Leadership behavior is recognized as an important variable in the Human Resource Management (HRM)-Performance chain. However, in most studies, leadership behavior is viewed as an independent variable, and one that influences employees’ attitudes and behavior. Because of this premise, claims that public managers’ discretionary room for supervisory support is constrained, and that personal motivation is the most important reason for a manager engaging in supervisory support, have not been systematically examined. This article fills this gap by examining the antecedents of supervisory support by middle managers in the police force and in an academic medical center in the Netherlands. The results show that the extent of the discretionary room that middle managers experience has an effect on supervisory support and that this relationship is mediated by their willingness to support employees. Furthermore, a manager’s supportive ability is an important additional antecedent.
AntonsenM.Beck JorgensenT. (1997). The “publicness” of public organizations. Public Administration, 75, 337-357.
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
BlauP. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
4.
BlumbergM.PringleC. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7, 560-569.
5.
BoselieP. (2010). Strategic human resource management: A balanced approach. London, England: McGraw-Hill.
6.
BoselieP.DietzG.BoonC. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 67-94.
7.
BowenD.OstroffC. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203-221.
8.
BoxallP.PurcellJ. (2008). Strategy and human resource management (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
9.
BoyneG.JenkinsG.PooleM. (1999). Human resource management in the public and private sectors: An empirical comparison. Public Administration, 77, 407-420.
10.
CampbellJ.McCloyR.OpplerS.SagerC. (1993). A theory of performance. In SchmittN.BormanW. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
ConwayE.MonksK. (2010). The devolution of HRM to middle managers in the Irish health service. Personnel Review, 39, 361-374.
12.
Coyle-ShapiroJ.KesslerI.PurcellJ. (2004). Exploring organisationally directed citizenship behaviour: Reciprocity or “it’s my job.”Journal of Management Studies, 41, 85-105.
13.
EdgarF.GeareA. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measures—Different results. Personnel Review, 34, 534-549.
GouldnerA. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
16.
Gould-WilliamsJ. (2007). HR practices, organizational climate and employee outcomes: Evaluating social exchange relationships in local government. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1627-1647.
17.
Gould-WilliamsJ.DaviesF. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes. Public Management Review, 7, 1-24.
18.
GreenhausJ.ParasuramanA.WormleyW. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86.
19.
GuestD.ConwayN. (2004). Employee well-being and the psychological contract: A report for the CIPD. London, England: CIPD.
20.
HarneyB.JordanC. (2008). Unlocking the black box: Line managers and HRM-Performance in a call centre context. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57, 275-296.
21.
KesslerI.PurcellJ.Coyle-ShapiroJ. (2000). New forms of employment relations in the public services: The limits of strategic choice. Industrial Relations Journal, 31, 17-34.
22.
Landelijk Programma HRM Politie. (2008). Werkgeversvisie Politie, een inspirerend fundament [Employers vision Police: An inspiring foundation]. De Bilt, Netherlands: Author.
23.
LarsenH. H.BrewsterC. (2003). Line management responsibility for HRM: What is happening in Europe?Employee Relations, 25, 228-244.
24.
LeisinkP.KniesE. (2011). Line managers’ support for older workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1899-1914.
25.
McConvilleT.HoldenL. (1999). The filling in the sandwich: HRM and middle managers in the health sector. Personnel Review, 28, 406-424.
26.
McGovernF.GrattonL.Hope-HaileyV.StilesP.TrussC. (1997). Human resource management on the line?Human Resource Management Journal, 7(4), 12-29.
27.
NehlesA.Van RiemsdijkM.KokI.LooiseJ. (2006). Implementing human resource management successfully: A first line-management challenge. Management Revue, 173, 256-273.
28.
NishiiL.LepakD.SchneiderB. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61, 503-545.
29.
NunnalyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
30.
OldhamG.CummingsA. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.
31.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. M.LeeJ.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
32.
PurcellJ.HutchinsonS. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17, 3-20.
33.
PurcellJ.KinnieN. (2007). HRM and business performance. In BoxallP.PurcellJ.WrightP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource management (pp. 533-551). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
PurcellJ.KinnieN.SwartJ.RaytonB.HutchinsonS. (2009). People management and performance. London, England: Routledge.
35.
RaineyH. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
RhoadesL.EisenbergerR. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
37.
Rhoades ShanockL.EisenbergerR. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689-695.
38.
SnapeE.RedmanT. (2010). HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1219-1247.
39.
TrussC. (2008). Continuity and change: The role of the HR function in the modern public sector. Public Administration, 86, 1071-1088.
40.
TrussC. (2009). Changing HR functional forms in the UK public sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 717-737.
41.
Van der MeulenM. (2009). Achter de schermen; vakontwikkeling en professionalisering van publieke managers in de zorg en bij de politie [Behind the scenes: The professionalization of public managers in health care and policing]. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.
42.
Van WartM. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review, 63, 11-34.
43.
WayneS.ShoreL.LidenR. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111.
44.
WhittakerS.MarchingtonM. (2003). Devolving HR responsibility to the line: Threat opportunity or partnership?Employee Relations, 25, 245-261.
45.
WrightP. M.BoswellW. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28, 247-276.
46.
WrightP. M.NishiiL. H. (2013). Strategic HRM and organizational behaviour: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. In PaauweJ.GuestD.WrightP. (Eds.), HRM & performance: Achievements & challenges (pp. 97-110). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
47.
ZhangA.TsuiA.SongL.LiC.JiaL. (2008). How do I trust thee? The employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization. Human Resource Management, 47, 111-132.
