Going above and beyond at work isn’t always a good thing
Much of the job satisfaction literature focuses on staff experiences and the extent to which their expectations are met by management (Darden et al., 2025). In other words, do managers follow through with promises and perform their leadership role in a way that meets staff needs.
But a recent article in the Journal of Management and Organization has focused on managers’ satisfaction with the staff that report to them. The article, which is openly accessible online, is called A psychological contract perspective of supervisors’ satisfaction with employees (Darden et al., 2025).
The study showed that managers satisfaction with staff is based on the managers assessment of delivered work contributions relative to what the staff member agreed to contribute. Underpinning this assessment are the manager’s own needs. Managers are at the same time:
- “agents of the organization, by managing their subordinates’ contributions to organizational goals”
- “subordinates, seeking to optimize their own receipt of inducements from the organization.”
“We reasoned that supervisors, as they enact both their agent and subordinate role, … evaluate the extent to which delivered contributions further or hinder their own interests (e.g., personal needs like making their work life easier and reaching work goals; … physiological needs like inducements which provide for basic survival needs like food and shelter; … and psychological needs like competence, self-esteem, integrity, and relatedness)” (p. 17)
Unsurprisingly, managers tended to have low levels of satisfaction with staff when delivered contributions were lower than what was promised. In this situation, low satisfaction may come from a range of need related motivations:
“deficiency may impair supervisors’ well-being because they have not received needed resources … and could indicate ineffective leadership of subordinates, threatening supervisors’ needs for competence and integrity.” (p. 18)
Perhaps more surprisingly, the study showed that increases in contributions are not paired with increases in manager satisfaction. Rather, in cases where staff over delivered on their promised contributions, manager satisfaction with staff performance levelled off or declined.
“Subordinates’ excess contributions may suggest they have inappropriately allocated their time and effort to tasks that impede or obstruct goal achievement, perhaps on other performance dimensions, for both the subordinate and by extension, the supervisor. … As such, the supervisors’ need for competence might be negatively affected.” (p. 18)
The authors of the study suggest that:
“Subordinates should be aware that contributing work in excess of promised amounts may not be universally desirable from their supervisors’ perspective. Just as supervisors should provide structure and guidance to subordinates, subordinates may benefit from seeking feedback from supervisors regarding the quantity, quality, and utility of their contributions.” (p. 19)
Related content
This episode of the Psych Attack podcast is about professional and personal experiences of self-care, the benefits of being unapologetically self-promoting, and working out how to be heard in order to get the support you need.
Image
Created using ChatGPT