The Effects of Weekly Levels of Supervisor Support and Workload on Next Week Levels of Well-Being, Satisfaction, and Performance as Mediated by Weekend Work Recovery

Abstract

This diary study sought to examine the direct and indirect effects of individuals' perceptions of supervisor support and workload during a work week (week 1) on their well-being, satisfaction, and performance at work during the following work week (week 2) as mediated through the quality of their weekend work recovery experiences (psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control) and sleep quantity. Moreover, we also investigated the possible interaction between supervisor support and workload in the prediction of weekend recovery experiences and sleep quantity. A sample of 90 second-year nursing students taking part in a professional internship completed self-report questionnaires after each of their five working days during week 1 (i.e., supervisor support and workload), then at the end of the day for 2 days during the weekend (i.e., recovery experiences and sleep quantity), and finally after each of their five working days during week 2 (i.e., workplace well-being, performance, and satisfaction). Our results revealed indirect effects of supervisor support on workplace well-being and job satisfaction, as mediated by weekend recovery experiences. Workload was also associated with higher levels of sleep quantity during the weekend and had a direct negative association with the levels of satisfaction and well-being experienced during the following week. Furthermore, workload was associated with better weekend recovery experiences for participants exposed to low levels of supervisor support in week 1. Alternatively, the positive effects of supervisor support on weekend recovery experiences were attenuated as workload levels increased. Theoretical and practical implications of the present study are discussed.

Keywords: job demands and resources; nursing; recovery experiences; sleep; social support; well‐being; work performance.

FIGURE 1

Theoretical model and hypotheses (H) tested in this study. Moderation effects are shown as grey arrows linking the moderator to the path that it is expected to moderate; all direct effects are indicated by the letter “E”; indirect effects are formed by a combination of the following direct effects: (a) E7‐E8; (b) E7‐E9; (c) E7‐E10; (d) E11‐E12; (e) E11‐E13; (f) E11‐E14; (g) E15‐E8; (h) E15‐E9; (i) E15‐E10; (j) E16‐E12; (k) E16‐E13; (l) E16‐E14.