Relationship Between Organizational Bullshitting and Employee Job Satisfaction

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Mahmoud Fallatah	--	2591	2023-11-22 10:51:16	\|
2	format change	Peter Tang	+ 3 word(s)	2594	2023-11-23 02:23:05	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/socsci12110636

Bullshitting is a term that has been introduced lately in the literature to describe the practice of communicating with no grounding in truth. Research finds that employees are more likely to be dissatisfied when their organizations have no regard for the truth in making their decisions, and specifically, when their direct supervisor is bullshitting.

bullshit bullshitting job satisfaction work environment

1. Introduction

The impact of organizational culture and the work environment on employees is much discussed in the literature (e.g., Amabile et al. 1996; James and James 1989; Venard et al. 2022; Zimmerman et al. 2019). An interesting element of the work environment that has received attention lately is “bullshitting”, a term that describes the practice of communicating with no grounding in truth (Ferreira et al. 2022; Frankfurt 2009; McCarthy et al. 2020; Petrocelli et al. 2021; Spicer 2013, 2017). Bullshitting is everywhere in our lives and has become part of our culture around the world (Frankfurt 2009). Words are thrown right and left without much scrutiny (Luks 2017). Our daily social interactions are filled with bullshit, whether it is an advertisement of a product that a company is trying to persuade us to buy or a gathering of friends with many jokes and teasing (Christensen et al. 2019).

For organizations, communication represents a huge part of their routine, as they spend a lot of time in meetings and discussions, sending and responding to emails, preparing and reading reports, as well as other types of communication. As organizations rely more on communications, be it verbal, written, or visual, organizational bullshit has been increasing (Christensen et al. 2019; Ferreira et al. 2022; Frankfurt 2009; McCarthy et al. 2020; Spicer 2013, 2017, 2020). For example, think of a meeting in which your supervisor is bragging about the performance of his unit without any factual evidence? What about a presentation in which the presenter overwhelms you with colored charts that do not say anything? Or maybe a formal letter from the CEO of your organization that is supposed to explain his/her vision for the organization moving forward, only to find it full of jargon and ambiguous words that do not mean anything? We all, one way or another, face situations like these. This is bullshit.

While bullshitting might decorate an organization’s image (Ferreira et al. 2022), it also negatively affects organizations in several ways. For example, bullshitting could contribute to things such as “…crowding out the primary task of the organization, violating (previously) valued occupational identities, and undermining stakeholder trust”. (Spicer 2013, p. 655). Bullshitting might also undermine trust and rational thinking within organizations, as well as limit constructive feedback within organizations (Christensen et al. 2019; Spicer 2013, 2017), which would eventually negatively affect organizational learning (Argyris 1990; Christensen et al. 2019; Huber 1991; Senge 1990). At the individual level, bullshitting might lead to confrontations among employees and some might actually elect to escape this situation and look for jobs elsewhere (McCarthy et al. 2020).

While some research has begun to address bullshit and its impact on organizations, very few studies have addressed this issue (Ferreira et al. 2022; McCarthy et al. 2020; Petrocelli et al. 2021). Specifically, we still do not know much about how bullshitting correlates with employee’s behavior in bullshitting organizations. McCarthy et al. (2020) suggests that such employees usually tend to react in four different ways: exit the organization, confront the bullshit, embrace and spread the bullshit, or neglect it. However, to the best of the researchers' knowledge, there is no empirical evidence of the relationship between bullshiting and individual outcomes. Additionally, much of the current research on bullshit focuses on bullshitting in the Western and developed countries, providing political, scientific, and social examples mainly from the US and Europe. Hence, in the current research, the researcher employ theories such as the Job Demand–Resources (JD-R) Theory (Demerouti et al. 2001), the dispositional theory of job attitude (Staw et al. 1986), the Leader–Member Exchange theory of leadership (Dansereau et al. 1973; Dansereau et al. 1975; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995), and the Motivational Language Theory (Sullivan 1988) to address those gaps in the bullshit literature by examining the relationship between bullshitting and employee job satisfaction in an emerging country.

2. Bullshit in Organizations

The word “Bullshit” might be understood by the majority as vulgar slang that is synonym with “nonsense”. Thus, the verb “Bullshitting” is defined as “talking nonsense”. Once considered an offensive and vulgar language, it has been normalized and accepted in mundane language (Christensen et al. 2019). Importantly, it has been commonly used in academic research with a scale developed to measure it (Ferreira et al. 2022).

In organizations, bullshit describes a situation in which communication inside an organization is characterized by no regard for the truth (Ferreira et al. 2022; Frankfurt 2009; McCarthy et al. 2020). Such communications can be written (e.g., letters, emails, and reports), verbal (e.g., conversations, meetings, and interviews), or visual (e.g., charts, diagrams, and videos). It should be noted that bullshitting is different from lying (Frankfurt 2009). While the latter provides incorrect information intentionally, the former communicates without regard for the truth (Frankfurt 2009; McCarthy et al. 2020). In other words, liars care about the truth and try to misrepresent it and hide it intentionally, while bullshitters do not care about whether what they are communicating is true (Christensen et al. 2019; Ferreira et al. 2022; Frankfurt 2009). Bullshitters bullshit mainly to mislead and overwhelm people. They make decisions with no evidence and use ambiguous language full of jargon and glorified phrases to get away with their agenda (Christensen et al. 2019; Kelly 2014). It also should be clear that bullshit does not include fruitful discussions in brainstorming sessions, for example, where employees share unproven ideas, as such practices are common and usually effective in generating innovative ideas.

While bullshitting is not new in organizations, it has reached high levels to a point where scholars have proposed a movement towards evidence-based management (Pfeffer and Sutton 2006), urging managers to base their decisions on proven evidence. Generally, research asserts that bullshit exists in organizations “whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about”. (Frankfurt 2009, p. 63). In other words, managers and employees might feel obligated to talk about topics that they usually do not have enough information about, resulting in bullshitting (Petrocelli 2018). Bullshitting is also present in organizations because of the “…increasing propensity to let subjective positions and self-presentations play a bigger role in contemporary organizations”. (Christensen et al. 2019). Research suggests that the social environment of an organization that normalizes bullshitting and allows it to pass with ease also encourages bullshitters to bullshit (Petrocelli 2018). Technological advances have also contributed to bullshitting. Think about a software that allows managers to present deceiving charts and graphs to mislead their audience or social media platforms that provide bullshitters with a tool to spread their bullshit. (Pundir et al. 2021).

It is unfortunate that organizations of all sizes and in different industries accept bullshit as the norm (Spicer 2017, 2020) without attempting to deal with it, knowing that it has negative impacts on organizations, as discussed earlier. One of the main reasons why bullshit is ignored or accepted is that people tend to compare it to lying, which evaluates bullshit lightly (Petrocelli 2018). In the next section, the researcher move on to the individual level and discuss how bullshitting impacts not only organizations, but also employees.

3. Bullshitting and Job Satisfaction

Research asserts that work environment affects employee job satisfaction (e.g., Judge et al. 2000; Langer et al. 2019; Venard et al. 2022; Wright and Davis 2003), which is defined as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke 1976, p. 1304). Put differently, job satisfaction describes an employee’s evaluation of factors related to their job, such as pay, supervisor, co-worker, and working condition, among others (Brendel et al. 2023; Kim et al. 2023; Öksüz et al. 2023; Rayton and Yalabik 2014; Steel et al. 2019). Given that human capital is the main source of organizational competitive advantage (Hatch and Dyer 2004; Pfeffer 1995), it is crucial to study the factors that directly affect employees. The current research examines the relationship between organizational bullshit and employee job satisfaction.

Several theories have been employed to study employee job satisfaction. Among these theories is the JD-R Theory (Demerouti et al. 2001), which assumes that jobs have two high-order characteristics: job demands, which refer to the physical, psychological, social, and organizational aspects of the job that requires cognitive and emotional effort, and job resources, which refer to the job-related characteristics such as autonomy, social support, relationship with the supervisor, and performance feedback (Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004). The theory is a leading framework in studying employee-related characteristics such as job satisfaction and wellbeing (Bauer et al. 2014). Research has long applied the JD-R theory to predict employee-related outcomes such as organizational commitment, exhaustion, work engagement, and learning, among others (Demerouti et al. 2001; Doi 2005; Halbesleben and Buckley 2004; Salanova et al. 2005; Taris and Feij 2004). When it comes to bullshitting in organizations, I argue that bullshitting is a vital factor that affects the organizational and social environments (job demands) in which employees work. For example, research asserts that employees’ wellbeing and satisfaction are negatively affected when there is much ambiguity in their work environment (e.g., Keller 1975), such as an expected situation when communications are not clear in the workplace about one’s role or individual targets. One could also argue that a bullshitting environment could be emotionally stressing and demanding, especially for those with personalities that prefer direct, clear, and evidenced-based communications (more on this below).

Ferreira et al. (2022) suggests that bullshit communication is a product of three factors: no regard for the truth, bullshitting by bosses, and bullshitting language. The first factor describes situations in which decision-makers rely heavily on their own experience and assumptions rather than on the data and proven evidence (Pfeffer and Sutton 2006). Such situations not only affect the quality of the decision but might also indicate that employees are not competent and do not know what they are doing (Ferreira et al. 2022). The second factor of bullshit, bosses’ bullshit, relates to the bullshit practiced by employees’ direct supervisors. While organizations with no regard for the truth are dangerous and problematic, it might affect employees who are close to the upper echelon, as lower-level employees might not be exposed to such bullshit in the higher levels of the organizational hierarchy. In contrast, bosses’ bullshit affects all employees, as all are supervised by a manager in one way or another. Thus, although an employee might not be affected by an organization’s lack of regard for the truth, one could predict that any bullshit that comes from a direct supervisor might impact the employee. The third factor, bullshit language, refers to the use of jargon and misleading acronyms in communication within the organization. Overall, this research proposes that when communication within the organization is filled with information and presentations that have no regard for the truth, when bosses interact with their subordinates without evidence, and when the overall language inside the organization is characterized by ambiguous and misleading statements, it is a sign of an organization that is full of bullshit.

Another theoretical umbrella the paper builds on is the dispositional approach to job attitude. In organizational research, contrary to other theories that emphasize the role of situations in shaping employee job attitude (e.g., the job enrichment and social information-processing theories), the dispositional approach highlights the relationship between personalities and individual-level factors on one hand and job attitude on the other hand (Staw et al. 1986). Building on this approach, previous studies have found that employee job satisfaction can be predicted by personality (e.g., Cucina et al. 2018; Furnham et al. 1999; Judge et al. 2000; Judge and Larsen 2001; Staw and Cohen-Charash 2005; Steel et al. 2019). This stream of research builds on a century-old proposition by Parsons (1909), in which success at work is proposed to be a result of one’s understanding of their values, interests, and capabilities, as well as the understanding of the work itself and the required skills and conditions to succeed. Put differently, employees, based on their personalities, tend to assess the fit between their values and capabilities on the one hand, and the values and requirements of their jobs and organizations on the other hand. Studies have found that misfits in values between organizations and employees usually lead to lower levels of job satisfaction (e.g., Gabriel et al. 2014; Wheeler et al. 2007). Thus, when it comes to organizational bullshit, one can argue that bullshitting at some point would reach a level where it is unacceptable and annoying for employees, as they tend to prefer open and honest communication (Cooper-Thomas et al. 2018). Such dishonesty can eventually lead to the disengagement and exit of employees with personalities that value honesty and straightforwardness (McCarthy et al. 2020; Rusbult et al. 1988; Turnley and Feldman 1999).

Such an impact is expected to be even more significant when the bullshitter is the direct boss of an employee. Research posits that leadership has a direct impact on employee job satisfaction (e.g., Braun et al. 2013; Cansoy 2019; Janssen and Van Yperen 2004). It is paramount to have a solid relationship between bosses and their subordinates as it relates directly to employees’ ability to not only perform their job (Zhu et al. 2022), but also to establish trust and make employees more comfortable at their job (Kelloway et al. 2012). In particular, the way leaders communicate with subordinates is key to establishing trust and respect between them. In fact, leadership communication has been widely recognized as an important factor that affects employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Men et al. 2022; Zhu et al. 2022), given supervisory day-to-day interactions and communication with employees (Van Quaquebeke and Felps 2018). Specifically, research asserts that one-to-one contact between supervisors and subordinates is related to employee self-efficacy (Mellor et al. 2007).

This argument is better explained using the Leader–Member Exchange theory (Dansereau et al. 1973, 1975; Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Richter-Killenberg and Volmer 2022), which is a unique leadership theory that focuses on the dyadic relationships between a leader and his/her subordinates, rather than focusing on leadership as a function of the personal characteristics of the leader (Gerstner and Day 1997). According to the theory, high-quality dyadic exchange between leaders and their subordinates leads to trust and respect, which increases the level of employee job satisfaction (Toscano et al. 2022). By contrast, low-quality dyadic exchanges between leaders and subordinates tend to dissatisfy employees (Janssen and Van Yperen 2004). Thus, bullshitting by supervisors are argued to have a negative relationship with employee job satisfaction, as employees are expected to lose trust and respect for their bullshitting leaders.

Additionally, the Motivation Language Theory (Sullivan 1988) is another intriguing theory that supports the bullshit–job satisfaction argument. The theory emphasizes the crucial role of the language spoken by leaders and their impact on subordinate-related outcomes (Mayfield et al. 1995), For example, several researchers have found relationships between leaders’ oral communication and employee outcomes such as goal attainment, employee engagement, decision making, and career progression (e.g., Conger 1991; Fairhurst 1993; Lamude et al. 1988; Mayfield and Mayfield 2016; Tao et al. 2022). Specifically, employee job satisfaction has been found to be directly influenced by the language leaders use in their communication (Mayfield et al. 2021; Rowley Mayfield et al. 1998; Nguyen et al. 2021).

Given the impact of language on employees’ attitudes, as conceptualized by the Motivational Language Theory (Sullivan 1988), research has found that employees tend to assess the language organizations use in their communication and that the way organizations communicate with employees has a direct effect on job satisfaction (Giri and Kumar 2010; Pincus 1986). For example, a recent study on health workers found that employees who communicate in a shared language have higher levels of job satisfaction than those who communicate in different languages (Stühlinger et al. 2019). Research also affirms that employees are more satisfied with communications in which the language used is honest, direct, and transparent (Cooper-Thomas et al. 2018).

References

Amabile, Teresa M., Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey Lazenby, and Michael Herron. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39: 1154–84.
James, Lois A., and Lawrence R. James. 1989. Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 739–51.
Venard, Bertrand, Yehuda Baruch, and Julien Cloarec. 2022. Consequences of corruption: Determinants of public servants’ job satisfaction and performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–32.
Zimmerman, Ryan D., Brian W. Swider, and Wendy R. Boswell. 2019. Synthesizing content models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management 58: 99–114.
Ferreira, Caitlin, David Hannah, Ian McCarthy, Leyland Pitt, and Sarah Lord Ferguson. 2022. This place is full of it: Towards an organizational bullshit perception scale. Psychological Reports 125: 448–63.
Frankfurt, Harry. 2009. On bullshit. In On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McCarthy, Ian P., David Hannah, Leyland F. Pitt, and Jane M. McCarthy. 2020. Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit. Business Horizons 63: 253–63.
Petrocelli, John V., Haley E. Silverman, and Samantha X. Shang. 2021. Social perception and influence of lies vs. bullshit: A test of the insidious bullshit hypothesis. Current Psychology 42: 9609–17.
Spicer, André. 2013. Shooting the shit: The role of bullshit in organizations. Management 16: 653–66.
Spicer, André. 2017. Business Bullshit. London: Routledge.
Luks, Fred. 2017. The ugly, the bad, and the good: Bullshit as discourse, accursed share, and lubricant. Journal of Extreme Anthropology 1: 85–91.
Christensen, Lars Thøger, Dan Kärreman, and Andreas Rasche. 2019. Bullshit and organization studies. Organization Studies 40: 1587–600.
Spicer, André. 2020. Playing the bullshit game: How empty and misleading communication takes over organizations. Organization Theory 1: 2631787720929704.
Argyris, Chris. 1990. Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Huber, George P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science 2: 88–115.
Senge, Peter. 1990. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B. Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner, and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2001. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 499.
Staw, Barry M., Nancy E. Bell, and John A. Clausen. 1986. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 56–77.
Dansereau, Fred, Jr., James Cashman, and George Graen. 1973. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10: 184–200.
Dansereau, Fred, Jr., George Graen, and William J. Haga. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13: 46–78.
Graen, George B., and Mary Uhl-Bien. 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: 219–47.
Sullivan, Jeremiah J. 1988. Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review 13: 104–15.
Kelly, Michael R. 2014. Bullshit as the absence of truthfulness. International Studies in Phenomenology and Philosophy 2: 165–88.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Robert I. Sutton. 2006. Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review 84: 62.
Petrocelli, John V. 2018. Antecedents of bullshitting. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 76: 249–58.
Pundir, Vartika, Elangbam Binodini Devi, and Vishnu Nath. 2021. Arresting fake news sharing on social media: A theory of planned behavior approach. Management Research Review 44: 1108–38.
Judge, Timothy A., Joyce E. Bono, and Edwin A. Locke. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 237.
Langer, Julie, Mary K. Feeney, and Sang Eun Lee. 2019. Employee fit and job satisfaction in bureaucratic and entrepreneurial work environments. Review of Public Personnel Administration 39: 135–55.
Wright, Bradley E., and Brian S. Davis. 2003. Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment. The American Review of Public Administration 33: 70–90.
Locke, Edwin A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Edited by M. D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 1297–349.
Brendel, Hannah, Maha Yomn Sbaa, Salvatore Zappala, Gabriele Puzzo, and Luca Pietrantoni. 2023. The Impact of Work-Related Barriers on Job Satisfaction of Practitioners Working with Migrants. Social Sciences 12: 98.
Kim, Long, Pimlapas Pongsakornrungsilp, Siwarit Pongsakornrungsilp, Ngachonpam Horam, and Vikas Kumar. 2023. Key Determinants of Job Satisfaction among University Lecturers. Social Sciences 12: 153.
Öksüz, Merve, Hikmet Tosyalı, and Furkan Tosyali. 2023. The link between supervisor support, servicing efficacy and job satisfaction among frontline hotel employees: An investigation in Turkey. Personnel Review 52: 1773–90.
Rayton, Bruce A., and Zeynep Y. Yalabik. 2014. Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25: 2382–400.
Steel, Piers, Joseph Schmidt, Frank Bosco, and Krista Uggerslev. 2019. The effects of personality on job satisfaction and life satisfaction: A meta-analytic investigation accounting for bandwidth–fidelity and commensurability. Human Relations 72: 217–47.
Hatch, Nile W., and Jeffrey H. Dyer. 2004. Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 25: 1155–78.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1995. Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people. Academy of Management Perspectives 9: 55–69.
Bakker, Arnold B., and Evangelia Demerouti. 2007. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22: 309–28.
Schaufeli, Wilmar B., and Arnold B. Bakker. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 25: 293–315.
Bauer, Georg F., Oliver Hämmig, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, and Toon W. Taris. 2014. Acritical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health. Edited by G. Bauer and O. Hämmig. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 43–68.
Doi, Yuriko. 2005. An epidemiologic review on occupational sleep research among Japanese workers. Industrial Health 43: 3–10.
Halbesleben, Jonathon RB, and M. Ronald Buckley. 2004. Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management 30: 859–79.
Salanova, Marisa, Sonia Agut, and José María Peiró. 2005. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1217.
Taris, Toon W., and Jan A. Feij. 2004. Learning and strain among newcomers: A three-wave study on the effects of job demands and job control. The Journal of Psychology 138: 543–63.
Keller, Robert T. 1975. Role conflict and ambiguity: Correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology 28: 57–64.
Cucina, Jeffrey M., Kevin A. Byle, Nicholas R. Martin, Sharron T. Peyton, and Ilene F. Gast. 2018. Generational differences in workplace attitudes and job satisfaction: Lack of sizable differences across cohorts. Journal of Managerial Psychology 33: 246–64.
Furnham, Adrian, Liam Forde, and Kirsti Ferrari. 1999. Personality and work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences 26: 1035–43.
Judge, Timothy A., and Randy J. Larsen. 2001. Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86: 67–98.
Staw, Barry M., and Yochi Cohen-Charash. 2005. The dispositional approach to job satisfaction: More than a mirage, but not yet an oasis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 26: 59–78.
Parsons, Frank. 1909. Choosing a Vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gabriel, Allison S., James M. Diefendorff, Megan M. Chandler, Christina M. Moran, and Gary J. Grguras. 2014. The dynamic relationships of work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personnel Psychology 67: 389–420.
Wheeler, Anthony R., Vickie Coleman Gallagher, Robyn L. Brouer, and Chris J. Sablynski. 2007. When person-organization (mis) fit and (dis) satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22: 203–19.
Cooper-Thomas, Helena D., Jessica Xu, and Alan M. Saks. 2018. The differential value of resources in predicting employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology 33: 326–44.
Rusbult, Caryl E., Dan Farrell, Glen Rogers, and Arch G. Mainous III. 1988. Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 31: 599–627.
Turnley, William H., and Daniel C. Feldman. 1999. The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human Relations 52: 895–922.
Braun, Susanne, Claudia Peus, Silke Weisweiler, and Dieter Frey. 2013. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly 24: 270–83.
Cansoy, Ramazan. 2019. The Relationship between School Principals’ Leadership Behaviours and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction: A Systematic Review. International Education Studies 12: 37–52.
Janssen, Onne, and Nico W. Van Yperen. 2004. Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 47: 368–84.
Zhu, Chunling, Fangliang Zhang, Chu-Ding Ling, and Yanfang Xu. 2022. Supervisor feedback, relational energy, and employee voice: The moderating role of leader–member exchange quality. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 34: 3308–35.
Kelloway, E. Kevin, Nick Turner, Julian Barling, and Catherine Loughlin. 2012. Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership. Work & Stress 26: 39–55.
Men, Linjuan Rita, Yufan Sunny Qin, and Jie Jin. 2022. Fostering employee trust via effective supervisory communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: Through the lens of motivating language theory. International Journal of Business Communication 59: 193–218.
Van Quaquebeke, Niels, and Will Felps. 2018. Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading through asking questions and listening. Academy of Management Review 43: 5–27.
Mellor, Steven, Carrie A. Bulger, and Lisa M. Kath. 2007. The potency of one-to-one contact with union leaders: Enhancing self-efficacy to become a union steward. The Journal of Psychology 141: 403–22.
Richter-Killenberg, Stefanie, and Judith Volmer. 2022. How leaders benefit from engaging in high-quality leader-member exchanges: A daily diary study. Journal of Managerial Psychology 31: 605–23.
Gerstner, Charlotte R., and David V. Day. 1997. Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 827.
Toscano, Ferdinando, Salvatore Zappalà, and Teresa Galanti. 2022. Is a good boss always a plus? LMX, family–work conflict, and remote working satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences 11: 248.
Mayfield, Jacqueline, Milton Mayfield, and Christopher P. Neck. 1995. Motivating language: Exploring theory with scale development. The Journal of Business Communication (1973) 32: 329–44.
Conger, Jay A. 1991. Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives 5: 31–45.
Fairhurst, Gail T. 1993. The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communications Monographs 60: 321–51.
Lamude, Kevin G., Tom D. Daniels, and Elizabeth E. Graham. 1988. The paradoxical influence of sex on communication rules coorientation and communication satisfaction in superior-subordinate relationships. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports) 52: 122–34.
Mayfield, Milton, and Jacqueline Mayfield. 2016. The effects of leader motivating language use on employee decision making. International Journal of Business Communication 53: 465–84.
Tao, Weiting, Yeunjae Lee, Ruoyu Sun, Jo-Yun Li, and Mu He. 2022. Enhancing Employee Engagement via Leaders’ Motivational Language in times of crisis: Perspectives from the COVID-19 outbreak. Public Relations Review 48: 102133.
Mayfield, Jacqueline, Milton Mayfield, and Christopher P. Neck. 2021. Speaking to the self: How motivating language links with self-leadership. International Journal of Business Communication 58: 31–54.
Rowley Mayfield, Jacqueline, Milton Ray Mayfield, and Jerry Kopf. 1998. The effects of Leader Motivating Language on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction. Human Resource Management 37: 235–48.
Nguyen, Cau Ngoc, Wei Ning, Albi Alikaj, and Quoc Nam Tran. 2021. Motivating language and employee outcomes: A multinational investigation. Management Research Review 44: 268–89.
Giri, Vijai N., and B. Pavan Kumar. 2010. Assessing the impact of organizational communication on job satisfaction and job performance. Psychological Studies 55: 137–43.
Pincus, J. David. 1986. Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human Communication Research 12: 395–419.
Stühlinger, Manuel, Jan B. Schmutz, and Gudela Grote. 2019. I hear you, but do I understand? The relationship of a shared professional language with quality of care and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1310.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Others

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Mahmoud Fallatah

View Times: 233

Update Date: 23 Nov 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm

1. Introduction

2. Bullshit in Organizations

3. Bullshitting and Job Satisfaction

References