How Far Can Support Go? Supported Supervisors’ Performance and Subordinate Dedication

Woznyj, Haley M.; Dunn, Alexandra M.; Shanock, Linda R.; Heggestad, Eric D.; Ordóñez, Zoa; Uhrich, Benjamin

doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9472-7

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Women might thus react more strongly to POS, PSS, and PCS and thus affecting the associations between the three sources of support and outcomes. Likewise, older workers (Kurtessis et al, 2017) and more tenured employees (Woznyj et al, 2017) have both been found to have more positive perceptions of their employing organization, thus making them more likely to entertain more positive perceptions of POS. In line with this, prior variable-centered research indicated that sex, age, and organizational tenure were correlated with POS (e.g., Miao & Kim, 2010), PSS (e.g., Sawang, 2012), and PCS (e.g., Caesens et al 2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Support Profiles in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Perspective

Caesens

Morin

Gillet

et al. 2021

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how employee’s perceptions of three sources of support in the workplace (i.e., organization, supervisor, and colleagues) combine within specific profiles and the nature of the relations between these profiles and indicators of employees’ psychological health (i.e., stress, sleep problems, psychosomatic strains, and depression). Furthermore, this research examines the within-sample and within-person stability of the identified support profiles over the course of an 8-month time interval. Latent profile and latent transition analyses conducted on a sample of 729 workers indicated six identical profiles across the two measurement occasions: 1, moderately supported; 2, weakly supported; 3, isolated; 4, well-supported; 5, supervisor supported; and 6, highly supported. Profile membership was very stable over time for most profiles, with the exception of the isolated profile which was only moderately stable. Furthermore, the isolated and supervisor-supported profiles presented the lowest levels of psychological health, while the well-supported and moderately supported profiles presented the highest levels of psychological health. Of particular interest, results suggested that some risks might be associated with the highly supported profile, although this result could be a simple reflection of the women-dominant composition of this profile. This research has implications for theory and practice, which will be discussed in the article.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Support Profiles in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Perspective

Caesens

Morin

Gillet

et al. 2021

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Supportive supervision in the workplace has significant benefits for employees including enhanced job performance, satisfaction, organizational commitment, and reduced turnover intentions (Frear, Donsbach, Theilgard, & Shanock, 2017;Golden & Veiga, 2008;Paustian-Underdahl et al, 2013;Raabe & Beehr, 2003;Scandura & Williams, 2004;Sosik & Godshalk, 2000;Woznyj et al, 2016). Supportive supervision is defined as subordinates' perceptions of the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their personal and professional needs and well-being (perceived supervisor support [PSS]; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988;Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008;Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).…”

Section: Practitioner Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of supervisor support: Resolving paradoxical patterns across gender and race

Paustian‐Underdahl

King

Rogelberg

et al. 2017

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work reconciles previous discrepancies regarding when and how the demographic composition of supervisor–subordinate dyads relates to perceived supervisor support. We draw from social identity theory to argue that building relationships with higher‐status group members, while distancing oneself from the lower‐status group, is a contextually induced way female and racial minority employees may cope with identity threat in the workplace. Our results supported the hypotheses, indicating that this self‐distancing effect via reduced perceived supervisor support only emerges in settings where gender or racial identities may be considered threatened (in organizations with climates of higher perceived gender inequity, Study 1; or climates of higher perceived diversity inequity, Study 2). Such results are particularly important and timely given the recent ample attention in popular media and academic outlets regarding the ‘queen bee’ effect, the ‘crabs in the barrel’ mentality, and diversity‐valuing behaviour of leaders. The current research suggests that such behaviours are not generalizable to all female or minority employees; rather, this effect seems to be context‐driven. Practitioner points Organizational climates that are higher in gender and/or diversity inequity may bring about negative in‐group behaviours between supervisors and subordinates. To increase perceptions of supervisor support, especially among traditionally low‐status employees, organizations should improve their diversity climates to be more inclusive for all employees. Building active mentoring programmes for under‐represented groups and increasing the number of women and non‐White employees in senior positions, while emphasizing equal opportunity for all employees, are some ways organizations can reduce perceptions of gender and diversity inequity. A career‐lattice approach to employee career development would allow employees to engage in more lateral transfers – enabling them to gain diverse skills, be exposed to multiple mentors, and to remove themselves from a potentially harmful supervisor–subordinate relationship.

show abstract

“…Pseudo- R 2 tells us how much of the total variance is attributed to shared entitativity as opposed to just group membership (i.e., the ICC(1) calculations). Pseudo- R 2 ranging from 2% to 4% are considered important in organizational research (Woznyj et al, 2017). Shared entitativity accounts for 2% of the total group variance of prosocial behavior and 4% of the total group variance of satisfaction, which is considered reasonable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Our paper establishes that entitativity is meaningfully shared by group members and, further, that shared entitativity affects individuals above and beyond individual’s unique entitativity. Indeed, our results suggest that shared entitativity has a stronger effect on individual outcomes than is typically seen by group researchers (LeBreton & Senter, 2008; Woehr et al, 2015; Woznyj et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Are We Similar? Group Level Entitativity in Work and Social Groups

Blanchard

McBride

Ernst

2022

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Entitativity is essential for individuals to experience a grouping of people as a “group.” However, entitativity is primarily studied at the individual level. If it is truly a fundamental component of group outcomes and processes, it should be considered a group-level construct. We establish that group members can share entitativity perceptions. We propose that entitativity develops in work and social groups through different self-categorization processes. Social groups can take advantage of top-down processes to establish similarity of goals and characteristics. Workgroups use both top-down and bottom-up processes with differing effects on these two forms of similarity. We propose that shared entitativity affects individual level attitudes and behavior. Results support our theoretical model. Shared entitativity explains between 2% and 11% of outcome variance in workgroups and 3% to 14% of the outcome variance in social groups. Shared similarity relates to shared entitativity differently for social and workgroups. Shared entitativity is theoretically and practically important for successful groups.

show abstract

How Far Can Support Go? Supported Supervisors’ Performance and Subordinate Dedication

Cited by 11 publications

References 44 publications

Perceived Support Profiles in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Perspective

Perceived Support Profiles in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Perspective

Perceptions of supervisor support: Resolving paradoxical patterns across gender and race

How Are We Similar? Group Level Entitativity in Work and Social Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About