Supervisor monitoring and subordinate innovation

Abstract

Summary This study introduces a new and parsimonious classification of supervisor monitoring (observational monitoring and interactional monitoring) and examines the effects of these two monitoring styles on subordinate innovation. Guided by social exchange theory, we propose that the two monitoring styles influence subordinate job attitudes (trust and distrust in their supervisor), relationship quality (leader–member exchange), and work behaviors (feedback‐seeking behaviors), which, in turn, affect their innovation. The pilot study developed the scales for the two monitoring styles and tested their content validity among 189 undergraduate students. Using a sample of 385 subordinates, Study 1 assessed the construct validity of the two monitoring styles. In Study 2, the results of a survey of 388 supervisor–subordinate dyads show support for the proposed theoretical model. Specifically, observational monitoring and interactional monitoring were related to subordinates' trust and distrust in their supervisor. Trust and distrust in the supervisor, in turn, were related to the quality of the leader–member exchange, feedback‐seeking behaviors, and ultimately, supervisor‐rated innovation. These findings suggest that supervisors' monitoring styles have both positive and negative effects on their subordinates' innovation, which depends on the type of monitoring supervisors engage in. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Agreement and Discrepancy Between Supervisor and Clinician Alliance: Associations with Clinicians’ Perceptions of Psychological Climate and Emotional Exhaustion

“…Middle level managers or supervisors, and particularly their interactions with their supervisees, have been hypothesized to be important drivers in meeting organizational goals. For example, Liao and Chun (2016) found that a supervisors’ monitoring style (observational or interactional) influences supervisees’ feedback-seeking behaviors and innovation (idea generation and idea dissemination and implementation), both of which are necessary for organizational growth (Zhang and Bartol 2010). However, middle level managers and supervisors are often overlooked stakeholders in implementation and may be one potential group to target (Birken et al 2016, 2012).…”

Top-Down Knowledge Hiding in Organizations: An Empirical Study of the Consequences of Supervisor Knowledge Hiding Among Local and Foreign Workers in the Middle East

“…Distrust in supervisor was measured using a 5-item scale developed by McAllister, Lewicki, and Bies (2000) and further validated by Liao and Chun (2016). A sample item is as follows: "Whenever possible, my supervisor takes advantage of me."…”

“…Prior empirical studies have confirmed that trust and distrust are not two sides of the same coin; rather, they are independent of each other and can coexist simultaneously (Cho, 2006;Dimoka, 2010;McKnight & Chervany, 2001;McKnight, Kacmar, & Chaudhry, 2004). Following social exchange theory, the findings of prior empirical studies on the supervisor-supervisee relationship suggest that supervisees' perception of a positive/negative supervisory treatment engenders trust/distrust, respectively, in a supervisor (Liao & Chun, 2016;Shore et al, 2009). However, in the case of supervisees' perceptions of negative supervisory behavior (e.g., strict observational monitoring), distrust in a supervisor is a more likely reaction (Liao & Chun, 2016).…”

“…Following social exchange theory, the findings of prior empirical studies on the supervisor-supervisee relationship suggest that supervisees' perception of a positive/negative supervisory treatment engenders trust/distrust, respectively, in a supervisor (Liao & Chun, 2016;Shore et al, 2009). However, in the case of supervisees' perceptions of negative supervisory behavior (e.g., strict observational monitoring), distrust in a supervisor is a more likely reaction (Liao & Chun, 2016).…”

Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative work behavior (IWB): a three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status

“…In the dynamic and increasingly competitive business environment, persistent pursuit of innovation, which includes generation, dissemination, and implementation of a new idea (Allameh, 2018;Liao and Chun, 2016), has become crucial for organizations to sustain their competitive advantage (Tsai, 2018). Employees' IWB and creativity have been used interchangeably in the literature (Hirst et al, 2009;Unsworth and Clegg, 2010), but IWB is a broader concept because it encompasses more than idea generation, which mainly involves creativity; it is a combination of idea generation, dissemination, and implementation (Yidong and Xinxin, 2013).…”