Supervisor bottom-line mentality (BLM) emphasizes organizational goals, sometimes at the expense of employee well-being. Previous studies, adopting social exchange theory, have shown conflicting results regarding the impact of supervisor BLM on employee performance.
Objective
This study draws from cognitive appraisal theory to explore the psychological process linking supervisor’s BLM to employees’ performance.
Methods
Survey data were gathered from supervisor–employee pairs across 245 service organizations. Data was analyzed using AMOS 26.
Results
Supervisors’ BLM provoked employees’ performance pressure (PP), which in turn influenced their appraisals. Specifically, PP was positively associated with both threat appraisal (TA) (B = .39, p < .01) and challenge appraisal (CA) (B = .19, p < .01). A serial mediation analysis demonstrated contrasting pathways: PP and TA together diminished task performance as rated by direct supervisors, while PP and CA enhanced it. A moderated serial mediation analysis further revealed that the strength of these serial mediations was influenced by competence uncertainty, with the model for TA (R2 = .10) and CA (R2 = .39) both reaching significance.
Conclusion
our study contributes to the literature on the impact of leadership BLM on employee performance, expanding beyond the exclusive use of social exchange theory in previous research.
GreenbaumRLMawritzMBEissaG. Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. J Appl Psychol2012; 97(2): 343–359.
2.
QuadeMJMcLartyBDBonnerJM. The influence of supervisor bottom-line mentality and employee bottom-line mentality on leader-member exchange and subsequent employee performance. Hum Relat2020; 73(8): 1157–1181.
3.
BabalolaMTMawritzMBGreenbaumRL, et al.Whatever it takes: how and when supervisor bottom-line mentality motivates employee contributions in the workplace. J Manag2021; 47(5): 1134–1154.
4.
ZhangYZhangHXieJ, et al.Coping with supervisor bottom-line mentality: the mediating role of job insecurity and the moderating role of supervisory power. Curr Psychol2023; 42(1): 10556–10565.
5.
ChenSZhuYLiuW, et al.Striving for the bottom line: the impact of supervisor bottom-line mentality on employees' work effort and helping behavior. Leader Organ Dev J2022; 43(6): 817–834.
6.
ChenSLiuWZhuY, et al.Sharing or hiding? The influence of supervisor bottom-line mentality on employee knowledge behaviors. J Knowl Manag2023; 27(7): 1830–1851.
7.
EisenbergerRAselageJ. Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. J Organ Behav2009; 30(1): 95–117.
8.
LazarusRSFolkmanS. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer, 1984.
9.
van den BosKLindEA. Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In: ZannaMP (ed). Advances in experimental social psychology. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2002.
10.
OhlySFritzC. Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: a multi-level study. J Organ Behav2010; 31(4): 543–565.
11.
Drach-ZahavyAErezM. Challenge versus threat effects on the goal–performance relationship. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2002; 88(2): 667–682.
12.
MalikMMahmoodFSarwarN, et al.Ethical leadership: exploring bottom-line mentality and trust perceptions of employees on middle-level managers. Curr Psychol2023; 42: 16602–16617.
13.
ZamanN. A bottom-line mentality perspective on the relationship between family financial pressure and financial goal progress. Thesis (Master). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 2022.
14.
ShalleyCEPerry-SmithJE. Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: the role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2001; 84(1): 1–22.
15.
MitchellMSGreenbaumRLVogelRM, et al.Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Acad Manag J2019; 62(2): 531–552.
16.
SkinnerNBrewerN. The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. J Pers Soc Psychol2002; 83(3): 678–692.
17.
PalmwoodENMcBrideCA. Challenge vs. Threat: the effect of appraisal type on resource depletion. Curr Psychol2019; 38(6): 1522–1529.
18.
SinclairRRMartinJECrollLW. A threat-appraisal perspective on employees’ fears about antisocial workplace behavior. J Occup Health Psychol2002; 7(1): 37–56.
19.
KruegerJNDicksonPR. How believing in ourselves increases risk taking? Perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decis Sci J1994; 25(3): 385–400.
20.
SedikidesCDe CremerDHartCM, et al.Procedural fairness responses in the context of self-uncertainty. In: ArkinRMOlesonKCCarrollPJ (eds). The uncertain self: A handbook of perspectives from social and personality psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2010, pp. 142–159.
21.
MayerDMThauSWorkmanKM, et al.Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted needs perspectives on deviance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2012; 117(1): 24–40.
22.
KaltiainenJLipponenJFugateM, et al.Spiraling work engagement and change appraisals: a three-wave longitudinal study during organizational change. J Occup Health Psychol2020; 25(4): 244–258.
23.
QianCKeeDMH. Exploring the path to enhance employee creativity in Chinese MSMEs: the influence of individual and team learning orientation, transformational leadership, and creative self-efficacy. Information2023; 14(8): 449.
24.
MironSNaftalovichHKalanthroffE. The effect of emotional primes on attentional focus in high versus low depression. Atten Percept Psychophys2020; 82(1): 377–382.
25.
FugateMPrussiaGEKinickiAJ. Managing employee withdrawal during organizational change: the role of threat appraisal. J Manag2012; 38(3): 890–914.
26.
ZhangXZhouJ. Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2014; 124(2): 150–164.
27.
FulmoreJFulmoreAMullA, et al.Reducing employee turnover intentions in the service sector: the connection between human resource development practices and employee engagement. Hum Resour Dev Q2022; 34(2): 127–153.
28.
GeorgeEZakkariyaK. Job related stress and job satisfaction: a comparative study among bank employees. J Manag Dev2015; 34(3): 316–329.
29.
ParkJMinH. Turnover intention in the hospitality industry: a meta-analysis. Int J Hospit Manag2020; 90: 102599.
30.
WilliamsLJAndersonSE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J Manag1991; 17(3): 601–617.
31.
WatsonDClarkLACareyG. Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and depressive disorders. J Abnorm Psychol1988; 97(3): 346–353.
32.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH. The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory1994; 3: 248–292.
33.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18(1): 39–50.
KamranKAzamAAtifMM. Supervisor bottom-line mentality, performance pressure, and workplace cheating: moderating role of negative reciprocity. Front Psychol2022; 13: 801283.
36.
AftabSWaheedA. Abusive leadership and proactive behaviours: role of family motivation as a moderator. Hum Syst Manag2022; 41(4): 453–466.
37.
LaohavichienTWeerasaiC. The influence of leadership on organizational performance through work-from-home outcomes under COVID-19 crisis in Thailand. Human Systems Management2024; 43: 1–15.
38.
RenJDongF. Investigation of the impact mechanism of humble leadership on employee silence. Hum Syst Manag2024; 43(4): 545–558.
39.
UdinUChanthesSDananjoyoR. Servant leadership, work engagement and affective commitment in social exchange perspective: a mediation-moderation framework. Hum Syst Manag2024; 44: 1–11.
40.
GreenbaumRLMawritzMBZamanNN. The construct of bottom-line mentality: where we’ve been and where we’re going. J Manag2023; 49(6): 1–15.
41.
LiuLFanQLiuR, et al.How leader bottom-line mentality relates to employee innovation: a cross-layer model mediated by psychological contract breach. Leader Organ Dev J2022; 43(4): 580–595.
