Focus on Immediate Supervisor

The Focus series is a collection of reports that present the results of the 2014 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES), broken down by theme. Focus on Immediate Supervisor looks at results in the area of employee supervision and examines how they relate to results for other aspects of the workplace. The information provided in this report is intended to help target efforts to improve people management practices in the public service.

Results and Comparisons Over Time

The 2014 PSES contained three questionsSee Footnote 1 relating to immediate supervisor. Table 1 shows the results for all three questions.

Table 1: Results for questions relating to immediate supervisor (2008, 2011 and 2014)
Question Number Question 2008
(%)
2011
(%)
2014
(%)

Table 1 Notes

Table 1 – Note 1

n/a – Question not asked in the survey for this year, or question modified in the subsequent survey(s)

Return to Table 1 – Footnote * referrer

Q31 I can count on my immediate supervisor to keep his or her promises. 72 74 75
Q32 My immediate supervisor keeps me informed about the issues affecting my work. 71 73 75
Q36 I am satisfied with the quality of supervision I receive. n/aSee Table 1 – Note * n/aSee Table 1 – Note * 77

Overall, three out of four employees expressed positive opinions about their immediate supervisor.

The 2014 PSES included a new question that asked respondents to indicate their satisfaction with the quality of supervision they receive; 77% of employees agreed that they are satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (Q36).

In 2014, 75% of employees agreed that they can count on their immediate supervisor to keep his or her promises (Q31), which is similar to 74% in 2011 and higher than 72% in 2008. When asked whether their immediate supervisor keeps them informed about issues affecting their work (Q32), 75% of employees agreed, an increase from both 2011 and 2008 (73% and 71%, respectively).

Demographic Findings

Occupational category

The 2014 PSES results indicate that opinions on immediate supervisor varied among occupational categories.See Footnote 2 Employees in the Executive category expressed the most positive opinions and employees in the Operational category expressed the least positive opinions. For example, 85% of Executive employees indicated that they were satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (Q36) compared with 64% of Operational employees (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Results for Q36 (I am satisfied with the quality of supervision I receive) by occupational category
Bar charts of the results for Q36 by occupational category. Text version below:
Figure 1 - Text version

Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of employees in each occupational category who responded affirmatively to Q36 (I am satisfied with the quality of supervision I receive).

Executive Scientific and Professional Administration and Foreign Services Technical Administration Support Operational
85% 77% 78% 75% 77% 64%

Community

The 2014 PSES asked employees to indicate the community with which they most closely identify. Overall, employees who identified with the internal audit, access to information and privacy, and human resources communities tended to express the most positive opinions about their immediate supervisor. Employees who identified with the security community tended to express the least positive opinions. For example, 82% of employees in the internal audit and the access to information and privacy communities and 80% of employees in the human resources community reported that they are satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (Q36), compared with 63% of employees in the security community.

Age

Younger employees tended to express more positive opinions on their immediate supervisor than did their older counterparts. In particular, employees aged 24 years and under were more likely than employees in older age groups to agree that their immediate supervisor keeps his or her promises (86% compared with 74% to 79% for employees in older age groups, Q31), or to agree that their immediate supervisor keeps them informed about the issues affecting their work (84% compared with 73% to 78% for employees in older age groups, Q32).

Years of service

Employees with less than one year of service in the public service or in their organization tended to express more positive opinions on their immediate supervisor than did those with more years of service. Figure 2 shows the results for employees’ opinions on how informed their supervisor keeps them about issues affecting their work (Q32).

Figure 2: Results for Q32 (My immediate supervisor keeps me informed about the issues affecting my work) by years of service
Bar charts of the results for Q32 by years of service. Text version below:
Figure 2 - Text version

Figure 2 illustrates the proportion of employees who responded affirmatively to Q32 (My immediate supervisor keeps me informed about the issues affecting my work) by years of service in the public service and in their current organization.

Years of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 or more years
In public service 86% 79% 74% 73% 73% 74% 73% 73%
In organization 84% 76% 73% 72% 73% 74% 73% 74%

Organization size

Employees in smaller organizations tended to have more positive views of their immediate supervisor than did employees in larger organizations. For example, 81% of employees in micro-organizations (fewer than 150 employees) reported that they can count on their immediate supervisor to keep his or her promises (Q31), compared with 73% of employees in very large organizations (10,000 employees or more). Similarly, 80% of employees in micro-organizations or very small organizations (those between 150 and 499 employees) agreed that they are satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (Q36), compared with 75% of employees in very large organizations.

Key Observations

Workplace factors linked to positive perceptions of immediate supervisors

Meaningful recognition

Employees who expressed positive opinions about the recognition they receive for their work tended to express more positive opinions about their immediate supervisor than did employees who expressed negative opinions. For example, employees who agreed that they receive meaningful recognition for work well done (Q12) were more likely than those who disagreed to indicate that they are satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (92% compared with 47%, Q36).

Effective performance management

Views on performance management were related to opinions on immediate supervisor. For example, employees who reported that they receive useful feedback from their immediate supervisor on their job performance (Q30) were more likely than those who disagreed to indicate that their immediate supervisor keeps them informed about the issues affecting their work (90% compared with 23%, Q32). Further, employees who agreed that their immediate supervisor assesses their work against identified goals and objectives (Q34) were more likely than those who disagreed to report that they are satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (89% compared with 20%, Q36).

Effective resolution of interpersonal issues

Employees who agreed that they are satisfied with how interpersonal issues are resolved in their work unit (Q24) were more likely than those who disagreed to indicate that they can count on their immediate supervisor to keep his or her promises (87% compared with 44%, Q31) and to report that they are satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (89% compared 44%, Q36).

Support for flexible work arrangements

Employees who indicated that their immediate supervisor supports the use of flexible work arrangements tended to express positive opinions about their supervisor. For example, among employees who reported that, subject to operational requirements, their immediate supervisor supports the use of flexible work arrangements (Q35), 86% indicated that they were satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (Q36), compared with 37% of those who disagreed that their supervisor supports such arrangements.

Positive views about immediate supervisor linked to indicators of empowerment

Employees who expressed positive views about their immediate supervisor tended to indicate that they have support at work to provide a high level of service. For example, among employees who agreed that they could count on their immediate supervisor to keep his or her promises (Q31), 77% indicated that they receive support at work to provide a high level of service (Q18), compared with 25% of those who disagreed that they can count on their supervisor to keep promises. Similarly, employees who agreed that they are satisfied with the quality of supervision they receive (Q36) were more likely than those who disagreed to indicate that they receive support at work to provide a high level of service (77% compared with 24%, Q18).

Methodological Notes

For the purposes of this report, results for the two most positive responses on the scale (e.g., "Strongly agree" and "Somewhat agree") were added together to create a single percentage total for positive responses. Similarly, results for the two most negative responses on the scale (e.g., "Strongly disagree" and "Somewhat disagree") were added together to create a single percentage total for negative responses. The totals used to calculate the percentages do not include the responses "Don't know" and "Not applicable."

The observations in this report do not necessarily indicate relationships of cause and effect, but they can provide insight into connections between different aspects of the workplace.

For additional results and for the distribution of respondents by demographic characteristics, consult the 2014 PSES website.

Appendix

Occupational Category Occupational Group
Executive CI-EXC, DM, EC(CRA), EX, EXPCX, GR-EX, LC, MGT, PL, RLE
Scientific and Professional AC, AG, AR, AP-AA, AP-PA, ASG-ITS-LA, AU, BI, CH, CI-SPC, DE, DS, EC, ED, EN, ES, FO, HR, LA, LP, LS, MA, MD, MT, ND, NU, OP, PC, PH, PM-MCO, PS, SE, SG, SI, SW, UT, VM
Administration and Foreign Services AS, CO, CS, FI, FS, HR(CRA), IS, OM, PE, PG, PM, TR, WP
Technical AI, AO, CIPTC, DD, EG, EL, EU, GT, PI, PY, RO, SO, TI
Administrative Support CIASC, CM, CR, DA, OE, ST
Operational CX, FB, FR, GA, GL, GS, HP, HS, IN, LI, PO-IMA, PO-TCO, PR, SC, SR
Other AB, CIVIL, FT, Governor in Council, GR, IM, MDMDG, MG, NB, RE, REG, RM, SP(CRA), Student, UNI, Other

Page details

Date modified: