Perceived Supervisor Support, Work Engagement and Career-Related Self-Efficacy: An Empirical Study

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effect of career-related self-efficacy in the relationship between the perceived supervisor support and work engagement. A cross-sectional research design was performed in the present study. Data were collected from a total of 184 participants employed full time in the manufacturing sector in Ankara. Structural equation modeling approach was used to estimate direct and indirect effects between variables. The results indicated that employees' perception of supervisor support is a positive predictor of their work engagement. Moreover, career-related self-efficacy was found to have a mediating role in the relationship between perception of supervisor support and work engagement. This study revealed that the perception of supervisor support is an important predictor in increasing employees' work engagement and the key importance of career-related self-efficacy in this relationship. In addition, the theoretical and practical contributions of this study, its limitations and implications for future research on the perception of supervisor support and work engagement were discussed.

Keywords

• Perceived supervisor support
• Work engagement
• Career-related Self-efficacy

References

1. Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of psychology, 144(3), 313-326.
2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
3. Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2009), The crossover of work engagement between working couples: a closer look at the role of empathy, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(3), 220-236.
4. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. European Review of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 259-267.
5. De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Van Hootegem, G. (2016). Not all autonomy is the same. Different dimensions of job autonomy and their relation to work engagement & innovative work behavior. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26(4), 515-527.
6. DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees' level of trust. Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1349-1355.
7. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
8. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 565-573.

9. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
10. Higgins, M. C., Dobrow, S. R., & Chandler, D. (2008). Never quite good enough: The paradox of sticky developmental relationships for elite university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 207-224.
11. Ibrahim, S. N. H., Suan, C. L., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). The effects of supervisor support and self-efficacy on call center employees’ work engagement and quitting intentions. International Journal of Manpower, 40(4), 688-703.
12. Joo, B. K., & Lee, I. (2017). Workplace happiness: Work engagement, career satisfaction, and subjective well-being. Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 5(2), 206-221.
13. Karatepe, O. M. (2012). Job resources, work engagement, and hotel employee outcomes: a time-lagged analysis. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 25(3), 644-665.
14. Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2012). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 248-276.
15. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3 rd ed.). Guilford publications.
16. Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of vocational Behavior, 30(3), 347-382.
17. Lu, L., Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Neale, N. R. (2016). Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(4), 737-761.
18. Maertz Jr, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(8), 1059-1075.
19. Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in Testing the Statistical Significance of Mediation Effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372-378.
20. Naeem, R. M., Channa, K. A., Hameed, Z., Akram, M., & Sarki, I. H. (2019). How does perceived career support make employees bright-eyed and bushy-tailed? The mediating role of career self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Career Development, 28(2), 92-102.
21. Nisula, A. M. (2015). The relationship between supervisor support and individual improvisation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 473-488.
22. Pattnaik, S. C., & Panda, N. (2020). Supervisor support, work engagement and turnover intentions: evidence from Indian call centres. Journal of Asia Business Studies, https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-08-2019-0261 Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
23. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
24. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
25. Runhaar, P., Konermann, J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Teachers' organizational citizenship behaviour: Considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 99-108.
26. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
27. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.
28. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M.,
29. Richardson, H. A., Ocal, Y., & Atinc, G. M. (2015). Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 473-511.
30. Suan, C. L., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2016). Supervisor support and work engagement of hotel employees in Malaysia. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(1), 2-18.
31. Swanberg, J. E., McKechnie, S. P., Ojha, M. U., & James, J. B. (2011). Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: A winning combination for workers in hourly jobs? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 613-624.
32. Yalabik, Z. Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J. A., & Rayton, B. A. (2013). Work engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2799-2823.