Next Article in Journal
The Struggle to Maintain Schools in Times of War
Previous Article in Journal
Work-Based Learning in Migrant Education: The Case of Finnish Vocational Education
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/socsci14050276
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Supervisor Phubbing in Part-Time Jobs: Examining Its Relationship with Supervisor–Employee Rapport

by
Michael Langlais
1,* and
Emma Welch
2
1
Department of Human Sciences and Design, Robbins College of Health and Human Sciences, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32304, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(5), 276; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050276
Submission received: 19 March 2025 / Revised: 25 April 2025 / Accepted: 27 April 2025 / Published: 29 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Work, Employment and the Labor Market)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Using the Leader–Member Exchange theory, the goal of this study is to test the relationship between supervisor phubbing and supervisor–employee rapport in the context of part-time jobs. Data for this quantitative investigation come from 211 participants who completed an online survey regarding frequency of supervisor phubbing and their rapport with supervisors for their last three part-time jobs, if applicable. The results from regression analyses revealed that supervisor phubbing negatively predicted supervisor–employee rapport for participants’ first and second part-time jobs, even when controlling for length of time working, frequency of communicating with supervisor, and amount of technology use by supervisor and employee. These findings imply that even limited interactions, when disrupted by mobile phone use, can hinder part-time employees’ relationships with their supervisors and employee engagement.

1. Introduction

Many organizations, businesses, and companies are successful as a result of strong rapport between supervisors and their employees. Rapport between supervisors and employees is associated with higher job satisfaction (Rajapakshe 2021) and increased productivity (Hackney et al. 2018; Landry and Vandenberghe 2012), employee engagement (Lu et al. 2016), and employee retention (Pappas 2019). As a result, many studies have focused on areas that promote supervisor–employee rapport. A variable receiving recent attention is phubbing, meaning ignoring someone in order to pay attention to one’s mobile device (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2016; Vanden Abeele et al. 2016). Recent studies have demonstrated that phubbing disrupts workplace relationships (Khan et al. 2022; Roberts and David 2020). However, little is known regarding the impact of phubbing between supervisors and employees in part-time relationships. This gap is important to address because 28 million Americans work part-time jobs, which represents nearly one-fifth of the entire workforce (Dunn 2018). It is imperative to understand variables that can promote rapport between supervisors and part-time employees, as these relationships are linked to organizational success (Beenen et al. 2021). The goal of this study is to understand how supervisor phubbing is related to supervisor–employee rapport. Studies on phubbing have consistently found that cellphone use and texting during conversations is associated with lower levels of perceived relationship quality and can lead to the damage of close relationships (Halpern and Katz 2017; Kerkhof et al. 2011). This study is significant in a number of ways. First, it addresses a relatively unexplored topic—phubbing in part-time jobs. Second, participants report on their last three part-time jobs, if applicable, providing many different perspectives of supervisor phubbing. Third, this study extends research on phubbing in the workplace by determining how it is related to supervisor–employee rapport. Achieving the goal of this study will enable researchers to develop recommendations to strengthen relationships between employees and their supervisors in an increasingly technology-driven society.

1.1. Literature Review

Organizations must focus on how to be the most competitive, efficient, and successful they can be within their fields. One of the important components of organizational success stems from workplace relationships, especially between supervisors and employees. Supervisor–employee rapport is defined as the perceived quality of the relationship between an employee and their supervisor (Grayson 2016). This rapport starts with the interactions and exchanges that occur between supervisors and their employees, which is best explained through Leader–Member Exchange (LMX; Dansereau et al. 1973; Graen and Cashman 1975; Gerstner and Day 1997). According to LMX, when leaders and their subordinates have good-quality exchanges and high-quality LMX, they have mutual trust, can achieve more, and the organization’s unit performance improves (Dansereau et al. 1973; Stringer 2006). For employees, the relationship with their supervisor becomes the lens through which they view their work experiences and organization (Day and Miscenko 2015; Gerstner and Day 1997). This concept implies that when employees have a negative relationship with their supervisor, they may establish a bleak view of their work experience. On the other hand, if employees have strong rapport with their supervisors, they are more likely to view their work and organization positively. Furthermore, when there is a positive relationship between employees and their supervisors, it creates a sense of belonging and emotional identification with the company (Wangombe et al. 2014). This supervisor–employee relationship can promote employee work engagement that benefits the organization without external motivators, such as financial rewards (Eisenberger et al. 1990; Wangombe et al. 2014).
The theory of LMX places the supervisor–employee relationship on a scale of low, medium, and high based on the development on the relationship, for example, from stranger to connected relationship (Graen and Schiemann 1978; Kramer 2004). Part of LMX theory suggests that developmental opportunities for the supervisor–employee relationship are based on organizational communication (Kramer 2004). According to related studies using this theory, supervisors are more likely to interrupt their employees when there is a low LMX, which subsequently hinders the development of the relationship (Fairhurst and Chandler 1989; Kramer 2004). Essentially, when supervisors engage in interruptions during a conversation with their employee, it can limit their ability to build a stronger relationship (Fairhurst and Chandler 1989; Kramer 2004). While this research was conducted prior to the increase in cellphone presence, it describes how interruptions, in general, during supervisor–employee interactions can inhibit the development of the supervisor–employee relationship, therefore possibly damaging the building of rapport. Based on this theoretical premise, employees are more likely to want to contribute to the organization’s success when they have strong rapport with their leader.
Supervisor phubbing is likely to influence rapport between supervisors and their employees. This specific workplace concept—supervisor phubbing—refers to an employee’s perception that their supervisor is disrupting their interaction or is distracted by their cellphone (Roberts and David 2017; Saxena and Srivastava 2023; Yao and Nie 2023). According to recent studies, cellphone use during a face-to-face interaction can result in negative effects on perceived communication quality (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018; Lievaart 2020; Vanden Abeele et al. 2016). Phubbing, in general, can damage relationship satisfaction and personal wellbeing for individuals in many different contexts, including romantic, family, and workplace relationships (Kadylak 2020; Roberts and David 2017, 2020; Xie et al. 2022; Yam 2023).
In the workplace, supervisor phubbing negatively impacts employees’ performance and leads to adverse occupational outcomes. For instance, supervisor phubbing leads to decreased trust in supervisors, which inherently impacts employees work-related psychological conditions, such as psychological meaningfulness (Roberts and David 2017). Psychological meaningfulness is the feeling that a behavior is valuable or will aid in the professional or personal development and growth for the employee (Li and Tan 2013; Roberts and David 2017). Furthermore, research shows that employees who have experienced phubbing from their boss experience decreased job satisfaction and lower performance (Roberts and David 2020). Employees who are phubbed by their supervisors show lower levels of work engagement, which comes from low intrinsic, inner motivation (Soares and Mosquera 2019; Yousaf et al. 2022). Low intrinsic motivation is associated with lower levels of employee work performance (Yousaf et al. 2022).
Supervisor phubbing has also been found to make employees feel alienated, adversely affecting employees’ work attitudes and behaviors (Xu et al. 2022). Supervisor phubbing can lead to workplace ostracism, which is the inability to build a workplace connection (Saxena and Srivastava 2023). When ostracized, employees report lower self-esteem (Yasin et al. 2020; Yasin 2021). Coincidentally, there is a positive association between supervisor phubbing and employee depression via their sense of belonging being damaged (Yasin 2021). Supervisors who consistently divert their attention to their cellphones may cause their employees to feel unimportant during conversations (Vanden Abeele et al. 2016; Roberts and David 2017). Thus, supervisor phubbing could damage or hinder the building of positive supervisor–employee rapport.
It is important to mention that for many jobs, supervisors may need to be on their phones while working. Although no studies to our knowledge have examined the benefits of supervisor phubbing, as technology evolves and becomes integral to the success of businesses, supervisors may need to “phub” their employees to meet the needs of the organization. For example, an important client may be trying to get in touch with the supervisor. Ignoring the call to listen to a part-time employee may not be the best decision for the company in the long term. Generally, supervisor phubbing is likely to hinder supervisor–employee rapport, but this behavior may become normalized or is necessary for a company in order to succeed.

1.2. The Present Study

The problem this study seeks to understand is the consequences of supervisor phubbing in part-time jobs, as strong supervisor–employee rapport is crucial for organizational success and linked to job satisfaction, productivity, and employee retention. Given the prevalence of mobile media use and the increasing number of part-time employees in the workforce, it is essential to understand how supervisor phubbing may disrupt professional communication and hinder the development of rapport between part-time employees and their supervisors. There are limitations to the reviewed studies. The primary limitation is the reliance on data with full-time employees, leaving a gap regarding how supervisor phubbing impacts supervisor–employee rapport in the context of part-time jobs. Additionally, some of the studies performed are dated, and do not consider the increased integration of technology in jobs within their research. The current study aims to address this research gap. When bosses engage in cellphone use during interactions and conversations with their employees, they are jeopardizing the perceived quality of an employee’s relationship with their leader (Grayson 2016). This relationship quality begins with the communication between supervisors and employees, which is explained through LMX. Given this empirical and theoretical information, we present the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.
Higher supervisor phubbing will relate to lower levels of supervisor–employee rapport.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedures and Participants

Participants for this quantitative study were recruited from a large university in the Southeastern United States. Through convenience sampling, volunteering professors in the Department of Human Development and Family Science posted information about this study to their Canvas course page. These posts described the goal of this study, to understand how smart phone use contributes to supervisor–employee relationships, and how participants could participate. Those interested selected a link to an online survey, where participants answered questions regarding their last three part-time jobs, if applicable, and their experiences with supervisor phubbing in each of these jobs. The online survey also asked participants to answer questions regarding the supervisor–employee relationship. The survey took approximately 20–30 min to complete. Of the 311 participants who were solicited (based on the number of students enrolled in the courses that shared this study), 211 completed the online survey (67.8% response rate). Using G*Power to conduct a power analysis with effect size = 0.15, alpha error of probability = 0.05, and power = 0.95, the minimum number of participants needed is 89, which we exceeded with this sample. Participants were offered extra credit for their participation in this study. All aspects of this study were approved by the appropriate institutional review board.
Out of the 211 participants that completed the survey, 36 (17.1%) were male and 175 (82.9%) were female. The participants reported their ethnicities as White/Caucasian (62.1%), Black/African American (12.3%), Asian/Pacific Islander (3.3%), Hispanic (15.2%), Mixed (5.7%), and 1.4% reported “other”. The majority of participants were college juniors (46%), followed by seniors (33.6%) and sophomores (20.4%); there were no first-year (i.e., freshman) participants in this study.

2.2. Measures

Mean values, standard deviations, reliability, and correlations for the quantitative data are presented in Table 1. Given that the correlations did not deviate from the study results (discussed later), issues of multicollinearity are unlikely.

2.2.1. Supervisor Phubbing

Participants reported supervisor phubbing for each of their last three part-time jobs, if applicable (all participants reported at least one part-time job). Supervisor phubbing was measured by adapting the 9-item phubbing scale (Roberts and David 2017), by replacing the reference to “another person” by explicitly stating “supervisor”. Example items include “My supervisor uses their cellphones when we are talking in person” and “If there is a lull in my conversation with my boss, they will check their cellphone”, with responses ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). This scale displayed adequate internal consistency across all three jobs (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94–0.97).

2.2.2. Supervisor–Employee Rapport

Participants reported on the rapport between them and their bosses for each part-time job using the 4-item supervisor rapport scale (Zhang et al. 2019). Example items included “Does your supervisor consider your wishes, needs, and opinions?” and “How satisfied are you with your relationship with your supervisor?” Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal) and this scale displayed adequate internal consistency across all three jobs (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94–0.96).

2.2.3. Control Variables

Participants answered other questions about each of their jobs including the average number of hours worked per week and how long they were employed with the company (in months). Participants also answered questions regarding how frequently they saw their boss, and how often they communicated via email, text, face-to-face, or other, such as social media. Participants also answered questions regarding how frequently they used their phone and computer at work, as well as their perceptions of how frequently their supervisor used their phone and computer at work. Each of these items was on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating more frequent behavior. Mean values for each of these variables are displayed in Table 2.

3. Results

All analyses for this study were conducted using v. 29 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The hypothesis of this study predicted that supervisor phubbing would negatively associate with supervisor–employee rapport. The results for these analyses are found in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. For the most recent part-time job, supervisor phubbing was negatively associated with rapport, but only in the first step in the model. When controlling for communication between supervisor and employee, the significant relationship between supervisor phubbing and supervisor–employee rapport disappeared. In this model, spending time face to face and texting a supervisor was significantly more related to supervisor–employee rapport. No other variables were significant in predicting supervisor–employee rapport when adding this second step in the regression analyses. When adding the third step with the most recent part-time job, face-to-face and texting communication remained significantly positively associated with supervisor–employee rapport. No other variables were significant in this third model. The effective size for the first step was 0.04, 0.25 when adding the second step, and 0.26 when adding the third step, meaning that 26% of the variance in supervisor–employee rapport was explained by supervisor phubbing and the control variables.
When examining the relationship between supervisor phubbing and supervisor–employee rapport, supervisor phubbing was significant in all three models. In other words, supervisor phubbing was negatively related to supervisor–employee rapport even when adding the control variables at steps 2 and 3. When adding the control variables in the second and third steps, face-to-face communication and email communication significantly, positively predicted supervisor–employee rapport. It is important to note that the size of the coefficient for supervisor phubbing was larger than the significant effects of face-to-face and email communication. No other variables significantly predicted rapport between supervisors and employees for the second most recent part-time job. With the third most recent job, no variables significantly predicted rapport between supervisor and employees. The effect size for the second most recent job was 0.10 after the first step, 0.51 when adding the second step, and 0.59 when adding the third step. Similarly with the third most recent job, the effect size was 0.06 with the first step, 0.51 when adding the second step, and 0.59 when adding the third step. These large effective sizes show that the 59% of the variance for supervisor–employee rapport for the second and third most recent jobs is explained by supervisor phubbing and the control variables.

4. Discussion

The goal of this study was to better understand how supervisor phubbing—when supervisors snub their employees to be on their phone—is related to supervisor–employee rapport for individuals working in part-time jobs. This study found a negative relationship between supervisor–employee rapport and supervisor phubbing. When supervisors shift their attention from an employee to their mobile device, employees may feel ignored or perceive that their input is undervalued (Roberts and David 2020). Supervisor–employee rapport is the perceived quality of the relationship between employees and their supervisors (Grayson 2016). This perceived quality is likely diminished by supervisor phubbing, causing employees to feel unacknowledged, ignored, and disregarded.
Considering this study examined employees in part-time positions, employees spend less time with their supervisors than full-time employees, providing some context to explain the results from this study. Due to employees’ part-time status, supervisors may question their commitment and involvement within the organization, potentially viewing them as less important to the organization (Bailyn 1993; Van Maanen 1992; Lawrence and Corwin 2003). When supervisors view their part-time employees as less important than full-time employees, they may be less inclined to build rapport, which could result in more supervisor phubbing behavior. This finding is consistent with other studies that found that supervisors interrupting conversations with employees to use their cellphone caused employees to feel unimportant (Vanden Abeele et al. 2016; Roberts and David 2017). Furthermore, supervisor phubbing can lower employees’ sense of belonging within an organization (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018; Hales et al. 2018; Yasin et al. 2020), reflecting another potential explanation for the findings of this study. When part-time employees feel unimportant and undervalued by their supervisor, via their poor communication, supervisor–employee rapport may be at risk. Future studies are encouraged to examine their perceptions of importance to their organization to confirm this potential explanation. It should also be noted that as technology continues to become integrated into the professional lives of others, it is likely that many supervisors will be on their phones while they are at work. This phubbing behavior may increase or be necessary for a job depending on what that job is. If the boss is likely to engage in phubbing, it may be helpful for supervisors to disclose to their employees that phubbing could happen and that is the nature of the job; however, this idea needs to be tested with empirical data.
The relationship between supervisor mobile technology use in the presence of a part-time employee and supervisor–employee rapport may also be theoretically explained by the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory. This theory suggests that the supervisor–employee relationship is on a scale of high to low, varying from employee to employee, which is based upon the quality of the interactions between employees and supervisors (Dansereau et al. 1973; Graen and Cashman 1975; Gerstner and Day 1997; Graen and Schiemann 1978; Kramer 2004). The exchanges between supervisors and employees define the dyadic linkage (Dansereau et al. 1973; Stringer 2006). This theoretical premise corresponds to the results found in this study, where part-time employees’ low rapport with supervisors was associated with higher supervisor phubbing. Low-quality and disrupted exchanges between supervisor and part-time employee may hamper their rapport. When supervisors engage in phubbing, they are likely hurting the quality of the interaction with their employee. This disrupted interaction, due to the supervisor’s cellphone use, can impair the supervisor–employee relationship by the, possibly frequent, occurrence of poor-quality exchanges. Additionally, the quality of LMX depends on the development of the relationship between employees and supervisors. Part-time employees may experience low or limited interactions with their supervisor compared to full-time employees due to the part-time nature of their work. Early research has shown that when there is low LMX, supervisors are more likely to interrupt employees, which limits the ability to develop a stronger relationship (Fairhurst and Chandler 1989; Kramer 2004). Part-time employees may experience more interruptions because of their lower-quality LMX, possibly in the form of supervisor phubbing, which makes it difficult to expand the relationship with their supervisor. This difficulty for part-time employees to grow their relationship with their supervisor due to interruptions—like supervisor phubbing—may theoretically damage supervisor–employee rapport.
Similar to the results found in this study, supervisor phubbing can encumber employees’ work experiences. Previous research has highlighted numerous problems associated with supervisor phubbing that implicitly relate to impaired supervisor–employee rapport. First, supervisor phubbing negatively effects perceived communication quality with employees (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas 2018; Lievaart 2020; Vanden Abeele et al. 2016). This is likely true, then, with part-time employees. When part-time employees view the communication quality with their supervisor as poor, via supervisor phubbing, the supervisor–employee relationship will be impeded. Supervisor phubbing also results in lower psychological meaningfulness, which refers to employees viewing the interactions with their supervisor as less beneficial (Li and Tan 2013; Roberts and David 2017). Supervisor phubbing impacts the value employees place on the conversations with their supervisors, which can further impact supervisor–employee rapport. If conversations and interactions are less likely to be valued by employees, then the ability to build a strong relationship and rapport with their supervisors is limited, especially for part-time employees, who have less time to interact and create a relationship with their supervisors. Supervisor phubbing also has negative consequences that directly impact employees’ wellbeing. Supervisor phubbing can lead to workplace ostracism, hinder the formation of workplace connections, and leave employees feeling alienated (Saxena and Srivastava 2023). Workplace alienation can hurt employees’ perceived interpersonal relationship with their supervisor and result in a negative supervisor–employee relationship (Nair and Vohra 2009; Xu et al. 2022; Yao and Nie 2023). When employees are unable to connect with their supervisor, they are unable to build positive rapport. These empirical results are similar to the findings from this study, which focuses specifically on part-time jobs. We encourage future studies to examine ostracism within the workplace as a potential control variable to verify these ideas.
Given the negative relationship between supervisor phubbing and supervisor–employee rapport for part-time employees, recommendations can be provided to mitigate these issues. First, supervisors of part-time employees should work to avoid this behavior in the workplace. Supervisors must understand the importance of communication, interactions, and relationship building with their employees. Supervisor phubbing disrupts their ability to create meaningful connections and develop strong communication with their employees. For part-time employees, developing a closer connection to their supervisor results in feeling more valued and appreciated, despite spending less time at work (Sollitto et al. 2014). Supervisors cannot foster this strong relationship with their part-time employees if they are engaging in supervisor phubbing behavior. Supervisors should prioritize positive, face-to-face interactions and give their part-time employees their full attention to develop stronger rapport. To further minimize supervisor phubbing behavior, it is suggested that organizations should educate their leaders about the phenomenon, create awareness about the potential consequences, and establish clear policies and appropriate practices for cellphone usage in the workplace. Possible expectations to set could include no cellphone use on the floor, utilization of the “silence” feature on cellphones, and creating designated breaks for supervisors and employees to use their cellphones during shifts. Additionally, it would be beneficial for organizations to offer training courses or workshops for leaders that promote effective communication skills and behaviors, to improve the interactions between supervisors and their employees. In some cases, it may even be beneficial for a supervisor to explain to their employee why they may look at their phone while connecting with their employee to possibly minimize the perception that the supervisor is using their phone for phubbing and, instead, using it for an emergency or for some other reasonable task. Each of these recommendations requires additional empirical support to enhance their credibility.

5. Conclusions

Implications, Limitations, and Final Thoughts

The findings from this study highlight the detrimental impact of supervisor phubbing on supervisor–employee rapport, particularly among part-time employees. Given that part-time workers have fewer opportunities to engage with supervisors, each interaction becomes more critical in shaping the perceived quality of their workplace relationships. Supervisor phubbing disrupts these limited exchanges, diminishing employees’ sense of being heard, valued, and included, which are core elements for building rapport and organizational commitment. These findings suggest that organizations must treat supervisor phubbing not merely as an issue of etiquette, but as a significant barrier to effective communication and relationship-building in the workplace. Reducing phubbing could be especially impactful for fostering stronger connections with part-time employees, who may already feel less embedded in organizational life. In line with LMX theory, minimizing phubbing behaviors may enhance the quality of interpersonal exchanges and support more inclusive and cohesive work environments. Therefore, organizations are encouraged to implement training, policy changes, and awareness programs to reduce supervisor phubbing and strengthen rapport, communication, and engagement among all employees, especially those in part-time roles. However, some companies may need supervisors to be on their phones for extended periods of time. It may be helpful for supervisors to explain this behavior to their employees to minimize potential declines in supervisor–employee rapport.
Although this study advances the literature on supervisor phubbing in the workplace, it is not without its limitations. First, there are limitations regarding the participants in this study. Notably, the participants in this study are rather homogenous, as they are predominantly female emerging adults who were recruited from the same university, which limits the generalizability of the study results. Additionally, for many of these participants, they were commenting on the first or second jobs that they have ever had. Some of these jobs may be short-lived or are likely to be entry-level jobs or jobs that require less experience. Individuals may have only worked a limited number of hours in their part-time jobs as well. Therefore, there may have been limited opportunities for employees to communicate with their supervisor. The current study accounted for these variables to better understand the relationship between supervisor phubbing and supervisor–employee rapport. Essentially, there are concerns regarding participants’ reflections on previous jobs, which introduce retrospective biases. Also, there is a lack of an objective measure of phubbing. Future research studies should examine ways to capture supervisor phubbing with more validity while also capturing this concept concurrently, rather than retrospectively. Additionally, many individuals reported on multiple jobs, suggesting that a previous job may have ended due to either dissatisfaction or termination. The circumstances regarding the departure from a part-time job may impact supervisor–employee rapport beyond supervisor phubbing. Future studies should control for this potential retrospective bias effect. Additionally, this study relies on cross-sectional data, meaning that causal statements cannot be implied. It may be possible that supervisor phubbing occurred as a result of lower supervisor–employee rapport. Longitudinal data are needed to better flesh out the relationship between supervisor phubbing and rapport between supervisors and employees.
The results of this study identified a negative relationship between supervisor–employee rapport and supervisor phubbing. As technology use continues to be integrated into the workforce, the rates of supervisor phubbing are likely to increase. The current study advocates for a better understanding of supervisor phubbing in part-time jobs to better support these companies and organizations. Although this study has some limitations, it provides some initial evidence about the consequences of supervisor phubbing. We encourage future studies to continue this line of research in order to support the success of organizations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L. and E.W.; methodology, M.L.; software, M.L.; validation, M.L; formal analysis, M.L. and E.W.; investigation, M.L. and E.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L. and E.W.; writing—review and editing, M.L. and E.W.; supervision, M.L.; project administration, E.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Florida State University (STUDY00004125 on 14 March 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the first author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Jackson Wentworth for his help with data collection and analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
LMXLeader-Member Exchange
SPSSStatistical Package for Social Sciences

References

  1. Bailyn, Lotte. 1993. Breaking the Mold: Women, Men, and Time in the New Corporate World. Los Angeles: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beenen, Gerard, Shayn Pichler, Beth Livingston, and Ron Riggio. 2021. The good manager: Development and validation of the Managerial Interpersonal Skills Scale. Frontiers in Psychology 28: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chotpitayasunondh, Varoth, and Karen M. Douglas. 2016. How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedants and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chotpitayasunondh, Varoth, and Karen M. Douglas. 2018. The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 48: 304–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dansereau, Fred, James Cashman, and George Graen. 1973. Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10: 184–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Day, David, and Darja Miscenko. 2015. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Construct evolution, contributions, and future prospects for advancing leadership theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 9–28. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dunn, Megan. 2018. Who chooses part-time work and why? Monthly Labor Review, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eisenberger, Robert, Peter Fasolo, and Valerie Davis-LaMastro. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fairhurst, Gail T., and Teresa A. Chandler. 1989. Social structure in leader-member interaction. Communication Monographs 56: 215–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gerstner, Charlotte R., and David V. Day. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 827–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Graen, George, and James Cashman. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 38: 46–78. [Google Scholar]
  12. Graen, George, and William Schiemann. 1978. Leader–member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 63: 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grayson, Adam Robert. 2016. The Relationship Between Supervisor-Employee Trust, Supervisor Employee Coaching, and Workplace Thriving: A Quantitative Correlational Study. Publication No. 10025745. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Rockies, Denver, CO, USA. ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hackney, Kaylee J., Liam P. Maher, Shanna R. Daniels, Wayne A. Hochwarter, and Gerald R. Ferris. 2018. Performance, stress, and attitudinal outcomes of perceptions of others’ entitlement behavior: Supervisor–subordinate work relationship quality as moderator in two samples. Group & Organization Management 43: 101–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hales, Andrew H., Maayan Dvir, Eric D. Wesselmann, Daniel J. Kruger, and Catrin Finkenauer. 2018. Cell phone-induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. Journal of Social Psychology 158: 460–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Halpern, Daniel, and James E. Katz. 2017. Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior 71: 386–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kadylak, Travis. 2020. An investigation of perceived family phubbing expectancy violations and well-being among U.S. older adults. Mobile Media & Communication 8: 247–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kerkhof, Peter, Catrin Finkenauer, and Linda D. Muusses. 2011. Relational consequences of compulsive internet use: A longitudinal study among newlyweds. Human Communication Research 37: 147–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khan, Muhammad N., Khurram Shahzad, Ifzal Ahmad, and Jos Bartels. 2022. Boss, look at me: How and when supervisor’s phubbing behavior affects employees’ supervisor identification. Current Psychology 42: 31064–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kramer, Michael W. 2004. The complexity of communication in leader-member exchanges. In New Frontiers of Leadership. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 167–191. [Google Scholar]
  21. Landry, Guylaine, and Christian Vandenberghe. 2012. Relational commitments in employee–supervisor dyads and employee job performance. The Leadership Quarterly 23: 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lawrence, Thomas B., and Vivien Corwin. 2003. Being there: The acceptance and marginalization of part-time professional employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 923–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, Alex N., and Hwee H. Tan. 2013. What happens when you trust your supervisor? Mediators of individual performance in trust relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34: 407–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lievaart, Lieve. 2020. Supervisor Phubbing: The Moderating Roles of Organizational Values and Norms in Predicting Employees’ Engagement and Behavior. Tilburg: Tilburg University. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lu, Lu, Allan Cheng Chieh Lu, Dogan Gursoy, and Nathan Robert Neale. 2016. Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison between supervisors and line-level employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28: 737–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nair, Nisha, and Neharika Vohra. 2009. Developing a new measure of work alienation. Journal of Workplace Rights 14: 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pappas, Kevin. 2019. How’s your relationship with your manager? The impact of strong supervisor-employee relationships on turnover. From Science to Practice: Organizational Psychology Bulletin 2: 10–22. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rajapakshe, Wasantha. 2021. Factors affecting life satisfaction with mediating role of work satisfaction of employees in insurance companies in Sri Lanka. Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences 13: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Roberts, James A., and Meredith E. David. 2017. Put down your phone and listen to me: How boss phubbing undermines the psychological conditions necessary for employee engagement. Computers in Human Behavior 75: 206–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Roberts, James A., and Meredith E. David. 2020. Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences 155: 109702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Saxena, Anubhuti, and Shalini Srivastava. 2023. Is cyberloafing an outcome of supervisor phubbing: Examining the roles of workplace ostracism and psychological detachment. International Journal of Business Communication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Soares, Maria E., and Pilar Mosquera. 2019. Fostering work engagement: The role of the psychological contract. Journal of Business Research 101: 469–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sollitto, Michael, Matthew M. Martin, Shelly Dusic, Kaitlyn E. Gibbons, and Anna Wagenhouser. 2014. Assessing the supervisor-subordinate relationship involving part-time employees. International Journal of Business Communication 53: 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stringer, Leronardo. 2006. The link between the quality of the supervisor–Employee relationship and the level of the employee’s job satisfaction. Public Organization Review 6: 125–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van Maanen, John. 1992. Drinking our troubles away: Managing conflict in British police agency. In Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind-The-Scenes Disputes. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 32–62. [Google Scholar]
  36. Vanden Abeele, Mariek P., Marjolijn L. Antheunis, and Alexander P. Schouten. 2016. The effect of mobile messaging during a conversation on impression formation and interaction quality. Computers in Human Behavior 62: 562–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wangombe, James Gachahi, Tabitha Wangare Wambui, and Alice Wangui Kamau. 2014. The perceived supervisor and organizational support on organizational climate. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 19: 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xie, Julan, Ya Luo, and Zhuo Chen. 2022. Relationship between partner phubbing and parent-adolescent relationship quality: A family-based study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20: 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Xu, Tingting, Tingxi Wang, and Jinyun Duan. 2022. Leader phubbing and employee job performance: The effect of need for social approval. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 15: 2303–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Yam, Faruk C. 2023. The relationship between partner phubbing and life satisfaction: The mediating role of relationship satisfaction and perceived romantic relationship quality. Psychological Reports 126: 303–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Yao, Siqin, and Ting Nie. 2023. Boss, can’t you hear me? The impact mechanism of supervisor phone snubbing (phubbing) on employee psychological withdrawal behavior. Healthcare 11: 3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yasin, Raja M. 2021. Phubbing in the Workplace: Exploring the Role of Rejection Sensitivity in the Relationship Between Supervisor Phubbing and Employee Outcomes. Bexley: Capital University. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yasin, Raja M., Sajid Bashir, Mariek V. Abeele, and Jos Bartels. 2020. Supervisor phubbing phenomenon in organizations: Determinants and impacts. International Journal of Business Communication 60: 150–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yousaf, Saira, Muhammad Imran Rasheed, Puneet Kaur, Nazrul Islam, and Amandeep Dhir. 2022. The dark side of phubbing in the workplace: Investigating the role of intrinsic motivation and the use of Enterprise Social Media (ESM) in a cross-cultural setting. Journal of Business Research 143: 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, Zhenduo, Li Zhang, Junwei Zheng, Bao Cheng, and Vivi G. Rahmadani. 2019. Supervisor developmental feedback and voice: Relationship or affect, which matters? Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Correlations of study variables.
Table 1. Correlations of study variables.
VariableMean (SD)α123456
1. Supervisor Phubbing Job 13.16 (0.97)0.94---0.36 **0.44 *−0.20 **−0.06−0.06
2. Supervisor Phubbing Job 23.08 (1.16)0.96 ---0.45 *−0.32 **−0.28 **−0.16
3. Supervisor Phubbing Job 33.16 (1.00)0.94 ---−0.05−0.170.18
4. Supervisor–Employee Rapport Job 13.84 (1.08)0.94 ---0.140.17
5. Supervisor–Employee Rapport Job 23.53 (1.32)0.94 ---0.33
6. Supervisor–Employee Rapport Job 33.44 (1.21)0.97 ---
Note: 211 participants reported in at least one part-time job; 122 participants reported in at least two part-time jobs; 28 participants reported in three part-time jobs. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 2. Mean values of control variables.
Table 2. Mean values of control variables.
VariableJob 1 (N = 211)Job 2 (N = 122)Job 3 (N = 28)
Number of hours worked25.72 (10.69)22.39 (11.40)19.88 (10.31)
Length of employment12.28 (12.14)7.65 (5.77)6.99 (5.87)
Frequency seeing boss5.69 (1.62)5.02 (1.92)5.18 (1.77)
Frequency of emails with boss5.42 (1.77)4.86 (1.93)5.04 (1.77)
Frequency of texts with boss3.70 (1.84)3.40 (2.05)3.86 (2.19)
Frequency of face-to-face with boss2.01 (1.59)2.06 (1.74)2.07 (1.86)
Frequency of other communications2.02 (1.69)1.95 (1.61)2.18 (1.68)
Frequency of using phone at work4.13 (1.69)3.56 (1.80)3.36 (1.45)
Frequency of using computer at work4.38 (1.76)3.81 (1.81)3.75 (1.67)
Frequency of boss using phone at work4.28 (2.48)3.66 (2.42)4.07 (2.58)
Frequency of boss using computer at work5.17 (1.95)4.15 (2.25)4.29 (2.23)
Note: Data are presented as mean values with standard deviation in parentheses.
Table 3. Linear regression results predicting rapport with supervisor (N = 211).
Table 3. Linear regression results predicting rapport with supervisor (N = 211).
VariableJob 1 RapportJob 1 RapportJob 1 Rapport
Constant4.50 (0.31) ***3.2 (0.40) ***3.0 (.43) ***
Supervisor phubbing−0.22 (0.08) *−0.20 (0.07)−0.20 (0.08)
Average Hours Worked0.00 (0.01)−0.00 (0.01)0.00 (0.01)
Length of Employment0.01 (0.01)0.00 (0.01)0.00 (0.01)
Frequency Seeing Supervisor −0.10 (0.08)−0.10 (0.08)
Face-to-face 0.26 (0.07) ***0.30 (0.07) ***
Text Communication 0.12 (0.04) **0.12 (0.04) *
Email Communication 0.1 (0.05)0.09 (0.05)
Other Communication −0.1 (0.04)−0.10 (0.04)
Your Phone Usage 0.08 (0.04)
Supervisor Phone Usage −0.04 (0.5)
Your Computer Usage 0.01 (0.04)
Supervisor Computer Usage 0.01 (0.04)
R20.040.250.26
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Linear regression results predicting rapport with supervisor (N = 211).
Table 4. Linear regression results predicting rapport with supervisor (N = 211).
VariableJob 2 RapportJob 2 RapportJob 2 Rapport
Constant4.4 (0.41) ***2.5 (0.41) ***2.3 (.41) ***
Supervisor phubbing−0.37 (0.11) ***−0.50 (00.09) ***−0.45 (0.10) ***
Average Hours Worked−0.00 (0.01)0.01 (0.01)0.00 (0.01)
Length of Employment0.02 (0.01)0.01 (0.01)0.01 (0.01)
Frequency Seeing Supervisor −0.21(0.10)−0.14 (0.08)
Face-to-face 0.44 (0.10) ***0.37 (0.10) ***
Text Communication 0.09 (0.05)0.08 (0.05)
Email Communication 0.22 (0.06) ***0.20 (0.06) **
Other Communication 0.15 (0.07)0.15 (0.07)
Your Phone Usage 0.22 (0.06)
Supervisor Phone Usage −0.05 (0.07)
Your Computer Usage −0.05 (0.05)
Supervisor Computer Usage −0.02 (0.06)
R20.100.500.59
** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Linear regression results predicting rapport with supervisor (N = 211).
Table 5. Linear regression results predicting rapport with supervisor (N = 211).
VariableJob 3 RapportJob 3 RapportJob 3 Rapport
Constant1.2 (1.1)0.28 (1.3)−0.07 (1.6)
Supervisor phubbing0.33 (0.24)0.14 (0.26)0.01 (0.42)
Average Hours Worked0.04 (0.03)0.01 (0.03)0.01 (0.04)
Length of Employment0.01 (0.03)−0.02 (0.03)−0.03 (0.05)
Frequency Seeing Supervisor 0.25 (0.30)0.13 (0.40)
Face-to-face 0.13 (0.32)0.23 (0.43)
Text Communication −0.00 (0.10)0.00 (0.11)
Email Communication −0.07 (0.14)−0.13 (0.20)
Other Communication 0.43 (0.21)0.44 (0.23)
Your Phone Usage −0.02 (0.24)
Supervisor Phone Usage 0.10 (0.28)
Your Computer Usage 0.10 (0.12)
Supervisor Computer Usage 0.05 (0.17)
R20.060.510.58
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Langlais, M.; Welch, E. Supervisor Phubbing in Part-Time Jobs: Examining Its Relationship with Supervisor–Employee Rapport. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050276

AMA Style

Langlais M, Welch E. Supervisor Phubbing in Part-Time Jobs: Examining Its Relationship with Supervisor–Employee Rapport. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(5):276. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050276

Chicago/Turabian Style

Langlais, Michael, and Emma Welch. 2025. "Supervisor Phubbing in Part-Time Jobs: Examining Its Relationship with Supervisor–Employee Rapport" Social Sciences 14, no. 5: 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050276

APA Style

Langlais, M., & Welch, E. (2025). Supervisor Phubbing in Part-Time Jobs: Examining Its Relationship with Supervisor–Employee Rapport. Social Sciences, 14(5), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14050276

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop