The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
The Importance of Supervisor Support
during Organizational Change
Paul Chou*
*Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Minghsin University of Science & Technology, TAIWAN, ROC.
E-Mail: pchou{at}must{dot}edu{dot}tw
Abstract—Given that countless companies fail to implement changes successfully, the aim of this study is to
explore a deeper understanding of the complexities of employees’ attitudinal and behavioral reactions to
organizational changes in hopes of improving the chances of the success of organizational changes. The results
from the data collected from 319 employees within 20 farmers’ associations in Taiwan confirm that perceived
supervisor support matters for successful organizational change. The proof of the importance of supervisor
support during organizational change not only provides an additional understanding of the mechanism through
which perceived supervisor support influences follower’s behavioral support for change, but also allows
management and HRM practitioners to focus on certain perspectives, with the ultimate intention of enhancing
the possibility of successful organizational change. Practical implications and contributions of this study are
discussed as are limitations of the studies and suggestions for future research.
Keywords—Affective Commitment to Organization; Behavioral Support for Change; Human Resource
Management; Organizational Change; Perceived Supervisor Support; Self-Efficacy.
Abbreviations—Affective Commitment to Organization (ACO); Average Variance Extracted (AVE);
Behavioral Support for Change (BSC); Composite Reliability (CR); Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA);
Farmer Association (FA); Human Resource Management (HRM); Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS); SelfEfficacy (SLF); Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).
I.
G
INTRODUCTION
IVEN that organizational changes of increasing
frequency and severity become the norm and
countless companies fail to implement organizational
changes successfully [Beer & Nohria, 8], an improvement in
the understanding of employees’ behavioral support for
change is increasingly important [Fedor et al., 22; Jaros, 34]
for the sake of implementing organizational change
successfully. In other words, it is important for researchers to
provide insights that can improve the chances of the success
of these changes [Jaros, 34; Parish et al., 51]. This is
particularly true for the case of Farmers’ Associations in
Taiwan. Pressure from increasing competition in both
external and internal markets drove Farmers’ Associations to
initiate organizational change in order to improve the
efficiency and quality of their service and to reduce
operational costs. This provides a excellent opportunity to
study the importance of supervisor support during
organizational change.
In essence, organizational change is essentially stressful,
since the process of organizational change creates fear,
uncertainty and doubt [Jaskyte, 35; Vakola & Nikolaou, 58]
and it causes changes in and demands the readjustment of an
average employee’s normal routine [Leana & Barry, 42]. In
ISSN: 2321-242X
that event, the successful implementation of organizational
change often requires employee acceptance and behavioral
support [Fedor et al., 22; Miller et al., 50]. In line with this,
Positive attitudes to change and behavioral support for
change were found to be vital in achieving organizational
goals and in succeeding in change programme [Eby et al., 17;
Meyer & Herscovitch, 48; Miller et al., 50; Parish et al., 51].
With respect to individual’s attitudes toward change,
employees tend to interpret change as a perceived loss of
control [Lamm & Gordon, 40]. From this perspective,
perceived control is influential in helping individuals to
accept change [Wanberg & Banas, 60]. It is suggested that
people who are confident in their abilities can mitigate the
stressful effects of a threatening event (e.g., organizational
change) [Schaubroeck & Merritt, 55]. In view of this, selfefficacy is likely to enhance individuals’ perceived control by
helping individuals to view organizational change as an
opportunity, rather than as a threat [Jimmieson et al., 36;
Krueger & Dickson, 39].
Further, organizational commitment is suggested as one
of the most important determinants of successful
organizational change [Iverson, 33]. Specifically speaking,
the higher employees’ commitment to their organization the
greater their willingness to accept organizational change
[Cordery et al., 12; Guest, 27]. Empirically, supportive
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
1
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
leadership has been found to be conceptually and empirically
linked to followers’ commitment and supportive behavior for
change [Herold et al., 29; 30; Herscovitch & Meyer, 31] and
their efforts in implementing change [Higgs & Rowland, 32].
Despite the importance of employees’ acceptance and
supportive behavior toward organizational change, related
studies of employees’ supportive behavior for change are few
[Lamm & Gordon, 40; Meyer et al., 49; Schyns, 57].
Furthermore, given that most studies of change focus on the
organization-level phenomena, as opposed to the individuallevel [Wanberg & Banas, 60] and empirical research into the
roles and behaviors of leaders in a change context, per se, is
relatively scarce [Fedor et al., 22], there is a strong need for a
systematic empirical study of why and how Taiwanese
employees react behaviorally to support organizational
change [Fedor et al., 22; Herold et al., 29; 30; Jaros, 34] in
response to supervisory support. Thus, this study aims to
answer two questions: Dose supervisor support matter for
successful organizational change and how if it does?
II.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Perceived Supervisor Support and Behavioral Support
for Change
In the workplace, supervisors play an important role in
structuring the work environment by providing information
and feedback to employees [Griffin et al., 26] and by
controlling the powerful rewards that acknowledge the
employee’s personal worth [Doby & Caplan, 15]. As such,
the social interaction between an employee and his/her
immediate supervisor is the primary determinant of an
employee’s attitude and behavior in the workplace [Wayne et
al., 61].
Conceptually, employees develop general views
concerning the degree to which supervisors value their
contributions and care about their well-being [Eisenberger et
al., 20]. According to the concept of personification of
organization [Levinson, 43], the immediate supervisor’s
behaviors are likely to be perceived by employees as
representative of organizational decisions [Griffin et al., 26]
and that supportive treatment by the employees’ immediate
supervisors is interpreted as the organization’s benevolence.
Consequently, individuals show increased perceived
organizational support when they receive supervisory support
[Malatesta, 46]. As such, on the basis of the norm of
reciprocity, employees who perceive organizational support
develop a “felt obligation” to care about the organization’s
welfare and to help the organization achieve its objectives
(e.g., the success of organizational change) [Eisenberger, et
al., 18; 19; Lind et al., 44].
Supervisory support is also displayed in terms of trust
and a deep concern for the subordinates’ needs [Iverson, 33].
From this perspective, employees who trust and appreciate
their supervisors are prone to have a positive perception
toward organizational change and tend to demonstrate
behavioral support for organizational change. In that case,
employees who perceive supervisory support not only tend to
ISSN: 2321-242X
interpret the organization’s gains and losses as their own, but
also tend to perceive the outcomes of organizational change
positively [Fedor et al., 22], which can, in turn, increase their
behavioral support for change. Therefore, this study’s first
hypothesis predicts a direct positive relationship between
perceived supervisory support and behavioral support for
change:
H1: There is a direct positive relationship between
perceived supervisor support and behavioral support for
change.
2.2. The Mediating Role of Affective Commitment to
Organization
According to Baron & Kenny [7], the role of affective
commitment to organization as a mediator of the perceived
supervisor support–behavioral support for change
relationship is supported, in part, by the links between; (1)
perceived supervisor support and affective commitment to
organization, (2) perceived supervisor support and behavioral
support for change and (3) affective commitment to
organization and affective commitment to organization.
2.2.1. Perceived Supervisory Support
Commitment to Organization
and
Affective
Most measures of organizational commitment assess affective
commitment affective commitment to organization
[Colquittet al., 10], which is defined as the degree to which
employees identify with the company and make the
company’s goals their own [Allen & Meyer, 1990]. As
previously noted, supportive behavior demonstrated by the
employees’ immediate supervisors is interpreted by recipients
as the organization’s benevolence. According to the norm of
reciprocity [Gouldner, 25], employees who perceive the
organization’s benevolence are more prone to identify with
the company and tend to adopt the company’s goals as their
own.
Empirically, previous research suggests that leadership is
a key determinant of effective commitment to the
organization [Avolio et al., 4]. Specifically, many empirical
results indicate that supportive leadership is positively
associated with affective commitment to organization [Avolio
et al., 4; Dumdum et al., 16; Glisson & Durick, 24; Jaskyte,
35; Judge & Bono, 37; Mathieu & Zajac, 47; Podsakoff et al.,
52]. Therefore, it is plausible to assume that perceived
supervisory support influences the followers’ affective
commitment to an organization.
2.2.2. Affective Commitment to Organization and Behavioral
Support for Change
According to Herscovitch & Meyer [31], there are three kinds
of behavioral support for change: compliance, cooperation
and championing. Compliance refers to employees’
willingness to do what is required of them by the
organization, in order to implement change. Cooperation
refers to employees’ acceptance of the “spirit” of the change
and their willingness to do little extra tasks to make it work.
Finally, championing refers to employees’ willingness to
embrace the change and to “sell” it to others.
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
2
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
Previous studies indicated that affective organizational
commitment plays an important role in employee’s
acceptance of change [Darwish, 14; Iverson, 33; Lau &
Woodman, 41; Vakola & Nikolaou, 58]. In essence,
employees with a strong affective commitment to an
organization are likely to value the course of action that is
necessary for successful change and are therefore willing to
do whatever is required to achieve the target of that action
[Meyer et al., 49]. In other words, those who strongly identify
with the company and who perceive the company’s goals as
their own (i.e., strong affective commitment to an
organization) are willing to do more than is required of them
during organizational change [Vakola & Nikolaou, 58], even
if it involves some personal sacrifice [Meyer & Herscovitch,
48; Meyer et al., 49]. Therefore, it is plausible to assume that
there is a positive relationship between affective commitment
to an organization and behavioral support for change.
Accordingly, on the basis of all of the inferences
discussed above for the simple bivariate associations
incorporated in the initial hypotheses, hypothesis 2 is stated
as:
H2: Affective commitment to an organization mediates
the relationship between perceived supervisor support and
behavioral support for change.
2.3. The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy
The role of self-efficacy as a mediator of the perceived
supervisor support and behavioral support for change
relationship is supported, in part, by the links between; (1)
perceived supervisor support and self-efficacy, (2) perceived
supervisor support and behavioral support for change and (3)
self-efficacy and behavioral support for change [Baron &
Kenny, 7].
2.3.1. Perceived Supervisor Support and Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as an employee’s belief in his/her
capability to mobilize motivation, cognitive resources and the
courses of action needed to exercise control over events in
their lives [Wood & Bandura, 62]. According to this
definition, self-efficacy defines the extent to which an
individual believes him/herself to be capable of successfully
performing a specific behavior or a specific task [Bandura, 6]
and enables him/her to integrate cognitive, social, emotional
and behavioral sub-skills, in order to accomplish a particular
objective [Judge et al., 38]. Empirically, self-efficacy has
consistently been found to influence thought patterns,
behaviors and emotional arousal [Armenakis et al., 3].
With respect to the relationship between supervisory
support and self-efficacy, Bandura [6] suggests four sources
of self-efficacy: Mastery experience, vicarious experience,
verbal persuasion and emotional arousal. In practice, a
supportive supervisor can provide the opportunity for
mastery/vicarious experience to their subordinates, in
addition to serving as a model to encourage their
subordinates, through verbal persuasion [Schyns, 57]. On the
other hand, supervisory support, can also be viewed as a
means of control over some aspect of the working
environment [Daniels & Guppy, 13].
In sum, supervisory support in the workplace is
perceived by its recipients as a major organizational resource
upon which they can rely while performing their daily jobs.
Therefore, the perceived availability of instrumental support
from a supervisor can enhance their confidence that the job
will be done well [van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 59].
Accordingly, it is plausible to reason that supervisory support
allows a subordinate to feel confident in the ability to
confront challenges and overcome problems successfully in
the workplace, which in turn enhances his/her self-efficacy.
2.3.2. Self-efficacy and Behavioral Support for Change
For decades, self-efficacy has been consistently found to
influence thought patterns, behaviors and emotional arousal
[Armenakis et al., 3]. In essence, the greater a person’s selfefficacy, the more confident is he or she of being successful
in a particular task domain [Prussia et al., 54]. In other words,
self-efficacy has a critical effect on an individual’s perceived
ability and willingness to exercise control in the workplace
[Litt, 45]. Specifically, employees with high self-efficacy are
more prone to strive to complete a difficult task that results
from organizational change and less prone to give up when
obstacles appear during organizational change [Schyns, 57].
It has also been suggested that a strong sense of self-efficacy
helps to equip the members of an organization with the ability
to cope with organizational change [Armenakis et al., 3].
As previously noted, organizational change is stressful.
In that case, people who are confident in their abilities (high
self-efficacy) can mitigate the stressful effects of demanding
jobs during organizational change [Schaubroeck & Merritt,
55]. Consequently, employees with high self-efficacy will
persist longer when faced with obstacles in their new tasks
and will expend more effort [Schyns, 57]. In short, those with
greater self-efficacy are thought to be more active and
persistent in their efforts (e.g., supportive behavior to change)
by demonstrating supportive behavior during organizational
change. Therefore, it is suggested that there is a positive
association between self-efficacy and behavioral support for
change.
Accordingly, based on the inferences discussed above for
the simple bivariate associations incorporated in the initial
hypotheses, hypothesis 3 is stated as:
H3: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
perceived supervisor support and behavioral support for
change.
Figure 1: The Research Framework
ISSN: 2321-242X
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
3
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
III.
SAMPLE & MEASURES
3.2.3. Affective Commitment to Organization (ACO)
3.1. Participants
Survey data for this study was collected from employees of 3
Taiwanese farmer’s associations (FA). A total of 500
questionnaires were sent to the 2 FAs’ general managers, who
agreed to participate this survey and hand-delivered by the
heads of the human resources department, to demonstrate
top-level support of the study. Attached to each questionnaire
was a cover letter, explaining the purpose of the survey, and a
return envelope, which ensured the confidentiality of
respondents by allowing them to send back their replies
independent of their organizations. A total of 413
questionnaires were returned (83% response rate), with 388
valid questionnaires, after screening (78%). Descriptive
statistics for the valid respondents are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive Profile of Respondents
Male
Gender
Female
Managerial position
Job Rank
Non-managerial position
Under 30
31-40
Age
(years)
41-50
Over 50
Over 15 years
11-15 years
Seniority
(years)
5-10 years
Under 5 years
Masters
Degree
Education
Diploma
High school
Over 800,000
600,001 – 800,000
Annual income (NT$)
400,001 – 600,000
Less 400,000
34%
66%
10%
90%
13%
28%
28%
31%
51%
14%
14%
21%
3%
21%
32%
44%
25%
31%
24%
20%
3.2. Measures
Unless otherwise stated, all responses were made on using a
6-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (6)
strongly agree.
3.2.1. Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS)
Perceived supervisor support was assessed using 7 items
developed by Cummings & Oldham (1997) (e.g., “My
supervisor really cares about my well-being.”). The internal
consistency of this 4-item scale was 0.96 for this sample.
3.2.2. Self-efficacy (SLF)
Self-efficacy was measured using the ten items developed by
Schwarzer et al., [56] (e.g., “I can always manage to solve
difficult problems if I try hard enough.”). The internal
consistency of this ten-item scale was 0.89 for this sample.
ISSN: 2321-242X
Affective commitment to the organization was measured
using the six items developed by Meyer, Allen & Smith
(1993) (e.g., “I really feel that this organization’s problems
are my own.”). The internal consistency of this six-item scale
was 0.83 for this sample.
3.2.4. Behavioral Support for Change (BSC)
Supportive behavior to change was measured using the 17
items developed by Herscovitch & Meyer [31] (e.g. “I adjust
the way I do my job as required by this change.”
[compliance]; “I work toward the change consistently.”
[cooperation] and “I encourage the participation of others in
the change.” [championing]). The internal consistency of this
six-item scale was 0.94 for this sample.
IV.
RESULTS
4.1. Analysis
Before testing the study hypotheses, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was conducted with AMOS software
[Arbuckle, 2] to examine the convergent and discriminant
validity of the study measures. Given the large number of
items (40) relative to the sample size (319), the procedures
recommended by Mathieu & Farr [47] were followed by
creating four, five and three composite indicators for
perceived supervisor support, self-efficacy and affective
commitment to organization, respectively. For the indicators
of behavioral support for change, three sub-dimensions (i.e.,
compliance; championship and cooperation; intellectual
stimulation) were used in order to maintain an adequate
sample-size-to-parameter ratio.
Following the approach suggested by Andersen &
Gerbing [1], convergent validity is demonstrated when the
path loading (λ) from an item to its latent construct is
significant and exceeds 0.50. All path loading (λ) in this
study, as shown in Table 2, was above 0.50 (0.72-0.95). In
addition, convergent validity is also adequate when the
constructs have an average variance extracted (AVE) of at
least 0.50 and composite reliability (CR) is greater than 0.6
[Hair et al., 28]. As shown in Table 2, the AVEs of all four
constructs in this study exceeded 0.50 (0.89-0.95) and CRs of
all four constructs exceeded 0.6 (0.63-.80). Thus, all
constructs in our study demonstrate adequate convergent
validity.
To assess discriminant validity, the procedures outlined
by Fornell & Larcker [23] were employed to examine
whether the square root of AVE for the two constructs should
exceed the correlation between the constructs. As shown in
Table 2, the square root of AVE for the two constructs
exceeded the correlation between the constructs. Thus, all
tests of reliability and validity lead to the conclusion that the
measures used in later statistical analyses fall within
acceptable reliability and validity criteria.
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
4
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
Variable
Mean
SD
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between Study Variables
Item
Cronbach α
CR
1
loading (λ) (min.-Max.)
.96
.957
(.85 - .94)
(.97)
.89
.94
(.72 - .84)
.35***
.83
.94
(.80 - .95)
.24***
.94
.94
(.81 - .89)
.43***
2
3
4
1. PSS
4.31
1.09
2. SLF
4.30
.67
(.94)
3. ACO
4.68
.81
.25***
(.94)
4. BSC
4.70
.65
.52***
.32***
(.94)
Note:
PSS=perceived supervisor support; SLF=self-efficacy; ACO=Affective commitment to organization; BSC=behavioral support for change.
CR = composite reliability.
Item loading (λ) is standardized.
Values along the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE).
Given that the data were collected from a single source,
in addition to the evidence of acceptable discriminant and
convergent validity [Conway & Lance, 11], the procedures of
Harman’s one-factor test recommended by Podsakoff et al.,
[53] were conducted to test whether the hypothesized fourfactor model was superior to the one-factor model in order to
rule out the influence of common method bias. The result
shows that the four-factor model (GFI= .91; CFI= .95; TLI =
.94; RMSEA = .079) had a better fit than did the single-factor
model (GFI= .46; CFI= .44; TLI = .34; RMSEA = .26). Thus,
although this study acknowledges that common method
variance may be present in the data, it does not appear that
common method bias is a serious problem in this study.
4.2. Hypothesis Testing
The mean, the standard deviation and the correlations
between the research variables are shown in Table 2. As
predicted, the pattern of correlations is consistent with the
hypothesized relationships. That is, perceived supervisor
support is positively correlated with self-efficacy (0.35,
p<0.001), affective commitment to organization (0.24,
p<0.001) and behavioral support for change (0.43, p < 0.001);
Self-efficacy is positively correlated with behavioral support
for change (0.52, p<0.001) and affective commitment to
organization is positively correlated with behavioral support
for change (0.32, p<0.001). The results provide preliminary
support for the hypothesized direction.
More conclusive specific tests of these hypotheses were
conducted with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
analyses, using the AMOS software [Arbuckle, 2] to assess
the structural model specifying the relations between the
latent constructs. Table 3 presents fit indices for the
hypothesized model, along with an alternative model with
which to test whether a fully mediating relationship exists
between perceived supervisor support and behavioral support
for change.
Table 3: Competitive Model Test
perceived supervisor support to behavioral support for
change, does not result in a significant improvement in model
fit, with a RMSEA of 0.084, a CFI of 0.94, a GFI of 0.90, and
an TLI of 0.93. This result indicates that self-efficacy and
affective commitment to organization partially mediate the
relationship between perceived supervisor support and
behavioral support for change.
Standardized parameter estimates for the best-fitting
model (Hypothesized Model) are shown in Figure 2. For ease
of presentation, only the structural model is presented rather
than the full measurement model. Examination of the path
coefficients reveals that perceived supervisor support is
uniquely related to self-efficacy and affective commitment to
organization in the positive direction and has significant
direct associations with behavioral support for change; selfefficacy and affective commitment to organization are
separately related to behavioral support for change in the
positive direction.
Figure 2: The Final Model
In summary, as predicted, there is a direct positive
relationship between perceived supervisor support and
behavioral support for change. However, with respect to the
mediating effects, affective commitment to organization and
self-efficacy, only partially mediate the relationship between
perceived supervisor support and behavioral support for
change.
X² df X²/df △X² RMSEA CFI TLI GFI
Hypothesized model 299.748 85 3.526 23.06 .080
.95 .94 .91
Alternative Model
322.81 86 3.754
.084
.94 .93 .90
* Alternative Models only removed the direct path from PSS to BSC.
5.1. Findings
Results of comparison show that the hypothesized model
adequately explains the data as indicated by a RMSEA of
0.080, a CFI of 0.95, a GFI of 0.91, and TLI of 0.94, whereas
the alternative model, which removes the direct path from
By and large, the findings of this study support the claims of
Dumdum et al., [16] and Jaskyte [35] that leadership is one of
the most important variables affecting work attitudes (selfefficacy and affective commitment to organization, in this
ISSN: 2321-242X
V.
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
5
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
case) and behaviors (behavioral support for change, in this
case). Specifically, the results of this study, same as Chou’s
[9] findings, confirm a positive relationship between
perceived supervisor support and behavioral support for
organizational change.
The model presented in this study supports the efficacy
of supervisory support in developing a subordinate’s positive
attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. This
model also indicates that, based on the norm of reciprocity
[Gouldner, 25], a supportive leader is likely to strengthen the
affective commitment to organization by enhancing
followers’ “feeling of obligation” and, therefore, increases
their behavioral support for change.
In addition, the current results further support previous
findings on the significance of employees’ affective
commitment to organization on successful organizational
change interventions [e.g. Iverson, 33; Lau & Woodman, 41;
Vakola & Nikolaou, 58] in a non-Western culture such as
Taiwan. In sum, the current results demonstrate that
perceived supervisor support matters during organizational
change.
5.2. Practical Implications
The present study has several practical implications for
organizations, managers and HRM practitioners facing
organizational change. First, the findings of this study suggest
that the success of organizational change lies in the
supportive leadership of individual managers. As such, the
proof of these linkages shows that management and HRM
practitioners should focus on developing supportive
leadership talents to achieve an ultimate increase in
behavioral support for change, directly and indirectly, via
self-efficacy and affective commitment to organization.
Second, this study demonstrates that self-efficacy and
affective commitment to organization respectively account
for the variance in behavioral support for change. As such,
organizations that plan for changes or that are in the process
of change must pay particular attention on how to enhance
their employees’ self-efficacy as well as affective
commitment to organization. In practice, this can be done by
training supervisors/managers how to enhance self-efficacy
and affective commitment to organization by developing
employees’ competencies to strengthen their self-efficacy.
Third, during organizational change, it is critically
important for organizations to identify employees with high
self-efficacy as they are more prone to accept change and are
better to adapt to change [Schyns, 57]. In this regard,
employees with high self-efficacy can serve as change agents
for their colleagues in order to increase the chances of the
successful implementation of organizational change.
5.3. Limitations of this Study
Similarly to other studies, this research also has limitations.
Firstly, the sample is confined to a limited number of
Taiwanese FAs, which limits the generality of its findings
and conclusions either to other FAs or to private enterprises.
Secondly, despite the appropriateness of the use of the
ISSN: 2321-242X
subordinate’s evaluation of supportive leadership, an
affective commitment to an organization and supportive
behavior measures, this approach has potential problems with
common-method bias, as the measures of the research
variables were gathered from the same source, even though a
Harmon single factor test [Podsakoff et al., 53] shows that
common method bias is not a serious problem. Thirdly,
caution must be exercised when interpreting the findings of
this study, because of the possible constraint of non-response
bias. Non-respondents could hold different views with respect
to the variables in question, which could result in survey
estimates that are biased. Finally, this study suffers from the
common limitations of cross-sectional field research,
including an inability to make causal inferences.
5.4. Contributions of this Study
While continuous change is a fact of organizational life for
the organization’s members and organizational changes
become the norm, a better understanding of employees’
reactions to these changes is increasingly important [Fedor et
al., 22]. In this regard, this study has a number of strengths.
Firstly, as already noted, the role and behaviors of leaders in
a change context, per se, is an area that lacks empirical
research [Herold et al., 30]. In other words, little is known
about the differential effects of various aspects of
organizational change on different aspects of the attitudes of
those individuals affected by leadership [Fedor et al., 22].
This study addresses this shortcoming by conducting an
empirical study and, more importantly, the model presented
in this study can serve as a guide for organizations in the
process of change.
Secondly, since the personal bonds that supervisors have
with their employees in the Chinese culture not only
determine their legitimate power and influence [Farh et al.,
21, but also impact their followers’ organizational life [e.g.,
Aycan, 5], investigations of this kind of relationship in the
Chinese context provide a better understanding of the effects
of supervisor support on employees’ attitudes and behaviors
toward change to garner the effectiveness of organizational
change efforts for organizations in the Chinese context.
Thirdly, given the vast majority of studies related to
organizational change and leadership have been conducted in
North America and other Western countries, the results of
this study demonstrate that the effects of supervisor support
on employees’ attitudes and behavior can also be extended
and extrapolated to Asian populations.
To summarize, this study, as predicted, shows the
important role of supportive leadership during organizational
change. The proof of these linkages not only provides an
additional understanding of the mechanism through which
perceived supervisor support influences follower’s behavioral
support for change, but also allows management and HRM
practitioners to focus on certain perspectives, with the
ultimate intention of enhancing the possibility of successful
organizational change.
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
6
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
J.C. Anderson & D.W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, Pp. 411–
423.
J.L. Arbukle (2003), “AMOS 5.0 [Computer Software]”, SPSS,
Chicago, IL.
A.A. Armenakis, S.G. Harris & K.W. Mossholder (1993),
“Creating Readiness for Organizational Change”, Human
Relations, Vol. 46, No. 6, Pp. 681–703.
B.J. Avolio, W. Zhu, W. Koh & P. Bhatia (2004),
“Transformational
Leadership
and
Organizational
Commitment: Mediating Role of Psychological Empower and
Moderating Role of Structural Distance”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, Pp. 951–968.
Z. Aycan (2008), “Cross-cultural Approaches to Leadership”,
Editors: P.B. Smith, M.F. Peterson & D.C. Thomas, “The
Handbook of Cross Cultural Management Research”, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, Pp. 219–238.
A. Bandura (1986), “Social Foundations of Thought and
Action”, Prestice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
R.M. Baron & D.A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator
Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, Pp.
1173–1182.
M. Beer & N. Nohria (2000), “Cracking the Code of Change”,
Harvard Business Review, Pp. 133–141.
P. Chou (2014), “Dose Supervisor Support Matter for
Successful Organizational Change?” International Academic
Conference on Social Sciences (IACSS), Osaka, Japan.
J.A. Colquitt, D.E. Conlon, M.J. Wesson, O.L. Porter & K.Y.
Ng (2001), “Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic
Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 3, Pp. 425–445.
J. M. Conway & C.E. Lance (2010), “What Reviewers Should
Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in
Organizational Research”, Journal of Business Psychology,
Vol. 25, Pp. 325–334.
J. Cordery, P. Sevatos, W. Mueller & S. Parker (1993),
“Correlates of Employee Attitude toward Functional
Flexibiltiy”, Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 6, Pp. 705–723.
K. Daniels & A. Guppy (1994), “Occupational Stress, Social
Support, Job Control, and Psychological Well-being”, Human
Relations, Vol. 47, No. 12, Pp. 1523–1544.
Y. Darwish (2000), “Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction as Predictors of Attitudes toward Organizational
Change in a Non-Western Setting”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29,
No. 5–6, Pp. 6–25.
V.J. Doby & R.D. Caplan (1995), “Organizational Stress as
Threat to Reputation: Effects on Anxiety at Work and at
Home”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, Pp.
1105–1123.
U.R. Dumdum, K.B. Lowe & B.J. Avolio (2002), “A MetaAnalysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Correlates of Effectiveness and Satisfaction: An Update and
Extension”, Editors: B.J. Avolio & F.J. Yammarino,
“Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership:
The Road Ahead”, Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, Pp.
35–66.
L. Eby, D. Adams, J. Russell & S. Gaby (2000), “Perceptions
of Organizational Readiness for Change: Factors related to
Employee's Reactions to the Implementation of Team-based
Selling”, Human Relations, Vol. 53, No. 3, Pp. 419–428.
ISSN: 2321-242X
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
R. Eisenberger, S. Armeli, B. Rexwinkel, P.D. Lynch & L.
Rhoades (2001), “Reciprocation of Perceived Organizational
Support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 1, Pp.
42–51.
R. Eisenberger, P. Fasolo & V. David-LaMastro (1990),
“Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Deligence,
Commitment, and Innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 75, Pp. 51–59.
R. Eisenberger, F. Stinglhamber, C. Vandenberghe, I.L.
Sucharski & L. Rhoades (2002), “Perceived Supervisor
Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support
and Employee Retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
87, No. 3, Pp. 565–573.
J.L. Farh, P.C. Earley & S.C. Lin (1997), “A Cultural Analysis
of Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese
Society”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, Pp. 421–
444.
D.B. Fedor, S. Caldwell & D.M. Herold (2006), “The Effects
of Organizational Changes on Employee Commitment: A
Multilevel Investigation”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59, Pp.
1–19.
C.R. Fornell & D.F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, Pp. 39–50.
C. Glisson & M. Durick (1988), “Predictors of Job Satisfaction
and Organization Commitment”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1, Pp. 61–81.
A.W. Gouldner (1960), “The Norm of Reciprocity: A
Preliminary Statement”, American Sociological Review, Vol.
25, No. 2, Pp. 161–178.
M.A. Griffin, M.G. Patterson & M.A. West (2001), “Job
Satisfaction and Teamwork: The Role of Supervisor Support”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, Pp. 537–550.
D. Guest (1987), “Human Resource Management and Industrial
Relations”, Journal of Mamagement Studies, Vol. 24, No. 5,
Pp. 503–521.
J.J.F. Hair, R. Anderson, R.L. Tatham & W.C. Black (2006),
“Multivariate Data Analysis (6th Ed.)”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall International Editions.
D.M. Herold, D.M. Fedor & S.D. Caldwell (2007), “Beyond
Change Management: A Multilevel Investigation of Contextual
and Personal Influences on Employees' Commitment to
Change”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 4, Pp.
942–951.
D.M. Herold, D.B. Fedor, S.D. Caldwell & Y. Liu (2008), “The
Effects of Transformational Leadership and Change Leadership
on Employees' Commitment to a Change”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93, No. 2, Pp. 346–357.
L. Herscovitch & J.P. Meyer (2002), “Commitment to
Organizational Change: Extension of a Three-Component
Model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, Pp.
474–487.
M.J. Higgs & D. Rowland (2000), “Building Change
Leadership Capability: The Quest for Change Competence”,
Journal of change management, Vol. 1, No. 2, Pp. 116–131.
R.D. Iverson (1996), “Employee Acceptance of Organizational
Change: The Role of Organizational Commitment”, The
international Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7,
No. 1, Pp. 122–149.
S. Jaros (2010), “Commitment to Organizational Change: A
Critical Review”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 10,
No. 1, Pp. 79–108.
K. Jaskyte (2003), “Assessing Changes in Employees’
Perceptions of Leadership Behavior, Job Design, and
Organizational Arrangements and their Job Satisfaction and
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
7
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
Commitment”, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 27, No. 4,
Pp. 25–39.
N.L. Jimmieson, D.J. Terry & V.J. Callan (2004), “A
Longitudinal Study of Employee Adaptation to Organizational
Change: The Role of Change-related Information and Changerelated Self-efficacy”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, Pp. 11–27.
T.A. Judge & J.E. Bono (2000). “Five-factor Model of
Personality and Transformational Leadership”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 5, Pp. 751–765.
T.A. Judge, C.J. Thoresen, V. Pucik & T.M. Welbourne (1999),
“Managerial Coping with Organizational Change: A
Dispositional Perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 84, No. 1, Pp. 107–122.
N.F. Krueger & P.R. Dickson (1993), “Perceived Self-efficacy
and Perceptions of Opportunity and Threat”, Psychological
Report, Vol. 72, Pp. 1235–1240.
E. Lamm & J.R. Gordon (2010), “Empowerment,
Predisposition to Resist Change, and Support for
Organizational Change”, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, Pp. 426–437.
C.M. Lau & R.W. Woodman (1995), “Understanding
Organizational Change: A Schematic Perspective”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, Pp. 537–554.
C.R. Leana & B. Barry (2000), “Stability and Change as
Simultaneous Experiences in Organizational Life”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 4, Pp. 753–759.
H. Levinson (1965), “Reciprocation: The Relationship between
Man and Organization”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
9, No. 4, Pp. 370–390.
E.A. Lind., T.R. Tyler & Y.J. Huo (1997), “Procedural Context
and Culture: Variation in the Antecedents of Procedural Justice
Judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 73, No. 4, Pp. 767–780.
M.D. Litt (1988), “Cognitive Mediators of Stressful
Experience: Self-efficacy and Perceived Control”, Cognitive
Theory and Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, Pp. 241–260.
R.M. Malatesta (1995), “Understanding the Dynamics of
Organizational and Supervisory Commitment using a Social
Exchange Framework”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
J.E. Mathieu & D.M. Zajac (1990), “A Review and MetaAnalysis of the Antecedents, Correlates and Consequence of
Organizational Commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.
108, No. 2, Pp. 171–194.
J.P. Meyer & L. Herscovitch (2001). “Commitment in the
Workplace toward a General Model”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 11, Pp. 299–326.
J.P. Meyer, E.S. Srinivas, J.B. Lai & L. Topolnytsky (2007),
“Employee Commitment and Support for an Organizational
Change: Test of the Three-Component Model in Tow Culture”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol.
80, No. 2, Pp. 185–211.
V.D. Miller, J.R. Johnson & J. Grau (1994), “Antecedents to
Willingness to Participate in a Planned Organizational
Change”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol.
22, Pp. 59–80.
J.T. Parish, S. Cadwallader & P. Busch (2007), “Want, Need
to, Ought to: Employee Commitment to Organizational
Change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.
21, No. 1, Pp. 32–52.
P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacJenzie, R.H. Moorman & R. Fetter
(1990), “Transformational Leader Behaviors and their Effects
ISSN: 2321-242X
on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2,
Pp. 107–142.
[53] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee & N.P. Podsakoff
(2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A
Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended
Remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, Pp. 879–
903.
[54] G.E. Prussia, J.S. Anderson & C.C. Manz (1998), “SelfLeadership and Performance Outcomes: The Mediating
Influence of Self-efficacy”, Journal of Organizaitonal
Behavior, Vol. 19, Pp. 523–538.
[55] J. Schaubroeck & D.E. Merritt (1997), “Divergent Effects of
Job Control on Coping with Work Stressors: The Key Role of
Self-efficacy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No.
3, Pp. 738–754.
[56] R. Schwarzer, J. Bäßler, P. Kwiatek, K. Schröder & J.X. Zhang
(1997), “The Assessment of Optimistic Self-beliefs:
Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese Versions of
the General Self-Efficacy Scale”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 46,
No. 1, Pp. 69–88.
[57] B. Schyns (2004), “The Influence of Occupational Self-efficacy
on the Relationship of Leadership Behavior and Preparedness
for Occupational Change”, Journal of Career Development,
Vol. 30, No. 4, Pp. 247–261.
[58] M. Vakola & I. Nikolaou (2005), “Attitudes toward
Organizational Change - What is the Role of Employees' Stress
and Commitment?”, Employee Relation, Vol. 27, No. 2, Pp.
160–174.
[59] N.W. van Yperen & M. Hagedoorn (2003), “Do High Job
Demands Increase Intrinsic Motivation or Fatigue or Both? The
Role of Job Control and Job Social Support”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3, Pp. 339–348.
[60] C.R. Wanberg & J.T. Banas (2000), “Predicators and Outcomes
of Openness to Changes in a Reorganizing Workplace”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 1, Pp. 132–142.
[61] S.J. Wayne, L.M. Shore & R.C. Liden (1997). “Perceived
Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange: A
Social Exchange Perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, Pp. 82–111.
[62] R. Wood & A. Bandura (1989), “Social Cognitive Theory of
Organizational Management”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, Pp. 361–383.
Paul Chou earned his Ph.D. degree in human resource management
from the School of Management, National Central University,
Taiwan in 2007. Before enrolling in the Ph.D. program, he had
worked as an HR practitioner for 28 years in several multinational
companies in Taiwan. His current research interests are strategic
human resource management and organizational change
management. His published works are:
1. The HR Competencies-HR effectiveness Link: A Study in
Taiwanese High-Tech companies. Human Resource
management (2006), 45(3), Pp. 391-404.
2. The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Follower’s
Affective Commitment to Change. World Journal of Social
Science (2013), 1(3), Pp. 38-52.
3. Transformational Leadership and Employee’s Behavioral
Support to Organizational Change. Management and
Administrative Sciences Review (2014), 3(6), Pp.825-838.
4. Does
Transformational
Leadership
matter
during
Organizational Change? European Journal of Sustainable
Development (2014), 3(3), Pp.49-62.
© 2015 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
8