What is in it for Me? Middle Manager Behavioral Integrity and Performance

Abstract

We propose that middle managers’ perceived organizational support enhances their performance through the sequential mediation of their behavioral integrity and follower organizational citizenship behaviors. We test our model with data collected from middle managers, their direct subordinates, and their direct superiors at 18 hotel properties in China. The current study’s findings contribute to the existing literature on perceived organizational support and behavioral integrity. They also add a practical self-interest argument for middle managers’ efforts to maintain their word-action alignment by demonstrating that middle manager behavioral integrity positively affects middle managers’ own task performance ratings, both directly and via its positive effect on subordinates’ organizational citizenship behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://classweb.uh.edu/eisenberger/perceived-organizational-support/.

  2. 2.

    The composite reliability values of the three-parameter direct subordinate OCBO behaviors and three-parameter direct subordinate OCBI behaviors variables (0.77 and 0.86, respectively) were higher than the 0.70 threshold, the AVE values (0.54 and 0.68, respectively) were also higher than the 0.50 threshold, and all six SRW values were greater than the 0.50 threshold with SRW values varying between 0.61 and 0.92.

  3. 3.

    Note that in contrast with the above “possible rival explanation” and consistent with the current study’s assertions, the results of auxiliary analyses showed that middle manager reported perceived organizational support had a direct, positive effect on direct subordinate-rated middle manager behavioral integrity, while middle manager-rated direct subordinate organizational citizenship behaviors were not related to subordinate-rated middle manager behavioral integrity.

  4. 4.

    While social desirability is certainly likely to inflate respondents’ ratings of the middle manager’s integrity, it is difficult to conceive how it would inflate the association between those ratings and the middle managers’ ratings of the follower’s citizenship behaviors or between those and the superior’s ratings of the middle manager’s task performance. Were these variables measured by a single respondent in a survey, social desirability could indeed be a factor. The fact that we use different informants for the different variables in the model substantially mitigates the possibility that a single intrapsychic phenomenon, such as social desirability, will uniformly inflate the variables within each case so as to yield a spurious association.

References

  1. Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management, 39, 958–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chung, J. Y., & Petrick, J. F. (2013). Price fairness of airline ancillary fees: An attributional approach. Journal of Travel Research, 52, 168–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. L., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eisenberger, R. (2016). Perceived organizational support. University of Houston. http://classweb.uh.edu/eisenberger/perceivedorganizational-support/

  5. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M. K., Karagonlar, G., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Wickham, R., & Buffardi, L. C. (2014). The supervisor POS—LMX—subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 635–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. Li, A. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context. London, UK: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management’s strategic role. Academy of Management Executive, 8, 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fritz, J. M. H. (2002). How do I dislike thee: Let me count the ways. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 410–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fritz, J. M. H., O’Neil, N. B., Popp, A. M., Williams, C. D., & Arnett, R. C. (2013). The influence of supervisory behavioral integrity on intent to comply with organizational ethical standards and organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kannan-Narasimhan, R., & Lawrence, B. S. (2012). Behavioral integrity: How leader referents and trust matter to workplace outcome. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management, 41, 1677–1697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting statistical equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1027–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Bachrach, D. G. (2013). Boundaries of citizenship behavior: Curvilinearity and context in the citizenship and task performance relationship. Personnel Psychology, 66, 377–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schaffer, B., & Riordan, C. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizations research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 169–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shi, W., Markoczy, L., & Dess, G. G. (2009). The role of middle management in the strategy process: Group affiliation, structural holes, and tertius lungens. Journal of Management, 35, 1453–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Simons, T. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Simons, T. (2008). The integrity dividend: Leading by the power of your word. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Simons, T., Friedman, R., Liu, L. A., & McLean Parks, J. (2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle down” among black and non-black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 650–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Simons, T., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V., & Masschelein, S. (2014). How leader alignment of words and deeds affects followers: A meta-analysis of behavioral integrity research. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2332-3.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Simons, T., Tomlinson, E., & Leroy, H. (2011). Research on behavioral integrity: A promising construct for positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 325–339). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Tesluk, P. E. (2002). An examination of crossover and spillover effects of spousal and expatriate cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 655–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Breugelmans, S. M., & Schalk-Soekar, S. R. G. (2008). Multiculturalism: Construct validity and stability. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T., & Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Management, 34, 1190–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Gibney, R., Murrell, A. J., & Thatcher, J. B. (2010). Social influence and perceived organizational support: A social networks analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 1517–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean A. Way.

Appendix

Appendix

figurea

Hypothesized structural model (listwise deletion). Note In addition to the standardized direct effect estimates presented above, middle manager (direct subordinate-rated) behavioral integrity had a positive, indirect effect on middle manager (direct superior-rated) task performance; this standardized indirect effect estimate (β = 0.12, p < 0.05) is presented in parenthesis in the “Appendix.” N = 78, p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Way, S.A., Simons, T., Leroy, H. et al. What is in it for Me? Middle Manager Behavioral Integrity and Performance. J Bus Ethics 150, 765–777 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3204-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Behavioral integrity
  • Perceived organizational support
  • Task performance
  • Subordinate organizational citizenship behaviors