The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Statistical Model to Determine the Relationship between Employee Supervisor Characteristics and Overall Satisfaction in Dental Departments in Saudi Arabia

Khaled Alqahtani

Keywords : Dental departments, Employee satisfaction, Exploratory study, Hospitals, Multiple linear regression, Statistical model, Survey analysis

Citation Information : Alqahtani K. A Statistical Model to Determine the Relationship between Employee Supervisor Characteristics and Overall Satisfaction in Dental Departments in Saudi Arabia. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (7):724-729.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3131

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: An exploratory study was undertaken to determine the relationship between supervisor characteristics and overall satisfaction with supervisors as perceived by the employees of dental departments in hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Materials and methods: We conducted a survey that included six questions designed to measure the overall performance of a supervisor, as well as questions that were related to specific activities involving interactions between supervisors and employees indental departments of 30 hospitals that were randomly selected. At least 35 employees and one supervisor in each dental department were interviewed. Initially, six questionnaire items were chosen as possible explanatory variables. There are two broad types of variables included in this study. Variables X1 (handles employee complaints), X2 (does not allow for special treatment), and X5 (too critical of poor performance) relate to direct interpersonal relationships, i.e., direct connection between the employee and supervisor, whereas variables X3 (opportunity to learn new things) and X4 (raises based on performance) are of a less personal nature and relate to the job as a whole, i.e., indirect relationship between employees and their supervisor. Variable X6 (rate of advancing to better jobs) is not a direct evaluation of the supervisor, but serves more as a general measure of how the employee perceives his or her own progress in the hospital. Results: Using regression analysis, we observed that only X1 (handles employee complaints) and X3 (opportunity to learn new things) have an impact on response Y (overall rating of job being done by supervisor). There is a strong positive relationship between X1 and Y and also between X3 and Y. Conclusion: Therefore, when the supervisor listens and handles employee complaints and gives employees the opportunity to learn new things, the supervisor becomes favorable. Clinical significance: The relationship between supervisor characteristics and overall satisfaction with supervisors as perceived by the employees of dental departments has not been studied. An understanding of this relationship is valuable to improve employee–supervisor relations, which can improve the overall functioning of hospitals.


PDF Share
  1. Kaye AD, Okanlawon OJ, Urman RD. Clinical performance feedback and quality improvement opportunities for perioperative physicians. Adv Med Educ Pract [Internet] 2014;5:115–123. DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S62165.
  2. Bibi P, Pangil F, Johanim J, et al. The impact of compensation and promotional opportunities on employee retention in academic institutions: the moderating role of work environment. Int J Econ Perspect2017;11:378–391.
  3. Antonioni D. The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. J Manag 2001;27(4):479–495. DOI: 10.1177/014920630102700405.
  4. Frederiksen A, Kahn LB, Lange F. Supervisors and performance management systems. J Polit Econ [Internet] 2019;128(6):2123–2187. DOI: 10.1086/705715.
  5. Khan F. Role of performance appraisal system on employees moti- vation. IOSR J Bus Manag 2013;8:66–83. DOI: 10.9790/487X-0846683.
  6. Bertrand M, Schoar A. Managing with style: the effect of managers on firm policies. Q J Econ [Internet]2003;118(4):1169–1208. DOI: 10.1162/003355303322552775.
  7. Lazear EP, Shaw KL, Stanton CT. The value of bosses. J Labor Econ [Internet] 2015;33(4):823–861. DOI: 10.1086/681097.
  8. Osborne J, Waters E. Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Pract Assess Res Eval 2002;8(2). DOI: 10.7275/r222-hv23.
  9. Sall J. Leverage plots for general linear hypotheses. Am Stat [Internet] 1990;44(4):308–315. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1990.10475750.
  10. Cook RD. Influential observations in linear regression. J Am Stat Assoc [Internet] 1979;74(365):169–174. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481634.
  11. Alin A. Multicollinearity. WIREs Comput Stat [Internet] 2010;2(3):370–374. DOI: 10.1002/wics.84.
  12. Dodge Y. The concise encyclopedia of statistics. 2008
  13. Koenker R. A note on studentizing a test for heteroscedasticity. J Econom [Internet]1981;17(1):107–112. DOI: 10.1016/0304-4076(81)90062-2.
  14. Guerard J. Regression analysis and forecasting models. 2013. p. 19–45.
  15. Box GEP, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B [Internet] 1964;26(2):211–252.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.