Comment on van Knippenberg and Lee (2023): SOE is walking the talk of the organization

Abstract

In issue 1 of 2023 of this journal, van Knippenberg and Lee argued that leader group prototypicality (LGP) and supervisor's organizational embodiment (SOE) are redundant constructs. With this commentary, we provide a historical timeline about the conceptualization of SOE within organizational support theory to explain the lack of construct redundancy at the theoretical level. We offer the metaphor of SOE as the supervisor “walking the talk of the organization.” In contrast, LGP is a construct developed using Social Identity Theory that refers to the leader “walking like other organizational members walk.” We offer alternative explanations to the redundancy arguments and evidence presented by van Knippenberg and Lee. We suggest that given the untested construct validity and reliability of both SOE and LGP operationalizations, using a single sample of cross-sectional self-report data is an incomplete methodological approach to provide empirical evidence and make theoretical-level decisions about construct redundancy. We conclude by providing some preliminary ideas that may help address the construct operationalization confusion in future research.

Keywords

perceived organizational support social identity theory leadership

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amin

N.-U.

Ali

H. G.

(2022). Impact of despotic leadership on employees outcome: The mediating role of emotion regulation failure. International Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 3(4): 164–182.

Antonakis

(2023). In support of slow science: Robust, open, and multidisciplinary. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), 101676: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101676

Campbell

D. T.

Fiske

D. W.

(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016

Costa

Daher

Neves

Velez

M. J.

(2022). The interplay between ethical leadership and supervisor organizational embodiment on organizational identification and extra-role performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(2): 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1952988

Zhang

Luo

Wang

(2023). From subordinate moqi to work engagement: The role of leader–member exchange in the sustainability context. Sustainability, 15(1): 170–188. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010170

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Eisenberger

Karagonlar

Stinglhamber

Neves

Becker

T. E.

Gonzalez-Morales

M. G.

Steiger-Mueller

(2010). Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6): 1085–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020858

Eisenberger

Shoss

M. K.

Karagonlar

Gonzalez-Morales

M. G.

Wickham

R. E.

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(5): 635–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1877

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

Vandenberghe

Sucharski

I. L.

Rhoades

(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565

10.

González-Morales

M. G.

Neves

(2015). When stressors make you work: Mechanisms linking challenge stressors to performance. Work & Stress, 29(3): 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1074628

11.

González-Morales

M. G.

Tetrick

L. E.

Ginter

(2012). Measurement issues in work–family research. In Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 55–72). New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Harrison

D. A.

Price

K. H.

Bell

M. P.

(1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 96–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/256901

13.

Hatch

M. J.

(2018). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1): 104–121. https:// doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106

15.

Hogg

M. A.

(2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3): 184–200.

16.

Hogg

M. A.

Martin

Epitropaki

Mankad

Svensson

Weeden

(2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7): 991–1004.

17.

Hogg

M. A.

van Knippenberg

Rast

D. E.

III (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1): 258–304.

18.

Hussain

Shahzad

(2018). Role of supervisor’s organizational embodiment and organizational identification on LMX and job performance relationship: A test of moderated-mediation model. Journal of Management Sciences, 5(1): 18–37. DOI: 10.20547/jms.2014.1805102

19.

Hussain

Shahzad

(2019). The effects of supervisor’s organizational embodiment and organizational identification on the LMX-creativity relationship. South Asian Journal of Management Sciences, 13(2): 99–115. DOI: 10.21621/sajms.2019132.01

20.

Kim

K. Y.

Clark

K. D.

Messersmith

J. G.

(2022). High performance work systems and perceived organizational support: The contribution of human resource department's organizational embodiment. Human Resource Management, 62(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22142

21.

Mackey

J. D.

McAllister

C. P.

Brees

J. R.

Huang

Carson

J. E.

(2018). Perceived organizational obstruction: A mediator that addresses source–target misalignment between abusive supervision and OCBs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10): 1283–1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2293

22.

Morgan

(2006). Images of Organization (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Rice

D. B.

Massey

Roberts

Sterzenbach

(2023). A social exchange examination of upper-level management and supervisor organizational embodiment: The roles of supervisor psychological contract fulfillment and conscientiousness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 163(2): 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1994363

24.

Rice

D. B.

Mchiri

Massey

(2022). A trickle-down model of organizational embodiment and the impact of supervisor neuroticism. Journal of Management & Organization, 00: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.6

25.

Shoss

M. K.

Eisenberger

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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1): 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030687

26.

Spector

P. E.

(1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3): 438–443.

27.

Stackhouse

M. R.

Boon

S. D.

Paulin

(2023). Why we harm the organization for a perpetrator's actions: The roles of unforgiveness, group betrayal, and group embodiment in displaced revenge. European Journal of Social Psychology, 00(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2929

28.

Steffens

N. K.

Munt

K. A.

van Knippenberg

Platow

M. J.

Haslam

S. A.

(2021). Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(1): 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962569

29.

Lin

Ding

(2019). The influence of supervisor developmental feedback on employee innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(0), 1581: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01581

30.

Tonidandel

LeBreton

J. M.

(2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3

31.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

Wetherell

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

32.

van Knippenberg

(2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1): 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25

33.

van Knippenberg

Lee

(2023). Supervisor's organizational embodiment is leader group prototypicality: Addressing construct redundancy through replication. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(1), 42–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/27550311231152901

34.

Wang

Liu

(2018). Servant leadership as a driver of employee service performance: Test of a trickle-down model and its boundary conditions. Human Relations, 71(9): 1179–1203. DOI: 10.1177/0018726717738320

35.

Zhang

(2020). Linking leader humor to employee innovative behavior: The roles of work engagement and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(0), 592999. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592999

36.

Zhu

Tang

Zhang

Wang

(2022). Influence of environmentally specific transformational leadership on employees’ green innovation behavior: A moderated mediation model. Sustainability, 14(3), 1828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031828