The interaction between supportive and unsupportive manager behaviors on employee work attitudes
| Date | 05 September 2016 |
| Pages | 1386-1402 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2015-0136 |
| Published date | 05 September 2016 |
| Author | Kevin Rui-Han Teoh,Iain Coyne,Dwayne Devonish,Phil Leather,Antonio Zarola |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The interaction between
supportive and unsupportive
manager behaviors on employee
work attitudes
Kevin Rui-Han Teoh
Centre for Sustainable Working Life,
Birkbeck University of London, London, UK
Iain Coyne
Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Dwayne Devonish
Department of Management Studies, The University of West Indies,
Cave Hill, Barbados, and
Phil Leather and Antonio Zarola
Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to use social exchange theory (SET) to examine a model where
supportive and unsupportive manager behaviors (SMB and UMB) interact to predict employees’
engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention.
Design/methodology/approach –A cross-sectional online survey collected data from 252 UK-based
employees of a global data management company.
Findings –Factor analysis confirmed manager behaviors to consist of two constructs: supportive and
unsupportive behaviors. Structural equation modeling indicated SMB predicted job satisfaction
and turnover intentions, but not engagement. Job satisfaction, but not engagement, mediated the
SMB-turnover intention relationship. UMB only predicted job dissatisfaction. Neither job satisfaction
nor engagement mediated the UMB-turnover intention relationship. UMB undermined the positive
relationship between SMB and turnover intention.
Practical implications –The behaviors assessed can be integrated into various stages of a
manager’s development process to serve as guidelines of good practice. Crucially, findings suggest
managers can exhibit both supportive and unsupportive behaviors, and that consistency in behaviors
is important. The study also provides evidence that supportive managers can help reduce turnover
intention through job satisfaction.
Originality/value –SET was used as a framework for SMB, UMB and engagement. To the authors’
knowledge this is the first study to examine the interaction between SMB and UMB.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Engagement, Turnover intention, Social exchange theory,
Unsupportive manager behaviors, Supportive manager behaviors
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The quote “People leave managers, not organizations”(Tate and White, 2005, p. 2) is
often cited when discussing turnover. As social support is an important source in
reducing the risks of workplace stressors and in protecting worker health, a manager
who is seen as supportive is more likely to have employees who intend to remain in
Personnel Review
Vol. 45 No. 6, 2016
pp. 1386-1402
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2015-0136
Received 19 May 2015
Revised 4 September 2015
Accepted 6 October 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1386
PR
45,6
their current employment (Maertz et al., 2007). The evidence has demonstrated
consistently that positive social support is associated with improved engagement
(MacLeod and Clarke, 2009), organizational citizenship behavior (Chênevert et al., 2015),
well-being (Luchman and Gonzalez-Morales, 2013), job satisfaction and productivity
(Baruch-Feldman et al., 2002). Hence, in trying to improve the working environment,
social support is a crucial buffer toward workplace stressors, and it is important to
understand what impact support from the manager has on the employee.
Although supportive manager behaviors (SMB; Rooney and Gottlieb, 2007; Yarker
et al., 2007) and perceived supervisor support (Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006) have
received considerable attention, the effects of unsupportive manager behaviors (UMB)
are less commonly examined. What is known typically stems from the more extreme
side of negative leadership, such as abusive supervision (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007)
and destructive leadership (Schyns and Schilling, 2012). Even less attention has been
given to the idea that managers can exhibit different types of leadership behaviors
(Kelloway et al., 2006), and little is known about the possible interactions between SMB
and UMB. Consequently, this study examines the construct of SMB and UMB using
social exchange theory (SET) in relation to three common employee measures:
engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention (see Figure 1 for proposed model).
The selection of engagement reflects the interest of the UK Government in the
manager-engagement relationship (MacLeod and Clarke, 2009). In addition, another
popular SET employee attitude ( job satisfaction) is included as a comparison, and we
continue the examination of other researchers (Rooney and Gottlieb, 2007; Rooney et al.,
2008) on the impact of SMB on turnover intention.
SET in the workplace
SET (Blau, 1964) is among the most influential frameworks in understanding
organizational behaviors (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), and states that relationships
are maintained between two parties by a state of reciprocal interdependence. It proposes
that when one party acts in a manner which benefits a second party, there is an
obligation and expectation that the second reciprocates the favor (Blau, 1964). Unlike
economic or contractual exchanges, SET is predicated by relationships which are
nurtured over time (Aryee et al., 2002), with reciprocation of the socio-emotional benefits
having behavioral, cognitive or emotional implications (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005). This means that trust is an important tenant in such a relationship as
Supportive
Manager
Behavior
Engagement
Tur n o v e r
Intention
Job Satisfaction
Unsupportive
Manager
Behavior
Figure 1.
Proposed impact of
support-related
managerial
behaviors on
employee measures
1387
Interaction
between SMB
and UMB
To continue reading
Request your trial