J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
DOI 10.1007/s10869-008-9084-y
An Integrative Model Linking Supervisor Support
and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Chien-Cheng Chen Æ Su-Fen Chiu
Published online: 3 April 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract This study extends previous research by pro-
posing an integrative model that examines the mediating
processes underlying the relationship between leader sup-
port and employee OCB. Data were collected from 323
employees and their immediate supervisors in seven Tai-
wanese companies. Results showed that supervisor support
influenced the employees’ OCB indirectly through two
cognitive processes (job satisfaction and person–organiza-
tion fit) and one affective process(job tension).
Keywords Supervisor support
Organizational
citizenship behavior
Job satisfaction

Person–organization fit
Job tension
Introduction
During the past two decades, scholars have conducted
numerous studies on leadership effectiveness. Among them,
many studies have focused on the relationship between
supervisor behavior and employees’ work outcomes (e.g.,
Piccolo and Colquitt 2006; Podsakoff et al. 1996b). Super-
visor support can be defined as the degree to which
supervisors value subordinates’ contributions and care about
subordinates’ well-being (Kottke and Sharafinski 1988).
An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management in Honolulu, Hawaii 2005.
C.-C. Chen (&)
National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
e-mail: ccchen@ntut.edu.tw
S.-F. Chiu
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan, ROC
Despite employing different terms when referring to lead-
ership behavior, all these studies uncovered similar research
findings in the following regard: a high level of supervisor
support will lead to some key organizational outcomes such
as employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
(e.g., Whittington et al. 2004).
Past research has demonstrated that in general higher
supervisor support can enhance employees displays of
OCB (Podsakoff et al. 2000), which can be defined as an
employee’s organizational beneficial behavior that is vital
to maintain the organization’s social system (Organ 1997).
We note that some past research (e.g., Podsakoff et al.
1996b) has demonstrated that people with higher supervi-
sor support will be more likely to display OCB only under
some boundary conditions. Having said this, we should
note, as well, that findings from two meta-analyses (i.e.,
LePine et al. 2002; Podsakoff et al. 1996a) confirmed a
modest positive correlation between supervisor support and
OCB, indicating that supervisor support is generally help-
ful in motivating employees’ OCB.
Although past studies have confirmed the positive rela-
tionship between supervisor support and employees’ OCB,
we do not yet fully understand the intricacies embedded
within the mechanisms. Furthermore, we have yet to pre-
cisely model the process in which supervisor support leads
to employees’ OCB. Research by several scholars paved a
way to achieve this. For example, in a study of 422
employees and their supervisors at two banks, Smith et al.
(1983) found that supervisor support would improve job
satisfaction, which would in turn increase the frequency of
employees’ helping behavior. Furthermore, an investiga-
tion of 182 real-estate salespersons by Netemeyer et al.
(1997) also indicated that employees with higher supervi-
sor support were more likely to have higher P–O fit. Taken
together, the above research findings demonstrate that
123
2 J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
supervisor support may enhance the performance of
employees’ OCB through cognitive processes.
This study shall make several contributions to the
existing literature on the effects of supervisor support.
First, in addition to cognitive mediators (e.g., job satis-
faction and P–O fit), this study examines affective
mediating variables such as job tension (i.e., depression
and anxiety). Due to Amabile et al. (2004) and Kirmeyer
and Dougherty (1988) suggestions that future research shall
focus on the psychological mechanisms to strengthen the
precision of explanations concerning the connection
between supervisors’ behavior and employees’ behavior,
this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the
effects of supervisor-support effects by answering ques-
tions on the how and why aspects of the underlying theory
building (Whetten 1989). Although preliminary empirical
evidence linking supervisor support and attitudinal vari-
ables to each other has begun to accumulate (e.g., Piccolo
and Colquitt 2006), the present study, according to our
knowledge, represents one of the first attempts to empiri-
cally test the related cognitive and affective mechanisms
simultaneously in one research design.
Second, this study shall extend the findings of prior
studies by integrating the theoretical basis of social
exchange theory and affective events theory (AET) into
one framework that can facilitate research on the linkages
between supervisor support and OCB. Prior research has
cited social exchange theory (Blau 1964) as the main the-
oretical basis of studies on OCB antecedents. Scholars have
applied this theory extensively to explain why beneficial
actions directed at employees by their supervisor or by
their organization contribute to the formation of positive
employee attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction and P–O fit),
which obligates employees to reciprocate in positive and
beneficial ways, including OCB (e.g. Eisenberger et al.
2001; Settoon et al. 1996). Taking an alternative theoreti-
cal position, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) argued that
affective factors may drive citizenship behavior. Citing
affective events theory, they argued that the features of a
stable work environment (e.g., supervisor support) influ-
ence the occurrence of positive or negative affective
events, which influences employees’ affective states. In
turn, the experiences of employees’ positive or negative
feelings at work (i.e., job tension) influence employees’
‘‘affect-driven behaviors,’’ such as helping coworkers or
other citizenship behaviors. To contribute to the literature
on OCB antecedents, the present study integrates social
exchange theory and affective events theory into a single
framework that, as part of a larger mediating model,
explains how and why supervisor support enhances
employees’ displays of OCB.
Third, it has been suggested that types of OCB can be
categorized according to the intended primary beneficiary
123
or target of the behavior (e.g., McNeely and Meglino
1994), and can be classified into three broad categories:
OCB that benefits the organization (OCBO), OCB that
benefits individuals within the organization (OCBI) (Wil-
liams and Anderson 1991), and OCB that benefits one’s
own job (OCBJ) (Coleman and Borman 2000). In a recent
review of the OCB literature, Podsakoff et al. (2000)
suggested that future research and theory development
should include multiple forms of citizenship behavior in
order to examine the possibility that different types of OCB
may result from different psychological mechanisms. To
address these research gaps, in the present study we
examined three complementary categories of OCB (i.e.,
OCBO, OCBI, & OCBJ) in order to investigate the relative
contributions of mechanisms linking supervisor support
and three dimensions of OCB.
Finally, the existing research on leadership effect has
extensively based on U.S. samples and has utilized rela-
tively little data from other cultures. It is imperative that
scholars explore the transportability of Western managerial
theories and practice to other cultural contexts. To fill this
research gap, the present study may contribute to the field
by using the data from Taiwan to validate the generaliz-
ability of North America findings in relation to East Asian
findings.
Theory and Hypotheses
Supervisor Support ? Job Satisfaction ? OCB
A number of scholars have suggested that supervisor sup-
port may enhance employees’ job satisfaction. For
example, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) maintained that
supervisor support may increase employees’ job satisfac-
tion through the mechanisms of satisfying employees’
socioemotional needs, raising employees’ performance–
reward expectancies, and signaling the availability of
needed help. Moreover, Dirk and Ferrin (2002) advocate
that a high degree of supervisor support would elicit
employees’ trust in supervisors, which might raise
employees’ job satisfaction. Schaubroeck and Fink (1998)
investigated 214 employees in a large insurance company
on the East Coast of the United States, and found that
supervisor support was positively related to employees’ job
satisfaction (r = .41, p \ .05). In a meta-analysis by Pod-
sakoff et al. (1996a)demonstrated a medium high
correlation between supervisor support and employees’ job
satisfaction (r = .57).
As to the linkage between job satisfaction and OCB, job
satisfaction has commonly been regarded as one of the
important OCB antecedents (e.g., Organ and Ryan 1995).
Scholars have extensively cited social exchange theory as
J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
the theoretical basis to explain why job satisfaction may
lead to OCB. According to social exchange theory, when
employees feel satisfied with their jobs, employees will
display citizenship behaviors to reciprocate the support
provided by their organization or supervisors (Bateman and
Organ 1983). Furthermore, Schnake (1991) suggested that
employees with a high degree of job satisfaction will be in
a good mood, which will make the employees more likely
to help others (Clark and Isen 1982). In a meta-analysis of
22 studies, Podsakoff et al. (1996a) concluded that there is
a significant positive correlation between employees’ job
satisfaction and various OCB dimensions (r = .19–.31 after
corrected for attenuation, all p \ .01). In addition, LePine
et al. ’s (2002) meta-analysis also demonstrated a moderate
correlate ion between job satisfaction and OCB (r = .24
after corrected for attenuation). On the basis of the above
research, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 Job satisfaction mediates the relationship
between supervisor support and OCB.
Supervisor Support ? P–O Fit ? OCB
Person–Organization fit (P–O fit) can be defined as the
degree to which an individual’s personality, beliefs, or
values are compatible with an organization’s culture,
norms, values, or strategic goals (O’Reilly et al. 1991).
Because supervisors usually play the role of representing
the organization and take charge of evaluating employees’
performance, employees may regard supervisor support as
an indicator of organizational support (Eisenberger et al.
2002). Therefore, when supervisors provide psychological
or substantive support to employees, employees’ sense of
supervisor–subordinate goal congruence will be enhanced
(Vancouver and Schmitt 1991), which may in turn enhance
the employees’ perceived P–O fit. Moreover, supportive
supervisors usually enjoy a good leader–member exchange
(LMX) relationship with their employees. This relationship
raises employees’ expectations regarding their ability to
influence their environment and their control over their
own actions (Liden et al. 2000). Accordingly, the stronger
an employee’s LMX relationship, the more likely the
employee will be to negotiate with supervisors to create
organizational experiences that are in line with the
employee’s values (Erdogan et al. 2004), an outcome that,
in turn, increases the employee’s perception of P–O fit.
Past empirical research has generally found that super-
visor support may enhance employee’s perceived P–O fit.
For example, Huang et al. (2005) found that charismatic
leadership (i.e., a type of supportive leader behavior) had a
positive effect on employee’s perceived P–O fit. In addi-
tion, Netemeyer et al. (1997) provided evidence that
employees’ perception of supervisor support was positively
3
related to the employees’ perceived P–O fit (r = .56,
p \ .05).
As to the linkage between P–O fit and OCB, past
research has stated that employees’ perceived P–O fit may
lead to close relationships, positive affect, and attachment
(O’Reilly et al. 1991), and may, thus, enhance employees’
display of OCB. In addition, the stronger an employee’s
P–O fit perception, the more likely the employee will gain
social support from other organizational members (Bretz
and Judge 1994), which in turn will lead the employee to a
higher desire to reciprocate with OCB. In their study on
231 employees of a large trucking company, Lauver and
Kristof-Brown (2001) showed that employees’ perceived
P–O fit had a positive influence on the employees’ con-
textual performance (a construct similar to OCB).
Similarly, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) meta-analytic study
showed that the mean corrected correlation between per-
ceived P–O fit and contextual performance was modestly
positive (p = .32). On the basis of the above research, we
proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2 P–O fit mediates the relationship between
supervisor support and OCB.
Supervisor Support ? Job Tension ? OCB
Another possible linkage between supervisor support and
OCB is job tension. Job tension can be defined as ‘‘an
affective state of an individual characterized by his or her
perceived negative consequences (e.g., anxiety, frustration)
of his or her job’’ (Singh 1993, p. 15). Scholars have
pointed out that higher supervisor support will reduce
employees’ job tension. For example, highly supportive
supervisors are those who back up subordinates, give credit
to subordinates for difficult decisions and trade-offs that
the subordinates made, and avoid becoming overly critical
(Moos 1981). Thus, these supportive factors can enhance
subordinates’ self-esteem, and can mitigate the subordi-
nates’ perceived work load, two outcomes that in turn, can
lower job tension (Kirmeyer and Dougherty 1988). In
addition, highly supportive supervisors will reframe
stressful events as developmental opportunities, and will
inspire subordinates to perceive difficult situations as
meaningful challenges necessary for developing one’s
professional and personal skills (Shamir et al. 1993), thus
reducing subordinates’ job tension.
Past empirical research has found supervisor support to
be helpful in reducing job tension (e.g., Parasuraman and
Alutto 1984). For example, Kirmeyer and Dougherty
(1988) looked at 60 police officers and civilians employed
as radio dispatchers and found a negative correlation
between supervisor support and subordinates’ felt tension
(i.e., anxiety). Bliese and Castro (2000) conducted a field
123
4 J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
study and found that when employees perceived they
received a higher level of supervisor support, the more
likely they would perceive lower psychological strain (e.g.,
depression, anxiety, and frustration) as well. Similarly,
Viswesvaran et al. (1999) meta-analytic study showed that
the mean corrected correlation between supervisor support
and employees’ job strain (e.g., tension) was modestly
negative (r = -.24).
As to the linkage between job tension and OCB, past
research has suggested that employee’s job tension would
reduce their performance of OCB. According to affective
events theory, employees’ negative affective states at work
(i.e., job tension) may lead the employees to reduce affect-
driven positive behaviors, such as OCB (Weiss and Cro-
panzano 1996). Moreover, job tension may reduce
employees’ sensitivity to the outside world (Cohen 1980),
and may lessen their desire to interact with others. As
Cohen (1978) asserted, job tension limits employees’
ability to pay attention to their surroundings, so that the
employees would focus on their own job duties and would
neglect interpersonal cues, thus reducing the occurrence
rate of the employees’ prosocial behavior. In their experi-
mental study, Sherrod and Downs (1974) concluded that
people’s perceived tension would lessen the people’s
helping behavior. In addition, Tang and Ibrahim (1998)
conducted a field study and, therein, found that when
employees perceived lower work-related stress, they would
demonstrate more OCB. Thus, we proposed the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 Job tension mediates the relationship
between supervisor support and OCB.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Through the personal contacts of the present study’s second
author, we chose seven companies (four electronics com-
panies and three banks) as our study’s research targets. The
heads of the HR departments in each company were asked
to randomly select 60–70 employees in different depart-
ments for participation in our study. Each of the seven
companies provided a name list, and from the seven name
lists, we created a single name list of 43 immediate
supervisors and 450 employees from ten job types (the
nature of the jobs included R & D, manufacturing, pro-
fessional, and administration). In writing, we guaranteed
the participants that their responses would remain confi-
dential. The questionnaires were sent to the participants
with self-addressed pre-stamped envelopes provided by the
second author. Either the second author picked up the
questionnaires or the respondents mailed them back using
123
the self-addressed envelope. Supervisors filled in the OCB
items with several employees’ names on it. Of the surveys
sent to the respondents, 38 supervisors and 340 employees
returned their questionnaires. After deleting questionnaires
with unmatched manager–employee pairs, we had a total of
323 supervisor–employee dyads for this study, representing
a response rate of 72% and 81% from supervisors and
employees, respectively.
In terms of the characteristics of the sample employees,
59% were male; the average age was 30 years; 47% were
single; the average education level was 16 years; and the
average organizational tenure was 5 years. As for the
nature of their jobs, 25% of the respondents in R&D
department, 35% worked in manufacturing, 17% were
professionals, and 23% worked in administration.
We employed two procedures to verify the representa-
tiveness of the sample. First, we compared the employee
demographic data of our respondents in each company with
the employee data provided by each company for sex, age,
marital status, education level, seniority, and job types.
There were no significant differences between the total
sample data and the seven companies’ populations in terms
of age (t = 1.35, p [ .05), marital status (v2 = 1.35,
p [ .05), educational level (v2 = .65, p [ .05), and job
types (v2 = .87, p [ .05). These findings indicate that the
samples obtained from each company were considerably
representative of the employees in each company. Next, we
found no statistically significant difference when compar-
ing the age (t = 1.2, p [ .05) and the job types (v2 = .75,
p [ .05) of employees and of supervisors who had returned
samples with the age and the job types of employees and of
supervisors who had not returned the questionnaires;
therefore, non-response bias should not be a problem in the
present study.
Measures
Supervisor Support. Supervisor support was measured with
House and Dessler’s (1974) five items. Sample items
include: ‘‘My supervisor permits me to make recommen-
dations concerning what type of task to perform’’ and ‘‘My
supervisor treats people well and is easy to get close to.’’
The response options ranged from 1 to 6 (1 = strongly
disagree and 6 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s a for
this measure was .85.
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with an
adapted scale developed by Singh (1993). We used four
items to measure the degree of employee satisfaction
toward his (her) job. Sample items include: ‘‘I am satisfied
with my work conditions’’ and ‘‘I am satisfied with my pay
and benefits.’’ The response options ranged from 1 to 6
(1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree). The
Cronbach’s a for this measure was .79.
J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
P–O fit. We measured P–O fit using Netemeyer et al. ’s
(1997) 4-item scale. Sample items include: ‘‘I think my
values are the same as this organization’s values’’ and ‘‘With
regard to concerns for others, my values are the same as this
organization’s values.’’ The response options ranged from 1
to 6 (1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree). The
Cronbach’s a for this measure was .92.
Job Tension. Job tension was measured with the scale
developed by House and Rizzo (1972). We employed five
items to evaluate the degree of perceived job tension,
including anxiety and depression. Sample items include: ‘‘I
often feel anxiety at work’’ and ‘‘I often feel depressed at
work.’’ The response options ranged from 1 to 6
(1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree). The
Cronbach’s a for this measure was .81.
OCB. As we indicated earlier, we conceptualized OCB
here in terms of the intended target or beneficiary of the
citizenship behavior. We used a 27-item scale developed
by Coleman and Borman (2000) to measure the three types
of OCB, including twelve items for OCBO (e.g., endorsing,
supporting, or defending organizational objectives), eight
items for OCBI (e.g., helping other organization members),
and seven items for OCBJ (e.g., persisting with enthusiasm
on own job). To minimize common source variance, we
had the employees’ direct supervisors answered the
employees’ OCB items. The response options ranged from
1 to 6 (1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree). The
Cronbach’s as for the three OCB subscales were all
acceptable: .84 for OCBO, .73 for OCBI, and .74 for
OCBJ.
Because the original survey instrument was developed
in English, the English scale was translated into Chinese
and then back-translated into English so that to ensure
cross-linguistic comparability of the scale-item contents
would be ensured (Brislin 1980).
Results
We tested our hypotheses with structural equation model-
ing (SEM), by using LISREL 8.72 (Jöreskog and Sörbom
1993) with maximum-likelihood estimation. We followed
the two-step procedure suggested by Anderson and Ger-
bing (1988) to test the hypothesized relationships. First, we
analyzed the factor structure of all the variables in the
study, seeking a basis for the structural relationships among
the variables. After confirming the factor structures, we
formed composite variables for each construct from their
respective items and used those composites as single
indicators of their respective factors. In line with Jöreskog
and Sörbom (1993) outlined, we fixed the loadings by the
square root of the reliability of the composite scale and the
measurement errors by the product of the unreliability by
5
the variance. We used this approach to maximize the
sample size-free parameter ratio.
Table 1 presents the results of the confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). Chi-square difference tests indicated that
the hypothesized seven-factor model (supervisor support,
job satisfaction, P–O fit, job tension, OCBO, OCBI, and
OCBJ) provided a better fit for the data than did (1) the
one-factor model (Dv2 = 4037.02, df = 21, p \ .01), (2)
the five-factor model (Dv2 = 108.9, df = 11, p \ .01), and
(3) the six-factor model (Dv2 = 442.69, df = 6, p \ .01).
These results suggested that the present study’s constructs
were distinct.
Table 2 shows the correlations and the descriptive sta-
tistics for the studied variables. As expected, supervisor
support correlated positively with P–O fit (r = .57,
p \ .01), job satisfaction (r = .56, p \ .01), and three types
of OCB (r = .35–.41, all p \ .01). In addition, supervisor
support correlated negatively with job tension (r = -.31,
p \ .01).
The hypothesized structural model displayed in Fig. 1
fits the data well (v2 (12, N = 323) = 61.33; CFI = .97;
GFI = .96, IFI = .97; NFI = .96; RMSR = .051). As one
model fitting the data does not necessarily mean that the
model is the correct one, Hayduk (1987) suggested testing
of alternative models that are theoretically or conceptually
compelling. Because we made no prediction as to whether
or not the relationships in the model are partial or full
mediation, we tested whether the proposed mediating
variables could fully account for the relationship between
supervisor support and OCB. As a result, we estimated an
alternative model that included direct links between
supervisor support and the three types of OCB. We added
these paths because it is possible that the proposed medi-
ating variables may not fully account for the relationship
between supervisor support and employee OCB. For
example, supervisor support may enhance employees’
perceived LMX (Settoon et al. 1996), which in turn increases
the employees’ displays of OCB. Results showed that the fit of
the alternative model (v2 (9, N = 323) = 56.72; CFI = .97;
GFI = .96, IFI = .97; NFI = .97; RMSR = .049) was not
Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis of study variables
Model v2 df CFI IFI NFI RMSR
a
One-factor model 7,001.49 945 .84 .84 .81 .100
Five-factor modelb 3,073.37 935 .92 .92 .89 .077
c
Six-factor model 3,407.16 930 .91 .91 .88 .088
Hypothesized Seven-factor 2,964.47 924 .92 .92 .89 .076
model
a
All seven constructs are combined
b
The three OCB dimensions are combined
c
Job satisfaction and P–O fit are combined
123
6 J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variablesa

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Supervisor support 4.15 .87 (.85)

2. Job satisfaction 2.74 .76 .56** (.79)
3. P–O fit 2.88 .72 .57** .57** (.92)
4. Job tension 3.74 .88 -.31** -.31** -.12* (.87)
5. OCBO 3.93 .59 .35** .37** .33** -.22** (.84)
6. OCBI 4.09 .53 .38** .45** .36** -.34** .68** (.73)
7. OCBJ 4.05 .60 .41** .50** .46** -.35** .69** .70** (.74)
a
Cronbach’s alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01

Fig. 1 Standardized path .36**

coefficients for the hypothesized Job OCBO
Satisfaction
model
.34**
.41**
.73**

.27**
OCBI
Supervisor .68** P-O Fit .18*
Support
.15*

-.37** -.25**
OCBJ
-.14*
Job
Tension -.27**

*p < 05. **p < .01.

significantly better than that in the hypothesized model
(Dv2(3) = 4.46, p [ .05). Moreover, the direct links between
supervisor support and OCBO, OCBI, and OCBJ were not
statistically significant (b = .04, .18, & .09, all p [ .05).
Therefore, we retained the hypothesized model as the final
model and used it to examine our hypotheses. All standardized
path coefficients, shown in Fig. 1, were statistically significant
(either at the p \ .01 level or the p \ .05 level) and in the
predicted directions.
Furthermore, we tested the significance of each
hypothesized indirect relationship with the Sobel test
(Baron and Kenny 1986). Results showed that supervisor
support had a significant indirect association via job sat-
isfaction with OCBO, OCBI, and OCBJ (Z = 4.89, 4.02, &
4.93, all p \ .01), offering support for Hypothesis 1. In
addition, supervisor support had a significant indirect
association via P–O fit with all three types of OCB
(Z = 4.01, 2.34, & 2.05, all p \ .05), offering support for
Hypothesis 2. Moreover, consistent with Hypothesis 3,
supervisor support had a significant indirect association via
job tension with the three types of OCB (Z = 3.53, 1.99, &
3.46, all p \ .05).
Although not specifically hypothesized, we wonder
whether or not supervisor support will motivate different
types of OCB through different cognitive mechanisms (i.e.,
job satisfaction and P–O fit), according to the intended
primary beneficiary of the behavior. Using the summation
of the products of path coefficients in the final model to
examine the relative importance of the three mechanisms
(see Alwin and Hauser 1975), we found that, for the three
mechanisms through P–O fit, the sum of the products of
path coefficients for the linkage to OCBO (.18) was larger
than that to OCBI (.12) and than to OCBJ (.10). In addition,
for the three mechanisms through job satisfaction, the sum
of the products of path coefficients for the linkage to OCBJ
(.30) was larger than that to OCBO (.26) and that to OCBI
(.25). This set of findings indicates that the processes
underlying supervisor support and OCB may, to a certain
extent, depend on the intended beneficiary of the OCB
itself.
Discussion
This study extends prior research of Smith et al. (1983) and
Netemeyer et al. (1997) by linking the relationship
between supervisor support and OCB with two cognitive
mechanisms (i.e., job satisfaction and P–O fit) and with one
affective mechanism (i.e., job tension). With regard to the
linkage of job cognitions, this research found that super-
visor support enhanced employees’ job satisfaction and
employees’ perceived P–O fit and that these mechanisms,

123
J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
in turn, increased the employees’ OCB. Moreover, con-
cerning the affective process, this research demonstrated
that employees’ perceived job tension was ameliorated by a
greater degree of supervisor support which may increase
employees’ displayed OCB. As Jung and Avolio (2000)
asserted, although past research has generally demonstrated
that supervisor support may enhance employees’ OCB,
there has been scant research investigating the underlying
mechanisms between supervisor support and employees’
OCB. Moreover, in a recent review paper, Podsakoff et al.
(2000) suggested that future research should start to further
map out the causal relationships among the antecedents of
citizenship behaviors. To answer Jung and Avolio’s and
Podsakoff et al.’s calls, the present study not only inves-
tigates the linking mechanisms between supervisor support
and employees’ OCB, but also clarifies the causal rela-
tionships among these antecedent variables of OCB.
Specifically, this present study goes a step further in
deepening the field’s understanding of the processes by
which supportive leaders may motivate their subordinates.
To take this step, the present study integrates potentially
important attitudinal and affective mediating variables into
the overall leadership process.
The mediating model in this study also expands the
literature on OCB antecedents. Prior research on OCB
antecedents has presented inconsistent findings on whether
or not job cognitions or affective states influence OCB. For
example, Organ and Konovsky (1989) concluded that
whereas job cognition predicted OCB activity, job affect
did not. In counterpoint, George (1991) found that OCB
was related to job affect, but not to job cognition. The
results of this study demonstrate that both job cognitions
(i.e., job satisfaction and P–O fit) and job affects (i.e., job
tension) were significantly related to the three types of
OCB. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by
further deepening the field’s existing knowledge of the
complex roles that played by both job cognitions and
affective states in shaping employees’ displayed OCB
(Forgas 2002).
Furthermore, results of this study showed that job ten-
sion mediated the relationship between supervisor support
and employee OCB. This finding has implications for the
AET literature. In AET, supervisors may function as
architects of employees’ affective events. Supervisors may
evoke follower affective reactions by allocating work
activities in a certain manner, by providing positive feed-
back on job performance, or by displaying emotional
consideration (Dasborough and Ashkanasy 2003). The
present research adds to the literature by showing that
supervisor support ameliorates employees’ negative affec-
tive reactions (i.e., job tension) and that this amelioration,
in turn, enhances employees’ display of OCB. This finding
is generally consistent with the basic tenet of the overall
7
model of Dasborough (2006), where employee emotional
response mediates the relationship between leader behavior
and employee behavior.
In addition, our results extend social exchange theory by
demonstrating that supervisor support will motivate dif-
ferent types of OCB through different cognitive
mechanisms (i.e., job satisfaction and P–O fit). Social
exchange theory (Blau 1964) maintains that persons will
direct their reciprocation efforts to the source of any benefit
the persons receive. Therefore, if we assume that OCBO is
employees’ deliberate attempt to maintain the balance in a
social exchange between employees and the organization,
it is reasonable to suggest that this behavior is more likely
to be a direct function of what employees think about the
degree of match between them and their organization (i.e.,
P–O fit) (Lee and Allen 2002). In contrast, if we assume
that OCBJ is employees’ deliberate attempt to demonstrate
extra effort and persistence in employees’ own job, it is
reasonable to suggest that this behavior is more likely to be
a direct function of what employees think about how sat-
isfied they are with their present job (i.e., job satisfaction).
To test these hypotheses, we collected data in Taiwan.
We cannot assume that North American findings on the
consequences of supervisor support can apply in other
cultural settings (Adler 1983). As the published leadership
research is predominantly from U.S. samples and rests on
relatively little data from other cultures, it is useful to test
the generalizability of North America findings in relation to
East Asian findings. It is imperative to explore the trans-
portability of Western managerial theories and practice to
Eastern contexts and to pinpoint the related differences
between the East and the West. Consistency between East-
based findings and West-based findings could form the
basis for a common framework for supervisors in joint
ventures to motivate people with diverse cultural back-
grounds to display OCB.
This study has the following practical implications. To
motivate employees to display OCB, organizations may
encourage supervisors to provide their employees with
support, for example, by involving employees in task
planning and by constantly showing concern for employ-
ees. Furthermore, because this study also demonstrated that
employees’ perceived job tension would decrease the
employees’ OCB, organizations should design jobs that
possess intrinsically motivating characteristics, such as
feedback and autonomy, which may reduce employees’
perceived stressors (e.g., role ambiguity) (Jackson and
Schuler 1985) and mitigate employees’ perceived job ten-
sion. In turn, these reductions and mitigations could
enhance employees’ displayed OCB. Finally, we found that
employees’ perceived P–O fit would lead to a higher level
of OCB. To promote employees’ perceived P–O fit, orga-
nizations may employ a screening procedure to select
123
8 J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
recruits whose values fit the organization’s values (Bowen
et al. 1991), or focus on ensuring that newcomers assimi-
late the organization’s values (Chatman 1991) to enhance
employees’ perceptions of P–O fit, and thus promote their
displays of OCB.
Given the above-mentioned theoretical and practical
implications, this study is not without its limitations. First,
this study relied on cross-sectional data. This reliance
constrained our ability to make causal inferences about the
hypothesized relationships was constrained. Future studies
may utilize a longitudinal research design to make causal
inferences about the studied relationships in this research.
Second, in order to avoid the possibility of the common-
method bias, we collected the data from multiple sources.
For example, we asked employees to rate their supervisors’
support and asked supervisors to evaluate their employees’
OCB. Despite our effort to vary the sources, we could not
measure some variables in our theoretical model by sources
other than self (e.g., job satisfaction and job tension). This
fact indicates that some of the reported relationships in the
proposed model may be inflated due to common method
bias. Nevertheless, given the confirmatory factor analysis
as seen in Table 1, it seems reasonable to conclude that our
measures of all variables are likely assessing separate
constructs (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Future studies may explore other possible mediating
mechanisms between supervisor support and employees’
OCB. For example, supervisor support may enhance
employees’ perception of organizational support (POS)
(Eisenberger et al. 2002) and positive moods (Eisenberger
et al., 2001), and these mechanisms would, in turn, lead to
a higher level of OCB.
Employing multiple sources of measurement, this study
provides support for a process model that combines cogni-
tive and affective mechanisms in one study. Such findings
contribute to the literature on the relationship between
leadership and employee behavior by offering explanations
of how and why supportive leadership may lead to employ-
ees’ OCB performance (Amabile et al. 2004). These findings
also underscore the central role of the supervisor in deter-
mining the performance of employees’ OCB.
References
Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich
and the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8, 226–232.
Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects
in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J.
(2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativ-
ity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–
32.
Anderson, J. L., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
123
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. 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.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good
soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizen-
ship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:
Wiley.
Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and
organizational support: Multilevel evidence of the importance of
support. Work & Stress, 14, 65–73.
Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the
organization not the job. Academy of Management Executive, 5,
35–51.
Bretz, B. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person–organization fit and the
theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure,
and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32–54.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and
written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection
and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). Toward understanding the
relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A.
Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology
(pp. 73–108). New York: Elsevier.
Cohen, S. (1978). Environmental load and the allocation of attention.
In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Valins (Eds.), Advances in
environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–29). Hillsdale, N. J.:
Erlbaum.
Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and
social behavior: A review of research and theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 82–108.
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the
underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain.
Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44.
Dasborough, M. T. (2006). Cognitive asymmetry in employee
emotional reactions to leadership behaviors. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 163–178.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Leadership and
affective vents: How uplifts can ameliorate employee hassles. In
C. Cherrey & L. R. Matusak (Eds.), Building leadership bridges
(Vol. 3, pp. 58–72). College Park, MD: James MacGregor Burns
Academy of Leadership.
Dirk, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic
findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades,
L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L.,
& Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contribu-
tions to perceived organizational support and employee
retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value
congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles
of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational sup-
port. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305–332.
Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on
interpersonal behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 1–28.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on
prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
299–307.
J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL:
Essentials and advances. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.
House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of
leadership: Some post-hoc and a priori tests. In J. Hunt & L.
Arson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29–
55). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R., & Rizzo, J. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical
variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 467–505.
Huang, M. P., Cheng, B. S., & Chou, L. F. (2005). Fitting in
organizational values: The mediating role of person–organiza-
tion fit between CEO charismatic leadership and employee
outcomes. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 35–49.
Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual
critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work
settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 36, 16–78.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference
guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An
experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and
value congruence on transformational and transactional leader-
ship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949–964.
Kirmeyer, S. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1988). Work load, tension, and
coping: Moderating effects of supervisor support. Personnel
Psychology, 41, 125–139.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived
supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079.
Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005).
Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of
person-job, person–organization, person-group, and person-
supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between
employees’ perceptions of person-job and per–organization fit.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454–470.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior
and work place deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and
dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination
of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the
relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional
and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior:
An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844.
Moos, R. H. (1981). Work environment scale manual: A social
climate scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997).
An investigation into the antecedents of organizational behaviors
in a personal selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61, 85–98.
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and
organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to
assessing person–organization fit. Academy of Management
Journal, 34, 487–516.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s
construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective
determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.
9
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1984). Sources and outcomes of stress
in organizational settings: Toward the development of a structural
model. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 330–350.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership
and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996a).
Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jemier’s
substitutes for leadership and employee attitudes, role percep-
tions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
380–399.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996b).
Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership
as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 22,
259–298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review
of theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & 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.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87, 698–714.
Schaubroeck, J., & Fink, L. S. (1998). Facilitating and inhibiting
effects of job control and social support on stress outcomes and
role behavior: A contingency model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 167–195.
Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed
model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44, 735–759.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in
organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member
exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 81, 219–227.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects
of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organi-
zation Science, 4, 1–17.
Sherrod, D., & Downs, R. (1974). Environmental determinants of
altruism: The effects of stimulus overload and perceived control on
helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 468–479.
Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: Facets, determinants, and
impacts. Journal of Marketing, 57, 11–31.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Tang, L. P., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998). Antecedents of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior revisit: Public personnel in the United
States and the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27,
529–550.
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory
examination of person–organizational fit: Organizational goal
congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333–352.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social
support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences
of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 18, 1–74.
123
10
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?
Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transfor-
mational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent
and interactive effects on employee outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 593–606.
123
J Bus Psychol (2008) 23:1–10
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.