The Impacts of Leaders’ Influence Tactics on Teleworkers’ Job Stress and Performance: The Moderating Role of Organizational Support in COVID-19
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Hypothesis Development
2.1. Leaders’ Influence Tactics and Teleworkers’ Job Stress
2.2. Teleworkers’ Job Stress and Turnover Intention
2.3. Teleworkers’ Job Stress and Task Performance
2.4. The Moderating Effect of POS
3. Method
3.1. Sample and Data Collection
3.2. Measurements
3.3. Analytic Strategy
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
6. Limitations and Future Research
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gašić, D.; Berber, N. The mediating role of employee engagement in the relationship between flexible work arrangements and turnover intentions among highly educated employees in the republic of Serbia. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendrika, V.; Darmawan, D.; Anjanarko, T.S.; Jahroni, J.; Shaleh, M.; Handayani, B. The effectiveness of the work from home (WFH) program during the Covid-19 pandemic. J. Soc. Sci. Stud. 2021, 1, 44–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toffler, A. The Third Wave; Bantam: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Baard, N.; Thomas, A. Teleworking in South Africa: Employee benefits and challenges. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2010, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavares, A.I. Telework and health effects review. Int. J. Healthc. 2017, 3, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, S.; Holdsworth, L. The psychological impact of teleworking: Stress, emotions and health. New Technol. Work. Employ. 2003, 18, 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, S.; Varey, R.; Button, W. An exploration of the emotional impact of tele-working via computer-mediated communication. J. Manag. Psychol. 2000, 15, 668–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Gao, J. Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. J. Happiness Stud. 2020, 21, 2649–2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrulli, R.; Gerards, R. How new ways of working during COVID-19 affect employee well-being via technostress, need for recovery, and work engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2023, 139, 107560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boland, B.; De Smet, A.; Palter, R.; Sanghvi, A. Reimagining the Office and Work Life after COVID-19; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kipnis, D.; Schmidt, S.M.; Wilkinson, I. Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. J. Appl. Psychol. 1980, 65, 440–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yukl, G.; Seifert, C.F.; Chavez, C. Validation of the extended Influence Behavior questionnaire. Leadersh. Q. 2008, 19, 609–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, C.A.; Judge, T.A.; Ferris, G.R. Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, D.V.; Fleenor, J.W.; Atwater, L.E.; Sturm, R.E.; McKee, R.A. Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Fasolo, P.; Davis-LaMastro, V. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerr, S.; Jermier, J.M. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1978, 22, 375–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yukl, G. Leadership in Organizations; Pearson Education: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kipnis, D.; Schmidt, S.M. The language of persuasion. Psychol. Today 1985, 4, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
- Yukl, G.; Chavez, C.; Seifert, C.F. Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new influence tactics. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 705–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farmer, S.M.; Maslyn, J.M.; Fedor, D.B.; Goodman, J.S. Putting upward influence strategies in context. J. Organ. Behav. 1997, 18, 17–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.C.; Silverthorne, C. The impact of locus of control on job stress, job performance and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2008, 29, 572–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beehr, T.A.; Newman, J.E. Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Pers. Psychol. 1978, 31, 665–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judge, T.A.; Colquitt, J.A. Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conflict. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riedl, R. On the stress potential of videoconferencing: Definition and root causes of zoom fatigue. Electron. Mark. 2022, 32, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luebstorf, S.; Allen, J.A.; Eden, E.; Kramer, W.S.; Reiter-Palmon, R.; Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. Digging into “Zoom Fatigue”: A qualitative exploration of remote work challenges and virtual meeting stressors. Merits 2023, 3, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tepper, B.J. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Xu, S.; Yang, L.-Q.; Bednall, T.C. Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 2474–2497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry, B.; Shapiro, D.L. Influence tactics in combination: The interactive effects of soft versus hard tactics and rational exchange. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1429–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falbe, C.M.; Yukl, G. Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Acad. Manag. J. 1992, 35, 638–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tepper, B.J.; Eisenbach, R.J.; Kirby, S.L.; Potter, P.W. Test of a justice-based model of subordinates’ resistance to downward influence attempts. Group. Organ. Manag. 1998, 23, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luong, A.; Rogelberg, S.G. Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2005, 9, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Han, S.; Cheong, M.; Kim, S.L.; Yun, S. How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on influence tactics. Leadersh. Q. 2017, 28, 210–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, C.O. Effects of job stress on employee’s performance. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Soc. Res. 2019, 6, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masihabadi, A.; Rajaei, A.; Shams Koloukhi, A.; Parsian, D. Effects of stress on auditors’ organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance. Int. J. Organ. Leadersh. 2015, 4, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nart, S.; Batur, O. The relation between work-family conflict, job stress, organizational commitment and job performance: A study on Turkish primary teachers. Eur. J. Res. Educ. 2014, 2, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, D.F.; Decotiis, T.A. Organizational determinants of job stress. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1983, 32, 160–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodanwala, T.C.; Santoso, D.S.; Yukongdi, V. Examining work role stressors, job satisfaction, job stress, and turnover intention of Sri Lanka’s construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramlawati, R.; Trisnawati, E.; Yasin, N.A.; Kurniawaty, K. External alternatives, job stress on job satisfaction and employee turnover intention. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vries, H.; Tummers, L.; Bekkers, V. The benefits of teleworking in the public sector: Reality or rhetoric? Rev. Public. Pers. Adm. 2019, 39, 570–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arshadi, N.; Damiri, H. The relationship of job stress with turnover intention and job performance: Moderating role of OBSE. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 84, 706–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margolis, B.K.; Kroes, W.H. Occupational stress and strain. In Occupational Stress; McLean, A.A., Ed.; Charles C Thomas Publisher: Springfield, IL, USA, 1974; pp. 15–20. [Google Scholar]
- Khuong, M.N.; Yen, V.H. Investigate the effects of job stress on employee job performance—A case study at Dong Xuyen industrial zone, Vietnam. Int. J. Trade Econ. Financ. 2016, 7, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Kurtessis, J.N.; Eisenberger, R.; Ford, M.T.; Buffardi, L.C.; Stewart, K.A.; Adis, C.S. Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1854–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdogan, B.; Enders, J. Support from the top: Supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malik, S.; Noreen, S. Perceived organizational support as a moderator of affective well-being and occupational stress. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2015, 9, 865–874. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Bommer, W.H. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Manag. 1996, 22, 259–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 698–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahman, M.M. Sample size determination for survey research and non-probability sampling techniques: A review and set of recommendations. J. Entrep. Bus. Econ. 2023, 11, 42–62. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage Learning: Hampshirem, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, S. The Effects of Organizational Justice and Leaders’ Decision Style on Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment: The Case of a Food Company’s Saleswomen. Doctoral Dissertation, Inje University, Gimhae, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hui, C.; Wong, A.; Tjosvold, D. Turnover intention and performance in China: The role of positive affectivity, Chinese values, perceived organizational support and constructive controversy. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2007, 80, 735–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G.; Reno, R.R. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Rucker, D.D.; Hayes, A.F. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2007, 42, 185–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suárez-Alvarez, J.; Pedrosa, I.; Lozano, L.M.; García-Cueto, E.; Cuesta, M.; Muñiz, J. Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema 2018, 30, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, C.-Q.; Sun, J.-W.; Du, D.-Y. The relationships between employability, emotional exhaustion, and turnover intention: The moderation of perceived career opportunity. J. Career Dev. 2016, 43, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noermijati, N.; Primasari, D. The effect of job stress and job motivation on employees’ performance through job satisfaction. J. Econ. Bus. Account. Ventur. 2015, 18, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, A.V.; Van Wart, M.; Wang, X.; Liu, C.; Kim, S.; McCarthy, A. Defining E-leadership as competence in ICT-mediated communications: An exploratory assessment. Public Adm. Rev. 2019, 79, 853–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spagnoli, P.; Manuti, A.; Buono, C.; Ghislieri, C. The good, the bad and the blend: The strategic role of the “middle leadership” in work-family/life dynamics during remote working. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bailenson, J.N. Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technol. Mind. Behav. 2021, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moideenkutty, U.; Schmidt, S.M. Leadership tactics: Enabling quality social exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Organ. Manag. J. 2011, 8, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.Y. Korean culture and its influence on business practice in South Korea. Int. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 7, 184–191. [Google Scholar]
Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Gender | 0.42 | 0.49 | ||||||||||||
2. Age | 2.41 | 1.22 | −0.45 ** | |||||||||||
3. Education | 3.13 | 0.67 | −0.19 ** | 0.28 ** | ||||||||||
4. Industry | 5.57 | 3.02 | 0.28 ** | −0.14 * | 0.03 | |||||||||
5. Tenure with supervisor | 20.50 | 19.02 | −0.10 | 0.07 | −0.05 | −0.20 ** | ||||||||
6. Hard tactics | 3.11 | 0.97 | 0.17 * | −0.17 * | −0.16 * | −0.01 | 0.13 | (0.89) | ||||||
7. Soft tactics | 3.90 | 1.44 | 0.32 ** | −0.43 ** | −0.22 ** | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.55 ** | (0.92) | |||||
8. Rational tactics | 3.88 | 1.03 | 0.39 ** | −0.39 ** | −0.22 ** | 0.14 | −0.01 | 0.54 ** | 0.76 ** | (0.95) | ||||
9. Perceived organizational support | 4.53 | 1.35 | 0.22 ** | −0.23 ** | −0.19 ** | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.25 ** | 0.55 ** | 0.58 ** | (0.91) | |||
10. Job stress | 3.54 | 1.24 | −0.16 * | 0.02 | −0.19 ** | −0.14 * | −0.04 | −0.05 | −0.19 ** | −0.16 * | −0.10 | (0.79) | ||
11. Turnover intention | 4.17 | 1.20 | −0.16 * | 0.10 | −0.01 | −0.12 | 0.01 | −0.11 | −0.21 ** | −0.21 ** | −0.41 ** | 0.31 ** | (0.61) | |
12. Task performance | 5.20 | 0.81 | −0.05 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.05 | −0.15 * | 0.02 | −0.03 | 0.00 | −0.12 | −0.08 | (0.78) |
Stress | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | M2(H1-1) | M3(H1-2) | M4(H1-3) | M5 | M6(H4-1) | M7 | M8(H4-2) | M9 | M10(H4-3) | |
1. Control variables | ||||||||||
Gender | −0.16 * | −0.18 * | −0.15 | −0.15 | −0.17 * | −0.17 * | −0.15 | −0.15 | −0.15 | −0.16 * |
Age | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.05 | −0.09 | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.05 | −0.10 | −0.09 | −0.13 |
Education | −0.22 | −0.23 * | −0.23 | −0.24 | 0.24 ** | −0.23 ** | −0.24 ** | −0.24 ** | −0.24 ** | −0.25 *** |
Industry | −0.11 | −0.11 | −0.10 | −0.10 | −0.11 | −0.11 | −0.10 | −0.11 | −0.10 | −0.12 |
Tenure with supervisor | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.06 | 0.08 | −0.08 | −0.08 | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.05 |
2. Main effect | ||||||||||
Hard tactics | −0.05 | −0.03 | −0.03 | |||||||
Soft tactics | −0.16 * | −0.14 | −0.13 | |||||||
Rational tactics | −0.21 ** | −0.21 * | −0.20 * | |||||||
POS * | −0.10 | −0.10 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.01 | −0.03 | ||||
3. Moderating effect | ||||||||||
Hard tactics × POS | 0.02 | |||||||||
Soft tactics × POS | 0.14 * | |||||||||
Rational tactics × POS | 0.15 * | |||||||||
Overall F | 3.95 ** | 3.36 ** | 4.08 ** | 4.75 *** | 3.15 ** | 2.76 ** | 3.51 ** | 3.65 ** | 4.05 *** | 4.18 *** |
R2 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.14 |
Changed in F | 0.48 | 4.42 * | 8.09 ** | 1.83 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 4.28 * | 0.01 | 4.53 * | |
Changed in R | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 |
Variables | Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effect | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Effect | Boot SE | LL 90% CI | UL 90% CI | |
Hard tactics | −0.018 | 0.029 | −0.068 | 0.022 |
Soft tactics | −0.052 | 0.030 | −0.104 | −0.016 |
Rational tactics | −0.050 | 0.021 | −0.080 | −0.019 |
Variables | Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effect | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Effect | Boot SE | LL 90% CI | UL 90% CI | |
Hard tactics | −0.005 | 0.009 | −0.004 | 0.026 |
Soft tactics | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.001 | 0.047 |
Rational tactics | 0.014 | 0.011 | 0.002 | 0.038 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Byun, G.; Rhie, J.; Lee, S.; Dai, Y. The Impacts of Leaders’ Influence Tactics on Teleworkers’ Job Stress and Performance: The Moderating Role of Organizational Support in COVID-19. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13100835
Byun G, Rhie J, Lee S, Dai Y. The Impacts of Leaders’ Influence Tactics on Teleworkers’ Job Stress and Performance: The Moderating Role of Organizational Support in COVID-19. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(10):835. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13100835
Chicago/Turabian StyleByun, Gukdo, Jihyeon Rhie, Soojin Lee, and Ye Dai. 2023. "The Impacts of Leaders’ Influence Tactics on Teleworkers’ Job Stress and Performance: The Moderating Role of Organizational Support in COVID-19" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 10: 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13100835
APA StyleByun, G., Rhie, J., Lee, S., & Dai, Y. (2023). The Impacts of Leaders’ Influence Tactics on Teleworkers’ Job Stress and Performance: The Moderating Role of Organizational Support in COVID-19. Behavioral Sciences, 13(10), 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13100835