Cross‐level effects of support climate: Main and moderating roles

Abstract

Using a sample composed of 701 food and beverage managers nested in 120 units and 40 Asian hotel properties, in the current study we investigated the effects of unit high‐performance work system (HPWS) use and unit support climate on individual unit members' human resource outcomes (job performance behaviors: in‐role and organizational citizenship behaviors). The results support the hypothesized relationships among unit HPWS use, unit support climate, individual affective commitment, and individual job performance behaviors. The current study's findings illuminate the ways (e.g., mediation and moderation) in which the unit support climate advances positive organizationally relevant individual‐level human resource outcomes. Findings, implications, and limitations as well as avenues for future research are discussed.

Servant Leadership, Team Reflexivity, Coworker Support Climate, and Employee Creativity: A Multilevel Perspective

“…In the current study, we define coworker support as the individuals' belief that their coworkers will assist them in accomplishing their job tasks (Susskind et al, 2003). While perceived support was initially developed as an individual-level concept (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 1986), recently, some researchers argue that this concept should also be applied to the team level (Takeuchi et al, 2018). Specifically, a team-level psychological climate could be formed if employees from the same team reach a consensus about the climate of co-worker support.…”

“…Liao and Liu (2015) suggested that the influence of abusive supervision may be affected by coworker support. For this study, we examine the effect of a particular organizational context, namely, coworker support climate, which refers to "unit members' shared belief that the larger organization cares about their wellbeing" (Takeuchi et al, 2018). Based on contingency theory, we argue that coworker support climate can influence followers' reaction to servant leadership style.…”

High-performance work systems and key employee attitudes: the roles of psychological capital and an interactional justice climate

“…Our argument is complementary to, rather than negating, the social exchange account that has been the dominant so far. That account is based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), and argues that because employees appreciate the benefits of HPWS (e.g., opportunities for training and learning, valued rewards, career development, and opportunities for participation) they reciprocate in the form of positive attitudes (Gong et al, 2009;Kehoe & Wright, 2013;Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang & Takeuchi, 2007;Takeuchi et al, 2018;Wu & Chaturvedi, 2009). In this respect, the positive attitudes are the result of employees' perception that their interests are served.…”

“…HPWS is an organization-(or unit-) level phenomenon while employee attitudes (and well-being) are (or start as) an individual level phenomenon (Peccei et al, 2013;also, Renkema, Meijerink, & Bondarouk, 2017). Though most empirical research that studied the HPWS: THE ROLES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND JUSTICE CLIMATE 5 relationship has adopted same-level designs, studies that looked at the link between organization-(or unit-) level HPWS and individual employee's job satisfaction and organizational commitment are in existence (Gong, Law, Chang & Xin, 2009;Heffernan & Dundon, 2016;Messersmith, Patel, Lepak & Gould-Williams, 2011;Takeuchi, Way & Tian, 2018;Wu & Chaturvedi, 2009). However, maybe as a reflection of the general state of research in HPWS (e.g., Boxall, Guthrie & Paauwe, 2017;Chapman, Sisk, Schatten & Miles, 2018;Jiang, Takeuchi & Lepak, 2013;Fu, Flood, Bosak, Rousseau, Morris & O'Regan, 2017) knowledge about the mechanisms underlying the link between organization-level HPWS and workplace attitudes at individual level is not yet exhaustive (Heffernan & Dundon, 2016;Takeuchi et al, 2018).…”

Citizenship pressure and job performance: roles of citizenship fatigue and continuance commitment

“…Compared with affective and normative forms, which focus on psychological attachments or moral obligations that employees feel toward their employer, respectively (Gamble and Tian 2015), continuance commitment reflects employees’ job security concerns, which diminish if they can adjust to their current work environment, even one that imposes significant pressures on their daily functioning (Cohen 2007; Wang 2015). Then as an outcome, this research considers employees’ in‐role job performance and ability to meet formally prescribed job requirements (Williams and Anderson 1991), which is a critical determinant of performance evaluations (Bolino, Turnley and Niehoff 2004; Takeuchi, Way and Tian 2018). The concurrent influences of citizenship pressures and continuance commitment on job performance, through citizenship fatigue, accordingly are important considerations for HR managers.…”