Participants

Final N = 58

M age = 40.26

Vignettes

In this study, we are going to give you some information about an individual and ask you to imagine that you actually work with that person as your manager.

Regardless of your actual workplace experiences and relationships, please try your best to put yourself into the shoes of someone who reports to this person and think about what it would feel like to have them as your manager.

For the next few minutes, please immerse yourself in the following scenario.

Lucas has been your direct manager for the past year. During this time, you have interacted regularly through team projects and one-on-one meetings and have become familiar with how Lucas thinks and communicates.

You generally like Lucas and respect his knowledge of and competence on the job. You think that he has your back and that he’d defend you and your work if someone questioned it. In turn, you don’t mind putting in extra effort on things he asks of you.

High Shared Reality: Whenever you talk, you feel like you are immediately “on the same wavelength.” You usually share the same thoughts and feelings about things, and you tend to interpret events in the same way. In conversation, you often build on each other’s ideas and develop a joint perspective. You get the sense that you see the world in the same way.

Low Shared Reality: Whenever you talk, you feel like you are not really “on the same wavelength.” You don’t usually share the same thoughts or feelings about things, and you tend to interpret events differently. In conversation, you don’t really build on each other’s ideas or develop a joint perspective. You get the sense that you don’t see the world in the same way.

Take a moment to imagine coming to your office each day and interacting with Lucas and working with a manager like him.

Please rate your agreement with the following statements as if you worked with Lucas as your manager

Shared Reality

(8-items; Rossignac-Milon et al 2021) In my interactions with Laura/Lucas… …we think of things at the exact same time. …we often develop a joint perspective.

  srg
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.44 2.08 – 2.79 <0.001
condition [1] 3.36 2.86 – 3.86 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.766 / 0.761

Was our manipulation effective? YES

LMX

(7-items; Liden & Maslyn, 1998)
I like Laura/Lucas very much as a person.
I would do work for Laura/Lucas that goes beyond what is specified in my job description.
I respect Laura/Lucas’s knowledge of and competence on the job. …

  lmx
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.66 5.43 – 5.88 <0.001
condition [1] 0.49 0.16 – 0.81 0.004
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.139 / 0.124

Did we also manipulate LMX? YES

Work Meaning

(3-items; adapted from Spreitzer, 1995)
Please rate your agreement with the following statements as if you worked with Logan/Lana.
The work would feel very important to me.
My job activities would be personally meaningful to me.
The work would be meaningful to me.

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.49 5.17 – 5.81 <0.001
condition [1] 0.40 -0.05 – 0.86 0.081
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.054 / 0.037

  wm
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.11 1.05 – 5.16 0.004
condition [1] 0.20 -0.27 – 0.67 0.406
lmx 0.42 0.06 – 0.78 0.022
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.140 / 0.109

Burnout

(2-items; adapted from Maslach et al., 1997)
I would feel worn out at the end of the working day.
I would feel emotionally drained from my work.

  burn
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.03 3.51 – 4.56 <0.001
condition [1] -1.59 -2.33 – -0.84 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.245 / 0.232

  burn
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 10.85 7.83 – 13.87 <0.001
condition [1] -1.00 -1.69 – -0.31 0.005
lmx -1.21 -1.73 – -0.68 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.454 / 0.434

Organizational Commitment

2-items; adapted from Grant et al., 2008 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization I would feel like this organization’s problems are my own

  oc
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.31 3.84 – 4.78 <0.001
condition [1] 0.57 -0.09 – 1.23 0.090
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.051 / 0.034

  oc
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -1.07 -3.85 – 1.71 0.444
condition [1] 0.11 -0.53 – 0.74 0.741
lmx 0.95 0.47 – 1.44 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.258 / 0.231


Job Satisfaction

(3-items; adapted from Brayfield & Rothe, 1951; Koopman et al., 2016) I would feel fairly satisfied with my job. I would feel enthusiastic about my work. I would find real enjoyment in my work.

  js
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.82 4.42 – 5.21 <0.001
condition [1] 1.22 0.66 – 1.78 <0.001
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.253 / 0.240

  js
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 0.83 -1.61 – 3.26 0.500
condition [1] 0.87 0.32 – 1.43 0.003
lmx 0.71 0.28 – 1.13 0.002
Observations 58
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.378 / 0.355


Mediation by WM

SR –> WM –> BURN

## Running nonparametric bootstrap
Mediation of shared reality (srg) and burnout (burn) through work meaning (wm).
Effect B 95% CI p
Indirect effect (ACME) -0.102 [-0.211, -0.019] = 0.014
Direct effect (ADE) -0.308 [-0.518, -0.123] = 0.002
Total effect -0.410 [-0.619, -0.202] < .001
Proportion mediated 0.248 [0.049, 0.542] = 0.014


SR –> WM –> OC

## Running nonparametric bootstrap
Mediation of shared reality (srg) and organizational commitment (oc) through work meaning (wm).
Effect B 95% CI p
Indirect effect (ACME) 0.143 [0.03, 0.254] = 0.012
Direct effect (ADE) 0.106 [-0.045, 0.25] = 0.142
Total effect 0.249 [0.066, 0.417] = 0.012
Proportion mediated 0.575 [0.196, 1.299] = 0.020


SR –> WM –> JS

## Running nonparametric bootstrap
Mediation of shared reality (srg) and job satisfaction (js) through work meaning (wm).
Effect B 95% CI p
Indirect effect (ACME) 0.114 [0.029, 0.223] = 0.014
Direct effect (ADE) 0.228 [0.119, 0.354] = 0.002
Total effect 0.342 [0.191, 0.488] < .001
Proportion mediated 0.333 [0.113, 0.566] = 0.014


Mediation by LMX

SR –> LMX –> BURN

## Running nonparametric bootstrap
Mediation of shared reality (srg) and burnout (burn) through LMX.
Effect B 95% CI p
Indirect effect (ACME) -0.156 [-0.294, -0.042] = 0.006
Direct effect (ADE) -0.254 [-0.472, -0.069] = 0.008
Total effect -0.410 [-0.616, -0.191] < .001
Proportion mediated 0.380 [0.119, 0.769] = 0.006


SR –> LMX –> OC

## Running nonparametric bootstrap
Mediation of shared reality (srg) and organizational commitment (oc) through LMX.
Effect B 95% CI p
Indirect effect (ACME) 0.106 [0.019, 0.241] = 0.014
Direct effect (ADE) 0.143 [-0.035, 0.333] = 0.116
Total effect 0.249 [0.075, 0.417] = 0.006
Proportion mediated 0.425 [0.068, 1.256] = 0.016


SR –> LMX –> JS

## Running nonparametric bootstrap
Mediation of shared reality (srg) and job satisfaction (js) through LMX.
Effect B 95% CI p
Indirect effect (ACME) 0.086 [0.003, 0.205] = 0.042
Direct effect (ADE) 0.255 [0.084, 0.465] < .001
Total effect 0.342 [0.197, 0.502] < .001
Proportion mediated 0.253 [0.007, 0.664] = 0.042