The role of group-level perceived organizational support and collective affective commitment in the relationship between leaders’ directive and supportive behaviors and group-level helping behaviors
| Date | 04 March 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-06-2017-0172 |
| Published date | 04 March 2019 |
| Pages | 417-437 |
| Author | Michel Tremblay,Marie-Claude Gaudet,Christian Vandenberghe |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The role of group-level perceived
organizational support and
collective affective commitment
in the relationship between
leaders’directive and supportive
behaviors and group-level
helping behaviors
Michel Tremblay
HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Marie-Claude Gaudet
School of Industrial Relations, University of Montréal, Montréal, Canada, and
Christian Vandenberghe
Department of Management, HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine a model linking directive and supportive leadership to
group-level helping behaviors via group-level perceived organizational support (GPOS) and collective
affective commitment (CAC).
Design/methodology/approach –Using data from 115 business units of an international retailer, the
authors tested and compared the theoretical model against more parsimonious solutions using χ²difference
tests. The hypotheses were examined within a structural model.
Findings –The results show that GPOS acts as a mediator in the relationship between leadership behaviors
and CAC and between directive leadership and group-level helping behaviors. Supportive leadership is
directly related to CAC and group-level helping behaviors.
Research limitations/implications –Implications of these findings for research on supportive and
directive leadership are discussed.
Originality/value –This paper proposed a model that examined intermediate linkages between directive
and supportive leadership and group-level helping behaviors. In doing so, the authors provide a preliminary
response to recent calls for examination of mediators of task-oriented and relations-oriented leadership effects
(Judge et al., 2004).
Keywords Quantitative, Affective commitment, Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB),
Perceived organizational support, Helping behaviours, Supportive leadership, Directive leadership
Paper type Research paper
Recent studies have reignited interest in leadership models that differentiate between
task-oriented behaviors and relations-oriented behaviors (e.g. Judge et al., 2004; Euwema
et al., 2007; Lambert et al., 2012). Task-oriented behaviors involve the planning of tasks,
organization of roles, coordination of activities and setting of performance goals, while
relations-oriented behaviors denote the degree to which the leader expresses concern and
support for employees (Yukl, 2010). Task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors
represent two fundamental dimensions of leadership associated with leadership
effectiveness criteria and employee outcomes (DeRue et al., 2011; Euwema et al., 2007;
Judge et al., 2004; Wendt et al., 2009). However, beyond their contribution to leadership
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 2, 2019
pp. 417-437
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-06-2017-0172
Received 6 June 2017
Revised 14 March 2018
25 May 2018
Accepted 4 June 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
417
The role of
GPOS and
CAC
effectiveness, it is unclear how these types of behaviors are associated with performance
outcomes (Judge et al., 2004).
Another issue that warrants investigation relates to the contributions of task-oriented
and relations-oriented leadership at the unit level. Because leadership research has moved in
recent years toward investigating the effects of aggregated leadership patterns on unit-level
outcomes (DeChurch et al., 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Liao and Chuang, 2007), it makes sense to
take a similar step in research on these types of leadership behaviors. Indeed, because they
are basic dimensions of leadership, task-oriented and relations -oriented behaviors
should apply consistently across members of the same teams, and represent shared
perceptions among teammates (Schneider et al., 2005). Preliminary findings suggest that
these two types of leadership behaviors can aggregate at the unit level and affect unit
outcomes (Euwema et al., 2007; Keller, 2006; van Emmerik et al., 2010).
One prevalent theoretical perspective explaining the influence of leadership is social
exchange theory (Organ et al., 2006). In this study, we will examine the role of social exchange in
the influence of task- and relation-oriented leadership behaviors on group-level organizational
citizenship behaviors (GOCB). Today, firms must focus on GOCB if they wish to optimize the
performance of their work teams. Numerous studieshavedemonstratedtheimpactofGOCBon
several results associated to firm performance such as global performance, productivity,
efficiency, costs, profitability, customer satisfaction and employee turnover (Whitman et al., 2010;
Podsakoff et al., 2009; Chen, Lam, Nauman and Schaubroeck, 2005).
Whereas the consequences of GOCB have been examined extensively, their antecedents
remain poorly understood. Research on antecedents of GOCB is scant (Gong et al., 2010), in
contrast with antecedents of OCB at the individual level. Nonetheless, understanding the
factors that favor group-level OCB is as important as grasping those of individual OCB,
owing to the demonstrated impact of these group behaviors on organizational success. As
early as 1988, Organ proposed that “most action, taken singly, would not make a dent in the
overall performance of the organization […] but that is the nature of OCB –any single
occurrence of it is modest or trivial”(p. 8). These findings and assertions affirm the need to
enrich knowledge of the dynamics that explain GOCB.
Although some researchers have established the link between some leadership behaviors
and OCB at the group level (e.g. Chen, Bliese and Mathieu, 2005; Chen, Lam, Nauman and
Schaubroeck 2005; Choi, 2009; Ehrhart, 2004; Euwema et al., 2007; Pearce and Herbik, 2004;
Richardson and Vandenberg, 2005), few studies have examined the mediating mechanisms
that explain the relationship between task-oriented and relation-oriented leadership
behaviors and GOCB. In particular, research on the specific relationship between
task-oriented behaviors and GOCB is rare.
The present study proposes to look at two social exchange mechanisms that may affect
the relationship between directive and supportive leadership behaviors and group-level
helping behaviors: perceived organizational support (POS) and organizational affective
commitment (AC). We will examine these two attitudes at the group level. We posit that
leaders who exhibit high directive and/or supportive behaviors also emphasize instrumental
and socioemotional aspects of relationships with employees, which would ultimately affect
group helping behaviors. Figure 1 presents the theoretical model proposed.
Our goal is to contribute to two bodies of literature. First, in the leadership literature,
leadership scholars (e.g. Judge et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2012) have advocated for the
investigation of these two important but forgotten leadership behaviors. Second, by
examining the mediating role of social exchange processes in the influence of these
leadership behaviors on group-level helping behaviors, we seek to contribute to the
advancement of knowledge in the OCB literature.
More broadly, this study aims to shed light on the group-level processes that influence
collective performance. Given that the performance of groups or teams “[…] is often more of
418
PR
48,2
To continue reading
Request your trial