The effect of procedural fairness and supervisor support in the relationship between job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior.
| Autor | Bohle, Sergio Andres Lopez |
| Cargo | Texto en ingl |
1 Introduction
Recent economic recessions, competitive pressure and a drastic increase in restructuring activities have had a global impact on organizations, which are increasingly using downsizing and mass layoffs in response to economically difficult circumstances (Coile & Levine, 2011; Datta, Guthrie, Basuil, & Pandey, 2010). These environmental and organizational changes have resulted in an increase in job insecurity perceived by workers. Given its importance in current society, it is crucial to carry out empirical studies that provide a deep understanding of the impacts of job insecurity within the organizations.
Perceptions of job insecurity represent a relevant variable for organizational behavior scholars and practitioners, and it has been defined as an employee's feeling or an overall concern that his or her job is at involuntary risk in the near future (Grunberg, Moore, & Greenberg, 2006; Jacobson, 1991).
An important body of research has shown that job insecurity leads to mental health problems and job performance issues (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006; Sverke, Hellgren, & Naswall, 2002).
Within this context, a series of investigations have highlighted that the perception of job insecurity has the potential to affect job performance (De Witte, 1999; Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2008; LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005; Probst, 2002). However, scarce research has focused on expanding its relationship with job insecurity. Given the inevitable characteristics of competitiveness in organizations, and the value of team work and cooperation, along with individual initiative (Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011), it becomes necessary to further investigate how organizational citizenship behaviors are affected when there is a greater perception of job insecurity among workers.
Based on the above, this paper aims to contribute to the literature through the study of the relationship between the perception of job insecurity and the organizational citizenship in the context of social exchange theories (Blau, 1964), a relationship that has received scarce examination in the past (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Staufenbiel & Konig, 2010; Reisel, Probst, Chia, Maloles, & Konig, 2010; Stynen, Forrier, Sels, & De Witte, 2015). Such discretionary behaviors help to develop and maintain a favorable social and psychological climate, and the organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).
Another interesting line of discussion that has not yet been academically addressed lies on studying the perception of job insecurity as a phenomenon that can be transformed according to a certain outcome, depending on the evaluation that workers provide about the value of fairness and consistent procedures within the organization. In other words, we propose procedural fairness perceptions as an explaining mechanism why job insecurity is associated with organizational citizenship behaviors. In this sense, only a few empirical investigations (BernhardOettel, De Cuyper, Schreurs, & De Witte, 2011; Ouyang, Sang, Li, & Peng, 2015; Schumacher, Schreurs, Van Emmerik, & De Witte, in press; Zhang, Lepine, Buckman, & Wei, 2014) have related perception of job insecurity with fairness.
In the context of perception of job insecurity, workers closely observe how the organization acts and the treatment that laidoff workers receive. They attribute justice or injustice to these procedures, and these signals are important references on how workers that stay in the organization can be treated in the future (Brockner et al., 1994; Kernan, & Hanges, 2002; Van den Bos, Bruins, Wilke, & Dronkert, 1999). Experiencing injustice when employees have a feeling of job insecurity contributes to negative outcomes, for example in organizational citizenship behavior (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993).
On the other hand, a moderating factor that has raised interest for studying organizational research is the workers' perception of supervisor's support. One inquiry is how this perception of support can alter the employees' psychological responses and working behaviors (Bal, Chiaburu, & Jansen, 2010; Dulac, CoyleShapiro, Henderson, & Wayne, 2008; Robinson, 1996). On this basis, it has been proposed that two entities or individuals, such as the supervisor and the subordinate, form and maintain an interpersonal relationship that implies reciprocal resources valued by both parts (Dulac et al., 2008; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Huy, 2002; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). In this regard, supervisors have a powerful influence on the employees' interpretation of their work experiences (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006).
However, investigations have not studied in-depth how the supervisor can alter the perception of procedural fairness. This research proposes to evaluate how the perception of supervisor support can moderate the magnitude and severity of procedural fairness, generated by the perception of insecurity among employees. Thus, the relationship between procedural fairness and OCB will be moderated by perceived supervisor support and this relationship will be stronger for people perceiving high supervisor support. By means of this, we contribute to the existing research on social exchanges by focusing on contextual factors as moderators in these relationships.
Finally, through the results gathered in this research, new knowledge about the effects that job insecurity perception have on workers will be generated, providing a deeper emphasis on how the effects of job insecurity may be explained, and the comprehension of the mediating and moderating mechanisms that underlie this relationship. Also, new evidence will be provided on the comprehension of a relationship that has been poorly studied: perception of job insecurity and procedural fairness. Furthermore, this study contributes to extending our knowledge on the role of supervisor support in an important relationship, such as between the procedural fairness and OCB. This will allow us to create a deeper theoretical background of the psychological dimensions that motivate the organizational performance.
From a practical point of view, this investigation attempts to contribute with information that aids the development of strategies that minimize the negative effects of job insecurity in workers and in the organization. This is achieved by providing evidence that can be used for planning, and effectively executing procedures for the post-dismissal working environment. To prevent these negative consequences, the organization should minimize procedural fairness problems, giving more realistic expectations to workers and managing those sensitive issues of the procedural fairness, such as having fair procedures. Finally, this investigation intends to give new evidence that will help to a better understanding of the value of employees within an organization, so it can achieve goals associated to performance. In this sense, it is important for organizations to focus their efforts on the establishment of a solid psychological contract with their workers.
1.1 Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior
Changes in the work environment caused by factors such as economic crisis, market regressions, mergers, privatization and technological innovation have generated a series of organizational and management mutations (Cascio, 1993; Coile & Levine, 2011; Datta et al., 2010; Gandolfi, 2010). One of these transformations is a higher number of laid-off workers, which goes hand in hand with the strategy of achieving higher efficiency, productivity and competitiveness through reduction of the work force. These conditions generate a higher sense of job insecurity (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Lam, Liang, Ashford, & Lee, 2015).
One of the most important definitions of job insecurity is proposed by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) who define it as "the perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation" (p. 438). Under this conceptualization, job insecurity is considered a subjective phenomenon based on an individual's appreciation of uncertainty about their current employment (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2007; Hellgren, Sverke, & Isaksson, 1999).
Job insecurity corresponds to a potential chronic threat that has been analyzed by stress theories as a way to comprehend links between experience and employee outcome (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This theoretical approach proposes that the possibility of losing one's job can be stressful, depending on the cognitive evaluation made by the individual. During this process, the individual evaluates his/her personal relevance on the situation, and later analyses the concordance between the demands of the situation and the resources to face it, which finally allows the identification of potential threats (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000). As such, psychological stress is determined by the individual's evaluation as a threatening situation, highlighting the lack of predictability and control as fundamental elements of the subjective experience of job insecurity (De Witte, De Cuyper, Elst, & Van den Broeck, 2012).
Research shows that job insecurity in this sense yields negative outcomes for the worker and the organization (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003; Sverke et al., 2002). In the subject, evidence shows that job insecurity is correlated to mental or psychological well-being, as well as some physical health markers (Gilboa et al., 2008; Cheng & Chan 2008; Kinnunen, Mauno, Natti, & Happonen, 1999; Sverke et al. 2002). These studies show that job insecurity can have immediate and long-term effects on organizational costs (Sverke et al., 2002). Effects such as job attitudes and satisfaction are short-term, while job performance and organizational citizenship are affected in the long-term.
In our...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
