The Effects of Perceived Organizational Support, Abusive Supervision, and Exchange Ideology on Employees- Task Performance

Authors: Seung Yeon Son, Heetae Park, Soojin Lee, Seckyoung Loretta Kim, Dongkyu Kim, Seokhwa Yun

Abstract:

Employee-s task performance has been recognized as a core contributor to overall organizational effectiveness. Hence, verifying the determinants of task performance is one of the most important research issues. This study tests the influence of perceived organizational support, abusive supervision, and exchange ideology on employee-s task performance. We examined our hypotheses by collecting self-reported data from 413 Korean employees in different organizations. Our all hypotheses gained support from the results. Implications for research and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: Abusive supervision, exchange ideology, perceived organizational support, task performance.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1061178

References:

[1] M. C. Andrew, L. A. Witt, and K. M.Kacmar,"The interactive effects of organizational politics and exchange ideology on manager ratings of retention,"Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 62, pp. 357-369, 2003.
[2] S.Aryee, Z. X. Chen, L. Sun, and Y. A. Debrah, "Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down mode,"Journal ofApplied Psychology, vol. 92, pp. 191-201, 2007.
[3] M. R.Barrick, and M. K. Mount, "The Big Five personality dimensionsand job performance: A meta-analysis,"Personnel Psychology, vol. 44, pp. 1-26, 1991.
[4] B. M. Bass,Bass and Stogdill-s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press, 1990.
[5] P. M.Blau,Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley, 1964.
[6] W. C.Borman, and D. H. Brush, "More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements,"Human Performance,vol. 6, pp. 1-21. 1993.
[7] W. C.Borman, and S. J. Motowidlo, "Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance," in Personnel selection, N. Schmitt, and W. C. Borman, Eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993, pp. 71-98.
[8] A. P. Brief, and S. J. Motowidlo, "Prosocial organizational behaviors,"Academy of Management Review, vol. 11, pp. 710-725, 1986.
[9] J. A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, and N. Conway, "Exchange relationships: Examining psychological contracts and perceived organizational support,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, pp. 774-783, 2005.
[10] J. A. Coyle-Shapiro, and J. H.Neuman, "The psychological contract and individual differences: The role of exchange and creditor ideologies,"Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 64, pp. 150-164, 2004.
[11] R.Cropanzano, and M. S. Mitchell, "Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review,"Journal of Management, vol. 31, 874−900, 2005.
[12] R.Eisenberger, S.Armeli, B.Rexwinkel, P. D. Lynch, and L. Rhoades, "Reciprocation of perceived organizational support,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86, pp. 42-51, 2001. T PO .15** AS EX -.22*** -.11* Fig. 1 Structural path estimates of the Hypothesized model Note. N = 413. Structural path estimates are the standardized parameter estimates. To simplify the presentation, the correlations among the exogenous variables are not shown. POS = perceived organizational support; AS = abusive supervision; EXID = exchange ideology; TP = task performance. * p<.05.** p<.01.*** p<.001.
[13] R.Eisenberger, R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, and D. Sowa, "Perceived organizational support,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, pp. 500-507, 1986.
[14] A. Etzioni, A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press, 1961.
[15] S. Gould, "An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement,"Academy of Management Review,vol. 4, pp. 53-62, 1979.
[16] A. W. Gouldner, "The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement,"American Sociological Review, vol. 25, pp. 161-178, 1960.
[17] K. J. Harris, K. M.Kacmar, and S.Zivnuska, "An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship,"Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, pp. 252-263, 2007.
[18] S. E. Hobfoll, "Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress,"American Psychologist, vol. 44, pp. 513−524, 1989.
[19] S. E. Hobfoll, "The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory,"AppliedPsychology: An International Review, vol. 50, pp. 337−421, 2001.
[20] D. Katz, and R. L. Kahn,The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966.
[21] C.Kiewitz, S. L. D.Restubog, T.Zagenczyk, and W. Hochwarter, "The interactive effects of psychological contract breach and organizational politics on perceived organizational support: Evidence from two longitudinal studies,"Journal of Management Studies, vol. 46, pp. 806-834, 2009.
[22] D. Ladd, and R. A. Henry, "Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness,"Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 30, pp. 2028-2049, 2000.
[23] H. Levinson, "Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization,"Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 9, pp.370-390, 1965.
[24] C.-P. Lin, "To share or not to share: modeling knowledge sharing usingexchange ideology as a moderator,"Personnel Review, vol. 36, pp. 457-475, 2007.
[25] L. D.Molm, N. Takahashi, and G. Peterson, "In the eye of the beholder: Procedural justice in social exchange,"American Sociological Review, vol. 68,pp. 128-152, 2003.
[26] R. T.Mowday, L. W. Porter, and R. M. Steers, Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1982.
[27] K. R. Murphy, "Dimensions of job performance,"inTesting: Applied and theoretical perspectives,R. Dillon, and J. Pellingrino, Eds. New York: Praeger, 1989, pp. 218-247.
[28] T. Redman, and E.Snape, "Exchange ideology and member-union relationships: An evaluation of moderation effects,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, pp. 765-773, 2005.
[29] L. Rhoades, and R. Eisenberger, "Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, pp. 698-714, 2002.
[30] M.Rotundo, and P. R.Sackett, "The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, pp. 66-80, 2002.
[31] J. F. Salgado, "The five-factor model of personality and job performance in the European community,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 82, pp. 30-43, 1997.
[32] R. P.Settoon, N. Bennett, and R. C.Liden, "Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 81,pp. 219-227, 1996.
[33] R. M. Steers, "Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment,"Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 22, pp.46-56, 1977.
[34] R. Takeuchi, S. Yun, K. F. Wong, "Social influence of a coworker: Testing the effects of the exchange ideologies of employees and coworkers on the quality of the employees- exchanges,"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 115, pp. 226-237, 2011.
[35] B. J.Tepper, "Consequences of abusive supervision,"Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, pp. 178-190, 2000.
[36] B. J.Tepper, "Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda,"Journal of Management,vol. 33, pp. 261-289, 2007.
[37] L. J. Williams, and S. E. Anderson, "Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors,"Journal of Management, vol. 17, pp. 601-617, 1991.
[38] L. A. Witt, "Exchange ideology as a moderator of the job attitudes-organizational citizenship behaviors relationships,"Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 1490-1501, 1991.
[39] G.Yukl,Leadership in organizations, 7th ed. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2010.
[40] K. L.Zellars, B. J.Tepper, and M. K. Duffy, "Abusive supervision and subordinates-organizational citizenship behavior,"Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, pp. 1068−1076, 2002.