research paper on perceived organizational support

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Perceived Organizational Support and Workplace Conflict: The Mediating Role of Failure-Related Trust

The aim of the present research was twofold. First, we examined the effects of perceived organizational support (POS) on workplace conflict (i.e., relationship conflict and task conflict). Second, we identified one mechanism explaining these relationships, namely failure-related trust. Using a sample of 263 teachers from Belgium, the results of Study 1 indicated that POS is negatively related to relationship conflict and is also, unexpectedly, negatively related to task conflict. Furthermore, using a sample of 477 Belgian employees, Study 2 replicated these results and further demonstrated that failure-related trust mediates the negative relationship between POS and both types of workplace conflict. Theoretical and practical insights of this research are discussed.

Introduction

Workplace conflict plays a critical role in the organizational life because of its important consequences for both organizations (e.g., performance; e.g., Meier et al., 2013 ) and individuals (e.g., well-being; e.g., Sonnentag et al., 2013 ). For these reasons, this construct has received a vivid interest from scholars in the management literature (e.g., De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ; Lu et al., 2011 ; Sonnentag et al., 2013 ). Scholars have drawn a distinction in the literature between relationship and task conflict (e.g., Pinkley, 1991 ; Jehn, 1995 ; Amason, 1996 ). Relationship conflict refers to interpersonal incompatibilities involving feelings of tension and friction, whereas task conflict refers to disagreements between individuals “about the correct way to solve a problem” ( Danielsson et al., 2015 , p. 144). Given the potential benefits of task conflict in terms of increasing divergent ideas (e.g., Amason, 1996 ) or innovative behaviors ( Lu et al., 2011 ) and the general negative consequences of relationship conflict such as decreasing levels of team job satisfaction, and performance (e.g., Jehn, 1995 ; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ), researchers have tried to identify their predictors.

Among antecedents of workplace conflict, individual factors have been most popular among conflict researchers (e.g., Oxenstierna et al., 2011 ; Danielsson et al., 2015 ). More recently, various scholars have pointed out the crucial role also played by environmental and organizational factors in the emergence of workplace conflict (e.g., Lu et al., 2011 ). Aspects of the work environment such as physical work conditions, co-workers’ and supervisors’ social support, or one’s job content (e.g., role ambiguity) have all been shown to relate (either positively or negatively) to workplace conflict’s emergence (e.g., De Raeve et al., 2008 ). Yet, this area of research still needs to be broadened (see for instance Lu et al., 2011 ) as empirical studies examining organizational factors remain scarce. What is most interesting about organizational and environmental antecedents is that, in contrast to pure individual factors, they represent factors on which managers and practitioners can more or less directly act upon. Improving physical work conditions, increasing employees’ levels of social support, or wherever possible changing workers’ job content all represent opportunities for leaders and supervisors to experience workplace conflict less often but rather actively manage it. Our aim, in the present research, is thus to further our understanding of workplace conflict antecedents by examining one important organizational variable on which managers have discretionary control, namely perceived organizational support (POS). As POS captures a positive general organizational climate that emphasizes the importance of both employees’ welfare and contributions ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ), the examination of its links with relationship and task conflict seems particularly relevant.

More precisely, POS is defined as employees’ beliefs concerning the extent to which their organization cares about their well-being and values their contributions ( Eisenberger et al., 1986 ). In the present research, we examine the possibility that POS would reduce relationship conflict and, in contrast, stimulate task conflict. Additionally, this research examines whether the relationship between POS and workplace conflict (i.e., relationship and task conflict) is mediated by employees’ failure-related trust, defined as “the belief that the organization’s actions in case of failure will take into account the employee’s intent to be helpful” ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 , p. 190). In other words, failure-related trust captures how much the employee can trust the organization to act in good faith in case his/her actions would end in failure. Rooted in the psychological safety literature, which has been found to be associated to both relationship and task conflict (e.g., Wilkens and London, 2006 ; Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 ), this variable seems of particular relevance for our research.

The present research has several contributions. First, it will broaden the POS literature (e.g., Baran et al., 2012 ; Kurtessis et al., 2017 ). Although many studies have shown the positive consequences of POS in terms of increasing employees’ positive attitudes toward the organization and work (e.g., Kurtessis et al., 2017 ), to our knowledge, the influence of POS on workplace conflict has received very limited attention. Therefore, organizational support theory (OST) lacks from a theoretical rationale regarding the relationship between POS and workplace conflict and empirical findings regarding this issue. In addition, this research will contribute to the literature on workplace conflict by examining new organizational factors as potential drivers of workplace conflict. Besides these theoretical contributions, our research has important implications for practitioners and managers because it will provide useful information regarding organizational interventions aiming to manage workplace conflict.

Workplace Conflict

Individuals often engage in relationship-oriented and task-oriented conflicts (e.g., Jehn, 1995 ). The former, i.e. relationship conflict, refers to “interpersonal incompatibilities among group members, which typically include tension, animosity, and annoyance among members within a group” ( Jehn, 1995 , p. 258). Examples of relationship conflicts are conflicts about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style ( De Dreu et al., 2004 ). The latter, i.e. task conflict, refers to “disagreements among group members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions” ( Jehn, 1995 , pp. 258). Examples of task conflicts are conflicts that arise because of diverging opinions and interests on resource distribution, procedures, or facts interpretations ( De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ). Broadly speaking then, while task conflicts largely focus on work and task aspects, relationship conflicts relate to non-task, personal issues ( Jehn, 2014 ).

Several scholars and studies have underlined that the distinction between relationship conflict and task conflict is meaningful as they are linked to different consequences (e.g., Jehn, 1995 ; Amason, 1996 ; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ). For instance, empirical research has univocally shown the detrimental impact of relationship conflict on work-related and individual outcomes (e.g., Jehn, 1995 ; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ). Specifically, relationship conflicts reduce the processing ability of teams because individuals composing the group lose their energy arguing with each other rather than solving task-related problems ( De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ). In line with this, relationship conflict was found to be related to lower levels of innovative behaviors ( Lu et al., 2011 ), to lower levels of team-level job satisfaction ( De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ) and to higher levels of intentions to quit (e.g., Ismail et al., 2012 ). Furthermore, relationship conflicts impair performance, an effect that largely emerges in various studies and meta-analyses ( De Wit et al., 2012 ; DeChurch et al., 2013 ; O’Neill et al., 2013 ; Ent et al., 2015 ).

The picture is less straightforward as what concerns task conflicts. On the one hand, several scholars have suggested that task conflict could potentially benefit both individuals and organizations because of the stimulation of divergent ideas and the fostering of greater cognitive understanding of important issues ( Jehn, 1994 , 1995 ; De Wit et al., 2012 ; DeChurch et al., 2013 ). As such, task conflicts might help increasing group decision quality (e.g., Simons and Peterson, 2000 ) and team effectiveness performance (e.g., Jehn and Bendersky, 2003 ). On the other hand, scientists have argued that task conflict could also impeach performance for multiple reasons. First, task conflicts add to employees’ cognitive load and redirect resources away from the task ( van Woerkom and Van Engen, 2009 ). Second, task conflicts have the potential to harm relationships and develop into conflicts that are more relational than task-related. According to Simons and Peterson (2000) for instance, task conflicts are likely to escalate into relationship conflicts because of the use of inappropriate emotional and behavioral reactions that they entail as well as the emergence of cognitive misattributions.

Overall then, the link between task conflicts and performance seems to be quite complex. Research has indeed shown that it varies as a function of moderating situational variables such as task type ( Jehn, 1995 ) or timing ( Jehn and Mannix, 2001 ), and individual characteristics such as trait self-control ( Jimmieson et al., 2017 ) or openness to experience ( Loughry and Amason, 2014 ). Meta-analyses also reflect this complexity by reporting either negative relationships to performance (e.g., De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ; O’Neill et al., 2013 ) or a positive link ( DeChurch et al., 2013 ) at least to the extent that relationship conflicts are controlled for ( De Wit et al., 2012 ).

As indicated above, much is known about the consequences of workplace conflict (e.g., De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ; Meier et al., 2013 ). Earlier research already tried to advance knowledge regarding predictors of workplace conflict. The dominant explanation regarding the emergence of workplace conflict has focused on individual factors that may drive workplace conflict (e.g., Friedman et al., 2000 ; Oxenstierna et al., 2011 ; Danielsson et al., 2015 ). For instance, in a review chapter, De Dreu and Gelfand (2007) distinguished three major sources of workplace conflict: scarce personal resources, the search of maintaining and promoting a positive view of oneself, and the search for validation of one’s opinions and positions. In a different perspective, Halevy et al. (2014) showed across five studies the important relationships that exist between people’s mental models of conflict, their personality and their real-world conflict experiences. More recently, research evidence revealed that organizational factors such as organizational structure ( Oxenstierna et al., 2011 ), leadership (e.g., Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 ), physical environment ( De Raeve et al., 2008 ), coworkers’ or supervisor’s support, or career advancement opportunities ( De Raeve et al., 2008 ) are all likely to have an influence on workplace conflict. Therefore, “a reasonable assumption is that both individual and organizational factors can explain the emergence of conflicts at the workplace” ( Oxenstierna et al., 2011 , p. 502). Yet, too few studies in the workplace conflict literature have considered the influence of the organizational context ( Lu et al., 2011 ). In line with this, we thought to examine the influence of POS on the two different types of workplace conflict, i.e., relationship and task conflict. By fostering an organizational climate of respect and positive valuation from the organization and among its members ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ), POS should indeed be of particular relevance in the (non)emergence of workplace conflict.

Perceived Organizational Support

POS refers to employees’ perceptions regarding the extent to which their organization thinks highly of their contributions and promotes their welfare ( Eisenberger et al., 1986 ). Relying on the social exchange perspective ( Blau, 1964 ) and the norm of reciprocity ( Gouldner, 1960 ), OST holds that employees feel an inner obligation to reciprocate this favorable and supportive treatment received from their organization by developing favorable attitudes toward the organization and by helping the organization reaching its goals (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986 ). OST also states that POS fulfills employees’ socio-emotional needs (e.g., need for esteem), leading to favorable attitudes and behaviors toward the organization and greater subjective well-being (e.g., Armeli et al., 1998 ; Kurtessis et al., 2017 ).

Accordingly, empirical evidence showed that POS is positively related to a plethora of positive attitudes and behaviors at work such as employees’ affective commitment (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 2001 ), organizational identification (e.g., Sluss et al., 2008 ), work engagement (e.g., Caesens et al., 2016 ), and job performance (e.g., Chen et al., 2009 ; Shoss et al., 2013 ). POS was also found to be positively related to several indicators of employees’ well-being such as job satisfaction (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1997 ; Caesens and Stinglhamber, 2014 ), and general health (e.g., Bradley and Cartwright, 2002 ). In contrast, numerous studies indicated that POS decreases employees’ turnover intentions (e.g., Kurtessis et al., 2017 ), absenteeism (e.g., Eder and Eisenberger, 2008 ), and burnout (e.g., Kang et al., 2010 ; Caesens et al., 2017 ). Interestingly, even if prior studies have thus clearly demonstrated that POS creates a positive environment for employees, the influence of POS on workplace conflict has been ignored.

Yet, POS is likely to be linked to both types of workplace conflict. On the one hand, POS should be negatively associated with relationship conflict because it fosters an organizational climate wherein employees treat each other with respect and are open to a two-way communication ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ). Further, POS fosters a sense of common identity between members of the organization ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ). Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) indeed claimed that, when POS is high, employees experience a sense of unity with the organization as a whole. Interestingly, prior research in the literature of conflict reported that “feeling of connection and common identity are important factors for the prevention of interpersonal conflicts” ( Oxenstierna et al., 2011 , p. 502). For instance, Hinds and Mortensen (2005) claimed that “in the absence of a strong shared identity team members are likely to evaluate other team members’ behaviors negatively assuming a competitive rather than cooperative stance when problems and miscommunication arise” (p. 292). On the contrary, if a common identity is present between group members they will be more prone to be loyal and especially concerned of the well-being of other in-group members ( Hinds and Mortensen, 2005 ). In line with this, Colbert and his colleagues ( Colbert et al., 2004 ) showed that POS is negatively related to employees’ interpersonal deviance behaviors such as saying something hurtful to another employee, making fun of someone at work, or acting rudely toward another coworker. Additionally, whereas it was not the focus of their study, Sulea et al. (2012) reported a significant negative association between POS and interpersonal conflict ( r = -0.37, p < 0.01). Therefore, based on the above reasoning and empirical evidence, we posited that POS would be negatively related to relationship conflict ( Hypothesis 1 ).

On the other hand, employees perceiving high support from their organization should be more prone to engage in task conflict and have an open discussion concerning work-related task with their colleagues. OST (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986 ; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ; Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ; Kurtessis et al., 2017 ) states that POS conveys that employees’ contributions are valued and appreciated. Based on the norm of reciprocity ( Gouldner, 1960 ) and the social exchange theory ( Blau, 1964 ), OST further suggests that POS creates among employees a feeling of obligation to reciprocate for the positive treatment received, most notably by aiding the organization to reach its goals. Based on the above, employees might be able to fulfill this embeddedness toward the organization by focusing more on their tasks and by being more prone to share their differences in ideas, opinions, and thoughts related to work issues in order to contribute to a potentially better organizational performance. In other words, the feeling of obligation to return the favorable treatment would stimulate employees to have richer discussions and in-depth investigations on several issues, and to express ideas or recommendations useful to help the organization reaching its objectives, especially since their contributions are welcome and valued by this organization. Second, the group engagement model suggests that a favorable organizational treatment such as a high POS would provide employees with information regarding the organizational respect they benefit from and their high informal status within the organization ( Tyler and Blader, 2003 ). Yet, according to Jetten et al. (2006) , people experiencing high status in a group are less sensitive to the social context and susceptible to group influence. As a result, those high-status group members portrayed themselves as more independent and nonconformist than group members with low ingroup status. Therefore, experiencing high POS should lead these high-status employees to share more willingly divergent perspectives and constructive arguments with their colleagues. In line with the two above reasonings, we thus hypothesized that POS is positively related to task conflict ( Hypothesis 2 ).

Study 1: POS and Workplace Conflict

Study 1 was designed to test the first two hypotheses posited in this research, which hold that POS is negatively related to relationship conflict ( Hypothesis 1 ) and positively related to task conflict ( Hypothesis 2 ).

Sample and Procedure

The sample consisted of 263 Belgian teachers (53 men, 195 women, and 15 omitted to indicate their gender). All participants spoke French and worked in various primary or high schools of the French-speaking part of Belgium. The average age of participants was 42.24 years ( SD = 10.96) and their average teaching experience was 15.79 years ( SD = 10.86). Participants were engaged in teaching activities for an average of 22.00 h per week ( SD = 4.90 h). The average number of students per school was 782.14 ( SD = 1895.805).

An email inviting participants to fill in our online questionnaire was sent by a trade union regional secretary to several directors of primary and high schools located in Belgium and affiliated to this union. This email invitation included a brief description of the study objectives and included the URL to access the online questionnaire. It was clearly stipulated in the email invitation and on the first page of the questionnaire that participation was voluntary and that anonymity and confidentiality of the responses provided by participants were guaranteed. Informed consent was obtained by virtue of survey completion. Indeed, it was clearly stated that participants were invited to complete the questionnaire voluntary and freely, and they could stop completion at any time. Further, the school directors were free to decide whether or not to forward the email invitation to teachers working in their school. Because directors did not communicate their decision to us, it was impossible to calculate an exact response rate to the questionnaire. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Psychology Department at the Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium).

We measured POS using 8 items of the Survey of POS (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986 ) [e.g., (Name of the organization/institution) really cares about my well-being”]. In doing so, we followed Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) recommendations to include the two facets of the definition of POS, namely care about employees’ well-being and valuation of employees’ contributions. Participants rated these items using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

Workplace conflict

Relationship and task conflict were measured using a slightly adapted version of the 8-item (i.e., 4 items for relationship conflict and 4 items for task conflict) scale developed by Jehn (1995) . More precisely, as it has been done in previous research (e.g., Meier et al., 2013 ), items were re-worded to reflect positive affirmations, rather than questions as it was the case in the original scale. A sample item for relationship conflict is “ There is friction among members of my organization/institution ” and for task conflict is “ There are differences of opinions regarding work within my organization/institution. ” In order to not artificially inflated the correlation between the two types of conflicts (and thus reduce the common method variance bias; cf. Podsakoff et al., 2003 ) and in line with what scholar have done in prior research (e.g., Meier et al., 2013 ), we adapted the format of the response scales associated with these items. For relationship conflict, the response scale ranged from 1 “Not at all” to 7 “Extremely” and, as such, is close to that of Jehn (1995) . For task conflict, the response scale ranged from 1 “Never” to 7 “Always” as it has been done by Baillien et al. (2016) .

Control variables

Following Becker’s (2005) recommendations, the relationships between potential control variables (i.e., gender, age, job tenure as a teacher, number of students in the school -i.e., size of the school-, and weekly hours of teaching) and our dependent variables (i.e., relationship and task conflict) were examined at the empirical level (see Table ​ Table1 1 for more details). None of our potential control variables were correlated with the dependent variables included in our model. Therefore, no control variable was included in subsequent analyses (see Becker, 2005 ).

Study 1: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables.

Discriminant and Convergent Validity

To examine whether the variables presented in our model were distinct constructs (i.e., POS, relationship conflict, and task conflict), we performed confirmatory factor analyses using the LISREL 8.8 software ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993 ). Results of these analyses indicated that the hypothesized three-factor model fitted the data well [χ 2 (101) = 283.04, CFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08]. Using chi-square difference tests ( Bentler and Bonett, 1980 ), we compared its fit to the fit of several nested models (i.e., two-factor and one-factor models). These analyses indicated that the three-factor model was superior to all more constrained models. Additionally, all items loaded reliably on their respective latent constructs with standardized loadings ranging from 0.55 to 0.88 for POS, from 0.76 to 0.96 for relationship conflict, and from 0.45 to 0.92 for task conflict.

Relationships Among Variables

Table ​ Table1 1 displays the means, standard deviations, internal reliabilities, and intercorrelations among variables. As firstly hypothesized, POS was negatively associated with relationship conflict. However, contrary to our second hypothesis, POS was also negatively associated with task conflict.

Test of Hypotheses

Using Lisrel 8.8 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993 ), we conducted structural equation modeling to test our two hypotheses in a single structural model. Because the correlation between relationship conflict and task conflict was relatively high in our sample (see Table ​ Table1), 1 ), the disturbance terms associated with these two variables were allowed to freely correlate. Results indicated that the structural model fitted the data very well [χ 2 (101) = 283.04, CFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08]. Standardized estimates indicated that POS is negatively associated with both relationship (γ = -0.48 p < 0.001) and task conflict (γ = -0.46, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1 and failing to support Hypothesis 2.

Study 1’s findings indicated that, as expected, POS is negatively related to relationship conflict. This result suggests that POS fosters a climate of respect and a sense of common identity among employees that is not conducive to relational conflict. Contrary to our second hypothesis, we did not find support for the positive influence of POS on task conflict among employees. Our results indicated that POS influences task conflict in the opposite direction such as it decreases rather than stimulates task conflict. This suggests that when POS is high, employees are less prone to challenge ideas and positions with other members of the organization, which could lead to premature agreement regarding a work-related topic or to miss alternative innovative solutions. This unexpected negative relationship found between POS and task conflict might be explained by the fact that POS increases not only social cohesion and a common identity between members but also the cohesion regarding how tasks should be performed at work. POS, through its actions might elicit a unified culture of respect, appreciation and mutual caring between all organizational members ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ). This unified culture might lessen task conflict such as having frequent and intense divergence in opinions, ideas, and thoughts between organizational members.

Despite its contributions to the organizational support and workplace conflict literatures, Study 1 also presents important limitations. First, results of this study might be restricted to a specific population of workers, i.e., teachers. Given the particular population assessed in our study, more data are needed in order to generalize our findings to other organizational contexts. Second, no attention was given to potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between POS and workplace conflict. In order to overcome these limitations, in Study 2, we attempt to replicate these findings among another population of workers. More importantly, we examine a potential mediator of the relationship between POS and workplace conflict. Examining a mediator of this relationship will help to better understand the results obtained in our Study 1 and, more particularly, it will bring a more nuanced view of the unexpected negative relation found between POS and task conflict.

More precisely, we argue that how much employees perceive their organization as a safe place to discuss problems, tough issues, or even mistakes they made should explain the relationships between POS and workplace conflict. Close to this idea is the psychological safety concept defined as the “shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” ( Edmondson, 1999 , p. 354) and referring to a “sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up.” While focusing on the team level and not on the organizational target, the literature on psychological safety is very instructive for the present research. This literature already indicated that psychological safety might help to reduce relationship conflict in a team. Bradley et al. (2012 , p. 151) indeed claimed that, “psychological safety may amplify the involvement of each team member and the intensity of interaction among teammates without endangering the harmony of the team.” In line with this perspective, prior research reported negative correlations between psychological safety and relationship conflict ( Wilkens and London, 2006 ; Martins et al., 2013 ).

While findings on the relationship between psychological safety and relationship conflict are thus quite clear in this literature, the relationship between psychological safety and task conflict seems much more uncertain. On the one hand, individuals in a high psychological safety climate should be more likely to ask for help or to share an idea or opinion even if they are not correct on this issue ( Edmondson, 1999 ; Wilkens and London, 2006 ). Accordingly, the relationship between psychological safety and task conflict might be positive. On the other hand, in teams where a certain psychological safety is experienced, employees should be less likely to engage in task-related conflictual discussions because of the unified and secure atmosphere. Yet, as indicated by Greer et al. (2007 , p. 7), “without such critique or debate, task conflict will not exist within teams.” Accordingly, the relationship between psychological safety and task conflict might be negative. In line with this second possibility, prior empirical research indeed reported negative correlations between employees’ psychological safety and task conflict ( Wilkens and London, 2006 ; Bradley et al., 2012 ).

As previously stated, the psychological safety concept refers to the team level. Some authors have however considered that this concept might also make sense at the organizational level. Precisely, applying it to the organizational target, Neves and Eisenberger (2014) proposed the failure-related trust construct defined “as the belief that the organization’s actions in case of failure will take into account the employee’s intent to be helpful” ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 , p. 190). In other words, employees who perceive a high level of failure-related trust in their organization are not afraid to put themselves in a situation of vulnerability or to discuss of difficulties they might have at work ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 ), failure-related trust should be related to workplace conflict. More precisely, failure-related trust should be negatively related to relationship conflict whereas the link between failure-related trust and task conflict may be either positive or negative. On the one hand, when employees perceive high level of failure-related trust in their organization, they should be more willing to put themselves in a situation of vulnerability and thus will be more likely to express challenging ideas without fearing negative consequences. On the other hand, when failure-related trust is high, members of the organization might be less prone to engage in real conflictual forms of task-related discussions because of the unified and secure atmosphere. As a whole, failure-related trust should thus be related to both types of workplace conflict.

Moreover, according to Neves and Eisenberger (2014) , POS fosters the perception of failure-related trust among employees. Employees perceiving high levels of organizational support are more prone to believe that their inputs and competences are valued and that their mistakes will be received with leniency ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 ). At the empirical level, Neves and Eisenberger (2014) showed that POS is, indeed, positively related to employees’ failure-related trust, which, in turn, increased employees’ propensity to take risks. Taking together, we thus hypothesized that failure-related trust mediates the negative relationship between POS and relationship conflict ( Hypothesis 3a ). Furthermore, we also hypothesized that failure-related trust mediates the negative relationship between POS and task conflict ( Hypothesis 3b ).

Study 2: The Mediating Role of Failure-Related Trust in the Relationship Between POS and Workplace Conflict

Study 2 was first designed to replicate results of Study 1 among another population than teachers. Furthermore, Study 2 aimed to test Hypotheses 3a and 3b, which hold that failure-related trust ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 ) acts as a mediator in the relationship between POS and workplace conflict (i.e., both relationship and task conflict).

Employees from a Belgian organization specialized in employment and training services were contacted via an email in order to complete an electronic questionnaire that was part of a larger survey. Informed consent was obtained by virtue of survey completion. Indeed, it was clearly stated in the first page of the questionnaire that participants were invited to complete the questionnaire voluntary and freely and they could stop completion at any time. Further, the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants were assured. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Psychology Department at the Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium). In total, 692 employees accepted to respond to the questionnaire (response rate = 34.72%). Of these 692 participants, only 477 fully completed the questionnaire on our variables of interest (i.e. POS, failure-related trust, relationship and task conflict) and thus composed the final sample. Of this sample, 71.07% were women, 18.45% men and 10.48% omitted to indicate their gender. Furthermore, the average age of this sample was 43.00 years ( SD = 8.83) and participants were working for this organization for an average of 12.21 years ( SD = 8.73). Regarding their level of education, most of participants held a bachelor degree (39.20%).

We used the same scale as in Study 1 to measure perceptions of organizational support.

Failure-related trust

Failure-related trust was measured using the 4-item scale from Neves and Eisenberger (2014) . These four items “refer to how safe employees feel in the case of failure, demonstrated by actions such as discussing problems and mistakes” ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 , p. 194). These items are “ If I had difficulties at work, I would be inclined to keep them from my organization ” (reversed coded), “ I would feel comfortable telling my organization about a mistake I made ,” When I am not good at a task, I feel at ease telling my organization about it ” and “ If I had a problem that could influence my performance at work, I would hesitate to discuss it with my organization ” (reversed coded). Furthermore, due to a low internal reliability coefficient obtained in this prior study (i.e., α = 0.60) ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 ), we decided to add two adapted items from the psychological safety scale of Edmondson (1999) replacing “the team” by “my organization.” These two items were “ My organization holds against me when I make a mistake ” and “ In my organization, it is easy to bring up problems and tough issues. ” Participants responded to these statements using a 7-point Likert-type scale, with response options ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

The workplace conflict scale used in Study 1 was also used in this second study.

As in Study 1, we analyzed the empirical relationships between potential control variables (i.e., socio-demographic variables) and the dependent variables included in our model (i.e., failure-related trust and workplace conflict). As showed in Table ​ Table2, 2 , level of education was found to display a significant correlation with failure-related trust ( r = -0.10, p < 0.05), whereas gender ( r = 0.11, p < 0.05) and organizational tenure displayed ( r = 0.11, p < 0.05) significant correlations with relationship conflict. In addition, age ( r = 0.13, p < 0.01), organizational tenure ( r = 0.15, p < 0.01), and level of education ( r = 0.11, p < 0.05) reported positive correlations with task conflict. We decided to perform our analyses with and without these control variables as recommended by Becker (2005) and Becker et al. (2015) 1 . The pattern of results was essentially identical and did not change the interpretation of the findings. Therefore, we decided to report our results without control variables in order to reduce model complexity ( Becker, 2005 ).

Study 2: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables.

To assess the discriminant validity between POS, failure-related trust, relationship conflict, and task conflict, we compared several nested models using Lisrel 8.8 ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993 ). Results of these analyses indicated that the fit indices for the hypothesized four-factor model were satisfactory [χ 2 (203) = 746.51; RMSEA = 0.07 ; CFI = 0.96; NNFI = 0.96] and significantly superior to that of all more constrained models (i.e., three-factor, two-factor, and one-factor models). Furthermore, each item loaded reliably on its latent construct with standardized loadings ranging from 0.46 to 0.80 for POS, from 0.49 to 0.67 for failure-related trust, from 0.78 to 0.96 for relationship conflict, and from 0.56 to 0.91 for task conflict.

Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among variables are presented in Table ​ Table2. 2 . As expected, POS was positively related to failure-related trust, and POS and failure-related trust were both negatively associated with relationship conflict and task conflict.

The hypothesized structural relationships among latent variables were assessed using the structural equation modeling approach. As in Study 1, due to a high correlation between the two forms of workplace conflict, we allowed the disturbances terms of relationship and task conflict to correlate. We conducted a preliminary analysis in order to assess the direct effect of POS on both relationship conflict and task conflict. Results indicated that this model fitted the data accurately [χ 2 (101) = 372.18, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08]. In addition, standardized estimates indicated that POS is negatively related to both relationship (γ = -0.39, p < 0.001) and task conflict (γ = -0.42, p < 0.001), yielding similar results than those obtained in Study 1. We then tested our hypothesized model wherein failure-related trust would act as a full mediator of these relationships. The results indicated that this model fitted the data accurately [χ 2 (205) = 785.09, CFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.08]. Nevertheless, based on the chi-square difference tests ( Bentler and Bonett, 1980 ), an alternative model (i.e., alternative model (1) adding a direct path between POS and relationship conflict was statistically superior to the hypothesized model [Δχ 2 (1) = 6.25, p < 0.05]. In addition, adding a path between POS and task conflict (i.e., alternative model (2) provided a better fit than that of the alternative model 1 [Δχ 2 (1) = 32.33, p < 0.001]. Consequently, the alternative model 2 was retained as the best depiction of the data [χ 2 (203) = 746.51, CFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08]. Figure ​ Figure1 1 displays the standardized parameter estimates for this alternative model 2. As it can be seen, POS is positively related to failure-related trust (γ = 0.56, p < 0.001), which, in turn, has a significant negative influence on both relationship conflict (β = -0.21, p < 0.01) and task conflict (β = -0.16, p < 0.05). Furthermore, results indicate that POS is directly and negatively related to relationship conflict (γ = -0.28, p < 0.001) and task conflict (γ = -0.34, p < 0.001). Finally, as recommended by Hayes (2013) , we tested for the indirect effects using the PROCESS macro (model 4) for SPSS to obtain the bootstrapped confidence intervals. The results of these additional analyses indicate that the indirect effects of POS on relationship and task conflict via failure-related trust are significant ( b = -0.1033, BCa 95% CI = [-0.1683; -0.0488]; b = -0.0618, BCa 95% CI = [-0.1063; -0.0235]), supporting Hypotheses 3a and 3b. As POS remains directly related to both types of conflicts even when failure-related trust is controlled for, the indirect effects are moderate, and we can conclude to a partial mediating effect of failure-related trust.

Study 2: completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative model 2. N = 477. ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

Consistent with findings of the first study, Study 2 showed that POS is negatively associated with both types of workplace conflict, namely relationship and task conflict. More importantly, besides replicating results of Study 1, this second study aimed to investigate a potential underlying mechanism of the negative relationship between POS and workplace conflict. Extending prior findings from Neves and Eisenberger (2014) , we showed that a higher level of POS leads to a higher level of failure-related trust, which, in turn, reduces both relationship and task conflict. Precisely, results indicated that employee’ failure-related trust acts as a partial mediator in the negative relationship between POS and the two types workplace conflict (i.e., relationship and task conflict).

General Discussion

The main aim of the present research was to examine the relationship between POS and workplace conflict. More precisely, the purpose of this research was to examine whether POS would reduce relationship conflict and stimulate task conflict (Study 1-2). Additionally, this research aimed to study whether failure-related trust acts as a key mediator in the relationship between POS and workplace conflict (Study 2).

Firstly, our results indicated across two studies that, as expected (Hypothesis 1), POS is negatively related to relationship conflict and, contrary to our second hypothesis, also negatively linked to task conflict. The negative relationship found between POS and relationship conflict is in line with the proposition that POS induces a sense of common identity between organizational members ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ) that helps to lessen relationship conflict (e.g., Hinds and Mortensen, 2005 ). Furthermore, this finding is consistent with Colbert et al. (2004) results, which revealed that POS has a negative influence on employees’ interpersonal deviance such as acting rudely toward another coworker. These results also replicate the negative correlation found between POS and relationship conflict as reported in Sulea et al. (2012) study.

Secondly, the negative association found between POS and task conflict in Study 1 and 2 suggests that POS also leads to higher cohesion regarding how work and tasks should be carried. POS, through its actions, elicits a unified culture of respect and appreciation among organizational members ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ) that is not conducive to task conflict. Because task conflicts potentially stimulate critical-thinking, this negative association found between POS and task conflict in Study 1 and 2 would suggest a potential negative side of the POS construct. This result, indeed, suggests that employees who perceive high levels of organizational support are more likely to prematurely agree on a topic without sufficient discussion. That is, POS could lead to an unawareness of relevant alternative solutions or point of views that could benefit the whole organization and/or stimulate innovative solutions. Indeed, scholars have argued that task conflict is likely to improve the use of debate within a team and the subsequent decision quality ( Amason, 1996 ). Lu et al. (2011) also showed that task conflict has positive consequences for organizations such as increasing knowledge sharing behaviors and innovative behaviors and positive effects of task conflicts on performance have been evidenced in some meta-analytic reviews (e.g., De Wit et al., 2012 ; DeChurch et al., 2013 ).

However, reducing task conflict could also present some benefits. Prior research on the consequences of task conflict is still not completely conclusive regarding its influence on employees’ performance. That is, although some meta-analytic results suggest a host of positive consequences emerging from task conflicts ( DeChurch et al., 2013 ), other studies indicate that the relationship between task conflict and performance could also be overly negative ( De Dreu and Weingart, 2003 ; O’Neill et al., 2013 ) or could depend on the simultaneous presence of relationship conflict ( De Wit et al., 2012 ). These mixed results have led scholars to the conclusion that that the exact effects of task conflict on performance might depend on moderating variables linked to the situation (e.g., type of task, Jehn, 1995 ) or the individual (e.g., openness to experience, Loughry and Amason, 2014 ). Similarly, several authors have suggested that task conflict could negatively affect individuals’ well-being and attitudes through the increase of relationship conflict that it entails (e.g., Medina et al., 2005 ) although the escalation of task conflict into relationship conflict seems, in fact, to also depend on people’s individual traits ( Jimmieson et al., 2017 ). As a whole, these results suggest that the reduction of task conflict that is observed when POS is high could also be beneficial, particularly in terms of employees’ subjective health and well-being.

The negative association found in this research between POS and task conflict, might arise because a high level of POS leads to higher levels of cooperation among employees. Individuals working in an environment characterized by cooperativeness might be more prone to engage in behaviors that lead to a constructive process of conflict resolution ( Deutsch, 2013 ). Consequently, it is possible that employees effectively share different opinions and arguments toward a specific work-related topic but that these ideas and divergent opinions are shared within a climate of respect and appreciation. Therefore, these discussions and divergent opinions are not remembered as a conflict by employees when directly asked. In line with this idea, prior scholars have underlined that self-reported measures of workplace conflict are subjected to memory bias (e.g., Meier et al., 2013 ). For instance, Meier et al. (2013) suggested that the best way to assess workplace conflict and to capture its experience is to directly ask participants to report a conflict event immediately after its occurrence (e.g., Campbell and Graziano, 2002 ). In the same vein, it is possible that POS increases knowledge sharing or stimulates divergent ideas generation among employees. In line with this view, Kerwin et al. (2011) found, in their qualitative study conducted among a sample of nonprofit board members, that their participants experienced and reported “differences of opinions,” “debates” or “professional discussion” but not “conflict” stricto sensu within their organizations. Accordingly, they perceived the so-called conflict as functional for decision quality and idea generation. In line with this, because of the measure we used in the present research, we could not directly capture this positive view of “conflict.” Therefore, future research should examine whether POS is able to foster knowledge sharing and divergent ideas generation among members with more appropriate measures.

Our research also provides further insight regarding the negative relationship found between POS and task conflict by examining a mediator of the relationship between POS and workplace conflict, namely failure-related trust. Results of Study 2 indeed indicated that the negative relationship found between POS and each type of workplace conflict is partially mediated by employees’ failure-related trust. The more employees perceive that their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, the more they feel that their organization will be willing to respond compassionately to the employees’ desire to share difficulties at work. This perception of failure-related trust, in turn, reduced both relationship and task conflict. These results are also consistent with prior research, which reported a negative relationship between psychological safety and relationship conflict (e.g., Wilkens and London, 2006 ), and between psychological safety and task conflict (e.g., Wilkens and London, 2006 ; Martins et al., 2013 ). These negative associations found between failure-related trust and both types of workplace conflict are in line with the idea that psychological safety or failure-related trust are context-shifting states that can alter employees’ interactions – and their perceptions of them – with their colleagues within the organization. As described by Bradley et al. (2012) , psychological safety or failure-related trust would create a work environment that is not perceived as threatening and, as such, would amplify the involvement of employees and intensify their interactions without endangering the harmony among them. In such an environment, dysfunctional interactions among employees are discouraged so that frustration and hurt feelings are automatically reduced. In contrast, divergent ideas, innovative suggestions and new viewpoints are more than permitted: they are encouraged, without damaging interpersonal interactions ( Bradley et al., 2012 ). Accordingly, when employee’s perceived high psychological safety or trust from their organization in case of failure, they will be less likely to engage in real conflictual forms of task conflict or, as suggested above, to even perceive “conflict” behind a divergence of opinion ( Kerwin et al., 2011 ). This result is in line with the arguments from Greer et al. (2007) who claimed that “without such critique or debate, task conflict will not exist within teams” (p. 7).

Overall, our studies contribute to both the literatures on POS and on workplace conflict. First, our results extend the findings from Neves and Eisenberger (2014) by showing that the POS – failure-related trust association is able to decrease workplace conflict (both relationship and task conflict). As such, these findings contribute to an advancement of OST (e.g., Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ), particularly by showing that failure-related trust is an important mechanism in the relationship between POS and its attitudinal consequences ( Neves and Eisenberger, 2014 ). Second, with regard to the literature on workplace conflict, our research emphasizes, with other recent empirical endeavors (e.g., Oxenstierna et al., 2011 ), that scholars should take into account the influence of organizational factors while examining workplace conflict’s antecedents. This was so far a rather unexplored issue in the conflict literature, while most scholars have examined individuals’ factors that drive workplace conflict (e.g., Danielsson et al., 2015 ).

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be acknowledged while interpreting the results found in this research. First, results of our research are based on cross-sectional designs. Therefore, caution is needed regarding the direction of causality between the variables included in our studies. We cannot exclude the possibility of a reverse causality among our variables. For instance, it is possible that relationship conflict leads to lower levels of POS because experiencing frequent conflict with colleagues might convey the perception among employees that their organization cares too little about the quality of their workplace environment and thus their well-being. Therefore, future research using designs with repeated measurements is strongly needed to address this interesting question. In the same vein, while our theoretical rationale building on OST led us to propose that failure-related trust mediates the relationships between POS and workplace conflict, our design does not allow us to confer this definitive status to this variable. We cannot exclude that failure-related trust may also or rather act as a moderator of the relationships between workplace conflict and its determinants or outcomes. Such a possibility would be in line with Bradley et al. (2012) findings that psychological safety moderates the task conflict – performance relationship.

Second, our research is based exclusively on self-reported measures, which raise important concerns regarding the common method variance bias. Nevertheless, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) , we assured respondents for the anonymity and confidentiality of their honest responses. Furthermore, we conducted statistical analyses as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to assess this potential threat a posteriori. The Harman’s single-factor test was performed and results revealed a very poor fit of the one-factor model structure in both studies [i.e., χ 2 (104) = 2415.18, CFI = 0.79, NNFI = 0.76, and RMSEA = 0.29 in Study 1 and χ 2 (206) = 4925.81; CFI = 0.78; NNFI = 0.76 and RMSEA = 0.22 in Study 2]. Thanks to these precautions and statistical evidence, we are quite confident that our results were not highly affected by the common method variance problem.

Third, our reliance on two samples of Belgian workers made it hard to assess the extent to which our results would generalize to more general populations of workers. Our demonstration that the observed results generalize among workers coming from two different professional fields (i.e., teaching versus employment and training) somehow alleviate these concerns. Still, it remains important for future research to rely on samples of workers coming from various organizations and industries.

Fourth, the measure we used to assess workplace conflict did not differentiate conflicts with the supervisor or with coworkers. However, prior scholars ( Frone, 2000 ) have stressed that the consequences of workplace conflict might differ depending on the target with whom the conflict is experienced. Furthermore, the way we measured workplace conflicts does not specifically address whether conflicts occur at the team or the individual level (e.g., Lu et al., 2011 ) nor does it actually assess participants’ own personal experience of conflict. It would be interesting for future research to replicate our model using a more specific operationalization of conflict such as, for instance, relationship conflict with the direct supervisor or with coworkers, and to assess workers’ individual experience of conflict rather than their perceptions of the general conflict climate in the organization.

Finally, our results indicated that, beyond the indirect effect of POS on workplace conflict through failure-related trust, a direct relationship between POS and workplace conflict still occurs. This suggests that other mechanisms are likely at play to explain the dynamic of the relationship between POS and workplace conflict. It would be interesting for future research to look at these other mechanisms that might explain how POS relates to both types of workplace conflict. In addition, it is also possible that contextual or individual factors moderate the relationship between POS and workplace conflict. For instance, the positive consequences of POS in terms of reducing relationship conflict might be exacerbated among individuals who strongly endorse the exchange ideology norm referring to “employees’ belief that it is appropriate and useful to base their concern with the organization’s welfare and their work effort on how favorably they have been treated by the organization” ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 , pp. 42–43). Accordingly, employees who strongly endorse the exchange ideology should be more sensitive to reciprocate the high level of POS ( Eisenberger et al., 2001 ) by abiding organizational standards related to interpersonal relationships ( Colbert et al., 2004 ). Therefore, the negative association between POS and relationship conflict will be stronger for these individuals. In the same vein, we could expect that the relationship between POS and task conflict is positive rather than negative under certain circumstances. More precisely, organizational factors such as an innovative organizational culture that, by definition, is characterized by creativity and risk taking ( Taormina, 2009 ) should be a necessary context to foster task conflict. In line with this, POS might interact with a high innovative culture, so that POS would be positively related to task conflict in a receptive organizational context characterized by a high innovative culture. On the contrary, in a low innovative context as our samples seem to be characterized, POS would fail to stimulate task conflict among organizational members. Consequently, a general promising and challenging step for future research is to investigate key factors that moderate the relationship between POS and workplace conflict.

Practical Implications

This research has important implications for managers because it identifies ways to manage workplace conflict. Because relationship conflict was found to have a deleterious impact on employees’ performance ( Lu et al., 2011 ), decision quality ( Amason, 1996 ) and well-being (e.g., Sonnentag et al., 2013 ) and because the consequences of task conflict are not clear, interventions should be aimed to reduce workplace conflict. In line with this idea, the results of our research suggest that employees perceiving high levels of support from their organization will experience lower levels of relationship conflict and less task conflict.

OST ( Eisenberger et al., 1986 ; Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ) suggests two important ways to increase employees’ perceptions of organizational support. First, managers should adopt procedures and human resources practices that increase employees’ perceptions of organizational support. Prior studies (e.g., Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ) have indicated that perceptions of organizational support could be foster by providing fairness among decisional policies, maintaining open channels of communication with their employees, assuring employees that their jobs are secure, offering valuable training or developmental programs that promote employees’ personal growth, and/or eliminating continual work overloads ( Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ). Second, POS is influenced by the employee’s perception of the support received from his/her supervisor (e.g., Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ; Kurtessis et al., 2017 ). Therefore, several scholars suggested that organizations should encourage managers to be supportive to their subordinates, for instance by having regular meetings with their subordinates, resolving any conflicting job responsibilities, or providing subordinates with the materials or emotional resources they need (e.g., Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ; Newman et al., 2012 ). More recently, Gonzalez-Morales et al. (2016) developed and provided empirical evidence for the efficacy of a brief supervisor support training program including four basic strategies, i.e., benevolence, sincerity, fairness, and experiential processing.

The present research examined for the first time the influence of POS on workplace conflict. Results of two studies indicated that POS is negatively related to both relationship and task conflict and that failure-related trust partially mediates these associations. As noted above, understanding the organizational antecedents of workplace conflict is essential as it is easier to modify and act on the organizational context than on individual variables. Yet, not all organizational factors can be acted upon. Changing a job’s content or the physical work environment, for instance, might represent interesting yet practically unfeasible avenues for reducing workplace conflict. In contrast, we already know a lot about the means by which employees’ level of POS can be increased (e.g., Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002 ; Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011 ; Kurtessis et al., 2017 ). Thus, on top of increasing our understanding of the antecedents of workplace conflict, the present research offers a practical tool to prevent its emergence in organizations.

Author Contributions

GC, FS, and SD conceived and designed the experiments. GC, MDW, and AM performed the experiments and data collection. GC analyzed the data. GC, FS, and SD wrote the paper. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Psychological Sciences Research Institute for having partly funded this research.

1 Missing values of the socio-demographic variables were computed using the multiple imputation method in Lisrel.

• Amason A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad. Manag. J. 39 123–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Armeli S., Eisenberger R., Fasolo P., Lynch P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: the moderating influence of socioemotional needs. J. Appl. Psychol. 83 288–297. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.288 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baillien E., Camps J., Van den Broeck A., Stouten J., Godderis L., Sercu M., et al. (2016). An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: conflict escalation into workplace bullying and the role of distributive conflict behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 137 415–429. 10.1007/s10551-015-2563-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baran B., Rhoades L., Miller L. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. J. Bus. Psychol. 27 123–147. 10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organ. Res. Methods 8 274–289. 10.1177/1094428105278021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker T. E., Atinc G., Breaugh J. A., Carlson K. D., Edwards J. R., Spector P. E. (2015). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. J. Organ. Behav. 37 157–167. 10.1002/job.2053 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler P. M., Bonett D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88 588–606. 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: John Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradley B. H., Postlethwaite B. E., Klotz A. C., Hamdani M. R., Brown K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: the critical role of team psychological safety climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 97 151–158. 10.1037/a0024200 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradley J., Cartwright S. (2002). Social support, job stress, health, and job satisfaction among nurses in the United Kingdom. Int. J. Stress Manag. 9 163–182. 10.1023/A:1015567731248 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caesens G., Marique G., Hanin D., Stinglhamber F. (2016). The relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25 398–411. 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1092960 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caesens G., Stinglhamber F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: the role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 64 259–267. 10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caesens G., Stinglhamber F., Demoulin S., De Wilde M. (2017). The relationship between perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: the mediating role of organizational dehumanization. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 26 527–540. 10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell L., Graziano W. G. (2002). Beyond the school yard: relationships as moderators of daily interpersonal conflict. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 923–935. 10.1177/01461672002610003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Z., Eisenberger R., Johnson K. M., Sucharski L. L., Aselage J. (2009). Perceived organizational support and extra-role performance: which leads to which? J. Soc. Psychol. 149 119–124. 10.3200/SOCP.149.1.119-124 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colbert A. E., Mount M. K., Harter J. K., Witt L. A., Barrick M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 599–609. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danielsson C. B., Bodin L., Wulff C., Theorell T. (2015). The relation between office type and workplace conflict: a gender and noise perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 42 161–171. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Dreu C. K. W., Gelfand M. J. (2007). “Conflict in the workplace: sources, dynamics, and functions across multiple levels of analysis”,” in The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organization , eds De Dreu C. K. W., Gelfand M. J. (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate; ), 3–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Dreu C. K. W., van Dierendonck D., Dijkstra M. T. M. (2004). Conflict at work and individual well-being. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 15 6–26. 10.1108/eb022905 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Dreu C. K. W., Weingart L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 741–749. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Raeve L., Jansen N. W. H., van den Brandt P. A., Vasse R. M., Kant I. J. (2008). Risk factors for interpersonal conflicts at work. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 34 96–106. 10.5271/sjweh.1223 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Wit F. R. C., Greer L. L., Jehn K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 97 360–390. 10.1037/a0024844 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeChurch L. A., Mesmer-Magnus J. R., Doty D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: toward a process-state perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 559–578. 10.1037/a0032896 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deutsch M. (2013). Conflict resolution: theory and practice. Polit. Psychol. 4 431–453. 10.2307/3790868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eder P., Eisenberger R. (2008). Perceived organizational support: reducing the negative influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. J. Manag. 34 55–68. 10.1177/0149206307309259 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44 350–383. 10.1186/1748-5908-7-77 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Armeli S., Rexwinkel B., Lynch P. D., Rhoades L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 42–51. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Cummings J., Armeli S., Lynch P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 812–820. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Huntington R., Hutchison S., Sowa D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71 500–507. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger R., Stinglhamber F. (2011). Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering enthusiastic and Productive Employees. Washington, DC: APA Books; 10.1037/12318-000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ent M. R., Baumeister R. F., Tice D. M. (2015). Trait self-control and the avoidance of temptation. Pers. Individ. Dif. 74 12–15. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman R. A., Tidd S. T., Currall S. C., Tsai J. C. (2000). What goes around comes around: the impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 11 32–55. 10.1108/eb022834 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frone M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: testing a model among young workers. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5 246–255. 10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.246 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez-Morales M. G., Kernan M. C., Becker T. E., Eisenberger R. (2016). Defeating abusive supervision: training supervisors to support subordinates. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2016 151–162. 10.1037/ocp0000061 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gouldner A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25 161–178. 10.2307/2092623 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greer L. L., Jehn K. A., Thatcher S. M. B., Mannix E. A. (2007). The Effect of Trust on Conflict and Performance in Groups Split by Demographic Faultlines IACM Meetings Paper. Available at: 10.2139/ssrn.1100580 10.2139/ssrn.1100580 [ CrossRef ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halevy N., Cohen T. R., Chou E. Y., Katz J. J., Panter A. T. (2014). Mental models at work: cognitive causes and consequences of conflict in organizations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40 92–110. 10.1177/0146167213506468 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinds P. J., Mortensen M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organ. Sci. 16 290–307. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismail K. M., Richard O. C., Taylor E. C. (2012). Relationship conflict in supervisor-subordinate dyads: a subordinate perspective. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 23 192–218. 10.1108/10444061211218302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 5 223–238. 10.1108/eb022744 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm. Sci. Q. 40 256–282. 10.2307/2393638 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A. (2014). “Types of conflict: the history and future of conflict definitions and typologies,” in Handbook of Conflict Management Research; Handbook of Conflict Management Research , eds Ayoko O. B., Ashkanasy N. M., Jehn K. A. (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A., Bendersky C. (2003). Intragroup Conflict in Organizations: A Contingency Perspective on the Conflict-Outcome Relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews , Vol. 25 Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A., Mannix E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44 238–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jetten J., Hornsey M. J., Adarves-Yorno I. (2006). When group members admit to being conformist: the role of relative intragroup status in conformity self-reports. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32 162–173. 10.1177/0146167205279904 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jimmieson N. L., Tucker M. K., Campbell J. L. (2017). Task conflict leads to relationship conflict when employees are low in trait self-control: implications for employee strain. Pers. Individ. Dif. 113 209–218. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.035 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jöreskog K. G., Sörbom D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang B., Twigg N. W., Hertzman J. (2010). An examination of social support and social identity factors and their relationship to certified chefs’ burnout. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 29 168–176. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.08.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerwin S., Doherty A., Harman A. (2011). It’s Not Conflict, It’s Differences of Opinion” an in-depth examination of conflict in nonprofit boards. Small Group Res. 42 562–594. 10.1177/1046496411398395 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurtessis J., Eisenberger R., Buffardi L. C., Stewart K. A., Adis C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J. Manag. 43 1854–1884. 10.1037/a0022676 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loughry M., Amason A. (2014). Why won’t task conflict cooperate? Deciphering stubborn results. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 25 333–358. 10.1108/IJCMA-01-2014-0005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu L., Zhou F., Leung K. (2011). Effects of task and relationship conflicts on individual work behaviors. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 22 131–150. 10.1108/10444061111126675 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martins L. L., Schilpzand M. C., Kirkman B. L., Ivanaj S., Ivanaj V. (2013). A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: the moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Res. 44 96–126. 10.1177/1046496412466921 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Medina F. J., Munduate L., Dorado M. A., Martínez I., Guerra J. M. (2005). Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. J. Manag. Psychol. 20 219–230. 10.1108/02683940510589019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meier L. L., Gross S., Spector P. E., Semmer N. K. (2013). Task and relationship conflict at work: interactive short-term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18 144–156. 10.1037/a0032090 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neves P., Eisenberger R. (2014). Risk taking in organizations: the contribution of perceived organizational support. J. Manag. Psychol. 29 187–205. 10.1108/JMP-07-2011-0021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman A., Thanacoody R., Hui W. (2012). The impact of employee perceptions of training on organizational commitment and turnover: a case of multinationals in the Chinese service sector. Pers. Rev. 41 56–72. 10.1108/00483481211189947 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Neill T. A., Allen N. J., Hastings S. E. (2013). Examining the “Pros” and “Cons” of team conflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Hum. Perform. 26 236–260. 10.1080/08959285.2013.795573 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oxenstierna G., Magnusson Hanson L., Widmark M., Finnholm K., Stenfors C., Elofsson S., et al. (2011). Conflicts at work- the relationship with workplace factors, work characteristics and self-rated health. Ind. Health 49 501–510. 10.2486/indhealth.MS1171 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinkley R. L. (1991). Dimensions of conflict frame: disputant interpretations of conflict. J. Appl. Psychol. 75 117–126. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades L., Eisenberger R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 698–714. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 158–168. 10.1037/a0030687 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons T. L., Peterson R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 102–111. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sluss D. M., Klimchak M., Holmes J. J. (2008). Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification. J. Vocat. Behav. 73 457–464. 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnentag S., Unger D., Nägel I. J. (2013). Workplace conflict and employee well-being: the moderating role of detachment from work during off-job time. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 24 166–183. 10.1108/10444061311316780 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 extra-role behaviors. Career Dev. Int. 17 188–207. 10.1108/13620431211241054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taormina R. J. (2009). Organizational socialization: the missing link between employee needs organizational culture. J. Manag. Psychol. 24 650–676. 10.1108/02683940910989039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyler T. R., Blader S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7 349–361. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Woerkom M., Van Engen M. L. (2009). Learning from conflicts? The relations between task and relationship conflicts, team learning and team performance. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 18 381–404. 10.1080/13594320802569514 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilkens R., London M. (2006). Relationships between climate, process, and performance in continuous quality improvement groups. J. Vocat. Behav. 69 510–523. 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.05.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 7, 2020, review article, perceived organizational support: why caring about employees counts.

• Robert Eisenberger 1,2 , Linda Rhoades Shanock 3 , and Xueqi Wen 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA; email: [email protected] , X [email protected] 2 Department of Management, C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA 3 Department of Psychological Science, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina 28223, USA; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 7:101-124 (Volume publication date January 2020) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044917
• First published as a Review in Advance on September 10, 2019
• Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

According to organizational support theory (OST), employees develop a general perception concerning the extent to which their work organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being (perceived organizational support, or POS). We explain OST and review empirical POS findings relevant to OST's main propositions, including new findings that suggest changes to OST. Major antecedents of POS include fairness, support from leaders, and human resource practices and work conditions, especially to the extent that employees perceive these as the discretionary choices of organizations. Among more recent findings, the average level of POS has modestly increased over the past three decades in the United States. Furthermore, POS appears to have stronger positive outcomes in Eastern cultures than Western cultures. Some additional promising recent areas of research on POS include trickle-down effects, POS of groups, and POS as relevant to creativity and innovation, positive emotional outcomes, and well-being.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Amabile TM. 1988 . A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 10 : 123– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Amabile TM. 1996 . Creativity in Context Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
• Armeli S , Eisenberger R , Fasolo P , Lynch P 1998 . Perceived organizational support and police performance: the moderating influence of socioemotional needs. J. Appl. Psychol. 83 : 288– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Ashforth BE , Humphrey RH 1993 . Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of identity. Acad. Manag. Rev 18 : 88– 115 [Google Scholar]
• Bakker AB , Schaufeli WB , Leiter MP , Taris TW 2008 . Work engagement: an emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work Stress 22 : 187– 200 [Google Scholar]
• Baran B , Shanock LR , Miller L 2012 . Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. J. Bus. Psychol. 27 : 123– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Barnette JJ. 2000 . Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60 : 361– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Bedeian AG. 2007 . Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn't “white:” understanding the consequences of faculty cynicism. Acad. Manag. Learn. Edu. 6 : 9– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Bell SJ , Menguc B. 2002 . The employee-organization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. J. Retailing. 78 : 131– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Berson Y , Oreg S , Dvir T 2008 . CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. J. Organ. Behav. 29 : 615– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Bowen DE , Schneider B. 1995 . Winning the Service Game Boston, MA: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press [Google Scholar]
• Byrne ZS , Hochwarter WA. 2008 . Perceived organizational support and performance: relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. J. Manag. Psychol. 23 : 54– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Caesens G , Marique G , Hanin D , Stinglhamber F 2016 . The relationship between perceived organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25 : 398– 411 [Google Scholar]
• Caesens G , Stinglhamber F , Demoulin S , De Wilde M 2017 . Perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: the mediating role of organizational dehumanization. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 26 : 527– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Casper W , Martin J , Buffardi L , Erdwins C 2002 . Work-family conflict, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7 : 99– 108 [Google Scholar]
• Chen Z , Eisenberger R , Johnson KM , Sucharski IL , Aselage J 2009 . Perceived organizational support and extra-role performance: Which leads to which?. J. Soc. Psychol. 149 : 119– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Chen ZX , Aryee S , Lee C 2005 . Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support. J. Vocat. Behav. 66 : 457– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Chiaburu DS , Chakrabarty S , Wang J , Li N 2015 . Organizational support and citizenship behaviors: a comparative cross-cultural meta-analysis. Manag. Int. Rev. 55 : 707– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Chiaburu DS , Peng AC , Oh IS , Banks GC , Lomeli LC 2013 . Antecedents and consequences of employee organizational cynicism: a meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 83 : 181– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Clarke M , Patrickson M. 2008 . The new covenant of employability. Employee Relat 30 : 121– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Colquitt JA. 2001 . On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 : 386– 400 [Google Scholar]
• Connelly CE , Gallagher DG , Gilley KM 2007 . Organizational and client commitment among contracted employees: a replication and extension with temporary workers. J. Vocat. Behav. 70 : 326– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Coyle-Shapiro JA , Morrow PC. 2006 . Organizational and client commitment among contracted employees. J. Vocat. Behav. 68 : 416– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Coyle‐Shapiro JA , Morrow PC , Kessler I 2006 . Serving two organizations: exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees. Hum. Resour. Manag. 45 : 561– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Cropanzano R , Mitchell MS. 2005 . Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 31 : 874– 900 [Google Scholar]
• DeJoy DM , Schaffer BS , Wilson MG , Vandenberg RJ , Butts MM 2004 . Creating safer workplaces: assessing the determinants and role of safety climate. J. Saf. Res. 35 : 81– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Dewett T. 2006 . Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. J. Creative Behav. 40 : 27– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Armeli S , Rexwinkel B , Lynch PD , Rhoades L 2001 . Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 : 42– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Cummings J , Armeli S , Lynch P 1997 . Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 : 812– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Fasolo P , Davis-LaMastro V 1990 . Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. J. Appl. Psychol. 75 : 51– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Huntington R , Hutchison S , Sowa D 1986 . Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 71 : 500– 7 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Karagonlar G , Stinglhamber F , Neves P , Becker TE et al. 2010 . Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 : 1085– 103 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Rhoades L , Cameron J 1999 . Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 : 1026– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Rockstuhl T , Shoss MK , Wen X , Dulebohn J 2019 . Is the employee-organization relationship dying or thriving. ? J. Appl. Psychol. 104 : 1036– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Stinglhamber F. 2011 . Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic and Productive Employees Washington, DC: APA [Google Scholar]
• Eisenberger R , Zheng D , Yu J , Zhang J , Joo M-K et al. 2018 . Employee reciprocation of favorable treatment: the missing role of gratitud e Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Chicago: [Google Scholar]
• Erdogan B , Enders J. 2007 . Support from the top: supervisors' perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 321– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Farber HS. 2005 . Short(er) shrift: the decline in worker-firm attachment in the United States. Laid Off, Laid Low: Political and Economic Consequences of Employment Insecurity K Newman 10– 37 New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Ford MT , Wang Y , Jin J , Eisenberger R 2018 . Chronic and episodic anger and gratitude toward the organization: relationships with organizational and supervisor supportiveness and extrarole behavior. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23 : 175– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Frear KA , Donsbach J , Theilgard N , Shanock LR 2018 . Supported supervisors are more supportive, but why? A multilevel study of mechanisms and outcomes. J. Bus. Psychol. 33 : 55– 69 [Google Scholar]
• George JM , Reed TF , Ballard KA , Colin J , Fielding J 1993 . Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: effects of organizational and social support. Acad. Manag. J. 36 : 157– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Gonzalez-Morales MG , Kernan MC , Becker TE , Eisenberger R 2018 . Defeating abusive supervision: training supervisors to support subordinates. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23 : 151– 62 [Google Scholar]
• González‐Romá V , Fortes‐Ferreira L , Peiro JM 2009 . Team climate, climate strength and team performance. A longitudinal study. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82 : 511– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Gouldner AW. 1960 . The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25 : 161– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Grandey AA. 2003 . When “the show must go on”: surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Acad. Manag. J. 46 : 86– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Hofmann DA , Morgeson FP. 1999 . Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 : 286– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Ilies R , Dimotakis N , De Pater IE 2010 . Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: implications for well-being. Pers. Psychol. 63 : 407– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Janssen O. 2004 . How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. J. Organ. Behav. 25 : 201– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Jawahar I , Stone T , Kisamore J 2007 . Role conflict and burnout: the direct and moderating effects of political skill and perceived organizational support on burnout dimensions. Int. J. Stress Manag. 14 : 142– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Karriker JH , Williams ML. 2009 . Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: a mediated multifoci model. J. Manag. 35 : 112– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Khazanchi S , Masterson SS. 2011 . Who and what is fair matters: a multi‐foci social exchange model of creativity. J. Organ. Behav. 32 : 86– 106 [Google Scholar]
• Kinnunen U , Feldt T , Mäkikangas A 2008 . Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish managers: the role of perceived organizational support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 13 : 114– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Kumar Mishra S. 2014 . Linking perceived organizational support to emotional labor. Pers. Rev. 43 : 845– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Kurtessis JN , Eisenberger R , Ford MT , Buffardi LC , Stewart KA , Adis CS 2017 . Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J. Manag. 43 : 1854– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Lambert SJ. 2000 . Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 43 : 801– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Lawler EJ. 2001 . An affect theory of social exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 107 : 321– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Lawler EJ , Thye SR. 1999 . Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25 : 217– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Levinson H. 1965 . Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization. Adm. Sci. Q. 9 : 370– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Liden RC , Wayne SJ , Kraimer ML , Sparrowe RT 2003 . The dual commitments of contingent workers: an examination of contingents' commitment to the agency and the organization. J. Organ. Behav. 24 : 609– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Magni M , Pennarola F. 2008 . Intra-organizational relationships and technology acceptance. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 28 : 517– 23 [Google Scholar]
• 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 Organ. Manag. 38 : 68– 100 [Google Scholar]
• Masterson SS. 2001 . A trickle-down model of organizational justice: relating employees' and customers' perceptions of and reactions to fairness. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 : 594– 604 [Google Scholar]
• Matos K , Galinsky E , Bond JT 2017 . 2016 National Study of Employers Alexandria, VA: Soc. Hum. Resour. Manag https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/National%20Study%20of%20Employers.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Meyer JP , Allen NJ. 1991 . A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1 : 61– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Meyer JP , Allen NJ , Smith CA 1993 . Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J. Appl. Psychol. 78 : 538– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Meyer JP , Becker TE , Van Dick R 2006 . Social identities and commitments at work: toward an integrative model. J. Organ. Behav. 27 : 665– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Meyer JP , Morin AJ , Vandenberghe C 2015 . Dual commitment to organization and supervisor: a person-centered approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 88 : 56– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Meyer JP , Stanley DJ , Herscovitch L , Topolnytsky L 2002 . Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 61 : 20– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Mischel L , Gould E , Bivens J 2015 . Wage stagnation in nine charts. Economic Policy Institute Jan. 6. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ [Google Scholar]
• Mitchell JI , Gagné M , Beaudry A , Dyer L 2012 . The role of perceived organizational support, distributive justice and motivation in reactions to new information technology. Comput. Human. Behav. 28 : 729– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Morris JA , Feldman DC. 1996 . The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21 : 986– 1010 [Google Scholar]
• Neves P , Eisenberger R. 2014 . Perceived organizational support and risk taking. J. Manag. Psychol. 29 : 187– 205 [Google Scholar]
• O'Neill OA , Vandenberg RJ , DeJoy DM , Wilson M 2009 . Exploring relationships among anger, perceived organizational support, and workplace outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14 : 318– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2018 . Part-Time Employment Rate (Indicator) Paris: OECD [Google Scholar]
• Panaccio A , Vandenberghe C. 2009 . Perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 75 : 224– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Rhoades L , Eisenberger R. 2002 . Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 : 698– 714 [Google Scholar]
• Rhoades L , Eisenberger R , Armeli S 2001 . Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 : 825– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Robbins SP , Judge T. 2018 . Essentials of Organizational Behavior Harlow, UK: Pearson Educ. [Google Scholar]
• Rockstuhl T , Ang S , Shore L , Mesdashinia S 2015 . POS and culture: a meta-analysis of correlates across 43 countries Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver [Google Scholar]
• Saks AM. 2006 . Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 21 : 600– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Shanock LR , Eisenberger R. 2006 . When supervisors feel supported: relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 : 689– 95 [Google Scholar]
• Shore LM , Shore TH. 1995 . Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace RS Cropanzano, KM Kacmar 149– 64 Westport, CT: Quorum [Google Scholar]
• Shore LM , Wayne SJ. 1993 . Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 78 : 774– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Shoss MK , Eisenberger R , Restubog SD , Zagenczyk TJ 2013 . Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: the roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 : 158– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Singelis TM , Triandis HC , Bhawuk DPS , Gelfand MJ 1995 . Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross Cult. Res. 29 : 240– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Sluss DM , Klimchak M , Holmes JJ 2008 . Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification. J. Vocat. Behav. 73 : 457– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Smith TW , Davern M , Freese J , Hout M 2018 . General Social Surveys, 1972 – 2016 Chicago: NORC, Univ. Chicago http://gss.norc.org/get-the-data/spss [Google Scholar]
• Sonnentag S , Frese M. 2003 . Stress in organizations. Handbook of Psychology , Vol. 12: Industrial and Organizational Psychology WC Borman, DR Ilgen, RJ Klimoski 453– 91 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley [Google Scholar]
• Sonnentag S , Fritz C. 2015 . Recovery from job stress: the stressor‐detachment model as an integrative framework. J. Organ. Behav. 36 : 72– 103 [Google Scholar]
• Stamper C , Johlke M. 2003 . The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes. J. Manag. 29 : 569– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Stinglhamber F , Marique G , Caesens G , Hanin D , De Zanet F 2015 . The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment: the role of perceived organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Career Dev. Int. 20 : 583– 603 [Google Scholar]
• Susskind AM , Kacmar KM , Borchgrevink CP 2003 . Customer service providers' attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 : 179– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Tangirala S , Green SG , Ramanujam R 2007 . In the shadow of the boss's boss: effects of supervisors' upward exchange relationships on employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 309– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Tepper BJ , Taylor EC. 2003 . Relationships among supervisors' and subordinates' procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Acad. Manag. J. 46 : 97– 105 [Google Scholar]
• Triandis HC. 1995 . Individualism and Collectivism Boulder, CO: Westview Press [Google Scholar]
• Venkatesh V , Brown SA , Maruping LM , Bala H 2008 . Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: the competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Q 32 : 483– 502 [Google Scholar]
• Wallace JC , Edwards BD , Arnold T , Frazier ML , Finch DM 2009 . Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 : 254– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Wallace JC , Popp E , Mondore S 2006 . Safety climate as a mediator between foundation climates and occupational accidents: a group-level investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 : 681– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Wang H , Tsui AS , Xin KR 2011 . CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees' attitudes. Leadersh. Q. 22 : 92– 105 [Google Scholar]
• Wayne SJ , Shore LM , Liden RC 1997 . Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 40 : 82– 111 [Google Scholar]
• Weathington BL , Tetrick LE 2000 . Compensation or right: an analysis of employee “fringe” benefit perception. Employ. Responsib. Rights J. 12 : 141– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Weiner B. 1985 . An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychol. Rev. 92 : 548– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Whitener EM. 2001 . Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. J. Manag. 27 : 515– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Yu C , Frenkel SJ. 2013 . Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived organizational support theory: Which mechanisms are more important?. J. Organ. Behav. 34 : 1165– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Zhang L , Bu Q , Wee S 2016 . Effect of perceived organizational support on employee creativity: moderating role of job stressors. Int. J. Stress Manag. 23 : 400– 17 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences, self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science, burnout and work engagement: the jd–r approach, psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct, employee voice and silence, psychological capital: an evidence-based positive approach, how technology is changing work and organizations, research on workplace creativity: a review and redirection, abusive supervision, alternative work arrangements: two images of the new world of work.

• Business Administration
• Organizational Studies
• Organizations

Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature

• September 2002
• Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4):698-714
• 87(4):698-714
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• ANDRO MA-APNI

• Palliat Support Care

• Krizia Curatolo

• J BUS PSYCHOL
• Jean Phillips

• Caroline Moraes
• Himmatul Islamiyati
• Alimatus Sahrah

• Abhineet Saxena

• Roosganda Elizabeth

• Geraldy Samuel Ivan

• Rafique  Syed
• Shoeb Ahmed
• محمد الخصاونه
• عصام المخادمه
• اروى العقيلي
• سامر عبابنه

• Kevser Güleç

• George Boy Joshua
• Eglay Tsuma
• Robert Egessa
• Robert Onyango
• Chaira Mailiza
• Hamdi Harmen
• Iskandarsyah
• J BUS ETHICS

• Winnie Jiang

• Andri Pongoh
• Andreas Wahyu Gunawan

• Lin Shangze
• BMC HEALTH SERV RES

• Israel Asale

• Natalya Sergeeva

• Chathura Deweniguruge

• Fikret Bayat
• İlhami Yucel
• Vishnu Priya

• Patrícia Leitão

• Khunsa Hayat
• Kamran Yaqub

• Neneng Nurhayati
• Soebowo Musa

• Eri Marlapa

• Mochamad Soelton
• Rizki Allananda Wiedyawati
• Muhammad Zakiy

• Zeynep Polat
• Rezha Widias Pratama

• J Comm Manag
• Yufan Sunny Qin

• Todd E. Bodner
• Amy B. Adler

• Justin Leiby
• Tammie J. Schaefer

• Robert R. McCrae

• Jerald Greenberg
• J APPL SOC PSYCHOL

• Nae-Chang Han
• Young-Joon Seo

• John E. Hunter

• Inez Dekker

• Robert Hogan

• Robert Eisenberger
• Hilda Speicher
• Joan Marvel
• Robert Rosenthal
• Mary A. Konovsky
• Patrick D. Lynch

• J ORGAN BEHAV

• J Educ Stat

• Ingram Olkin

• Dennis M. Zajac
• B.J. Becker

• K. E. Theriault
• Marilyn Wolfson
• W. J. Dupree
• R. G. Hallowell
• Alvin Ward GOULDNER
• Harry Levinson

• Richard T. Mowday
• Lyman W. Porter

• Jeffrey Fisher

• EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS
• Steven Hutchison
• Karen N. Gaertner

• Rosie Dickson

• Donna M. Randall
• Mike P. Odriscoll
• Leonard Geller
• Marjorie Armstrong-Stassen

• Joseph A. Alutto
• Peter M Blau
• Gordon L. Flett

• C. Jayne Hallett
• Kathleen E. Valentino

• PERS PSYCHOL

• Richard Stanley Lazarus
• Susan Folkman
• J AM STAT ASSOC
• Jacob Cohen
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark 19716, USA.
• PMID: 12184574
• DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698

The authors reviewed more than 70 studies concerning employees' general belief that their work organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being (perceived organizational support; POS). A meta-analysis indicated that 3 major categories of beneficial treatment received by employees (i.e., fairness, supervisor support, and organizational rewards and favorable job conditions) were associated with POS. POS, in turn, was related to outcomes favorable to employees (e.g., job satisfaction, positive mood) and the organization (e.g., affective commitment, performance, and lessened withdrawal behavior). These relationships depended on processes assumed by organizational support theory: employees' belief that the organization's actions were discretionary, feeling of obligation to aid the organization, fulfillment of socioemotional needs, and performance-reward expectancies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Eisenberger R, Armeli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch PD, Rhoades L. Eisenberger R, et al. J Appl Psychol. 2001 Feb;86(1):42-51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42. J Appl Psychol. 2001. PMID: 11302232
• Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R, Armeli S. Rhoades L, et al. J Appl Psychol. 2001 Oct;86(5):825-36. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825. J Appl Psychol. 2001. PMID: 11596800
• Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Shore LM, Wayne SJ. Shore LM, et al. J Appl Psychol. 1993 Oct;78(5):774-80. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.774. J Appl Psychol. 1993. PMID: 8253631
• On the Elusive Moderators of Affective Organizational Commitment. Vandenberghe C. Vandenberghe C. Span J Psychol. 2021 Sep 10;24:e44. doi: 10.1017/SJP.2021.41. Span J Psychol. 2021. PMID: 35923145 Review.
• Prism of Employee Performance Through the Means of Internal Support: A Study of Perceived Organizational Support. Li M, Jameel A, Ma Z, Sun H, Hussain A, Mubeen S. Li M, et al. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022 Apr 20;15:965-976. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S346697. eCollection 2022. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022. PMID: 35480712 Free PMC article. Review.
• Turnover intention and its associated factors among nurses in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Elfios E, Asale I, Merkine M, Geta T, Ashager K, Nigussie G, Agena A, Atinafu B, Israel E, Tesfaye T. Elfios E, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 May 24;24(1):662. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11122-9. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024. PMID: 38790052 Free PMC article.
• Fostering voice behavior in correctional institutions: Investigating the role of organizational support and proactive personality. Adikoeswanto D, Nurjanah S, Mukhtar S, Eliyana A, Pratama AS, Anggraini RD, Mohd Kamil NL. Adikoeswanto D, et al. PLoS One. 2024 May 17;19(5):e0303768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303768. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38758761 Free PMC article.
• The Effect of Servant Leadership on Work Engagement: The Role of Employee Resilience and Organizational Support. Cai M, Wang M, Cheng J. Cai M, et al. Behav Sci (Basel). 2024 Apr 5;14(4):300. doi: 10.3390/bs14040300. Behav Sci (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38667096 Free PMC article.
• Does Social and Organizational Support Moderate Emotional Intelligence Training Effectiveness? Opatha IM, Takahashi Y. Opatha IM, et al. Behav Sci (Basel). 2024 Mar 26;14(4):276. doi: 10.3390/bs14040276. Behav Sci (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38667072 Free PMC article.
• Social Support and Resilience Are Protective Factors against COVID-19 Pandemic Burnout and Job Burnout among Nurses in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Moisoglou I, Katsiroumpa A, Malliarou M, Papathanasiou IV, Gallos P, Galanis P. Moisoglou I, et al. Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Mar 24;12(7):710. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12070710. Healthcare (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38610133 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• American Psychological Association
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Open access
• Published: 25 June 2020

Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological empowerment

• Annum Tariq Maan 1 ,
• Ghulam Abid 1 ,
• Tahira Hassan Butt 1 ,
• Fouzia Ashfaq 2 &
• Saira Ahmed 3  

Future Business Journal volume  6 , Article number:  21 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

48k Accesses

87 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

Drawing on social exchange theory, the purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of proactive personality in the relationship between POS and job satisfaction. The data were collected from 936 employees working in various manufacturing and service sectors by using self-report survey questionnaires by employing time-lagged cross-sectional study design. The study findings demonstrate that POS positively influenced psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. Moreover, it is also revealed that the relationship between POS and job satisfaction is weaker when employees’ proactive personality is higher rather than lower. The findings of the current study pose a framework for organizational representatives of both service and manufacturing industries to strengthen individual psychological empowerment and job satisfaction by offering organizational support to those individuals who are less proactive.

Introduction

A long-lasting employment bond comprises positive social exchange approaches in employee–employer relationship whereupon the needs of both parties are addressed [ 40 ]. In the exchange relationship, the employer is worried about the employees’ devotion, engagement and trustworthiness toward them, while employees are conscious about whether their employer is keeping their promises by caring their well-being [ 48 , 61 ]. The theory of organizational support and construct of perceived organizational support (POS) was developed by Eisenberger and his research fellows in [ 26 , 27 ] using social exchange theory [ 15 , 37 , 40 ]. POS is defined as the perception of employees about the degree to which their contributions at organizations are valued, which implies that their associated well-being is given full consideration [ 5 , 26 , 61 ]. The organizational support theory states that individuals form POS, a universal faith that their employer has an advantageous or a disadvantageous inclination toward them [ 40 , 61 ]. Literature also confirms that individuals’ POS helps boost their obligations toward organization in order to reciprocate favorably. Furthermore, they also want to satisfy their socioemotional needs and incorporate organizational affiliation into their social identity [ 21 , 29 ]. In addition, extant literature has shown that individuals’ POS enhances both in-role performance such as goal attainment and extra-role performance such as helping and supportive behavior toward coworkers [ 29 ].

By utilizing social exchange theory as its grounding, researchers have begun to study POS in interpersonal connections with organizations and recognized it as a vital ingredient in subordinate–manager relations [ 65 ]. Meta-analysis conducted by Rhoades and Eisenberger [ 61 ] revealed the favorable treatments such as rewards from the organization, beneficial working conditions and fairness received by employees are directly linked to POS. Moreover, POS promotes auspicious outcomes such as high job satisfaction, lower turnover, enhanced dedication, positive emotions and better performance [ 77 ]. Multi-foci methods to social exchange have highlighted the significance of many sources of support, according to which individuals develop distinct give-and-take relationships with different organizational objectives [ 51 ]. The positive association of POS with job satisfaction, performance, organizational commitment and turnover intention has gained attention in number of employee–organization-related studies [ 30 , 74 ]. Similarly, the outcomes that are relevant to organizational support are job satisfaction, innovative work behavior, learning goal orientation, core self-evaluations and organizational commitment [ 1 , 59 , 71 , 74 , 78 ]. Furthermore, the literature reveals that organizations achieve favorable outcomes if workers feel superior treatment within the organization [ 74 ].

Based upon the theoretical perspective of social exchange theory, the current study proposes that psychological empowerment influences the behavior of employees by facilitating them in preserving high-quality relationships. We suggest that psychological empowerment works as the intervening variable that links the POS with the job satisfaction. Psychological empowerment is defined as the perception of employees regarding the degree of their competence, influence and autonomy toward work environment and meaningfulness of their job [ 62 ]. It is the procedure by which employees achieve mastery and control in their lives, and develop a sense of critical understanding toward dealing their situation [ 12 , 55 ]. Researchers Chang and Liu [ 17 ], Savery and Luks [ 63 ], Laschinger and Finegan [ 50 ] contended that empowered employees at the workplace have increased personal, political and interpersonal powers that enhance their physical and mental health. Thus, another purpose of the current study is to investigate the linkage between perceived organizational support and job satisfaction via the mediating role of employees’ psychological empowerment. However, the understanding of the work context that enables empowerment has significant practical and theoretical implications [ 16 ], but we do not know how and why this is the case. This research also examined whether and how proactive individuals might be a boundary condition for the impact of POS on psychological empowerment. In addition, it explored how the overall mediation process differs under various proactive personality levels.

Proactive personality refers to the tendency of individuals to take initiatives for establishing a positive environment [ 10 , 22 , 70 ]. Usually, people with a proactive personality are able to create positive change in the workplace environment irrespective of the hurdles and constraints faced by them [ 62 ]. Proactive personality research shows that proactive behavior influences meaningful changes in the workplace setting [ 10 , 44 ]. Researchers contend that proactive individuals are most probably ready for employment-related changes, given their predisposition to identify and respond to the job opportunities and make such changes that match with their interests at job [ 44 , 68 ]. In support of this reason, experiments have shown that proactive individuals can effect vocational adaptability through situations and samples [ 38 , 44 , 53 , 68 , 69 ]. However, there is vague understanding of the underlying mechanisms concerning how these effects arise. Examining these mechanisms probably offers counselors and psychologists with substitutes for intervention in the future [ 44 ]. For example, from these types of mechanisms, these experts probably gain comparatively advanced understandings concerning whether and how proactive employees feel psychologically empowered.

Psychological empowerment represents an employee’s active and lively orientation to their respective role assigned at workplace, whereby empowered employees see their work environment as somewhat which can be shaped by their actions [ 66 ], which arouses their creative behavior [ 41 , 79 ], whereby it serves as a mediator that transmits the impact of proactive individuals to job satisfaction. Thus, this study aims at exploring how contextual characteristics such as POS can be associated with job satisfaction in general. Secondly, psychological empowerment is considered as an important mediating mechanism between perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. Furthermore, proactive personality moderates the relationship between perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment.

Research in organizational behavior draws our attention on a narrow range of job-related attitudes, and POS is one of them. In establishing the proposed associations in the model, the current research represented an attempt to contribute toward literature in number of different manners. The theoretical underpinning of POS is organizational support theory [ 29 , 48 ], which is also based upon social exchange relationship and attribution methods [ 15 , 73 ]. Organizational support scholars argued that employees tend to monitor their situations and make attributions for generous behaviors of organizations [ 26 ]. It is given that individuals tend to personify their respective organizations and consider positive and negative treatments which they receive from organizational heads as their perception of being favored or disfavored by organizations as well [ 65 ]. Research in the field organizations contended that there is a reciprocal relationship between individuals and organizations. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the organizational support given to the individuals besides focusing on just employee side of this relationship [ 20 ].

The tenets, attitudes and aspirations of each employee vary; therefore, motivational elements may be different too. POS can improve individuals’ trust and beliefs that the organization identifies their performance and reward them accordingly [ 61 , 72 ]. As a consequence, individuals will reciprocate [ 9 ] the organizational support received by them in several ways and possibly will experience more satisfaction with their job. Therefore, the underlying purpose of the current study is to study the influence of perceived organizational support on job satisfaction.

Secondly, it examines whether psychological empowerment is well incorporated in POS and job satisfaction linkage. Psychological empowerment enables employees to participate in decision making and help in sorting out organizational problems by providing them independence and control [ 34 ]. For many years, scholars have examined behavioral consequences of psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment fosters high-quality relationship by motivating an individual’s behavior.

Thirdly, this study corroborates the impact of proactive personality and proposes that it weakens the relationship between POS and psychological empowerment. Proactive personality demonstrates the willingness and the tendency of an employee to go above and beyond their job requirements to exhibit extra-role performance [ 75 ]. Henceforth, this research is important to explore and gain insights on the relationship between POS and job satisfaction via the mediating role of psychological empowerment in Asian context. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the influence of proactive personality as a moderator has not been examined on the relationship between POS and psychological empowerment (Fig.  1 ).

Theoretical model

Literature review

Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction.

Armstrong-Stassen [ 7 ] explained that individuals’ behavior is influenced by their opinion about fundamental processes that constitute their organization and POS is among them. Few scholars have revealed a strong linkage between POS and job satisfaction [ 23 , 30 , 33 ]. In a longitudinal study conducted by Armstrong-Stassen [ 7 ], it was observed that managers who enjoy high levels of POS reported elevated levels of job satisfaction as compared to managers who supposed to enjoy lower organizational support. The potential description of this outcome is that POS can enrich individuals’ trust and beliefs that their employer identifies and recompense their struggles to accomplish superior performance [ 61 ]. Research suggests that POS starts a social exchange process where individuals feel liable to support the organization in accomplishing its goals which leads to greater rewards. When an employee associates positively with their job and organization, this strengthens the association between them and within the realms of social exchange theory [ 14 ]. As a result, individuals reciprocate organizational support through numerous ways and are more satisfied with their jobs. It is given that employees with POS sense an intrinsic compulsion to be socioemotionally devoted to the work and the organization as well. Thus, they are highly loyal and satisfied with their job and organization [ 36 ]. On the basis of the above discussion, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 1

POS is positively related to job satisfaction.

Mediating role of psychological empowerment

Those individuals who perceive organizational support toward a working situation are likely to experience psychological empowerment [ 32 ]. Psychological empowerment is a bundle of circumstances that allows individuals or groups to think that they have a grip over their work [ 39 ]. An empirical support has been found about the direct association between POS and job satisfaction [ 76 ]. It has been discussed that when individuals experience empowerment, they recognize that their job is important and they can make decisions by their own. They see that their work effects the organizational effectiveness, which in turn advances job performance [ 18 ] and satisfaction. It is suggested that prudent organizations give power to its workforce by making them involve in decision making, which makes them believe that their work is meaningful [ 49 ]. A recent study has shown that employees’ psychological empowerment is a source of competitive edge for organizations [ 56 ].

It is demonstrated that the employees who receive organizational support show more satisfaction toward their job and have lower turnover rate [ 49 ]. A recent study demonstrated that psychological empowerment works as an essential force that intervenes in the association between POS and job satisfaction [ 8 ]. Many researches on social exchange [ 2 ] and the norms of reciprocity [ 37 ] emphasize that employees feel obligated and are ready to assist their coworkers as well as their employers. Similarly, empowered individuals consider themselves as a significant part of the organization, are competent in accomplishing their goals, experience a sense of hold on their job and are involved in activities that affect the organization in a positive way [ 6 ]. In the same vein, previous research suggests that when individuals perceive high levels of psychological empowerment, it is highly probable that they feel motivated and dedicated toward their job responsibilities [ 56 ].

Furthermore, psychological empowerment works as the key motivator of the individuals’ job satisfaction and previous findings have exhibited the positive association between job satisfaction and psychological empowerment [ 46 ]. In sum, it is believed that the individuals, who perceive that their organizations recognize their contributions, will feel a greater sense of psychological empowerment, which in return is linked to high job satisfaction [ 32 , 49 ]. Thus, it is hypothesized as:

Hypothesis 2

Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between POS and job satisfaction.

Moderating role of proactive personality

Specifically, the organizational support theory posits that individuals define their work contributions found on the degree to which they think that their organization is conscious about their welfare. When individuals observe that they are appreciated and employer backed them up, in return they tend to involve in desired actions such as they actively learn, exhibit supportive behavior, show commitment toward their organization and providing beneficial solutions. Individual characteristics such as personalities have an important role in affecting how individuals POS as well as how they act. The proactive, imaginative and tough character of adjustable individuals permits them to obtain these capabilities on their own and take organizational support [ 25 ].

By encouraging organizations to be more socially concerned about positive job–family links, workplace circumstances play a proactive role in outlining the vital job and societal consequences [ 47 ]. Psychologically empowered workers proactively carry out their work responsibilities [ 66 ]. A research revealed that highly proactive individuals are engage more in constructive behaviors such as learning, fabricating a promising work situation, recognizing avenues to grow [ 70 ].

In particular, proactive individuals are skillful at developing and maintaining positive give-and-take dealings in the working environment [ 52 ]. Therefore, it has been anticipated that proactive individuals with a powerful fundamental force may react to organizational support more favorably than inactive individuals [ 75 ]. Psychological empowerment enhances an individual’s self-efficacy and the capability to influence one’s job environment, promotes proactive behaviors and creative behavior and lets one to perform freely [ 19 ].

Organizational support theory advocates that employees’ work effort is based upon how much their employing organization is conscious about them and their comfort [ 61 ]. The employees consider that they are valued and favored at work and then most probably involved in organization’s desired behaviors, including helping others, learning keenly, stay with the organization for longer tenure and offering useful suggestions [ 61 ]. Previous research shows that individual differences like proactivity can play as a major force behind affecting how individuals perceive organizational support and behave [ 4 , 75 ].

Help and opinion from interaction with colleagues can deliver precious support to individuals when learning organizational prospects, team rules, grasping work information and adapting social norms of the organization [ 13 ]. It is given that highly proactive individuals are unrestricted by situational hindrances and are competent enough to bring changes to enhance their position in organizations [ 11 ].

Employees with proactive, resourceful and strong nature acquire and use support from their organization [ 25 ]. By modifying office environment to be more socially supported by having strong ties, employment perceptions play a proactive role that determines social outcomes [ 47 ].

Moreover, proactive employees also get involved in extra-role organizational behaviors such as designing a constructive working environment and recognizing new avenues [ 52 ]. It further helps management in developing such work circumstances where employees consider themselves empowered enough to proactively involve in sustainability behaviors [ 49 ]. By integrating the above arguments, it is argued that proactive individuals do not need organization support as they can choose, build and manipulate work conditions in their favor rather than taking organization help. Consequently, proactive personality fades the association between POS and psychological empowerment, as the less organizational support, the more proactive employees will be and the more they will be psychologically empowered. Subsequently, it is proposed that

Hypothesis 3

Proactive personality moderates the relationship between POS and psychological empowerment, such that this relationship is stronger when proactive personality is low rather than high.

Research methods

Sample and procedure.

Data were collected from practitioners belonging to various job functions (e.g., administration, corporate services, engineering, construction works, information and communication technology, education, public relation and media) from both services and manufacturing organizations located in the Punjab province of Pakistan. For sample selection, purposive sampling was utilized in order to get responses from the information-rich cases by proper utilization of available means [ 31 ]. Moreover, in order to minimize the effect of common method bias, data were collected from participants in two waves (one-month gap between both the time waves) [ 58 ] through self-administered questionnaires prepared in English language as English is considered as the medium of communication across these organizations. The participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire for perceived organizational support and proactive personality at Time 1 (T1). One month later, data were collected at Time 2 (T2), where participants were asked to fill up the questionnaire for psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. The data were collected from the target respondents in a natural setting without any interference from the researcher.

By keeping in mind the possibilities of missing data and nonrespondents, our team approached 1200 full-time employees from manufacturing and services organizations. In response, we received back 1186 questionnaires, from which 936 were completed and valid; besides that, those with incomplete and missing data were removed from the analysis.

In the sample of 936 respondents, the majority were from services industries (821, 87.7%) and the remaining respondents belong to manufacturing industries (103, 11.0%); 651 participants were male, while 285 were females (30.4%). The average age of the respondents was 29.68 years (SD = 7.24) with average education level of 15.67 years (SD = 1.51). The average length of time spent with current organization was 5.06 years. In addition, the majority of the respondents were singles (501, 53.5%).

For measuring the study variables, well recognized and most extensively used scales were adopted from the previous studies.

Perceived organizational support Perceived organizational support was measured using eight-item scale developed by Eisenberger et al. [ 28 ]. Employees were requested to assess the degree of their perceived organizational support by using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. One of sample items is “My organization strongly considers my goals and values,” and its internal consistency was 0.88.

Job satisfaction We measured overall job satisfaction by a single-item scale developed by Scarpello and Campbell [ 64 ] that assessed participant’s satisfaction with their current job on seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much. The item for overall satisfaction is “Do you mostly enjoy your work in this organization.”

Psychological empowerment To measure psychological empowerment of employees, 12-item scale was used by Spreitzer [ 66 ]. The sample item is “The work I do is very important to me,” and it is measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The internal consistency for this scale was 0.85.

Proactive personality Proactive personality was measured using 5-item scale developed by Janssen et al. [ 43 ]. Employees were asked for their proactive personality using a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very strongly disagree to 5 = very strongly agree. The sample item is “wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change,” and its internal consistency was 0.76.

Control variables We controlled for several potentially relevant variables including thriving at work (joint connection of learning and vitality), age (1 = less than 20 till 6 = 60 and above), gender (1 = male, 2 = female), marital status (1 = single, 2 = married, 3 = widow, 4 = divorced), education level (1 = graduate, 2 = postgraduate, 3 = doctorate) and tenure (1 = 0–5 till 5 = 21 and above). Previous research indicated that particularly age, marital status and years of experience significantly correlate with job satisfaction [ 45 , 54 ]. It is purported that gender differences should be given due consideration in the attitude–performance equation in the domain of organizational studies, as Crossman and Abou-Zaki [ 24 ] also suggested that job satisfaction level among males is generally more than females. The educational level is also critical as the employees with different educational levels exhibit diverse attitudes and satisfaction level at work [ 3 ]. Employee tenure is controlled due its impact on job satisfaction and POS. Owens et al. [ 57 ] noted that works at their beginning of job or career with particular organization are more excited and energetic about their work.

Data analysis

Frequency analysis was used to determine the demographic characteristics of the sample, descriptive statistics were used for control and study variables, reliabilities of scales were computed and correlation matrix was computed as well. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the construct validity of the measurement model, while regression analysis was used to test the moderated mediation hypotheses and validity of the model.

Table  1 presents the mean, SDs, correlation values and Cronbach’s alphas. Correlation coefficients are in the anticipated directions and provide preliminary support for our study hypotheses. For the control variables, it is examined that the relationship between gender and marital status is negatively significant ( r  = − 0.16, p  < 0.01); age and gender ( r  = − 0.21, p  < 0.01); and tenure and gender ( r  = 0.15, p  < 0.01), and the relationship between tenure and marital status is positively significant ( r  = 0.43, p  < 0.01); that between age and marital status ( r  = 0.59, p  < 0.01) is positively correlated.

POS has a positive and significant relationship with psychological empowerment ( r  = 0.46, p  < 0.01); proactive personality is negatively significant with gender ( r  = − 0.07, p  < 0.05); proactive personality is positively significant with POS ( r  = 0.23, p  < 0.01); proactive personality and psychological empowerment ( r  = 0.26, p  < 0.01). Furthermore, job satisfaction is positively significant with other study variables, job satisfaction with POS ( r  = 0.34, p  < 0.01); job satisfaction with psychological empowerment ( r  = 0.38, p  < 0.01); and job satisfaction with proactive personality ( r  = 0.20, p  < 0.01).

Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in order to determine instrument validity by using Fornell and Larcker [ 35 ] validity assessment criterion. At first, we examined full three-factor measurement model in which the items were permitted to associate substantially with their respective factors. Then, following up by other combination of our items related to our three study variables in AMOS 24 was examined. Results of our hypothesized full measurement model (perceived organizational support, proactive personality and psychological empowerment) represented a reasonably good fit, which can be seen in Table  2 , as Chi-square = 1798.21, TLI = 0.98, IFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, AGFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05. All of these indices fall into the acceptable limits.

The full measurement model was also compared with other different factor models in order to find out the best fit model for our data. Further, results showed that the full measurement model is the best fit model for our dataset and that other models did not provide an acceptable model fit at p  <  0.05. The findings suggest that perceived organizational support, proactive personality and psychological empowerment are distinctive constructs.

Construct reliability and validity

The composite reliabilities (CR) of all of our study constructs lie within the range of 0.77 to 0.89, and AVE values are greater than 0.53; hence, the convergent validity is found to be satisfied. Besides, the criteria of discriminant validity set out by Fornell and Larcker [ 35 ] are also fulfilled, as AVE values of every construct of the study are found to be greater than their corresponding squared correlation.

Test for moderated mediation

In order to compute moderated mediation tests, hypothesized theoretical model was evaluated, in which the influence of POS on job satisfaction was seen via psychological empowerment that was conditional on proactive personality. Here, moderated mediation technique was used and was run in one step by using SPSS Process Macro Model 7 [ 60 ] with 95% confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap samples. Further, the coefficients of the model were estimated, whereby proactive personality interacts with perceived organizational support to influence psychological empowerment of employees, which in return impacts job satisfaction. It is given that results of moderated mediation analysis are presented in Table  3 .

Firstly, the results support our assumptions for the hypothesized moderated mediation model. Secondly, when psychological empowerment is taken as outcome variable, Table  3 depicts the R 2 value which tells us that psychological empowerment explains 25% of the variance in proactive personality in individuals and moderation is shown up by a significant interaction effect (β =  −  0.10) that explains the relationship is negative and significant and also that as psychological empowerment increases, proactive personality decreases in the individuals. Given that p value p  < 0.01, i.e., p = 0.00, shows that psychological empowerment is a highly significant predictor of proactive personality, then the boundaries of the zone of significance are between −  0.16 and −  0.04, which defines that psychological empowerment is significant to proactive personality.

The model further illustrates the positive direct effect of job satisfaction on POS as β = 0.41, SE = 0.06, p  < 0.01. The conditional indirect effect of job satisfaction on POS through psychological empowerment was probed at three different values of proactive personality: one SD below the mean (i.e., 3.80), on the average (4.40) and one SD above the mean (5.00). The indirect effect was significantly different from zero among low (β = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.41); average (β = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.33); and high (β = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.27) for proactive personality individuals. In addition, the index of moderated mediation reveals that the conditional indirect effect of psychological empowerment in the analysis of job satisfaction regressed on POS × PP is significant as indirect effect was − 0.07 and 95% bootstrapping CI of this relationship did not include zero (LLCI = − 0.16 to ULCI = − 0.04). Moreover, results demonstrated that the positive impact of POS on job satisfaction through psychological empowerment increases as proactive personality decreases in the employees. These findings are in the anticipated direction (Fig.  2 ).

Moderated mediation model

Conditional indirect effect of X on Y can be estimated through the following regression equation:

where X is the perceived organizational support (POS), Y is the job satisfaction, W is the proactive personality and M is the psychological empowerment.

This moderated mediation graph shows the indirect effects of POS on job satisfaction through psychological empowerment at higher (1 SD higher) and lower (1 SD lower) levels of proactive personality. These findings provided support for our Hypothesis 3 (Fig.  3 ).

Conditional indirect effects of perceived organizational support on job satisfaction via psychological empowerment at high and low levels of proactive personality

The main focus of the study was to examine the influence of POS on job satisfaction and to provide an insight into the complex mechanism of moderated mediation. Psychological empowerment functions as a mediator between POS and job satisfaction, and proactive personality showed an indirect effect on the association between POS and psychological empowerment. The current study findings provide support for the hypothesized model, which are as follows:

Being consistent with Hypothesis 1, the results demonstrated the positive association between POS and job satisfaction. Our results supported the findings of Alcover et al. [ 5 ]. The results show that the positive role of POS on job satisfaction is persistent in case, when individuals perceive that their organization assesses their participation to the organizational goals favorably and are conscious about their welfare. Resultantly, they experience job satisfaction.

Favoring Hypothesis 3, the present study findings provide support for moderated linkage, corroborating the extent of the negative impact of proactive individuals whereby it weakens the relationship between POS and psychological empowerment. Proactive individuals help managers to progress in such environmental situations where individuals feel empowered to proactively involve in sustainable behaviors. Subsequently, the organizational support is not required by the employees as they create and impact job situations in their favor by themselves, rather taking organization’s help. Thus, proactive personality has moderated the connection between POS and PE in a manner that the said association is robust when PP is less rather than high.

Theoretical contributions

This research offers imperative contribution in the literature by associating and encompassing the previous outcomes in multiple manners. Organizational behavior centers attention on a very few work-related attitudes, and POS and job satisfaction are two of them. The individuals and organizations are involved in a give-and-take relationship when research on the organization is considered. In establishing the proposed associations in the moderated mediation model, the current research will make several contributions.

First, we contributed to the research on POS by suggesting and confirming the positive association between POS (i.e., a characteristic where working behavior of individuals and attitudes are influenced by an individual’s perception of main phenomenon that describes their organization) and job satisfaction (among thorough researched constructs in management research/organizational behavior). Using social exchange theory, we contend that psychological empowerment can exert mediating effects linking POS and job satisfaction.

Psychological empowerment support employees in their decision making and problems solving thus providing independence and control. These results are of great significance as they give understanding into how employees or individuals may affect other individuals’ psychological insights, learning and vitality at work, which in turn influence their behavior. Although past researches had not provided ample evidences for the linkage between psychological empowerment and proactive personality, we advanced the literature of proactive personality as a moderator.

Practical implications

Our findings contribute to overcoming the problems of employees in manufacturing and service sectors as the findings also provide practical implication for managers and practitioners. This research was able to manage a strong understanding of POS, job satisfaction, psychological empowerment and proactive personality.

Manufacturing and services managers should focus on creating and enhancing employee belongings stimulus to avoid the employee turnover. Organizations can strive to provide advocates that are customized to address individual employee’s necessities. The individuals remain in the firm if he/she realizes a high support level (in terms of social and emotional support) [ 42 ]. If an employee receives the support, he/she will perceive it as favorable characteristic of a firm. For estimating the employee’s performance in comparison with their jobs, job satisfaction is a vital feature that benefits the organization [ 42 ]. Managers must understand that every employee has different necessities and expectations which need to be fulfilled. Thus, they should provide support to their employees, including motivated working conditions, flexible working hours and fairly paid salary which resultantly can enhance job satisfaction.

The management should uphold and strengthen the prevailing levels of psychological empowerment and should make strategies to improve it as it can move toward work efficiency and satisfaction without financial expense. Management should empower employees through involvement, support system, information sharing, rewards, tasks handling and by providing chances to take decisions.

Proactive individuals are uneffected by situational factors and probably generate variations to mend their position in the organizational hierarchy [ 11 ]. The proactive and adaptable employees acquire and use support from their organization to make situation in their favour [ 25 ]. Organizations change their policies to be more socially supported by providing positive work–family association. Lastly, this study will offer assistance to managers who are interested in inspiring individual’s satisfaction with his job by enhancing psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and POS within their organizations.

Limitations and future directions

Firstly, by investigating the variable associations, the research revealed an important relationship between PE and POS but still said the association needs more comprehensive explanation. A supposition regarding their association stated at the time when employees are empowered by the organization the organizational support is realized. Forthcoming studies should further explore the association between these variables.

The second potential limitation is that this research studied different manufacturing and services industries of Lahore, Pakistan; however, individuals from other cultures and identities may reveal diverse psychosomatic insights. Accordingly, comparisons can be observed by taking into account cultural differences.

The third limitation is that causality between the study variables cannot be drawn because of cross-sectional research design. So, it is suggested that future studies should conduct experimental/longitudinal strategies to discover the possible reciprocal relationships.

Our unit of analysis was individual based. Comparison was performed between the variables like individual’s perceived organizational support effect on individual’s job satisfaction, etc. So it is recommended that future research must include unit of analysis in the form of groups or departmental levels [ 67 ] as well as teams.

This research work observed the direct association between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. In the future, it should be seen that psychological empowerment could have an indirect relationship with job satisfaction.

We controlled employee age, gender, marital status, educational level, job type and work experience in order to avoid confounding effects on examined relationships. As in future studies, these could be added as study variables with different demographic characteristics possessing different constituents or consequences of POS, job satisfaction, psychological empowerment and proactive personality.

Lastly, in the future, it is suggested that proactive personality could also function as a moderator of the other associations of the current study model, i.e., between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. It is given that having the critical role of proactive behavior in organizations, effective measures should be taken to inspire employee proactivity. Examining these mechanisms would probably offer counselors, scholars and psychologists the substitutes for interventions in the future.

This research work makes vital additions in the fields of organizational behavior and applied psychology. The integrated study model revealed the relationship between POS and job satisfaction through the mediating role of psychological empowerment and the moderating impact of proactive personality. The practical findings provide support for organizational support theory and social exchange theory, which entails the groundings for the linkage between these associations. The study examines the intervening effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between POS and job satisfaction. In addition, the study provides a contribution to the proactive personality by drawing attention to its indirect effect mechanisms that influence the relationship between POS and psychological empowerment. This research highlighted the importance of the fact that the organizations are not compelled to just focus on the empowerment of the employees but should also care for their well-being. The more they channelize the energies of their employees, the more they are satisfied with their job.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abid G, Zahra I, Ahmed A (2015) Mediated mechanism of thriving at work between perceived organization support, innovative work behavior and turnover. Pak J Commer Soc Sci 9:982–998

Google Scholar  

Arshadi N (2011) The relationships of perceived organizational support (POS) with organizational commitment, in-role performance, and turnover intention: mediating role of felt obligation. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 30:1103–1108

Atwater L, Carmeli A (2009) Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy and involvement in creative work. Leadersh Q 20:264–275

Akgunduz Y, Alkan C, Gok OA (2018) Perceived organizational support, employee creativity and proactive personality: the mediating effect of meaning of work. J Hosp Tour Manag 34:105–114

Alcover CM, Chambel MJ, Fernandez JJ, Rodriguez F (2018) Perceived organizational support-burnout-satisfaction relationship in workers with disabilities: the moderation of family support. Scand J Psychol 59:1–11

Amundsen S, Martinsen OL (2015) Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity: the role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment. J Leadersh Organ Stud 22:304–323

Armstrong-Stassen M (1998) Downsizing the federal government: a longitudinal study of managers’ reactions. Can J Adm Sci 15:310–321

Aydogmus C, Camgoz SM, Ergeneli A, Ekmekci OT (2017) Perceptions of transformational leadership and job satisfaction: the roles of personality traits and psychological empowerment. J Manag Organ 23:1–27

Baker WE, Bulkley N (2014) Paying it forward vs. rewarding reputation: mechanisms of generalized reciprocity. Organ Sci 25:1493–1510

Bateman TS, Crant JM (1993) The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure and correlates. J Organ Behav 14:103–118

Bateman TS, Crant JM (1999) Proactive behavior: meanings, impact, and recommendations. Bus Horiz 42:63–70

Berger PJ, Neuhaus RJ (1977) To empower the people: the role of mediating structures in public policy. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington

Bergeron DM, Schroeder TD, Martinez HA (2014) Proactive personality at work: seeing more to do and doing more? J Bus Psychol 29:71–86

Biswas S, Bhatnagar J (2013) Mediator analysis of employee: role of perceived organizational support, p-o fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Research 38:27–40

Blau P (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New York

Carless SA (2004) Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction? J Bus Psychol 18:405–425

Chang LC, Liu CH (2008) Employee empowerment, innovative behavior and job productivity of public health nurses: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 45:1442–1448

Chiang CF, Hsieh TS (2012) The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. Int J Hosp Manag 31:180–190

Chung YW (2018) Workplace ostracism and workplace behaviors: a moderated mediation model of perceived stress and psychological empowerment. Anxiety Stress Coping 31:304–317

Conway N, Coyle-Shapiro JA (2012) The reciprocal relationship between psychological contract fulfilment and employee performance and the moderating role of perceived organizational support and tenure. J Occup Organ Psychol 85:277–299

Coyle-Shapiro JA, Conway N (2005) Exchange relationships: examining psychological contracts and perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol 90:774

Crant JM (2000) Proactive behavior in organizations. J Manag 26:435–462

Cropanzano R, Howes JC, Grandey AA, Toth P (1997) The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. J Organ Behav 18:159–180

Crossman A, Abou-Zaki B (2003) Job satisfaction and employee performance of Lebanese banking staff. J Manag Psychol 18:368–376

Cullen KL, Edwards BD, Casper WC, Gue KR (2014) Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. J Bus Psychol 29:269–280

Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, Sowa D (1986) Perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol 71:500–507

Eisenberger R, Lynch P, Aselage J, Rohdieck S (2004) Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30:789–799

Eisenberger R, Cummings J, Armeli S, Lynch P (1997) Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol 82:812–820

Eisenberger R, Armeli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch PD, Rhoades L (2001) Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol 86:42–51

Erdogan B, Enders J (2007) Support from the top: supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader–member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. J Appl Psychol 92:321–330

Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS (2016) Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat 5:1–4

Ertürk A (2010) Exploring predictors of organizational identification: moderating role of trust on the associations between empowerment, organizational support, and identification. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 19:409–441

Filipova AA (2010) Relationships among ethical climates, perceived organizational support, and intent-to-leave for licensed nurses in skilled nursing facilities. J Appl Gerontol 301:1–23

Fong KH, Snape E (2015) Empowering leadership, psychological empowerment and employee outcomes: testing a multi-level mediating model. Br J Manag 26:126–138

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50

Gillet N, Colombat P, Michinov E, Pronost AM, Fouquereau E (2013) Procedural justice, supervisor autonomy support, work satisfaction, organizational identification and job performance: the mediating role of need satisfaction and perceived organizational support. J Adv Nurs 69:2560–2571

Gouldner A (1960) The norm of reciprocity:a preliminary statement. J Am Sociol Rev 25:161–178

Guan Y, Dai X, Gong Q, Deng Y, Hou Y, Dong Z et al (2017) Understanding the trait basis of career adaptability: a two-wave mediation analysis among Chinese university students. J Vocat Behav 101:32–42

Hechanova MRM, Alampay RBA, Franco EP (2006) Psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers Asian. J Soc Psychol 9:72–78

Hu C, Wang S, Yang CC, Wu TY (2014) When mentors feel supported: relationships with mentoring functions and protégés’ perceived organizational support. J Organ Behav 35:22–37

Huang J (2017) The relationship between employee psychological empowerment and proactive behavior: self-efficacy as mediator. Soc Behav Personal 45:1157–1166

Hui CS, Yee CS, Yen LS, Chie LA, Yi LC (2017) The impact of perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, leader-member exchange (LMX) and work-life balance on employee’s turnover intention in manufacturing industry, Malaysia. Final year project, UTAR 1-194.  http://eprints.utar.edu.my/2646/1/Final_Year_Project_(Group_9).pdf

Janssen AB, Schultze M, Grotsch A (2017) Following the ants: development of short scales for proactive personality and supervisor support by ant colony optimization. Eur J Psychol Assess 33:409–421

Jiang Z (2017) Proactive personality and career adaptability: the role of thriving at work. J Vocat Behav 98:85–97

Kalliath P, Kalliath T, Chan XC, Chan C (2018) Linking work–family enrichment to job satisfaction through job well-being and family support: a moderated mediation analysis of social workers across India. Br J Soc Work 18:1–22

Khany R, Tazik K (2016) On the relationship between psychological empowerment, trust, and Iranian EFL teachers’ job satisfaction: the case of secondary school teachers. J Career Assess 24:112–129

Kossek EE, Pichler S, Bodner T, Hammer LB (2011) Workplace social support and work–family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Pers Psychol 64:289–313

Kurtessis JN, Eisenberger R, Ford MT, Buffardi LC, Stewart KA, Adis CS (2017) Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J Manag 43:1854–1884

Lamm E, Tosti-Kharas J, King CE (2015) Empowering employee sustainability:perceived organizational support toward the environment. J Bus Ethics 128:207–220

Laschinger HKS, Finegan J (2005) Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: a strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nurs Econ 23:6–13

Lavelle JJ, Rupp DE, Brockner J (2007) Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model? J Manag 33:841–866

Li N, Liang J, Crant JM (2010) The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. J Appl Psychol 95:395–404

McArdle S, Waters L, Briscoe JP, Hall DT (2007) Employability during unemployment: adaptability, career identity and human and social capital. J Vocat Behav 71:247–264

van der Meer L, Nieboer AP, Finkenflugel H, Cramm LM (2017) The importance of person-centred care and co-creation of care for the well-being and job satisfaction of professionals working with people with intellectual disabilities. Scand J Caring Sci 32:76–81

Molix L, Bettencourt BA (2010) Predicting well-being among ethnic minorities: psychological empowerment and group identity. J Appl Soc Psychol 40:513–533

Olçer F, Florescu MS (2015) Mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between psychological empowerment and job performance. Bus Excell Manag 5:5–32

Owens BP, Baker WE, Sumpter DM, Cameron KS (2016) Relational energy at work: implications for job engagement and job performance. J Appl Psychol 101:35–49

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903

Porath C, Spreitzer G, Gibson C, Garnett FG (2012) Thriving at work: toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. J Organ Behav 33:250–275

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40:879–891

Rhoades L, Eisenberger R (2002) Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J Appl Psychol 87:698–714

Robbins SP, Judge TA (2013) Group property: norms. In: Robbins SP, Judge TA (eds) Organizational behavior, 15th edn. Pearson, London, p 314

Savery LK, Luks JA (2001) The relationship between empowerment, job satisfaction and reported stress levels: some Australian evidence. Leadersh Organ Dev J 22:97–104

Scarpello V, Campbell JP (1983) Job satisfaction: are all the parts there? Pers Psychol 36:577–600

Shanock LR, Eisenberger R (2006) When supervisors feel supported: relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. J Appl Psychol 91:689–695

Spreitzer GM (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad Manag J 38:1442–1465

Spreitzer G, Sutcliffe K, Dutton J, Sonenshein S, Grant AM (2005) A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organ Sci 16:537–549

Tolentino LR, Garcia PRJ, Lu VN, Restubog SLD, Bordia P, Plewa C (2014) Career adaptation: the relation of adaptability to goal orientation, proactive personality, and career optimism. J Vocat Behav 84:39–48

Uy MA, Chan KY, Sam YL, Ho MH, Chernyshenko OS (2015) Proactivity, adaptability and boundaryless career attitudes: the mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. J Vocat Behav 86:115–123

Wang Z, Zhang J, Thomas CL, Yu J, Spitzmueller C (2017) Explaining benefits of employee proactive personality: the role of engagement, team proactivity composition and perceived organizational support. J Vocat Behav 101:90–103

Walumbwa FO, Muchiri MK, Misati E, Wu C, Meiliani M (2017) Inspired to perform: a multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of thriving at work. J Organ Behav 39:249–261

Wayne SJ, Shore LM, Bommer WH, Tetrick LE (2002) The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. J Appl Psychol 87:590

Wayne SJ, Shore LM, Liden RC (1997) Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Acad Manag J 40:82–111

Yih W, Lawrence SH (2011) The impacts of perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on job performance in hotel industry. Taipei, Taiwan

Xiong L, King C (2018) Too much of a good thing? Examining how proactive personality affects employee brand performance under formal and informal organizational support. Int J Hosp Manag 68:12–22

Yen RHJ, Lin YL, Tai SH (2004) The impacts of service climate on service-oriented citizenship behavior, the mediating roles of psychological empowerment and role definition. Manag Rev 23:25–48

Yu C, Frenkel SJ (2013) Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived organizational support theory: which mechanisms are more important? J Organ Behav 34:1165–1181

Zhang J, Zheng W (2009) How does satisfaction translate into performance? An examination of commitment and cultural values. Hum Resour Dev Q 20:331–351

Zhang X, Bartol KM (2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad Manag J 53:107–128

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge that they received no external funding in support of this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business Administration, National College of Business Administration and Economics, Lahore, Pakistan

Annum Tariq Maan, Ghulam Abid & Tahira Hassan Butt

Lahore College for Women University, Lahore, Pakistan

Fouzia Ashfaq

Institute of Business and Management, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

Saira Ahmed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ATM was involved in conceptualization. ATM, THB and GA supported data curation. ATM was involved in formal analysis. ATM and FA were involved in investigation. THB and SA contributed to methodology. GA contributed to project administration. ATM and FA contributed resources. GA was involved in supervision. THB and GA were involved in validation. GA was involved in visualization. ATM contributed to writing—original draft. THB, GA and SA contributed to writing—review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tahira Hassan Butt .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Maan, A.T., Abid, G., Butt, T.H. et al. Perceived organizational support and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive personality and psychological empowerment. Futur Bus J 6 , 21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00027-8

Download citation

Received : 10 October 2019

Accepted : 12 March 2020

Published : 25 June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00027-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Perceived organizational support (POS)
• Social exchange theory
• Job satisfaction
• Psychological empowerment
• Proactive personality