The relationship between perceived organizational

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization Gaëtane Caesens, Géraldine Marique, Dorothée Hanin & Florence Stinglhamber To cite this article: Gaëtane Caesens, Géraldine Marique, Dorothée Hanin & Florence Stinglhamber (2015): The relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1092960 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1092960

Published online: 23 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20 Download by: [95.182.128.148]

Date: 29 September 2015, At: 00:21

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1092960

The relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization Gaëtane Caesens*, Géraldine Marique, Dorothée Hanin and Florence Stinglhamber Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Downloaded by [95.182.128.148] at 00:21 29 September 2015

(Received 8 December 2014; accepted 7 September 2015) Numerous studies have shown that perceived organizational support has positive consequences on both employees and organizations. However, no study has examined the causal relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization and few studies have identified potential mechanisms underlying this relationship. We first investigated the direction of causality between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour, and hypothesized that perceived organizational support leads to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Second, based on social exchange and motivational perspectives, we examined two potential mechanisms underlying this relationship, i.e., felt obligation and work engagement. Employees from a Belgian Federal Public Service were invited to take part in a three-wave longitudinal survey. Using a cross-lagged panel design, our results (N = 1963) revealed that Time 2 perceived organizational support was positively related to Time 3 proactive behaviour towards the organization, whereas the reverse was not true. Additionally, our results (N = 1293) showed that Time 2 felt obligation and Time 2 work engagement mediated the positive relationship between Time 1 perceived organizational support and Time 3 proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Keywords: perceived organizational support; proactive behaviour directed towards the organization; cross-lagged panel design; felt obligation; work engagement

Introduction Because of a work environment nowadays characterized by fast and continuous changes, it is important for organizations to rely on the proactive contribution of their employees (e.g., Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Organizations expect from their employees to spontaneously anticipate problems and to identify future opportunities in their work environment (Crant, 2000). Therefore, traditional models of performance assuming “that employees ought to follow instructions, task descriptions, and orders” (Frese, 2008, p. 67) may sometimes be inadequate in this modern work environment. In the same vein, Griffin, Parker, and Mason (2010) have claimed that “in the face of organizational change [and in a larger extent, in other contexts], not all forms of work performance are equally effective or desirable” (p. 174). For these reasons, scholars have suggested new forms of effective performance including the concept of proactivity (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). Proactive behaviours refer to active, self-initiated, and future-oriented actions that aim to change and improve the current situation before a problem emerges (Crant, 2000; Fay & Frese, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006; Tornau & Frese, 2013). *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis

Given the crucial role played by proactive behaviours in some organizations, scholars have sought to identify their main antecedents. Precisely, prior research has already brought to light the importance of several individual factors (e.g., role breadth self-efficacy, proactive personality; Bateman & Crant, 1993; Parker et al., 2006), and contextual factors (e.g., leadership, autonomy; e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Martin, Liao, & Campbell, 2013) to foster employees’ proactivity. Nevertheless, less is known about organizational factors capable of enhancing employees’ proactivity. Yet, Crant (2000) and Bindl and Parker (2011) have suggested that the perception of being supported by the organization might enhance employees’ proactivity. In line with this proposition, this research examined the influence of perceived organizational support, defined as the “employees’ beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501), on employees’ proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. More precisely, the aim of our research was twofold. First, we examined the causal relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour


2

G. Caesens et al.

directed towards the organization using a cross-lagged panel design. Second, we investigated why perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization are related. Based on the social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), we argued that employees perceiving a high level of organizational support feel an obligation to repay the positive treatment they received from their organization by displaying more proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Furthermore, based on a motivational perspective and thanks to the fulfilment of employees’ socioemotional needs, we suggested that perceived organizational support might be able to foster employees’ proactive behaviour directed towards the organization by increasing employees’ work engagement (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Using a longitudinal design, the present research contributes to the existing literature in at least two important ways. First, by investigating the direction of causality in the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviours towards the organization, our research broadens the perceived organizational support literature (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015). Second, by examining the role of a social exchange and motivational perspectives as underlying processes of the perceived organizational support– proactivity relationship, our research responds to the call of scholars to clarify the conditions contributing to enhance employees’ proactivity (e.g., Crant, 2000). The theoretical framework supporting our assumptions is presented later. The directionality of the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization According to organizational support theory, employees develop general beliefs concerning the extent to which their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Based on the social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), perceived organizational support creates among employees a feeling of obligation to repay the positive treatment they received from their organization, through the increase of a positive orientation and voluntary actions which benefit the organization. In line with this view, perceived organizational support was found to be related to a wide range of employee- and organization-relevant outcomes (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015). For instance, numerous studies have demonstrated that perceived organizational support is associated with higher levels of job performance, affective

commitment, work engagement, organizational identification, job satisfaction, and lower levels of job stress, absenteeism, and turnover (e.g., Baran, Shanock, & Miller, 2012; Caesens, Marique, & Stinglhamber, 2014; Caesens & Stinglhamber, 2014; Caesens, Stinglhamber, & Luypaert, 2014; Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Marique, Stinglhamber, Desmette, Caesens, & De Zanet, 2013; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). Surprisingly, although a large body of research supports the beneficial effects of perceived organizational support on traditional conceptualizations of work-related performance (i.e., in-role and extra-role performance; e.g., Chen, Eisenberger, Johnson, Sucharski, & Aselage, 2009; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2013), a very limited number of studies have investigated the influence of perceived organizational support on employees’ proactivity (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Liu, Lee, Hui, Kwan, & Wu, 2013; Shin & Kim, 2014). Yet, several authors have suggested the possible role of perceived organizational support in the development of employees’ proactivity. Crant (2000) and Bindl and Parker (2011) argued that a highly supportive organizational culture conveys the idea that the organization strongly values the employees’ contributions, leading them to feel in a secure environment and, consequently, to engage in unexpected behaviours such as proactive behaviours. Preliminary evidence (Ashford et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Liu et al., 2013; Shin & Kim, 2014) indicated that a positive relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization might be expected. Eisenberger et al. (1990) showed that employees’ perception of support from the organization is positively related to innovation and spontaneous problem solving, i.e., two variables that can be assimilated to context-specific proactive behaviours (e.g., Crant, 2000). In a similar vein, Ashford et al. (1998) showed that perceived organizational support was positively associated with the willingness to raise and promote gender equity issues among women managers. Nevertheless, this study examined a very specific kind of proactive behaviour and is thus difficult to generalize to other organizational contexts. Recently, Shin and Kim (2014) showed that perceived organizational support fosters employees’ proactive behaviours using a crosssectional design. Specifically, perceived organizational support led to employees’ higher levels of perceived peer pressure to behave proactively which, in turn, increased their intentions to behave in a proactive way and, finally, their effective proactive behaviour. Nevertheless, Shin and Kim (2014) stated that these results need “to be validated


European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology in future longitudinal research to establish stronger causality among the antecedents, mediating processes, and proactive behavior” (p. 305). In line with this and based on prior theoretical (e.g., Crant, 2000) and empirical evidence (Ashford et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Liu et al., 2013; Shin & Kim, 2014), it seems reasonable to suggest that perceived organizational support is an antecedent of proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. According to several authors (e.g., Finkel, 1995; Kaplan, 2000), the relationship between the initial value of one variable and changes in a second variable over time provides stronger evidence regarding causality than is afforded by the simultaneous measurement of the two variables. Cross-lagged panel designs are “typically considered the optimal way to understand causality in field settings where experimental procedures are not feasible” (Lang, Bliese, Lang, & Adler, 2011, p. 4). Therefore, we investigated the causal relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization using such a design. More precisely, we posited that initial perceived organizational support would be related to temporal change in proactive behaviour. Hypothesis 1: Perceived organizational support is positively related to changes in proactive behaviour directed towards the organization over time.

Felt obligation as a mediator of the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization Based on the social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011) holds that perceived organizational support creates a felt obligation to care about the organization welfare. In other words, perceived organizational support creates among employees an obligation to reciprocate the favourable treatment they received from their supportive and caring organization through positive behaviours or additional work efforts (Baran et al., 2012). According to the organizational support theory, this feeling of obligation could explain the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and any behaviour that can benefit the organization (e.g., affective commitment; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). In line with this theoretical view, several studies have investigated the mediating role of felt obligation in the relationship between perceived organizational support and different work-related outcomes, including traditional conceptualizations of work-related performance (e.g., CoyleShapiro, Morrow, & Kessler, 2006; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). For instance,

3

Eisenberger et al. (2001) showed that the employees’ perception of a felt obligation towards the organization mediates the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and employees’ extra-role performance. In line with this view, Griffin et al. (2007) suggested that perceived team support should foster proactive behaviour towards the team by creating a feeling of obligation towards the team. Therefore, in line with the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence presented earlier, we argued that felt obligation is a key underlying mechanism in the relationship between perceived organizational support and employees’ proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Hypothesis 2: Felt obligation mediates the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization.

Work engagement as a mediator of the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization Work engagement is defined as “a positive fulfilling, affective, motivational state of work-related well-being, described by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Vigour refers to a high level of energy and mental resilience when working, and persistence even when experiencing difficulties (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Dedication is characterized by a strong involvement in work and a feeling of significance such as inspiration, pride, or challenge (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Absorption relates to a full concentration and being engrossed in one’s work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Recently, Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) suggested that perceived organizational support enhances employees’ work engagement by fostering their intrinsic interest for their work. More precisely, they argued that perceived organizational support fosters employees’ work engagement by fulfilling their socioemotional needs, by providing them with the assurance that help will be provided when they needed and by enhancing their sense of self-efficacy (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). This idea has been supported at the empirical level by Kinnunen, Feldt, and Mäkikangas (2008) who showed that perceived organizational support is positively correlated with the three dimensions of employees’ work engagement (i.e., vigour, dedication, and absorption). Furthermore, Sulea et al. (2012) found that perceived organizational support was positively related to work engagement, which in turn, enhanced organizational citizenship behaviours and decreased counterproductive work behaviours. Recently, Caesens and Stinglhamber (2014) reported that employees’ self-efficacy mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and employees’ work engagement which has, in turn, a positive influence on employees’ well-being (i.e., increasing levels of job


4

G. Caesens et al.

satisfaction and reducing psychological strains) and a marginal positive impact on employees’ extra-role performance. Additionally, scholars argued that work engagement enhances proactive behaviour to the extent that work engagement encompasses essential dimensions of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008; Sonnentag, 2003). The motivational state of work engagement, characterized by high levels of energy, enthusiasm and absorption towards work, would help employees to adopt goal-oriented behaviours and persistence in achieving objectives (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Sonnentag (2003) also claimed that each of the three dimensions of work engagement is crucial to foster employees’ proactive behaviour. Precisely, vigour helps employees to pursue additional efforts and to perceive these efforts as worthwhile. Dedication is likely to enhance proactive behaviour by keeping and also improving the positive work situation. Finally, absorption allows detecting opportunities in the work environment and fuels proactive behaviour. In a similar vein, Parker and Griffin (2011) argued that, when employees are energized, they are more prone to engage in proactive behaviour. In line with these theoretical arguments, several studies have shown that work engagement is positively related to employees’ proactive behaviour and personal initiative (e.g., Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008; Sonnentag, 2003). For instance, Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) have demonstrated the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between different job resources (e.g., job control, feedback, and variety) and employees’ personal initiative. Therefore, based on this theoretical and empirical evidence, we hypothesized that work engagement is a key underlying mechanism in the relationship between perceived organizational support and employees’ proactive behaviour directed towards the organization.

Method Design This research was part of a larger project consisting in a three-wave longitudinal survey with four-month intervals. Each questionnaire was accompanied by an email explaining the aim of the research, providing the link to the questionnaire, and guaranteeing the anonymity of the responses. Employees were invited to deliver a personal code in order to match their responses for each measurement time. The Time 1 survey collected data concerning demographic information and perceived organizational support. During the second wave, we measured demographic information, perceived organizational support, the two mediators (i.e., felt obligation and work engagement), and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Finally, we collected data concerning perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3. Therefore, as indicated in Figure 1, data collected from Time 2 and 3 were used in order to test Hypothesis 1 which holds that perceived organizational support is positively related to temporal change in proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested using data from the three waves of measurement. Accordingly, we examined whether the relationship between Time 1 perceived organizational support and Time 3 proactive behaviour directed towards the organization is mediated by Time 2 felt obligation and Time 2 work engagement.

Sample One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three employees originating from a Belgian Federal Public Service returned usable questionnaires at Time 2 and 3 and thus composed the final sample to test the first hypothesis. One thousand two hundred and ninety-three employees completed the questionnaire at each time of the three-wave longitudinal survey and composed the sample to assess the second and

Hypothesis 3: Work engagement mediates the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization.

Variable assessed

Time 1

Time 2 (4 months later)

Time 3 (4 months later)

POS

POS

POS

Felt obligation Work engagement Proactive behaviour

Proactive behaviour

Hypothesis 1 tested (Sample N = 1963)

Hypotheses 2 and 3 tested (Sample N = 1293) POS, perceived organizational support.

Figure 1.

Summary of research design.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.


Variable

5

Felt obligation

N = 1963

N = 1293

M

M

SD

SD

Age 48.36 9.32 47.82 9.30 Organizational 22.77 11.62 22.42 11.53 tenure Gender (%) Women 44.57 46.40 Men 55.43 53.60 Education (%) Primary education 1.78 1.55 Lower secondary 5.40 4.87 education Higher secondary 38.10 36.12 education Bachelor degree 26.13 26.29 Master degree 27.05 29.31 Doctorate degree 1.53 1.86 Level of Level D 4.38 3.25 function (%) Level C 22.26 22.12 Level B 33.77 33.02 Level A1 12.53 15.93 Level A2 22.01 20.03 Level A3 4.18 4.72 Level A4 or A5 .87 .93 Note: The organization was divided into seven levels of function, each level corresponding to a specific level of skills and abilities. The level D corresponds to the lowest level of function.

third hypotheses. More details concerning our sample are displayed in Table 1.

Measures Participants were invited to provide their agreement for each statement on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Perceived organizational support Perceived organizational support was measured using the short 8-item version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support developed by Eisenberger and his colleagues (1986). A sample item is “[Name of the organization] really cares about my well-being”.

Proactive behaviour directed towards the organization We assessed employees’ proactive behaviour towards the organization using the three items from Griffin et al. (2007).1 A sample item is I involve myself in changes that are helping to improve the overall effectiveness of [Name of the organization]. Previous studies indicated good validity and reliability of this scale (e.g., Griffin et al., 2010; Strauss, Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009).

We used the 7 items developed by Eisenberger et al. (2001) to measure felt obligation. A sample item is I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to help [Name of the organization] achieve its goals. Prior studies indicated that the scale had good reliability properties (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 2001). Work engagement Employees’ work engagement was assessed using 9 items from the short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002). The scale includes the three dimensions of work engagement: vigour (e.g., At my work, I feel bursting of energy), dedication (e.g., I am enthusiastic about my job) and absorption (e.g., I am immersed in my work). Control variables Following Becker’s (2005) recommendations, we controlled statistically for variables having a significant correlation with the dependent variables. We therefore carefully examined the correlations between potential control variables (gender, age, organizational tenure, language of the questionnaire, level of function, and education) and the dependent variables of the model tested. When both age and organizational tenure were found to be correlated to the same dependent variable and because they are highly intercorrelated (i.e., r = .83, p < .001), we decided to run regression analyses including age and organizational tenure as predictors of the dependent variables. Then, based on the results of these regressions, we kept in subsequent analyses the predictor which was significant (i.e., age).2

Results Confirmatory factor analyses Test of Hypothesis 1 Using confirmatory factor analyses via LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), two nested measurement models were compared in order to assess the distinctiveness between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. For each measurement time, the two-factor model yielded a good fit to the data (χ2(43) = 594.81, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .97, NNFI = .96 at Time 2, and χ2(43) = 756.52, RMSEA = .09, CFI = .96, and NNFI = .95 at Time 3) and was significantly superior to a one-factor model (Δχ2(1) = 3972.32, p < .001 at Time 2 and Δχ2 (1) = 3931.48, p < .001 at Time 3; Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Furthermore, all items loaded reliably on their predicted factors with standardized loadings ranging

6

G. Caesens et al.

from .63 to .76 for perceived organizational support at Time 2, from .87 to .94 for proactive behaviour towards the organization at Time 2, from .62 to .78 for perceived organizational support at Time 3, and from .87 to .94 for proactive behaviour towards the organization at Time 3. Together, these results provide evidence that perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization are two distinct constructs.

reliably on their respective factors with standardized loadings ranging from .55 to .75 for perceived organizational support at Time 1, .42 to .80 for felt obligation at Time 2, .59 to .86 for work engagement at Time 2, and .87 to .93 for proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3.

Descriptive statistics and correlations Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among variables are presented in Tables 3 and 4. As indicated in these tables, all Cronbach’s alphas are satisfactory (Nunnally, 1978). In line with our first hypothesis (Table 3), perceived organizational support at Time 2 is positively and significantly correlated with proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3. Furthermore, in line with our second and third hypotheses (Table 4), perceived organizational support at Time 1 is positively related to work engagement and felt obligation


Test of Hypotheses 2 and 3 Ten nested models were compared in order to evaluate the distinctiveness of the constructs (i.e., perceived organizational support at Time 1, felt obligation at Time 2, work engagement at Time 2, proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3). The results indicated that the hypothesized measurement model fitted the data well and was significantly superior to all more constrained models (for more details, see Table 2). All items loaded Table 2.

Confirmatory factor analyses: fit indices for measurement models (test of Hypotheses 2 and 3). χ2

Model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

df

Four-factor model 2337.55 318 Three-factor model (POS and FO = 1 factor) 8502.76 321 Three-factor model (POS and WE = 1 factor) 7530.88 321 Three-factor model (POS and PBO = 1 factor) 5394.21 321 Three-factor model (WE and FO = 1 factor) 4955.70 321 Three-factor model (WE and PBO = 1 factor) 4984.56 321 Three-factor model (FO and PBO = 1 factor) 5185.00 321 Two-factor model (POS and PBO = 1 factor; WE and FO = 1factor) 7988.17 323 Two-factor model (POS and WE = 1 factor; FO and PBO = 1factor) 10386.91 323 One-factor model 12745.76 324

Δχ2 (Δdf)

NNFI

CFI

RMSEA

– 6165.21(3)*** 5193.33(3)*** 3056.66(3)*** 2618.15(3)*** 2647.01(3)*** 2847.45(3)*** 5650.62(5)*** 8049.36(5)*** 10408.21(6)***

.95 .88 .89 .88 .91 .88 .88 .84 .82 .78

.96 .89 .90 .89 .92 .89 .89 .85 .83 .79

.07 .14 .13 .11 .11 .11 .11 .14 .15 .17

Notes: N = 1293. POS, perceived organizational support; FO, felt obligation; WE, work engagement; PBO, proactive behaviour directed towards the organization; NNFI, non-normed fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation. ***p < .001.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables (test of Hypothesis 1). Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Gender Age Organizational tenure Language Level of function Education Time 2 POS Time 3 POS Time 2 proactive behaviour 10. Time 3 proactive behaviour

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

.45 .50 (–) 48.36 9.32 −.17*** (–) 22.77 11.62 −.14*** .83*** (–) .58 .49 .04 −.01 .04 (–) 3.42 1.32 −.19*** −.02 .02 −.06* (–) 3.76 1.02 −.04 −.33*** −.38*** −.13*** .56*** (–) 2.34 .69 −.02 −.05* −.07** .12*** −.08*** −.09*** (.88) 2.42 .67 −.05* −.03 −.03 .13*** −.05* −.09*** .76*** (.88) 2.99 .85 −.11*** .10*** .07** −.12*** .19*** .05* .13*** .12*** (.93) 3.00

.83 −.12***

.12***

.08*** −.09***

.16***

.02

.14*** .15*** .61*** (.93)

Notes: N = 1963. POS, perceived organizational support. Cronbach’s alphas are provided in parentheses on the diagonal. All the sociodemographic variables were measured at Time 2. Gender was coded 0 for men and 1 for women. Language was coded 0 for French and 1 for Dutch. Level of function was coded 1 for level D, 2 for level C, 3 for level B, 4 for level A1, 5 for level A2, 6 for level A3, and 7 for levels A4 and A5. Education was coded 1 for primary education, 2 for lower secondary education, 3 for upper secondary education, 4 for bachelor, 5 for master, and 6 for Ph.D. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


7

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables (test of Hypotheses 2 and 3). Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Gender .46 .50 (–) Age 47.82 9.30 −.14*** (–) Organizational tenure 22.42 11.53 −.10*** .81*** (–) Language .54 .50 .04 −.01 .01 (–) Level of function 3.45 1.30 −.19*** .01 .03 −.03 (–) Education 3.82 1.02 −.03 −.34*** −.41*** −.12*** .52*** (–) Time 1 POS 2.28 .76 −.05* −.03 −.07* .13*** −.07** −.06* (.84) Time 2 Felt obligation 3.50 .62 −.02 .08** .12*** .16*** .22*** .02 .18*** (.82) Time 2 Work engagement 3.35 .70 .03 .07* .07** .03 .11*** −.02 .29*** .56*** (.92) Time 3 Proactive 2.98 .84 −.13*** .13*** .10*** −.09** .16*** .01 .15*** .27*** .31*** (.93) behaviour


Notes: N = 1293. POS, perceived organizational support. Cronbach’s alphas are provided in parentheses on the diagonal. All the sociodemographic variables were measured at Time 1. Gender was coded 0 for men and 1 for women. Language was coded 0 for French and 1 for Dutch. Level of function was coded 1 for level D, 2 for level C, 3 for level B, 4 for level A1, 5 for level A2, 6 for level A3, and 7 for levels A4 and A5. Education was coded 1 for primary education, 2 for lower secondary education, 3 for upper secondary education, 4 for bachelor, 5 for master, and 6 for Ph.D. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

at Time 2 and to proactive behaviour towards the organization at Time 3. Additionally, felt obligation and work engagement at Time 2 are positively associated with proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3.

Structural equation modelling Test of Hypothesis 1 A cross-lagged panel model was estimated using LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) in order to investigate the causal relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. More precisely, in line with prior studies (e.g., Boyce, Nieminen, Gillespie, Ryan, & Denison, 2015; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012), the features of this crosslagged panel model are characterized by (a) a cross-lagged path from perceived organizational support at Time 2 to proactive behaviour towards the organization at Time 3, (b) a cross-lagged path from proactive behaviour towards the organization at Time 2 to perceived organizational support at Time 3, (c) autoregressive paths within constructs (i.e., a path from each Time 2 variable to the corresponding variable at Time 3 in order to estimate the stability effects of each variable over the four-month period), and (d) correlated error variances between perceived organizational support at Time 3 and proactive behaviour towards the organization at Time 3. As recommended by Finkel (1995), we also allowed the error covariances of identical items over time to correlate. Finally, as suggested by Becker (2005), we included in the model the socio-demographic variables having a significant correlation with our two dependent variables (see footnote 2) and added the needed paths between

these socio-demographic variables and the dependent variables to control for their effects. Results indicated an adequate fit of the model (χ2(284) = 1709.89, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .98, and NNFI = .97). Figure 2 displays the model with standardized path coefficients. For the sake of clarity, the effects of control variables are described in the text and not represented in the figure. Language of the questionnaire measured at Time 2 was marginally and positively related to perceived organizational support at Time 3 (γ = .03, p < .10). Gender measured at Time 2 was positively related to perceived organizational support at Time 3 (γ = –.03, p < .05) and to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 (γ = –.04, p < .05). Age and level of function measured at Time 2 were positively related to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 (γ = .06, p < .01; γ = .04, p < .05). Controlling for these variables and for stability effects (γ = .83, p < .001 for perceived organizational support; γ = .62, p < .001 for proactive behaviour), perceived organizational support at Time 2 was positively related to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 (γ = .07, p < .001). Conversely, proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 2 was not significantly related to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 (γ = .01, n.s.). Therefore, our results provide support for Hypothesis 1 which holds that perceived organizational support leads to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Test of Hypotheses 2 and 3 First, we tested our hypothesized model which proposes that perceived organizational support at Time 1 has a positive impact on felt obligation and work engagement

8

G. Caesens et al. Time 2

Time 3

D

.83***

POS

POS

.16**

.07*** .13***

.01

Proactive behaviour

Proactive behaviour

.62***

D


Figure 2. Structural equation model of the relationships between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization over time in four-month lag (test of Hypothesis 1). For the sake of clarity, control variables are not represented. D, Disturbance term. POS, perceived organizational support. Note: **p < .01. ***p < .001.

at Time 2, both of which are, in turn, positively related to employees’ proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3. Again, the socio-demographic variables displaying a significant correlation with any dependent variable (see footnote 2) were included in the hypothesized model and the needed paths were added to control for their effects. Then, we compared the fit of this hypothesized model with one alternative model which adds a direct path from perceived organizational support at Time 1 to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3. Although the hypothesized model yielded a good fit to the data (χ2(442) = 3273.05, RMSEA = .07, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94), the alternative model was superior to the hypothesized model (Δχ2(1) = 9.20, p < .05). We thus retained the alternative model as the best depiction of the data. Standardized parameter estimates of this model are displayed in Figure 3 except the effects of the control variables which

Time 1

are described in the text. Language, organizational tenure, and level of function measured at Time 1 were positively related to felt obligation at Time 2 (γ = .10, p < .001; γ = .15, p < .001, and γ = .23, p < .001, respectively). Furthermore, language, gender, age, and level of function measured at Time 1 were significantly related to proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 (γ = –.12, p < .001; γ = –.10, p < .001; γ = .09, p < .001, and γ = .10, p < .001, respectively) and level of function measured at Time 1 was related to work engagement at Time 2 (γ = .15, p < .001). The results showed that perceived organizational support at Time 1 is positively related to felt obligation at Time 2 (γ = .24, p < .001) and work engagement at Time 2 (γ = .37, p < .001), both of which are in turn positively associated with proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 (β = .15, p < .001; β = .20, p < .001). Perceived organizational support at Time 1

Time 2

Felt obligation

.24***

Time 3

.15***

.10**

POS .37***

Work engagement

Proactive behaviour .20***

Figure 3. Completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative Model 1 (test of Hypotheses 2 and 3). For the sake of clarity, control variables are not represented. POS, perceived organizational support. Note: **p < .01. ***p < .001.



has also a direct effect on proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 (γ = .10, p < .01). Furthermore, bootstrapping analyses (Hayes, 2013; 1000 bootstrap samples) showed that the indirect effects of perceived organizational support at Time 1 on proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3 through felt obligation and work engagement at Time 2 are significant (indirect effect = 0.0292; BCa 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.0150; 0.0482] and indirect effect = 0.0676; BCa 95% CI = [0.0438; 0.0978], respectively),3 supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3. Discussion This study drew attention to the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization as well as the underlying mechanisms of this relationship using a longitudinal model. More precisely, our study assessed the antecedence of perceived organizational support on proactive behaviour directed towards the organization using a crosslagged panel design. Furthermore, we analysed two potential underlying mechanisms of this positive relationship, namely felt obligation and work engagement. First, the results of this study indicated that perceived organizational support was positively related to temporal change in proactive behaviour directed towards the organization whereas the reverse did not occur. In other words, employees who perceive that their organization highly values their contribution at work and cares about their well-being are more prone to act proactively towards their organization such as by developing news ways to increase organizational efficiency. The methodology used in our research, characterized by a cross-lagged panel design, contributed to stronger evidence of causality inference between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization and, as such, responded to the call of some scholars to use longitudinal designs (Shin & Kim, 2014). Our findings contribute to the perceived organizational support literature (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) by identifying a new positive consequence of perceived organizational support for organizations. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, no prior study has examined the directionality of the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. In addition, our results broaden the proactivity literature and responds to the calls of scholars (e.g., Crant, 2000) to clarify the conditions contributing to foster employees’ proactivity. They are consistent with Crant’s (2000) and Bindl and Parker’ (2011) suggestion that organizational factors and, in particular, a supportive organizational culture is likely to positively influence employees’ proactivity. Our findings are also in line with empirical

9

studies of Eisenberger et al. (1990), Shin and Kim (2014), Liu et al. (2013), and Ashford et al. (1998) which indicated that perceived organizational support is positively related to context-specific (i.e., spontaneous problem solving, innovation, and raising gender equity issues) or more general forms of employees’ proactivity. Nevertheless, we cannot totally exclude the possibility that the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour towards the organization might also occur in the reverse direction. On the one hand, as suggested by the confirmation bias (Oswald & Grosjean, 2004; see also Neves & Eisenberger, 2012), it might be possible that proactive employees perceived more support from their organization because they seek for more organizational support through their proactive behaviours. On the other hand, it might be possible that their organization provide them with more support because there are highly proactive and try to suggest new ways to help their organization. We cannot assume that the duration required for perceived organizational support to influence proactive behaviour towards the organization is the same as that required for proactive behaviour towards the organization to influence perceived organizational support. Future research should examine the possibility of such a longer-term relationship by assessing perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour towards the organization several times and using longer intervals between measurement occasions. Additionally, as expected, we found that felt obligation and work engagement at Time 2 partially mediated the effect of perceived organizational support at Time 1 on proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3. Therefore, employees’ perceptions of felt obligation towards the organization and employees’ work engagement are two mechanisms explaining the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. The first mechanism found in our study (i.e., felt obligation), is consistent with the social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) in showing that employees feel obligated to repay the positive treatment they received from their organization in displaying more proactive behaviour towards their organization. Specifically, because organizations are committed to their employees, these employees feel an obligation to reciprocate the positive rewards from the other party (i.e., the organization). This result extends the study of Eisenberger et al. (2001), which previously indicated that felt obligation mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support and traditional forms of performance (i.e., extra-role performance). In this study, we demonstrated that felt obligation also explains the relationship between perceived organizational support and a more “modern” form of performance (i.e., employees’ proactivity).


10

G. Caesens et al.

Furthermore, the second mechanism highlighted in this study to explain the perceived organizational support–proactivity link is employees’ motivation towards their work, i.e., their work engagement. Indeed, our results indicated that employees perceiving high support from their organization are more engaged in their work and therefore more prone to display proactive behaviour directed towards their organization. In doing so, this research contributes to the work engagement literature. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that examined the relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement using a longitudinal design. Our results corroborate the theoretical proposition of Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) who suggested that perceived organizational support is able to foster employees’ work engagement. Furthermore, our findings are in line with the suggestion that work engagement is able to enhance employees’ proactivity thanks to its motivational nature (e.g., Sonnentag, 2003). Our results extend previous research of Kinnunen et al. (2008), Sulea et al. (2012), and Caesens and Stinglhamber (2014) by showing that perceived organizational support is positively related to employees’ work engagement, which in turn, increases employees’ proactivity. Finally, our study also extends prior research, which indicated that work engagement is positively related to employees’ personal initiative (e.g., Sonnentag, 2003). More importantly, our findings showed that the social exchange and the motivational perspectives are two complementary mechanisms explaining the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. In integrating these two frameworks, our study provides valuable insight into the understanding of the positive link between perceived organizational support and employees’ proactivity. Indeed, our findings suggest that employees’ proactive behaviour directed towards the organization can be enhanced not only via felt obligation but also through an increase of employees’ work engagement. A promising avenue for future research would be to identify the boundary conditions of these two underlying mechanisms of the perceived organizational supportproactivity link. On the one hand, prior research has demonstrated that the strength of the relationship between perceived organizational support and felt obligation depends on employees’ endorsement of the exchange ideology (i.e., “employees’ beliefs that it is appropriate and useful to base their work effort and their concern with the organization’s welfare on how favourably they have been treated by the organization”; Eisenberger et al., 2001, pp. 42–43). Therefore, a high perceived organizational support should lead to a greater felt obligation towards the organization which, subsequently, will lead to higher levels of employees’

proactivity among employees who strongly apply the reciprocity norm to their relationship with the organization. On the other hand, Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) have suggested that the relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement should be stronger for employees having high socioemotional needs such as needs for esteem or approval. Thus, the relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement should be stronger for employees having high socioemotional needs and, as a consequence, should more strongly influence employees’ proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. In line with this, future research might interestingly identify the potential moderators of the two routes showed in this research. Precisely, scholars might examine whether the social exchange perspective (i.e., the felt obligation route) applies only for employees who strongly endorse the norm of reciprocity regarding their relationship with the organization whereas the motivational route (i.e., the work engagement route) is particularly relevant for employees having high socioemotional needs. Finally, although perceived organizational support was found to have a positive influence on proactive behaviour directed towards organization, through felt obligation and work engagement, these mediations were only partial. This result therefore suggests that future research should examine other potential underlying mechanisms able to explain the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. In line with this view, the results of a recent study carried by Neves and Eisenberger (2014) demonstrated that perceived organizational support is positively associated with employees’ risk taking defined as “a willingness to withstand uncertainty and mistakes as one explores new ideas, advocates unconventional or unpopular positions, or tackles extremely challenging problems without obvious solutions, in order to increase the likelihood of accomplishment” (p. 188). More importantly, Neves and Eisenberger (2014) have shown that employees’ failure-related trust (a similar concept to employees’ psychological safety), acts as a mediator of the positive relationship between perceived organizational support and employees’ risk taking. Based on this definition of employees’ risk taking and results of Neves and Eisenberger’ study (2014), it seems reasonable to suggest that perceived organizational support enhances employees’ failure-related trust, which in turn, fosters employees’ risk taking and finally leads employees to engage in proactive behaviour. Future research should therefore examine the potential mediating roles of employees’ failure-related trust and risk taking in the relationship between perceived organizational support and employees’ proactive behaviour, over and above the two mechanisms demonstrated in this present research.



Limitations and perspectives for future research This research has several limitations, which raise interesting perspectives for future research. First, the major limitation of our study is the use of a self-reported measure to assess proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. It might cause problems of social desirability and common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) even if the use of a longitudinal design helps to reduce the impact of common method bias. Future research would greatly benefit to replicate this study with more objective measures of proactive behaviour towards the organization such as evaluated by supervisors or even colleagues. Nevertheless, Parker et al. (2006) have underlined that evaluation of proactivity from other sources such as supervisor or colleagues are also likely to suffer from different bias such as egocentric bias. Second, our results are based on a very homogenous sample coming from a public company. There are probably differences in the ways people who are drawn into private- and public-sector organizations, engage in proactive behaviour. Therefore, it would be helpful to replicate these results among other organizational and industrial settings and, more particularly, in the private sector. Third, the methodology used to assess our first hypothesis was based on a cross-lagged panel design with a fourmonth interval. Even if this type of design is typically considered as providing a more rigorous test of the direction of causality between two variables in field studies as compared to cross-sectional designs (e.g., Finkel, 1995; Kaplan, 2000; Kline, 2010), it also presents important limitations to conclude unequivocally for a cause and effect relationship between two variables (e.g., Myers & Hansen, 2011). As stated by Myers and Hansen (2011), “a cross-lagged panel design can only suggest the possible direction of a cause and effect relationship between two behaviors” (p. 146). Indeed, this design is subject to the spuriousness problem or “unmeasured third-variable problem” (e.g., Kenny, 1975). As quasi-experimental designs, cross-lagged panel designs are unable to control for spuriousness because they do not rely on a random assignment of participants to different conditions. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the association between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization is not due to other omitted variables (Finkel, 1995) even if we have controlled for demographic variables. It might be possible that the positive relation found between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviours is due, for instance, to a positive communication with management. Accordingly, prior research (Neves & Eisenberger, 2012) indicated that positive management communication is positively related to both perceived organizational support and employees’ performance. In the same vein, perceived

11

organizational politics defined as “unsanctioned influence attempts that seek to promote self-interest at the expense of organizational goals” (Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999, p. 161) might also explain the positive association between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviours. Prior research (Randall et al., 1999) has indeed shown that perceived organizational politics is strongly negatively related to both perceived organizational support and employees’ performance. Additionally, as discussed earlier, we cannot exclude that the relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviours might be bidirectional when using other time lags. Therefore, to completely understand the perceived organizational support-proactive behaviour link, future research should replicate our study using other time lags and controlling for other variables. Finally, another interesting avenue for future research is to examine different foci of employees’ proactivity. Indeed, several authors such as Griffin et al. (2007) and Belschak and Den Hartog (2010) have proposed that employees can engage in different types of proactive behaviour, which can be directed towards the organization as a whole, towards the team (the colleagues) or the individual task (the self). In the present research, based on the target similarity model (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007), we only focused on proactive behaviour directed towards the whole organization. Future research should also analyse a model which integrates underlying mechanisms through which organizational contextual factors (e.g., perceived organizational support), team-level contextual factors (e.g., perceived co-worker support, leadership), and individual factors (e.g., proactive personality) influence a specific level of proactive behaviours (i.e., proactive behaviour directed towards the organization, the team, or the individual task, respectively). These future studies would help to promote and implement specific types of proactive behaviour directed towards either the organization, the team, or the task.

Practical implications There are several practical implications of this research. Indeed, companies facing a constantly changing work environment and particularly those having decentralized structures might need employees who take initiative and engage in proactive behaviour (e.g., Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Our findings are therefore particularly relevant for these companies in highlighting ways to increase employees’ proactivity. More precisely, our results indicated that employees who feel valued and cared by their organization are more prone to engage in proactive behaviour directed towards the organization such as making constructive suggestions to improve the overall effectiveness of their organization or developing new ways to increase organizational efficiency.


12

G. Caesens et al.

Organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011) proposes two main practical approaches to foster employees’ perceived organizational support. First, organizations can promote human resources practices and policies that enhance perceived organizational support. As underlined by Kurtessis et al. (2015) in their recent meta-analysis, among these human resources practices and policies, fairness is one of the strongest predictors of perceived organizational support. Organizations should therefore be careful to promote fairness among decisional policies and in the way organizational rewards are administered. In addition to fairness, maintaining open channels of communication, providing employees with the needed resources to achieve their work goals, offering useful and valuable training programs that promote personal growth, and allowing flexible work time are other very concrete ways that increase the employees’ feeling to be supported and valued by the organization (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Second, organizations can encourage their managers to engage in supportive behaviours such as providing employees with autonomy in fulfilling their job responsibilities, and resolving their conflicting job responsibilities (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). In some cases, this implies that organizations train their managers to be more supportive in their role of directing, coaching, and evaluating subordinates. Importantly, it is vital that organizations and managers communicate on the voluntary nature of their favourable actions or, in the opposite, on the involuntary nature of their unfavourable actions. Eisenberger et al. (1997) and Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2004) indeed showed that favourable treatment contributes much more to the development of perceived organizational support if it is considered as the result of the organization’s voluntary decisions rather than due to external constrains such as governmental policies or safety regulations.

Acknowledgements Gaëtane Caesens is a (Aspirant (ASP) = Research Fellow) of the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique-FNRS.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes 1.

We decided to focus on the conceptualization of proactive behaviour proposed by Griffin et al. (2007). These authors have indeed suggested that proactive behaviour can pursue and affect objectives at three different levels, namely proactive behaviour directed towards (a) the individual task, (b) the team, and (c) the organization. Based on the target similarity model (Lavelle et al., 2007) which encourages researchers to hypothesize links between constructs which refer to the same target, we selected the organizational level

2.

3.

of proactive behaviour as outcome of interest (i.e., employees’ proactive behaviours that aim to change organizational functioning) in order to refer to the same target across our constructs. Regarding the test of Hypothesis 1, language of the questionnaire, gender, education, and level of function (measured at Time 2) were included as exogenous variables predicting perceived organizational support at Time 3. Moreover, language of the questionnaire, gender, age, and level of function (measured at Time 2) were inserted as additional exogenous variables predicting proactive behaviour towards the organization at Time 3. Concerning the test of Hypotheses 2 and 3, language of the questionnaire, organizational tenure, and level of function (measured at Time 1) were inserted as additional exogenous variables predicting felt obligation at Time 2. Level of function (measured at Time 1) was the single sociodemographic variable included as an additional exogenous variable predicting work engagement at Time 2. Finally, language of the questionnaire, gender, age, and level of function (measured at Time 1) were included as exogenous variables predicting proactive behaviour directed towards the organization at Time 3. The results that are reported here are based on bootstrapping analyses that did not include any control variable. Nevertheless, the analyses were repeated controlling for language of the questionnaire, organizational tenure, level of function, age, and gender measured at Time 1, and the results were essentially identical (indirect effect = 0.0298; BCa 95% CI = [0.0146; 0.0509] and indirect effect = 0.0680; BCa 95% CI = [0.0432; 0.0958], respectively).

References Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 23–57. doi:10.2307/2393590 Baran, B. E., Shanock, L. R., & Miller, L. R. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 123–147. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3 Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. doi:10.1002/job.4030140202 Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289. doi:10.1177/1094428105278021 Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475– 498. doi:10.1348/096317909X439208 Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. doi:10.1037/00332909.88.3.588 Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12170-019


European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Boyce, A. S., Nieminen, L. R. G., Gillespie, M. A., Ryan, A. M., & Denison, D. R. (2015). Which comes first, organizational culture or performance? A longitudinal study of causal priority with automobile dealerships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 339–359. doi:10.1002/job.1985 Caesens, G., Marique, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment: More than reciprocity, it is also a question of organizational identification. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 167–173. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000112 Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 64, 259–267. doi:10.1016/j. erap.2014.08.002 Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Luypaert, G. (2014). The impact of work engagement and workaholism on wellbeing: The role of work-related social support. Career Development International, 19, 813–835. doi:10.1108/CDI09-2013-0114 Chen, Z., Eisenberger, R., Johnson, K. M., Sucharski, I. L., & Aselage, J. (2009). Perceived organizational support and extra-role performance: Which leads to which? The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 119–124. doi:10.3200/ SOCP.149.1.119-124 Coyle-Shapiro, J., Morrow, P. C., & Kessler, I. (2006). Serving two organizations: Exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees. Human Resource Management, 45, 561–583. doi:10.1002/hrm.20132 Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. doi:10.1177/ 014920630002600304 Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth selfefficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 194–202. doi:10.1037/a0024903 Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42 Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. D. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812 Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. doi:10.1037/00219010.71.3.500 Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: APA Books. doi:10.1037/ 12318-000 Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565

13

Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14, 97–124. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06 Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frese, M. (2008). The word is out: We need an active performance concept for modern workplaces. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 67–69. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00012.x Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623 Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3– 34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438 Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 174–182. doi:10.1037/a0017263 Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78–91. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.1111/ j.1745-3984.2002.tb01142 Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887–903. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887 Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Mäkikangas, A. (2008). Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish managers: The role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 114–127. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.114 Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Kurtessis, J., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2015). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206315575554 Lang, J., Bliese, P. D., Lang, J. W. B., & Adler, A. B. (2011). Work gets unfair for the depressed: Cross-lagged relations between organizational justice perceptions and depressive symptoms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 602–618. doi:10.1037/a0022463 Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33, 841–866. doi:10.1177/ 0149206307307635 Liu, J., Lee, C., Hui, C., Kwan, H. K., & Wu, L. (2013). Idiosyncratic deals and employee outcomes: The mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 832–840. doi:10.1037/a0032571


14

G. Caesens et al.

Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., Desmette, D., Caesens, G., & De Zanet, F. (2013). The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment: A social identity perspective. Group & Organization Management, 38, 68–100. doi:10.1177/1059601112457200 Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1372–1395. doi:10.5465/ amj.2011.0113 Myers, A., & Hansen, C. (2011). Experimental psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Neves, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2012). Management communication and employee performance: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Human Performance, 25, 452–464. doi:10.1080/08959285.2012.721834 Neves, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2014). Perceived organizational support and risk taking. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 187–205. doi:10.1108/JMP-07-2011-0021 Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (pp. 79–96). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856. doi:10.1177/0149206310 363732 Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active psychological states: Embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 60–67. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2010.532869 Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652. doi:10.1037/00219010.91.3.636 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879 Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159–174. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379 (199903)20:23.0.CO;2-7

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825 Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 116–131. doi:10.1080/ 09585190701763982 Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. doi:10.1023/ A:1015630930326 Shin, Y., & Kim, M. (2014). Antecedents and mediating mechanisms of proactive behavior: Application of the theory of planned behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. doi:10.1007/s10490-014-9393-9 Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158–168. doi:10.1037/a0030687 Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518 Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Favorable job conditions and perceived support: The role of organizations and supervisors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1470–1493. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02015.x Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20, 279–291. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8551.2008.00590.x Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., & Sava, F. A. (2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extrarole behaviors. The Career Development International, 17, 188–207. doi:10.1108/13620431211241054 Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 44–96. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x