When organizational support yields both performance and satisfaction. The role of performance ability in the lens of social exchange theory
| Date | 02 September 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2018-0402 |
| Pages | 1410-1428 |
| Published date | 02 September 2019 |
| Author | Lincoln Jisuvei Sungu,Qingxiong (Derek) Weng,Johari Abdu Kitule |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
When organizational support
yields both performance
and satisfaction
The role of performance ability in the lens of
social exchange theory
Lincoln Jisuvei Sungu, Qingxiong (Derek) Weng and
Johari Abdu Kitule
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the underlying mechanism through which perceived
organizational support (POS) influences job performance and job satisfaction. Specifically, the study aims at
examining the contingent role of performance ability in the associations of POS and affective organizational
commitment (AOC) with job performance and job satisfaction, thus highlighting the pivot role of ability in the
social exchanges.
Design/methodology/approach –The sample of the present study included 269 employees of a University
in Kenya. The data were analyzed with Mplus to test the hypotheses.
Findings –POS enhances AOC that, in turn, positively influences job performance and job satisfaction.
Importantly,the resultsindicate that performanceability moderatesboth the directand indirect (viaAOC) effects
of POS on job performance andjob satisfaction. Thus,employees’abilities fortasks are not only significantfor
reciprocating resources thatorganizations invest in employees, but alsoenhances employee well-being.
Research limitations/implications –Althoughsatisfaction with employeereciprocationwas implied based
on performancelevels, it was not directly testedin the supervisor–employee socialexchange. It is possible that
even with intentions to deliver (high AOC), the resultant reciprocation may be less satisfactory to the
organization.Future research would benefitfrom investigating the rolethat reciprocity norm couldhave in the
model, specifically, whether employer satisfaction would be a functionof employee performance ability.
Practical implications –Most often,the bottom line goal oforganizations is employeeperformance, whereas
AOC indicates employees’intentions and efforts to reciprocate the organization with high performance, such
intentionscan only go as far as the ability for such desired outcomes.Consequently, efforts shouldbe made to
ensure employee’s capabilities align with specific job tasks to enhance both organizational (job performance)
and employee well-being (job satisfaction). During theemployee selection process, therefore, a focus on ability
cues would be more advantageous than commitment when the bottomline goal is to enhance well-being.
Originality/value –This is the first study that tests the moderating role of the employee’s performance
ability in both the POS and AOC relationships with job performance and job satisfaction. Moreover, this is the
first study to examine the relationship between POS and AOC with job satisfaction. The study opens a
potential avenue to examine the micro-mechanisms that regulate reciprocity in social exchanges, and thus
presents the boundary conditions for the predictions of the social exchange theory.
Keywords Quantitative, Perception, Commitment, Social exchange
Paper type Research paper
The employer–employee association is a type of social exchange which Blau (1964, p. 91)
defined as “[…] voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are
expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others.”With the belief that committed
workers will reciprocate with high job performance, etc., employers engage in exchanges
with employees like organizational support to positively influence attitudinal commitment
to the organization. Human resource management (HRM) practices that employees perceive
to demonstrate organization’s intentions and commitment to its employees are reciprocated
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 6, 2019
pp. 1410-1428
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-10-2018-0402
Received 13 October 2018
Revised 29 March 2019
Accepted 19 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Nos 71373251; 71871209).
1410
PR
48,6
with positive attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Whitener, 2001; Zacharatos et al., 2005). In fact,
perceived organizational support (POS) that refers to the employees’views concerning the
degree to which the employer values their contributions and cares about their well-being
(Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2001) has been established as a reliable predictor of affective
organizational commitment (AOC) (e.g. Allen and Meyer, 1990, 2000; Klein et al., 2012, 2014;
Meyer et al., 2004; Meyer et al., 2013; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2001).
Based on the organizational support theory ( for meta-analysis see; Kurtessis et al., 2015),
POS heightens AOC because it creates a sense of obligation on employees to be concerned
with the organization’s welfare (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Empirical studies demonstrate that
AOC that denotes one’s willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization (Meyer et al.,
1989; Riketta, 2002) is associated with various essential employee outcomes including job
performance (Maxwell and Steele, 2003), organizational citizenship behaviors (Allen and
Meyer, 2000), and turnover and absenteeism (Karatepe and Uludag, 2007; Paul and
Anantharaman, 2003; Somers, 1995).
However, the relationship between AOC and job performance is both inconclusive and
conflicting.Meta-analytic studies have revealeda significant amount of unexplainedvariance
in the modest organizational commitment–job performance relationship, suggesting the
existence of moderators (e.g. Jaramillo et al., 2005; Wright and Bonett, 2002). Based on the
social exchange theory (SET), these findings suggest that although employer-initiated
exchangeslike favorable treatment by theorganization may beget obligationon the employee,
intention to reciprocate the organization(high AOC) may not be sufficient ingredientfor high
performance. This implies that the likelihood of satisfaction inherent in the SET is not
explained. Accordingly, researchershave called for additional researchregarding the effect of
organizational commitment on job performance (e.g. Meyer et al., 2002; Wright and Bonett,
2002). Also, although POS has been found topositively associate with importantattitudes as
AOC via felt obligation (Eisenberger et al., 2001), a meta-analysi s has revealed sub stantial
variations in its predictions that could not be accounted for by sampling error warranting
further research on the topic (Kurtessis et al., 2015).
In addition, although our knowledge of POS and affective commitment to organizations
is increasing, we do not know how they relate to job satisfaction. Specifically, because AOC
works through employees feeling obligated to reciprocate the organizations for the good
deeds (i.e. POS) (Eisenberger et al., 2001), what happens when employees are not able to
fulfill such a desire? That is, are employees likely to be satisfied in the employer–employee
exchanges even when they feel obligated to do well for the organization (e.g. Meyer et al.,
2004; Mowday et al., 1979) but are limited in their efforts? Both POS and AOC could be
stressful when employees want to reciprocate but are unable to do so. Although Panaccio
and Vandenberghe (2009) examined the effects of POS and AOC on overall psychological
well-being, the present study concerns job satisfaction that is a specific form of well-being.
By investigating the direct and indirect (through AOC) relationships of POS with job
performance and job satisfaction and the moderating role of performance ability (see
Figure 1), we propose to provide an explanation for the possible conflicting social exchange
predictions. Specifically, we examine when efforts to induce reciprocation and the intention
to reciprocate inherent in the SET is likely to result in the expected outcome. Therefore, we
propose the ability as the boundary condition for the predictions of SET which includes
explaining how POS and AOC relate to job performance and satisfaction.
Theory development
Social exchange theory
The SET (Blau, 1964) has been widely used to explain employee attitudes and behaviors
(Settoon et al., 1996). It involves a sequence of interdependent interactions in which an
individual feels compelled to reciprocate in positive ways due to the obligation created by
1411
The role of
performance
ability
To continue reading
Request your trial