The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

Mediation of
The impact of perceived self-efficacy
supervisor support on employees’
turnover intention and
task performance 369

Mediation of self-efficacy Received 11 March 2019

Revised 28 April 2019
Accepted 14 May 2019
Sadia Afzal
Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Arshad
Lahore Business School, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Sharjeel Saleem
Division of Management, Lyallpur Business School,
Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan, and
Omer Farooq
United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explain the mediational mechanisms in the relationship of
perceived supervisor support (PSS) with turnover intention (TI) and task performance (TP).
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through questionnaires from the academic staff of
Pakistani universities. The theoretical model was tested using data collected from 304 respondents by using
structural equation modeling technique. Mediation analysis was performed with 5,000 bootstraps samples.
Findings – The results revealed that PSS affected TI negatively through the mediation of self-efficacy.
Conversely to this, PSS influenced TP positively through the mediation of self-efficacy. In addition, the results
also showed the direct effect of PSS on employees’ TP.
Practical implications – The results of this study suggest that the supervisor must provide adequate
support to the academic staff, which helps them to develop their self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is helpful for the
employees to reduce their TI and to improve their TP.
Originality/value – This study is the first of its nature which explained the direct and indirect effects of PSS
on TI and TP by using the framework of social learning theory and social exchange theory simultaneously.
Keywords Supervisor support, Self-efficacy, Task performance, Turnover intention,
Social learning theory, Social exchange theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Supervisor support has received enormous attention from research scholars because it
affects employees’ work outcomes (e.g. Chen and Chiu, 2008; Gentry et al., 2007; Griffin et al.,
2001). Extant research revealed that perceived supervisor support (PSS) negatively affects
employees’ turnover intention (TI) (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Maertz et al., 2007; Smith, 2005).
Some scholars also focused on the indirect effect of PSS on employees’ TI via different
mediational mechanisms (e.g. Dawley et al., 2010; Deconinck and Johnson, 2009; Eisenberger
Journal of Management
et al., 2002; Maertz et al., 2007). These studies suggest that mediational mechanisms are vital Development
in the research on employees’ TI. TI is a valid predictor of actual turnover behavior Vol. 38 No. 5, 2019
pp. 369-382
(Weisberg, 1994). A meta-analysis of 34 studies conducted by Steel and Ovalle (1984) © Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
concluded that “a causal order of decision process stages that progresses from affective DOI 10.1108/JMD-03-2019-0076
JMD variables (such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction), through intentions to
38,5 stay or quit and that culminates in turnover behavior” (p. 682). Because of employees’
turnover, the organizations ought to face significant financial loss (Azanza et al., 2015;
Pondy and Pate, 1989). Therefore, the current study is an attempt to identify the mechanism
by which the supervisor support can reduce the TI of employees.
The existing research on PSS has also focused on the role of the supervisor in shaping
370 employees’ extra-role behaviors (Chen and Chiu, 2008; Podsakoff et al., 2000) but has ignored
its effect on employees’ task performance (TP). The current study also incorporated the role
of PSS in the development of employees’ TP. Scholars of this stream consolidated the
research on PSS by using organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Smith,
2005) and leader-member exchange theory (Maertz et al., 2007). Although significant
research contributions are made in literature, still a need has been identified to research
employees’ TI and TP with different perspectives to reveal its dynamics more extensively
(Kalemci Tuzun and Arzu Kalemci, 2012).
This study introduces the theoretical lens of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) to
study the indirect relationship of PSS with employees’ TI and TP. Social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977) suggests that people learn from observations. By their observations, they
develop their belief about the completion of any task. Another important idea proposed in
social learning theory is that mediating processes occur between stimuli and responses. The
core construct of this theory is self-efficacy that refers to the belief of an individual to
complete a task (Bandura, 1997; Bandura et al., 2001). Bandura (1995) defines self-efficacy as
“the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations” (p. 2). PSS develops confidence in employees (Pan et al.,
2011) about their competencies to accomplish their tasks at the workplace (Silbert, 2005);
and as a result their TP increases (O’neill and Mone, 1998). As self-efficacy instills a spirit of
self-confidence among the employees; they are likely to stay on the job on the face of
challenges, and they would like to stay in the organization for a longer tenure. So, this study
proposes here the indirect relationship of PSS with TI and TP through the mediation of self-
efficacy. Also, this study has used the theoretical framework of social exchange theory
(Ekeh, 1974) to study the direct relationship of PSS with TI and TP.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, drawing on the social
learning theory framework, we propose self-efficacy as a potential intervening variable to
explaining PSS – TI as well as PSS–TP relationship. Second, this study was conducted in
Pakistan, a South Asian country. According to Hofstede (1983) studies, Pakistan is quite
different from western countries like the USA, UK, Germany, France, etc., on six cultural
dimensions (power distance index ¼ 55, individualism/collectivism ¼ 14, masculinity ¼ 50,
uncertainty avoidance ¼ 70, long-term orientation ¼ 50). Pakistan is a collectivistic society,
and it is interesting to note how this collectivism plays out while extending supervisor
support to the employees and how this social support is perceived and utilized by the
employees for the attainment of organizational goals. A third important contribution is the
organizational context of this study. Employees from different universities in Pakistan are
the target population for this study. With reference to its context, higher education sector in
Pakistan has been facing hurdles and challenging scenarios such as issues related to
students, teachers, poor financing to universities, poor infrastructure, lack of resources, lack
of proper implementation of management policies, insufficient research facilities, political
and economic instability and likewise many others (Aadil, 2010). The fundamental
customers of the academic institutions are students and the quality of the aggregate
experience they take home matters a lot; and this quality heavily depends on the excellence
and intelligence of faculty members (Saleem and Qamar, 2017). A high turnover rate in
such a human-intensive sector carries certain detrimental outcomes for the institutions
(Powell and York, 1992). Pakistan is at the face of special challenges regarding the higher
education sector. Being a developing country, Pakistan ranks 123rd among 139 countries in Mediation of
terms of higher education; and Pakistan’s Public expenditure on education as a percentage self-efficacy
to GDP is estimated at 2.2 percent in the fiscal year 2017 as compared to 2.3 percent of GDP
in the fiscal year 2016. This figure is lowest in the region and is also far less than
recommended by UNESCO. In annual budget 2018–2019 Rs111.23bn has been earmarked
for higher education which is far from enough for a country like Pakistan. To have a better
understanding, these issues need to be examined with different perspectives. This study 371
includes a few of the potential factors which offer a solution to these issues such as
supervisor support, self-efficacy and TP. As these factors influence employee’s attitudes and
behaviors, they could play a facilitative role in efficiently designing the employment
policies. So it makes our study more exciting that it will provide an empirical contribution to
the South Asian context that has different cultural settings.

Theory and hypotheses

Social exchange theory framework
Social exchange theory is a framework that deals with the mutual rewarding process to
exchange and reciprocate through various acts (Emerson, 1976). Blau (1964) expounds
social exchange relationship as “voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the
returns they are expected to bring” (p. 91). Over the past decades, exchange theorists have
put extensive efforts to highlight the importance of social structures via exchange relations.
The relationship between PSS and TI. Drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), it
has long been argued that reciprocal relationships are presented through work when
employees put the effort in exchange for both substantial rewards such as pay and benefits,
and socio-emotional benefits such as encouragement through appreciation and esteem
(Angle and Perry, 1983). The idea of PSS is based on social exchanges between the employee
and his/her supervisor. The commitment of an employee to the supervisor can be explained
through social exchange theory. This theory holds that employee’s commitment to the
supervisor is an exchange relationship in which employee expects to receive rewards and
benefits, both tangible and intangible, in return of effort and commitment that he/she
extends to the supervisor (Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988).
PSS refers to the perception employees form regarding how valuable their contributions
are for their supervisors and how much their well-being is taken care of by the supervisors
(Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988). Social exchange theory perspective says that when
employees receive some support from their supervisors, they also reciprocate by engaging
in the behaviors which are beneficial for the supervisors. Supervisor support and coworker
support are essential mechanisms which enrich the work environment by reducing stress
(Sloan, 2012). Reduction in stress subsequently enhances job satisfaction, performance and
intention of staying on the job (Cooper et al., 2001; Otsuka et al., 2007).
Lloyd et al. (2015) argued that perceived supervisor listening was linked with employees’
TI. They proposed that happier employees were expected to be more devoted and, hence,
were less likely to quit their job. Extant research has found that supervisor behaviors are
linked with employees’ voluntary turnover (e.g. Allen et al., 2010; Dawley et al., 2010;
Deconinck and Johnson, 2009). On account of the above argumentation, it proposed the
following hypothesis:
H1. PSS is negatively associated with employees’ TI.
The relationship between PSS and TP. PSS is not only crucial in decreasing the TI, but it also
inculcates many positive outcomes such as job satisfaction and TP (Chiang and Hsieh, 2012).
According to social exchange theory, when employees feel supported by their supervisors,
they tend to reciprocate by performing well (Melián-González, 2016). The performance of
JMD supervisors is evaluated by the goals that they achieve with their team members. When an
38,5 employee perceives his supervisor being compassionate, cooperative and encouraging, s/he
ultimately tries to reciprocate and contributes through his/her TP and by accomplishing goals
assigned by the supervisors (Park et al., 2018). With social exchange lens, it was already
examined that upon receiving support from supervisor, employees feel motivated, and they
reciprocate, in turn, by producing high-quality output (Deconinck and Johnson, 2009). The
372 relationship between PSS and TP has already been established in some existing studies (see
Melián-González, 2016; Park et al., 2018; Paterson et al., 2014; Talukder et al., 2018). Therefore,
this study posits the following hypothesis:
H2. PSS is positively associated with employees’ TP.

Social learning theory framework

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1971) could be helpful to explain the relationship of PSS
with TI and TP. Bandura (1977) has produced seminal work regarding social learning
theory and self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) suggests that people learn from observations and
develop their self-efficacy. At the workplace, self-efficacy of employees can be developed
when they are working in favorable working conditions. These favorable conditions can be
available in the form of PSS. When employees feel a higher level of self-efficacy, it can
diminish their TI and enhance their TP. People with higher levels of self-efficacy are
expected to persist and persevere in difficult circumstances and, in due course, to succeed.
Contrarily, individuals with lower levels of self-efficacy are prone to lowering the input of
effort or giving up altogether in the face of hardships. Therefore, this study introduces the
theoretical lens of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) to study the indirect effect of PSS
on employees’ TI and TP through the mediation of self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism between PSS and TI. PSS can be a potential source
of self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) stated that mastery experiences are a
potent source of self-efficacy, while for new-comer teachers they found organizational
resources and interpersonal support as important antecedents of self-efficacy. Recent
research contributions favor that a good relationship with mentors may complement self-
efficacy (Day and Allen, 2004). In organizational settings effective supervision is assumed as
one of the developmental and compelling resources (Noe et al., 2002; Oentoro et al., 2016).
Supervisors have broad knowledge, and they are well aware of the needs of subordinates.
Additionally, they have great awareness of organizational settings and are accountable for
subordinates’ performance and their development (Pan et al., 2011). Second, new skills and
knowledge are transferred by supervisors to their employees (Lankau and Scandura, 2002).
In routine life, employees generally receive mentoring from their supervisor. Bandura (1982)
proposes four elements which enhance self-efficacy: enactive mastery, vicarious modeling,
verbal persuasion and arousal. Out of these elements, verbal persuasion is especially
relevant to supervisor support. A supportive supervisor carries confidence in the abilities of
the subordinate and may communicate this confidence in the form of verbally expressing
trust, praise, and faith (Tierney and Farmer, 2002). In this way, the supervisor can convince
the employees of their abilities to achieve the assigned goals. These persuasions are
influential in generating beliefs of self-efficacy in the employees. Therefore, PSS positively
impacts the self-efficacy of employees (Gibson et al., 2009). It is proposed here that the higher
levels of self-efficacy created through supervisor support may help workers to install
enduring responses and have a strong influence over job satisfaction, commitment, coping
behaviors and withdrawal cognitions (Gruman et al., 2006).
Ashforth and Saks (2000) found that individuals higher in self-efficacy dealt with difficult
situations with a problem-focused approach. It diminished their state of vulnerability
and led to higher organizational commitment and job involvement. Employees who are high in
self-efficacy tend to respond to negative feedback with an increase in effort and motivation. Mediation of
Hence, they tend to stay in the job and excel rather than thinking about quitting the job. self-efficacy
Therefore, increasing employees’ self-efficacy may reduce actual turnover:
H3. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between PSS and employees’ TI.
Self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism between PSS and TP. In addition, it is also proposed
here that the relationship between PSS and TP is mediated by self-efficacy. Due to 373
supervisor support, when self-efficacy is increased, it ultimately builds the confidence in
employees that they have the ability to perform their job. In organizations, possessing
self-efficacy creates a positive performance spiral for the organizational members who own
it (Robbins et al., 2013). Maintaining self-efficacy increases levels of work engagement
which, in turn, increases the level of job performance. The heightened level of performance
further increases self-efficacy, thereby, starting another circle of boosting performance
(Salanova et al., 2011). The link between self-efficacy and performance can also be explained
through a complementary theory “goal setting theory.” Assignment of challenging goals to
a specific employee increases the level of self-efficacy for that employee because assigning
challenging goals is a signal of the supervisor’s confidence in the employee. The employee
then sets high goals for oneself and strives to achieve the goals, thereby, increasing the
expenditure of efforts and, hence, enhancing the performance.
Self-efficacy may relate to TP in different perspectives. For example, the self-efficacy has
a positive impact on idea generation (Gist, 1989), managerial efficiency (Wood et al., 1990),
skills and knowledge acquisition (Mitchell et al., 1994). So we propose here that self-efficacy
that is developed by supervisor support can function to enhance employee’s TP (Figure 1):
H4. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between PSS and employee’s TP.

Method
Sample and procedure
The target population was the teaching staff of private universities of Pakistan. For data
collection, the authors adopted the survey method using self-administered questionnaires.
They visited the universities and got permission from the administration of universities to
collect data from teachers. Teachers were instructed to answer the questionnaire and put
back in a box placed at the admin office of the university. Total 350 questionnaires
were distributed out of which 304 questionnaires were received back. There were 172 male
(56.6 percent) and 132 female (43.4 percent) respondents. In age demographics, the majority

–
Turnover
Intention

Perceived
Supervisor + Self-Efficacy
Support

Task Figure 1.
Performance Proposed research
+ model
JMD of the respondents were related to 29–40 years age group (45.70 percent). As the data were
38,5 collected from the teaching staff of the universities, the majority of the respondents held a
master’s degree (70.40 percent) and PhD degree (22.70 percent). In tenure classification, 131
respondents (43.10 percent) had less than five years’ experience, and 125 respondents
(41.10 percent) had experience of 5–10 years. There were a few respondents (15.80 percent)
who had more than ten years of experience (see Table I).
374
Measures
PSS was measured with a four-item scale developed by Rhoades et al. (2001). An example
item is “My supervisor cares about my opinions.” TI was measured using a three-item scale
developed by Igbaria and Guimaraes (1993); a sample item includes “I will likely actively
look for a new job in the next year.” Self-efficacy was measured by a three-item scale
developed by Spreitzer (1995). An example item is “I am confident about my ability to do my
job.” TP was measured with an eleven-item scale developed by Tsui et al. (1997). An
example item is “I perceive that my quantity of work is higher than average.” All items were
measured on a five points Likert scale (1 ¼ Strongly Disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly Agree).

Control variables
In the present study, we have taken the variables such as age, gender, experience and
education as control variables because their inclusion may contaminate results and
relationships among constructs. For instance, previous research indicated that age is inversely
related to TI (Van Dam et al., 2013). In the context of job performance, females are rated lower
for promotions as compared to males (see meta-analysis by Roth et al., 2012). Experience and
age have been explored to have a positive impact on TP (Cook et al., 2013). Therefore, this
research is treating gender, age, experience and education as control variables.

n Percentage

Gender
Male 172 56.60
Female 132 43.40
Age (years)
18–28 93 30.60
29–40 139 45.70
41–55 62 20.40
More Than 55 10 3.30
Marital status
Married 199 65.50
Single 97 31.90
Widowed/divorced 8 2.60
Qualification
Graduation 21 6.90
Masters 214 70.40
PhD 69 22.70
Tenure
Table I. Less than 5 years 131 43.10
Demographic 5–10 years 125 41.10
characteristics of More than 10 years 48 15.80
respondents Total 304
Common method bias Mediation of
In the current study, data were collected through the same questionnaire by using cross- self-efficacy
sectional design in the one-time frame which might introduce common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). For the identification of common method bias, this research
employed multiple methods which include Harman’s one-factor, single factor CFA and
common latent factor. In Harman’s one-factor, single factor extracted only 41.38 percent
variance; wherever in the principal component analysis all items produced four distinct 375
factors which, together, accounted for 72 percent variance. Single factor CFA also did not
produce a good model fit. In common latent factor, any threat of common method bias was
not found for the data used in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Results
Analytical strategy
For model testing, the structural equation modeling technique was used (Kline, 2011). This
technique is preferable over simple regression analysis, because of testing the multiple
equations simultaneously. It also provides a global model fit in the shape of different fit indices.
First, reliability and validity of the constructs were established by performing confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA). After that, the hypothesized model was tested in AMOS 22. To test
the mediation, bootstrap approach using 5,000 bootstrap samples was used.

Reliability and validity analysis

CFA was performed to examine the convergent validity and discriminant validity of all
instruments. We used the model re-specification method proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003)
in CFA. First, single factor CFA was conducted in which all items were loaded on common
latent factor which showed very poor model fit according to all indices (Table II). After that,
we performed four factors CFA solution in which all items were loaded to their relevant
latent variables. Four factors solution showed a good model fit in comparison to single
factor CFA (Table II).
To assess convergent validity, we relied on factor loadings and average variance
extracted (Kline, 2011). Factor loadings of all the items on their relevant variables were
found to be above the recommended value of 0.70 and AVE of all variables was greater than
the recommended value of 0.50 (Kline, 2011). Finally, Cronbach’s α values for all the
variables were greater than the threshold value of 0.70, thus indicating good reliability
(Nunally and Bernstein, 1978). These values are reported in Table III.
In discriminant validity analysis, the square root of AVE was compared with inter-
variable correlations and was found greater than respective correlations confirming that all
the variable are also discriminated from one another (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Means,
standard deviations and correlations are reported in Table IV along with the square root of
AVE on the diagonals.

Hypotheses testing
The model fit of our proposed model exhibited an acceptable fit to data according to
different goodness of fit indices (χ2/df ¼ 2.48; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; GFI ¼ 0.86; TLI ¼ 0.90;
NFI ¼ 0.86). For hypotheses testing, we examined the direct and indirect effects. In H1, the

Model Description of model χ2/df GFI TLI NFI RMSEA

Model 1 Single factor CFA 8.70 0.63 0.60 0.62 0.16 Table II.
Model 2 Four-factor CFA 2.64 0.87 0.92 0.89 0.07 Model fit of CFA
JMD S. No. Variable Items 1 2 3 4 AVE α
38,5
1 Perceived supervisor support PSS1 0.76 0.62 0.86
PSS2 0.76
PSS3 0.89
PSS4 0.73
2 Task performance EP1 0.69 0.58 0.94
376 EP2 0.72
EP3 0.7
EP4 0.78
EP5 0.82
EP6 0.75
EP7 0.93
EP8 0.75
EP9 0.71
EP10 0.76
EP11 0.71
3 Self-efficacy SE1 0.81 0.66 0.83
SE2 0.91
SE3 0.7
4 Turnover intention TOI1 0.83 0.72 0.88
Table III. TOI2 0.92
Factors loadings, TOI3 0.78
convergent validity Notes: Loadings are standardized regression weights. All loadings are significant at 0.01 level. AVE
and reliability represents average variance extracted

S. No. Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Gender 1.43 0.50 1

2 Age 1.96 0.80 −0.25** 1
3 Qualification 2.16 0.52 −0.18** 0.29** 1
4 Tenure 1.73 0.72 −0.29** 0.38** 0.16** 1
5 Perceived supervisor support 3.67 0.79 −0.15** 0.12* −0.05 0.09 0.79
6 Self-efficacy 3.98 0.79 −0.03 0.15** 0.20** −0.00 0.44** 0.81
Table IV. 7 Turnover intention 2.94 1.30 −0.09 0.06 0.15* −0.09 −0.10 −0.17** 0.85
Descriptive statistics,8 Task performance 3.93 0.66 −0.17** 0.26** 0.11 0.13* 0.51** 0.56** 0.02 0.76
correlation matrix and Notes: n ¼ 304. Values at diagonals are square root of AVE. To establish the discriminant validity, the
discriminant validity diagonal values should be greater than inter-construct correlations. *p o0.05; **p o0.01

relationship of PSS (while controlling for self-efficacy) with TI was found insignificant; H1,
thus, was rejected. Conversely to this, the direct relationship of supervisor support with TP
was found positive and significant (0.31, p o0.001). H3 and H4 proposed the mediation of
self-efficacy in the relationship of PSS with TI and TP, respectively. The indirect effect of
PSS on TI via self-efficacy was found negative and significant (−0.08, p o0.001), which
demonstrates that with increased supervisor support, self-efficacy is enhanced which, in
turn, reduces the employees’ TI. The indirect effect of PSS on TP via self-efficacy was found
positive and significant (0.18, p o0.001). These results are reported in Table V.
As the mediation exists in our framework, therefore, it becomes necessary to identify the
proportion of mediation. The results demonstrated that there existed full mediation between PSS
and TI. Conversely to this, the PSS impacts TP directly as well as indirectly. The results showed
that there is partial mediation in PSS–TP relationship via self-efficacy. The proportion of
mediation was 37 percent in their relationship. The impact of self-efficacy on TI was negative
and significant (−0.18, po0.01); and on TP was positive and significant (0.42, po0.001).
Discussion Mediation of
The results of our study exposed that the direct effect of PSS on employee TI is self-efficacy
insignificant, which demonstrates that when PSS increases, it does not directly affect TI. On
the contrary, the impact of PSS on TI through the mediation of self-efficacy was negatively
significant. It reveals that PSS develops the self-efficacy of employees which, in turn,
decreases their TI. Our research findings extended the results of Newman et al. (2011)’s
study conducted in China. Newman et al. (2011) demonstrated that PSS influenced TI 377
through the mediation of perceived organizational support and organizational commitment.
Conversely, our study neglected the partial findings of Newman et al. (2011)’s study in
which they demonstrated the direct significant negative effect of PSS on TI of employees.
It illustrates, in Chinese culture, PSS affects TI directly as well as indirectly, but here in
Pakistani culture, PSS influences TI indirectly but not in a direct paradigm.
This research also extended the conclusions of Eisenberger et al. (2002) by adding the
new mediational mechanism of self-efficacy in the negative relationship between PSS and
employee TI. They conducted this study in the retail industry, but the current study was
held in the education sector which sharply contrasts the retail industry. Furthermore, we
also compared the findings of our research with a study conducted by Smith (2005). Their
results demonstrated that PSS influenced TI through the mediation of job commitment by
using the framework of social exchange theory. Our study extended these findings by
introducing self-efficacy as a new mediator between PSS and TI.
On the basis of all these results, we consolidate the studies of PSS and TI in the
theoretical frameworks of organizational support theory, social exchange theory and social
learning theory. PSS influenced TI through the mediation of perceived organizational
support, job commitment and self-efficacy. These theories were found valid and worth
contributing to the literature on PSS and TI.
In the framework of social exchange theory, this research proposed that PSS positively
affects employee TP. The results of our study demonstrated that PSS had a positive effect
on employees’ TP. Besides, in the schema of social learning theory, the results of this
study explained that PSS also positively affected employees’ TP through the mediation of
self-efficacy. The results demonstrated partial mediation between PSS and TP. There was
37 percent mediation in the path of PSS and TP via self-efficacy.
This study extended the findings of Babin and Boles (1996) by adding new mediational
mechanism. They conducted their research in the retailing sector, and their results declared
the impact of PSS on TP through multiple mediation of role conflict and role ambiguity. Our
study differs from their research regarding the target population, and we studied
self-efficacy as a mediation mechanism. Furthermore, the results of this study confirmed
and presented a broadened view of the findings of Shanock and Eisenberger (2006), who
demonstrated the direct effect of PSS on employees’ in-role and extra-role performance.
Finally, we conclude from the findings of this study and existing studies, that PSS
influences employees’ TP directly as well as through different mediational mechanisms.
PSS influences TP through the mediational mechanism of self-efficacy, role conflict, and
role ambiguity.

Dependent variable
Turnover intention Task performance
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Independent variable effect effect effect Mediation effect effect effect Mediation Table V.
The effect of
Perceived supervisor support ns −0.08*** −0.08*** Full mediation 0.31*** 0.18*** 0.49*** 37% independent variables
Self-efficacy −0.18** – – – 0.42*** – – – on dependent
Notes: n ¼ 304. The cell values are standardized regression weights. **po 0.01; ***po 0.001 variables
JMD Theoretical implications
38,5 The current study examined the effect of PSS on employee TI and TP. This study
contributes to literature at three levels. First, it is using the framework of social learning
theory to explain the impact of supervisor support on employees’ TP and TI. According to
social learning theory, when the employees receive supervisor support, they have more
opportunity to observe the things which increase their self-efficacy, and as a result, their TI
378 decreases and TP increases. Second, the current study was conducted in a developing South
Asian country (Pakistan); whereas, the previous studies have been executed in developed
countries. According to Hofstede (1983), Pakistan sharply contrasts from developed
countries in many cultural factors. Third, this research is conducted in the education sector,
and its target population is academic staff, which is considered as knowledge workers.
These employees are different from the other technical workers; hence, they can be
distinguished easily regarding their work attributes, preferences and the support they
require to perform well and stay with the organization.

Managerial implications
The findings of this study provide several managerial implications. It presented broader
insight into the role of the supervisor in developing the self-efficacy, decreasing the TI and
improving the TP in the education sector of Pakistan. Faculty members in universities are
supposed to perform multiple tasks including teaching, evaluation of students as well as
conducting research. At times, they feel unwillingness and disinterest toward their work
goals; hence, they need a specific support from supervisors in this regard as they set goals
for them and encourage them (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2007). This support is essential for
them because it builds their self-efficacy and as a result their TP gets improved and TI
decreases. Furthermore, this research is also essential for the universities, because the focus
of these institutions is more on improving the teaching quality and development of research
but unfortunately, they focus very less on employee retention (Khalid et al., 2012). Our study
will inspire higher education institutions to have more focus on supervisor support because
it is the principal antecedent of employee TI and TP. According to Banta and Kuh (1998),
cooperation, support and mutual understanding play a vital role among peers, supervisors
and managers to raise the standard of quality education and personal grooming of teachers
as well as for students. Our study provides implications for human resource managers in
universities of Pakistan for improvement of policies. It means a change in educational
policies and academic matters can lead to the particular type of conflicts for both faculty and
students if administration and faculty are suffering from a lack of support from higher
authorities (Pitman, 2000). Supervisors can provide support to the teachers in the shape of
social and technical support. Due to this support, teachers will feel confident in their skills
and will perform better. When the teachers are satisfied with their performance, it provides
them with a reason to stay in the organization.

Limitations and future research directions

Some limitations temper the findings of this study. First in this study, we used the PSS
construct which is unidimensional. The support of the supervisor can be multi-dimensional.
For example at the workplace, supervisor support provides social support (Sakurai and Jex,
2012) and technical support. Therefore, future research may develop the multi-dimensional
construct of supervisor support and incorporate in employees’ in-role performance and TI
studies. In addition, the current study used the unidimensional construct of self-efficacy
which may be developed and contextualized according to the organizational context. For
example, the teacher’s self-efficacy is different from a cashier’s or engineer’s self-efficacy.
Therefore, we propose that the self-efficacy construct should be developed according to the
context of organizations. Moreover, different forms of self-efficacy can be discerned from
each other, e.g., generalized self-efficacy, creative self-efficacy, etc. Another limitation of this Mediation of
study is the cross-sectional research design. Longitudinal research can produce more self-efficacy
authentic and generalized results. Therefore, we propose for future researchers to conduct
research by using time-lag and longitudinal design. In this research, the results can be
improved if the PSS is rated by subordinates and employees’ TP is evaluated by colleagues
or superiors. In this study, we used a limited sample size selected from the conveniently
available respondents in private universities of the capital city of Pakistan. The future 379
research may collect the data from the public-sector universities, and also from other towns.
Also, in this study, we did not incorporate the role of moderators which may influence these
relationships; future studies can do so.

References
Aadil, N. (2010), “Assessing quality of higher education in Pakistan”, paper presented at 3rd
International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education, Lahore.
Allen, D.G., Bryant, P.C. and Vardaman, J.M. (2010), “Retaining talent: replacing misconceptions with
evidence-based strategies”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 48-64.
Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1983), “Organizational commitment individual and organizational
influences”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 123-146.
Ashforth, B.E. and Saks, A.M. (2000), “Personal control in organizations: a longitudinal investigation
with newcomers”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 311-339.
Azanza, G., Moriano, J.A., Molero, F. and Lévy Mangin, J.-P. (2015), “The effects of authentic leadership on
turnover intention”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 955-971.
Babin, B.J. and Boles, J.S. (1996), “The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor
support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Bandura, A. (1971), Social Learning Theory, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1995), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V. and Pastorelli, C. (2001), “Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of
children’s aspirations and career trajectories”, Child Development, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 187-206.
Banta, T.W. and Kuh, G.D. (1998), “A missing link in assessment: collaboration between academic and
student affairs professionals”, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 40-46.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New York, NY.
Chen, C.C. and Chiu, S.F. (2008), “An integrative model linking supervisor support and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 23 Nos 1-2, pp. 1-10.
Chiang, C.F. and Hsieh, T.S. (2012), “The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological
empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 180-190.
Cook, K.S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E.R.W. and Nakagawa, S. (2013), “Social exchange theory”, in DeLamater, J.
and Ward, A. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research,
Springer, Dordrecht.
Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J. and O’driscoll, M.P. (2001), Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of
Theory, Research, and Applications, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
JMD Dawley, D., Houghton, J.D. and Bucklew, N.S. (2010), “Perceived organizational support and turnover
38,5 intention: the mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit”, The Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 150 No. 3, pp. 238-257.
Day, R. and Allen, T.D. (2004), “The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with
protégé career success”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 72-91.
Deconinck, J.B. and Johnson, J.T. (2009), “The effects of perceived supervisor support, perceived
organizational support, and organizational justice on turnover among salespeople”, Journal of
380 Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 333-350.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002), “Perceived
supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573.
Ekeh, P.P. (1974), Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions, Heinemann, London.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 335-362.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Gentry, W.A., Kuhnert, K.W., Mondore, S.P. and Page, E.E. (2007), “The influence of supervisory-
support climate and unemployment rate on part-time employee retention: a multilevel analysis”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1005-1022.
Gibson, J.A., Grey, I.M. and Hastings, R.P. (2009), “Supervisor support as a predictor of burnout and
therapeutic self-efficacy in therapists working in ABA schools”, Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1024-1030.
Gist, M.E. (1989), “The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among
managers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 787-805.
Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G. and West, M.A. (2001), “Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of
supervisor support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 537-550.
Gruman, J.A., Saks, A.M. and Zweig, D.I. (2006), “Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer
proactive behaviors: an integrative study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 90-104.
Hofstede, G. (1983), “Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions”, in
Deregowski, J.B., Dziurawiec, S. and Annis, R.C. (Eds), Expiscations in Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, NL, pp. 335-355.
Igbaria, M. and Guimaraes, T. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction among information
center employees”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 145-174.
Kalemci Tuzun, I. and Arzu Kalemci, R. (2012), “Organizational and supervisory support in relation to
employee turnover intentions”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 518-534.
Khalid, S., Irshad, M.Z. and Mahmood, B. (2012), “Job satisfaction among academic staff: a comparative
analysis between public and private sector universities of Punjab, Pakistan”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 126-136.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Kottke, J.L. and Sharafinski, C.E. (1988), “Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational
support”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 1075-1079.
Lankau, M.J. and Scandura, T.A. (2002), “An investigation of personal learning in mentoring
relationships: content, antecedents, and consequences”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 779-790.
Lloyd, K.J., Boer, D., Keller, J.W. and Voelpel, S. (2015), “Is my boss really listening to me? The impact of
perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 3, pp. 509-524.
Maertz, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., Campbell, N.S. and Allen, D.G. (2007), “The effects of perceived
organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1059-1075.
Melián-González, S. (2016), “An extended model of the interaction between work-related attitudes and Mediation of
job performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 self-efficacy
No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Mitchell, T.R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J. and James, L.R. (1994), “Predicting self-efficacy
and performance during skill acquisition”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 506-517.
Newman, A., Thanacoody, R. and Hui, W. (2011), “The effects of perceived organizational support,
perceived supervisor support and intra-organizational network resources on turnover 381
intentions: a study of Chinese employees in multinational enterprises”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Noe, R.A., Greenberger, D.B. and Wang, S. (2002), “Mentoring: what we know and where we might go”,
in Ferris, G.R. and Martocchio, J.J. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 129-173.
Nunally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oentoro, W., Popaitoon, P. and Kongchan, A. (2016), “Perceived supervisory support and service
recovery performance: the moderating role of personality traits”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 298-316.
O’neill, B.S. and Mone, M.A. (1998), “Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between
self-efficacy and workplace attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 805-816.
Otsuka, Y., Takahashi, M., Nakata, A., Haratani, T., Kaida, K., Fukasawa, K., Hanada, T. and Ito, A.
(2007), “Sickness absence in relation to psychosocial work factors among daytime workers in an
electric equipment manufacturing company”, Industrial Health, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 224-231.
Pan, W., Sun, L.-Y. and Chow, I.H.S. (2011), “The impact of supervisory mentoring on personal learning
and career outcomes: the dual moderating effect of self-efficacy”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 264-273.
Park, S., Kang, H.-S. and Kim, E.-J. (2018), “The role of supervisor support on employees’ training and
job performance: an empirical study”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 42
Nos 1/2, pp. 57-74.
Paterson, T.A., Luthans, F. and Jeung, W. (2014), “Thriving at work: impact of psychological capital
and supervisor support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 434-446.
Pitman, T. (2000), “Perceptions of academics and students as customers: a survey of administrative staff in
higher education”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 165-175.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Pondy, L.R. and Pate, L.E. (1989), “A longitudinal field study of the intervention process using archival
measures of employee absenteeism and turnover”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 40-52.
Powell, M.J. and York, R.O. (1992), “Turnover in county public welfare agencies”, Journal of Applied
Social Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 111-127.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5,
pp. 825-836.
Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A. and Vohra, N. (2013), Organizational Behaviour, 15th ed., Pearson Education,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Roth, P.L., Purvis, K.L. and Bobko, P. (2012), “A meta-analysis of gender group differences
for measures of job performance in field studies”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 719-739.
JMD Sakurai, K. and Jex, S.M. (2012), “Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and
38,5 counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating role of supervisor social support”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 150-161.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “‘Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!’ On gain cycles
and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 255-285.
Saleem, S. and Qamar, B. (2017), “An investigation of the antecedents of turnover intentions and job
hopping behavior: an empirical study of universities in Pakistan”, South Asian Journal of
382 Business Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 161-176.
Shanock, L.R. and Eisenberger, R. (2006), “When supervisors feel supported: relationships with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 689-695.
Silbert, L. (2005), “The Effect of Tangible Rewards on Perceived Organizational Support”, master’s
thesis, University of Waterloo, Master of Applied Science in Management Sciences, Waterloo.
Skaalvik, E.M. and Skaalvik, S. (2007), “Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain
factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 3, pp. 611-625.
Sloan, M.M. (2012), “Unfair treatment in the workplace and worker well-being: the role of coworker
support in a service work environment”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 3-34.
Smith, B.D. (2005), “Job retention in child welfare: effects of perceived organizational support,
supervisor support, and intrinsic job value”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 153-169.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Steel, R.P. and Ovalle, N.K. (1984), “A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship
between behavioral intentions and employee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69
No. 4, pp. 673-686.
Talukder, A., Vickers, M. and Khan, A. (2018), “Supervisor support and work-life balance: impacts on
job performance in the Australian financial sector”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 727-744.
Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), “Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to
creative performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1137-1148.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, A.W. (2007), “The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of
novice and experienced teachers”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 944-956.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W. and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), “Alternative approaches to the employee-
organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off?”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1089-1121.
Van Dam, K., Meewis, M. and Van Der Heijden, B.I. (2013), “Securing intensive care: towards a better
understanding of intensive care nurses’ perceived work pressure and turnover intention”,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 31-40.
Weisberg, J. (1994), “Measuring workers’ burnout and intention to leave”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Wood, R., Bandura, A. and Bailey, T. (1990), “Mechanisms governing organizational performance
in complex decision-making environments”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 181-201.

Corresponding author
Sharjeel Saleem can be contacted at: sharjilsaleem@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com