INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AMONG EMPLOYEES,MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION STYLE,AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION: REPLICATION AND EXTENSION

Portions of three previous studies relating individual differences in employee satisfaction and one study relating Management Communication Style (MCS) to employee satisfaction were replicated across four organizational contexts. Major findings were supportive of the generalizability of the results observed in the previous studies. The interface of superior-subordinate relations and their impact on employee satisfaction were examined through perceptions of employees with regard to the MCS of upper management and the task behaviors (supervision and administration) of their immediate superiors. Results were supportive of the MCS conceptualization and indicated that MCS of immediate superior and MCS of upper management had their primary impact on different dimensions of employee satisfaction. Perceptions of superiors' task behaviors were found to have different impact on employees satisfaction for different organizational contexts. Variability in employee satisfaction predictable from individual employee differences and that predictable from superior-subordinate interface were found to have little overlap. It is recommended that both the individual differences (trait) and superior-subordinate interface (situational) approaches to the study of communication in organizational contexts be continued since the two generate independent predictions of unique variance.     

Who Do We Treat First When Resources Are Scarce?

In a health service with limited resources we must make decisions about who to treat first. In this paper I develop a version of the restoration argument according to which those whose need for resources is a consequence of their voluntary choices should receive lower priority when it comes to health care. I then consider three possible problems for this argument based on those that have been raised against other theories of this type: that we don't know in a particular case that the illness is self‐inflicted, that it seems that all illness is self‐inflicted in the sense used in my argument, and finally that this type of approach incorporates an unacceptable moralising element if it is to avoid giving those like fire‐fighters a lower priority for treatment. I argue that the position outlined here has the resources to respond to each of these objections.