Who Suffers When Supervisors are Unhappy? The Roles of Leader–Member Exchange and Abusive Supervision

Pan, Su Ying; Lin, Katrina Jia

doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3247-y

Cited by 43 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are some other factors that were found to influence employee proactive behavior, including leaders' personal attributes (openness to change: r = 0.45, Tröster & Van Knippenberg, ; self‐efficacy: r = 0.17 and 0.20, Fast, Burris, & Bartel, ; authentic personality: r = 0.17, Liang, ; and narcissism: r = 0.01, Liu, Ting‐Ju Chiang, Fehr, Xu, & Wang, ), affect (positive affect: r = 0.19, Liu, Song, Li, & Liao, ; negative affect: r = −0.07, Pan & Lin, ), and job embeddedness ( r = 0.33 to 47, Ng & Feldman, ). Proactive motivations were found or implied to be mediators in most of these studies.…”

Section: Social Context Factors As Antecedents Of Proactive Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The role of social context (e.g., leadership, team climate, and organizational support) in shaping employee proactive behavior has received considerable attention and has been investigated across multiple forms of proactive behavior. However, the research has not been well integrated. In this review, we adopt a multilevel approach to synthesize what is known about how social context factors influence employees' proactive behavior, as well as what mechanisms underpin these effects. Our analyses show that leader‐, team‐, and organization‐related social context factors mainly influence employee proactivity through shaping “reason to,” “can do,” and “energized to” states (i.e., proactive motivational states) via individual‐, team‐, and cross‐level processes. That has been most frequently investigated is the effect of the discretionary social context, particularly leadership, on proactive behavior. We also review the interaction effects between social context factors and other factors on employee proactive behavior and found inconsistent support for the motivational‐fit perspective that stimuli with the same directions enhance each other's effect. We offer a research agenda to advance theoretical insights on this important topic.

show abstract

Section: Social Context Factors As Antecedents Of Proactive Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individuals with low-quality LMX are likely to perceive themselves as out-group member [ 62 , 66 ]. Further, they feel unable to gain the necessary resources, and their contribution is hardly recognized by their leaders [ 67 ], which will lead to low employee self-esteem. We can expect that a low quality LMX will weaken the positive effect of servant leadership on the self-concept constructs.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Servant Leadership Motivates Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model

Zeng

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on social identity theory, this study examines the effect of servant leadership on university teachers’ innovative behavior through the self-concept constructs of perceived insider status and organization-based self-esteem, and the moderating effect of leader–member exchange (LMX). This moderated mediation model was tested with two waves of data from 269 university teachers in China. Results reveal that the self-concept constructs mediate the relationship between servant leadership and university teachers’ innovative behavior. Moreover, LMX strengthens the relationship between servant leadership and the self-concept constructs, as well as the indirect effect of servant leadership on university teachers’ innovative behavior through the self-concept constructs. Findings suggest that servant leadership is related to increased innovative behavior due to its positive influence on the self-concept of university teachers and it highlights the importance of developing a favorable supervisor–subordinate relationship.

show abstract

“…LMX theory holds that the exchange relationships that develop between leaders and their subordinates differ in quality. High-quality LMX is based on mutual trust, respect, and common obligations between leaders and subordinates [74]. It helps employees to attain more resources (such as social support), protects them from threats or stress, and is of great value in alleviating work–family conflict among expatriates [75].…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Intelligence and Work–Family Conflict: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Conservation of Resources Theory

Zhang

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to explore the influence mechanism of cultural intelligence on work–family conflict for Chinese expatriates in cross-cultural non-profit organizations. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, this longitudinal study (six-month time lag) is the first to examine cultural intelligence as an antecedent of work–family conflict. The study also examines the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of leader–member exchange (LMX) in the cultural intelligence and work–family conflict relationship. The sample comprises 206 expatriate Chinese language teachers working at 45 Confucius Institutes in the US, Canada, and Russia. Results show that cultural intelligence not only reduces work–family conflict but also promotes expatriates’ work engagement. The higher the work engagement, the higher the work–family conflict experienced by expatriates. LMX moderates not only the positive relationship between work engagement and work–family conflict but also the indirect effect of cultural intelligence on work–family conflict through work engagement. Thus, the indirect effect of cultural intelligence on work–family conflict through work engagement is stronger with low (compared to high) LMX. This study’s findings provide implications for managers of cross-cultural non-profit organizations to better understand and solve expatriates’ work–family conflict problem.

show abstract

Who Suffers When Supervisors are Unhappy? The Roles of Leader–Member Exchange and Abusive Supervision

Cited by 43 publications

References 83 publications

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

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

How Servant Leadership Motivates Innovative Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model

Cultural Intelligence and Work–Family Conflict: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Conservation of Resources Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About