Search results

Researchers have studied supervisors’ proactive personality in its relationship with employees’ attitudes. However, little attention has been given to how employees react to instances of supervisors’ proactive behavior. Drawing from P-E fit theory, we propose that the relationship between supervisor weekly taking charge behavior (TCB, the quintessential proactive behavior) and employees’ weekly job attitudes depends on employees’ proactive personality.

Utilizing a diary study, we investigate how employees’ proactive personality moderates the within-person relationship between supervisor TCB and employees’ attitudes (measured as job satisfaction and affective commitment). We surveyed 39 employees ten times over ten weeks.

Multi-level analyses partially supported our predictions on the differential effects of weekly supervisor TCB on employees’ job attitudes. Supervisors’ above-average TCB was significantly related to higher levels of employees’ job satisfaction and marginally related to affective commitment for employees with high proactive personality, but not for those with low proactive personality. Supplemental analyses revealed that our results are unique to supervisor TCB and not to supervisor helping behavior.

Our study is among the first to utilize a dynamic approach to understand the consequences of supervisors’ proactive work behavior in the context of P-E fit research. Our findings will open several fruitful avenues for future research that continue to understand the powerful effects of supervisors’ proactivity.

The purpose of this study was to examine how national context moderates the impact of family supportive supervisory behavior (FSSB) on employee’s job performance and turnover intentions. The authors consider direct and indirect (through work–family positive spillover) effects of FSSB. Our model is based on conservation of resources (COR) theory and boundary theory. The authors conceptualize national context as contributing resources to or threatening with loss of resources for individuals. To test the model, the authors use data from three Latin American countries – Brazil, Chile and Ecuador.

This is a cross-sectional study based on a survey of almost 988 individuals. The authors first test the direct and indirect effects (via bi-directional positive spillover) of FSBB on performance and turnover intentions without considering the moderating effects of national context (mediation analysis). Then, the authors test the effect of national context in our baseline model by conducting a moderation analysis of direct and indirect effects. The authors use seemingly unrelated regressions and account for control variables and country-level effects.

The results confirm that national context affects the relationships between FSSB and outcomes. As unemployment rises, the effect of FSSB on turnover intentions is stronger and the effect of FSSB on performance, via bi-directional work–family positive spillover, is stronger. When social expenditures increase, the relationship between FSSB and performance via work–family positive spillover becomes weaker. In addition, the authors find some unexpected results.

The authors advance the understanding of how national context affects the impact of FSSB on outcomes, specifically in Latin America. The authors conceptualize national context as providing or threatening individuals’ resources, using publicly available data on unemployment and social expenditures.