The focus of job satisfaction literature remains on the subordinate even though supervisors are responsible for evaluating employee performance, determining employee pay, raises, promotions, growth opportunities, etc., all of which impact employees’ subsequent performance that contributes (or not) to organizational success. Using a psychological contracts lens, we develop and test theoretical arguments predicting supervisors’ response to contributions is not uniformly positive depending on the type and amount of contribution involved. Across two studies, we ask supervisors to evaluate subordinates’ delivered contributions relative to promised contributions. Our results challenge the assumption that supervisors always desire larger amounts of work from their subordinates; excess contributions were associated with lower supervisors’ satisfaction with subordinates for some types of contributions. The results imply that subordinates’ contributions of work to supervisors may influence supervisors’ satisfaction with subordinates perhaps affecting their performance reviews and career opportunities.
