Search results

The purpose of this paper was to explore the relationship among liking, social exchange and supervisor-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Employees and their supervisors were surveyed to obtain data from 202 subordinates and 33 supervisors.

Results indicated that liking is positively related to social exchange and supervisor-directed OCB. Contrary to expectations, social exchange did not partially mediate the relationship between liking and citizenship.

A limitation of the study is that it was correlational. The lack of support for mediating effect of social exchange suggests the need for further research with data collected from different sources.

Liking has positive effects on both social exchange relationship and supervisor-directed OCB. Trust is an important element of social exchange. Liking may be an independent source of influence on supervisor-directed OCB.

Liking, an affective variable, may be an important influence in organizational behavior. It represents positive organizational behavior which is currently generating significant scholarly attention.

This study was conducted in the Sultanate of Oman, an Arabian Gulf country. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first such study done in the region. In this study, the authors include trust as a representative of the quality of relationship between supervisor and subordinates. Unlike leader–member exchange (LMX), trust has rarely been related to liking in previous studies. Study tests for social exchange (including supervisory trust) as a mediator of the relationship between liking and supervisor-directed OCB.

This study investigates the effect of supervisor-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on leader–member exchange (LMX), the moderating role of impression management motives on this relationship, the effect of LMX on organizational and interpersonal deviance and the mediating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-directed OCB and deviant behaviors.

This study uses a survey questionnaire to collect data. Respondents were 342 nonmanagerial employees working in Surabaya Raya, Indonesia. Hypothesis testing is done using Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

The results show that supervisor-directed OCB is positively related to LMX, and LMX is negatively related to organizational deviance but not significantly related to interpersonal deviance. The study also finds that impression management motives moderate the positive relationship between supervisor-directed OCB and LMX. Furthermore, LMX mediates the relationship between supervisor-directed OCB and organizational deviance, but not interpersonal deviance.

This study suggests the importance of human resource management (HRM) activities and managers being aware of subordinate OCB motives and the impact of LMX on interpersonal and organizational deviance, as well as what supervisors need to do to reduce these negative effects.

Few studies examined the relationship between supervisor-directed OCB and workplace deviance behaviors (WDBs). This study provides a mechanism of their relationship by considering LMX as a mediator. Also, heretofore the existing studies tend to focus more on LMX as an antecedent of OCB. This study provides an understanding of OCB as an antecedent of LMX with the moderating effect of impression management motives.

Past studies have largely focused on leaders' influence on employees' attitudes and behaviors, largely ignoring the followership and its consequences. This study investigates the social impact that followers induce on leaders through their intentions and actions. Following social impact theory (SIT), this study contributes to the growing research on supervisory knowledge hiding (KH) and related positive consequences beyond the traditional leader-centered approach. This paper investigates the serial mediation link between supervisory KH and supervisory knowledge-based trust (KBT) via perceived prosocial impact and supervisor directed citizenship behavior.

Time-lagged dyadic data of 348 employees working in a bank under 54 supervisors were collected from Saudi Arabia.

The findings suggest that supervisory KH entails a potential prosocial impact on employees to engage in supervisor-directed citizenship behavior that builds the KBT in supervisors about subordinates. The empirical support provides an understanding of the social impact of subordinates' influence on supervisors above and beyond traditional leadership literature by depicting the active role of followers in influencing leaders' behavior in building trust in knowledge management. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are also discussed.

By studying the followership effect on leadership, this study extends the social impact process beyond a social phenomenon to the workplace in a supervisor–subordinate relationship. Moreover, examining the positive framing of a leader's KH to transform such behaviors through active followership role provides a new insight into positive consequences of supervisory behavior through social impact.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on the agent-system model of (in)justice and negative norm of reciprocity of social exchange theory to examine the indirect impact of supervisory interactional injustice (i.e. interpersonal and informational) on employees’ target-specific extra-role work behaviours [counterproductive work behaviour directed at supervisor (CWB-S) and organisational citizenship behaviour directed at supervisor (OCB-S)] via distrust in supervisor.

The authors conducted a two-wave study, and participants (n = 401) were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk using a survey methodology. Bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) constructed in 20,000 bootstrap samples were used to test the mediation effects.

The findings indicated that interpersonal and informational injustice are positively related to employees’ distrust in supervisor. Furthermore, interpersonal and informational injustice indirectly affected CWB-S and OCB-S via distrust in supervisor.

Several limitations and future research should be discussed. First, the cross-sectional nature of this study prevented us from establishing the causal direction implied by the mediation models in this research. Second, the authors cannot rule out the potential for common method variance. These limitations can be addressed by collecting data from multiple sources (e.g. supervisor and coworkers) at different points in time or by experimental study design. Lastly, the authors did not consider contextual variables (e.g. formal policies, practices, ethical rules and cultural climate) that may influence the proposed relationships’ strengths and directions.

Even though perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice can affect employee deviant behaviours targeted at the organisation and organisational members, the present findings suggest that practitioners should be aware that perceptions of supervisory interactional injustice (i.e. interpersonal and informational) are likely be requited with employees’ extra-role work behaviours targeted at the supervisor. The present findings suggest that, via distrust in supervisor, employees are likely to engage in more CWB-S and fewer OCB-S as a result of supervisory interactional injustice. Considering the costs associated with high CWB-S and low OCB-S, supervisors should be trained in adhering to interactional justice rules. Additionally, supervisors should be mindful and practice caution when interacting with subordinates, to ensure that interactional justice norms are not violated. Lastly, supervisors can seek feedback from subordinates regarding their perceptions of supervisory interactional injustice, as these assessments will allow the supervisors to adapt their behaviours to impede subordinates’ deviant behaviours aimed towards them.

This study contributes to the literature on organisational injustice and workplace behaviour. First, most injustice research assumes that injustice is the opposite of justice; this study examines the effect of interactional injustice. Second, the authors develop a target-specific model focusing on the interactions between two key organisational stakeholders (i.e. supervisors and employees). The authors suggest that supervisor’s disrespect and untruthfulness towards the employee will eventually result in employee revenge (i.e. CWB-S) and lack of cooperation (i.e. OCB-S) towards supervisor. Finally, the authors examine the mechanism (i.e. distrust in supervisor) through which supervisory interactional injustice may ensue in employee extra-role behaviours directed at the supervisor.

This paper seeks to examine the relationships between affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) across four foci: organizations, supervisors, coworkers, and customers. Further, it aims to determine whether relationships among commitments and OCBs involve mediated linkages.

This study relies on matched employee‐supervisor data (n=216). The relative fit of different models representing relationships among commitments and OCBs was examined using structural equations modeling.

Results revealed that commitments to coworkers, customers and supervisors displayed positive relationships with OCBs directed at parallel foci. In addition, commitment to the global organization partially and negatively mediated the relationship of commitments to coworkers and customers to parallel OCBs dimensions. Results also revealed cross‐foci relationships between local commitments and OCBs. Finally, no commitment target was significantly associated with organization‐directed OCBs but the latter were positively related to local OCBs.

The paper demonstrates that multiple commitments and OCBs are involved in a complex net of relationships among which local foci play a critical, and positive, role.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between authoritarian leadership, organizational citizenship behavior toward one’s supervisor (OCBS) and organizational deviance. The authors hypothesized curvilinear relationships between authoritarian leadership and OCBS, and between authoritarian leadership and organizational deviance.

The authors analyzed two-source survey data of 240 employee–supervisor dyads collected from seven organizations in Pakistan.

Employees exhibited most OCBS and least organizational deviance at intermediate levels of authoritarian leadership. Employees’ perception of a benevolent climate at work moderated the curvilinear relations.

The authors cannot draw causal inferences because of cross-sectional data. Furthermore, the authors’ results may be limited to cultures with high collectivism and high power distance.

This study envisions and illuminates a new avenue of curvilinear relationships among authoritarian leadership, OCBS and organizational deviance.

The two sources (employee–supervisor dyads) data collected from seven organizations supported a unique curvilinear relationship between authoritarian leadership, OCBS and organizational deviance.

This paper aims to examine the consequences for innovative work behavior (IWB) of top-down knowledge hiding – that is, supervisors’ knowledge hiding from supervisees (SKHS). Drawing on social learning theory, the authors test the three-way moderated-mediation model in which the direct effect of SKHS on IWB is first mediated by self-efficacy and then further moderated by supervisor and supervisee nationality (locals versus foreigners).

The authors collected multi-sourced data from 446 matched supervisor-supervisee pairs working in a diverse range of organizations operating in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. After initial data screening, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test for the factorial validity of the used measures with AMOS. The hypothesized relationships were tested in regression analysis with SPSS.

Results showed that SKHS had both direct and mediation effects, via the self-efficacy mediator, on supervisee IWB. The mediation effect was further moderated by supervisor and supervisee nationality (local versus foreigners), which highlighted that the effect was stronger for supervisor–supervisee pairs that were local-local or foreigner-foreigner than for pairs that were local-foreigner or foreigner-local.

This study contributes to both knowledge hiding and IWB literature and discusses the useful theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

The purpose of this research is to identify that both work values and burnout are important predictors for promoting organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Moreover, this research also seeks to investigate the moderating impact of burnout on the relationships between work values and OCBs.

A total of 310 employee‐supervisor dyads of hotel front‐line service employees in Taiwan were selected as the research participants. The employees were asked to provide information on the items about work values and burnout, and their supervisors were asked to complete items concerning the OCBs of their subordinates. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to investigate measurement reliability and validity. All hypothesized relationships and moderating effects were tested using hierarchical regression equations.

It was found that both work values and burnout are important factors to consider for promoting OCBs. In addition, the study also proves that burnout as a moderator can decrease the predictions of the relationship between work values and OCBs.

The study is limited to the context culture and data collection process.

This research argues that an employee having higher work values may extend his/her upward striving from in‐role behavior to extra‐role behavior. However, a diminished sense of personal accomplishment signifies that this job may no longer offer a personal interest to the point that an employee is unwilling to display OCBs.

Findings of the present study suggest that not only both work values and burnout are important factors in influencing OCBs, but also their interaction effect is a key factor in influencing OCBs.

Drawing on social learning and social cognitive theories, this study aims to examine a multi-level moderated mediation model that tests the mediating effect of moral disengagement (MD: Level 1) between perceived organisational politics (POP: Level 1) and employee knowledge hiding from coworkers (EKHC: Level 1). The authors further propose that supervisor knowledge hiding from employees (SKHE: Level 2) moderates this mediation effect.

The authors obtained multi-sourced, multi-timed and multi-level data regarding 294 employees, working under 80 supervisors, from multiple organisations operating in Pakistan. The authors analysed these data using multi-level structural equation modelling via Mplus.

The results show that employee MD significantly mediates the direct relationship between POP and EKHC. The mediation effect is further positively moderated by SKHE, which amplifies the mediation effect.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study that examines both EKHC and SKHE together in a single research model and provides a thorough understanding of why, how and when POP leads to EKHC.

We provide a brief review of how the concept of justice has evolved over time from a single construct (distributive justice) to one represented by four constructs (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice). We then compare and contrast two recent meta‐analytic views of organizational justice, focusing on the relationships each documents between justice constructs and organizational outcomes. We conclude by arguing that the justice literature needs to focus on identifying moderators of the justice‐outcome relations noted in the meta‐analyses.