With My Supervisor Scale was originally developed and published in 1987 within the Journal of Management (Volume 13, Issue 3, pages 451–470). The foundational study detailing its psychometric properties and the complete list of 18 items is documented in Figure 1, page 455 of the publication.

Licensing and Academic Usage: The copyright for the original journal article is held by the Southern Management Association and published by SAGE Publications. In accordance with standard academic fair-use guidelines, the scale may be used freely by researchers, graduate students, and organizational practitioners for non-commercial academic research and scholarly assessment, provided that appropriate credit and citation are attributed to Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987). Commercial organizations seeking to incorporate the instrument into proprietary corporate diagnostic platforms, licensed human resource audit software, or fee-for-service consulting systems should verify licensing requirements through the Copyright Clearance Center or SAGE Publications.

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355
• House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
• Jones, J. R., Scarpello, V., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1999). Communicating with employees: An empirical test of the supervisor’s role. Journal of Business Communication, 36(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369903600202
• Scarpello, V., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1987). The Satisfaction With My Supervisor scale: Its utility for research and practical application. Journal of Management, 13(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638701300305
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: An examination of the processes through which multiple organizations impact job satisfaction and turnover. Human Relations, 43(12), 1201–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679004301204
• Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1994). A longitudinal assessment of the determinant relationship between employee commitments to the occupation and the organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(6), 535–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150605

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)