Revisiting How and When Perceived Organizational Support Enhances Taking Charge

Abstract

Current theory and research suggest a positive linear relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and employees' taking charge, or change-suggesting, behaviors. Via a sample of 89 subordinate-supervisor dyads, we hypothesize and test an inverted U-shaped relationship between employees' POS and their taking charge behaviors and the likelihood that this curvilinear pattern is accentuated when employees anticipate costs related to their taking charge. Results support both of these patterns. We conclude by discussing our findings' implications regarding future needed sensitivity on the part of managers as well as management scholars regarding how to gauge optimal levels of POS.Prior work has theoretically and/or empirically noted that employees' proactive behaviors in general and their "taking charge" behaviors in particular (i.e., change-making or Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge Elizabeth W. Morrison, In-Sue Oh, Paulette Johnson, and the two anonymous JOM reviewers for their guidance on this article.

How does the social context fuel the proactive fire? A multilevel review and theoretical synthesis

“…Research to date shows that individuals are likely to engage in proactive behavior when top management has a positive attitude toward changes, the organization cares about them, the organizational environment encourages proactive behavior, and colleagues interact with them in a positive way. But too much of a good thing can be a bad thing: POS was found to have a curvilinear effect on taking charge (Burnett, Chiaburu, Shapiro, & Li, ). As with leader and team factors, there are also negative organizational factors (ostracism and perceived politics) that reduce proactive behavior.…”

When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China

“…At the individual level, we controlled for demographic variables, including gender, age, job tenure (measured in years), and education level, which have been found to be related to individual RBSE (Parker et al, 2006) and taking charge (Burnett et al, 2013;Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Finally, we included group size (measured as the number of group members in each group) and leader tenure in the current position as the grouplevel control.…”

“…Among various forms of proactive behavior, taking charge has been the most studied (e.g., Burnett, Chiaburu, Shapiro, & Li, 2013;Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman, & Xie, 2013;McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007). Taking charge refers to Bemployees' voluntary and constructive efforts to effect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within the contexts of their jobs, work units, or organizations ( Morrison & Phelps, 1999: 403).…”

The influence of organizational and functional support on the development of salesperson job satisfaction

“…Higher FS may be perceived by salespersons as resource endowments by supervisors in exchange for more control over them, undermining an environment conducive to trust, which may explain the lack of significant positive effects of OS on satisfaction at high FS levels. Organizational support has been shown to enhance proactive behaviours of employees, yet this happens only when the level of support is moderate (Burnett et al 2013). High levels of OS may become a threat to the self-esteem of the employee, having a deteriorating effect on their proactive behaviours.…”