When and how employee boundary spanning behavior influences supervisor support: The roles of supervisor trust and upward advice seeking

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.01431

Abstract

Abstract:

In the context of encouraging collaborative innovation, employee boundary spanning has become a source of organizational innovation. However, existing research has mainly explored the impact of employee boundary spanning on themselves from an actor-centered perspective, little is known about whether employee boundary spanning can influence supervisor support. Drawing on the perspective of positive interpersonal interaction, the current study employed a scenario experiment (Study 1) and a multi-wave and multi-source questionnaire survey (Study 2) to explore when and how employee boundary spanning affects supervisor support. Results from Study 1 (N = 220) indicated that when upward advice seeking is high, supervisors develop stronger cognitive trust and affective trust towards boundary spanning employees, leading to higher levels of supervisor support. Study 2 (N = 406) further confirmed that upward advice seeking positively moderates the direct effect of employee boundary spanning on supervisor affective trust as well as the indirect effect of employee boundary spanning on supervisor support via affective trust. However, it did not support the moderating effect of upward advice seeking on the supervisor cognitive trust path. These findings contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the impact of employee boundary spanning on supervisor support, providing decision-making references for organizations to manage employee boundary spanning to maintain harmonious supervisor-subordinate relationships.

Key words: employee boundary spanning behavior, supervisor support, cognitive trust, affective trust, upward advice seeking

ZHAO Fuqiang, ZHU Hanqiu, CHEN Yun, CHEN Zhuhui. (2024). When and how employee boundary spanning behavior influences supervisor support: The roles of supervisor trust and upward advice seeking. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(10), 1431-1447.

Figures/Tables 12

References 53

[1]	Agneessens, F., & Wittek, R. (2012). Where do intra-organizational advice relations come from? The role of informal status and social capital in social exchange. Social Networks, 34(3), 333-345.
[2]	Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217-230.
[3]	Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334-365.
[4]	Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665.
[5]	Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151.
[6]	Burgess, R., Colquitt, J. A., & Long, E. C. (2022). Longing for the road not taken: The affective and behavioral consequences of forgone identity dwelling. Academy of Management Journal, 65(1), 93-118.
[7]	Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 413-435.
[8]	Chen, Z. H., & Li, J. (2020). Perceived environmental uncertainty, boundary spanning behavior and team innovation. Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences, 34 (6), 40-48.
[9]	Cheng, D. J., Song, Z., & Wang, B. B. (2010). Cognition trust or affect trust: How high-involement work system affects innovation performance. Business and Management Journal, 32(11), 81-90.
[10]	Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479-516.
[11]	Cui, M. M., Su, Y., & Li, D. (2018). The effects of boundary spanning behavior on employee's task performance: Based on the multiple moderation of values. Business and Management Journal, 40(8), 72-88.
[12]	Curran, M., Totenhagen, C., & Serido, J. (2010). How resources (or lack thereof) influence advice seeking on psychological well-being and marital risk: Testing pathways of the lack of financial stability, support, and strain. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 44-56.
[13]	DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647.
[14]	Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347-360.
[15]	Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617. doi: 10.1037/a0014367 pmid: 19450002
[16]	Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715-729.
[17]	Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 17-42.
[18]	Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems.In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 65-127). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
[19]	Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167-1230.
[20]	Glavin, P., Schieman, S., & Reid, S. (2011). Boundary-spanning work demands and their consequences for guilt and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(1), 43-57. doi: 10.1177/0022146510395023 pmid: 21362611
[21]	Gross, C., Debus, M. E., Liu, Y., Wang, M., & Kleinmann, M. (2021). I am nice and capable! How and when newcomers’ self-presentation to their supervisors affects socialization outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1067-1079.
[22]	Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
[23]	Hayton, J. C., Carnabuci, G., & Eisenberger, R. (2012). With a little help from my colleagues: A social embeddedness approach to perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 235-249.
[24]	Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89-106.
[25]	Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500-507.
[26]	Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 58(11), 934-945. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.11.934 pmid: 14609388
[27]	Kim, T.-Y., David, E. M., Chen, T., & Liang, Y. (2023). Authenticity or self-enhancement? Effects of self-presentation and authentic leadership on trust and performance. Journal of Management, 49(3), 944-973.
[28]	Lan, Y. M., Li, C. P., Wang, J. Y., & Meng, X. (2022). Benefits and costs of employee boundary-spanning behavior: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(6), 665-683. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00665
[29]	Liu, S. B., Jiang, K. F., Chen, J. X., Pan, J. Z., & Lin, X. S. (2018). Linking employee boundary spanning behavior to task performance: The influence of informal leader emergence and group power distance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(12), 1879-1899.
[30]	Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36(4), 911-940.
[31]	Marrone, J. A., Quigley, N. R., Prussia, G. E., & Dienhart, J. (2022). Can supportive coaching behaviors facilitate boundary spanning and raise job satisfaction? An indirect-effects model. Journal of Management, 48(5), 1131-1159.
[32]	Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
[33]	McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
[34]	Mell, J. N., Quintane, E., Hirst, G., & Carnegie, A. (2022). Protecting their turf: When and why supervisors undermine employee boundary spanning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(6), 1009-1019.
[35]	Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246-268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246 pmid: 7740090
[36]	Ng, K.-Y., & Chua, R. Y. (2006). Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition-and affect-based trust. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 43-66.
[37]	Park, H., Tangirala, S., Hussain, I., & Ekkirala, S. (2022). How and when managers reward employees’ voice: The role of proactivity attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2269-2284.
[38]	Peng, J., & Cao, B., B. (2021). The bottom-up effect of followers’ proactive work behavior: An implicit followership perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(6), 967-977.
[39]	Rigopoulou, I., Theodosiou, M., Katsikea, E., & Perdikis, N. (2012). Information control, role perceptions, and work outcomes of boundary-spanning frontline managers. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 626-633.
[40]	Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375. pmid: 12415073
[41]	Russ, G. S., Galang, M. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Power and influence of the human resources function through boundary spanning and information management. Human Resource Management Review, 8(2), 125-148.
[42]	Song, M., Hu, H. Y., & Wang, Z. (2021). Benefits or costs? The positive and negative effects of leader boundary spanning behavior on leader performance. Management Review, 33(4), 236-247.
[43]	Song, M., Wang, Z., & Zhang, H. L. (2017). Understanding the relationship between leader boundary spanning behavior and team innovation: A knowledge management perspective. Management Review, 29(3), 126-135.
[44]	Wang, G. Q. (2007). Upward influence strategies and related research within the organization. Canton: South China Normal University.
[45]	Wei, H. M., & Long, L. R. (2009). Effects of cognition- and affect-base trust in supervisors on task performance and OCB. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(1), 86-94.
[46]	Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Chow, C. W. C. (2023). Does taking charge help or harm employees’ promotability and visibility? An investigation from supervisors’ status perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 53-71.
[47]	Xu, L. (2019). Boundary spanning behavior, team trust and team innovation performance: Moderating effect of resource depletion. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 36(6), 11-18.
[48]	Yi, M., Wang, S. H., Luo, J. L., & Hu, W. A. (2021). Are hot shots being sidelined? The mechanism and boundary conditions of subordinate performance on leader empowering behavior. Nankai Business Review, 24(6), 117-130.
[49]	Zhang, D. L., & Ge, Y. H. (2016). Relationship between top manager team boundary spanning behavior and the innovation performance of enterprises: A perspective of team learning. Journal of System & Management, 25(2), 235-245.
[50]	Zhang, J. W., Hua, W. J., Zhou, Y. F., & Zheng, W. F. (2021). How R&D personnel's boundary-spanning behavior influences creativity: The integrated perspective of knowledge sharing and leaders' positive feedback. Forecasting, 40(5), 9-16.
[51]	Zhao, K., Yu, X., & Zhang, S. S. (2024). Empowerment or ostracism? The consequences of interpersonal interaction between star employee and team leader. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 630-649. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00630
[52]	Zhu, J. Q., Xu, S. Y., Zhou, J.Y., Zhang, B. N., Xu, F. F., & Zong, B. Q. (2020). The cross-level double-edged-sword effect of boundary-spanning behavior on creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(11), 1340-1351. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01340
[53]	Zou, W. C., Tian, Q., & Liu, J. (2012). “Give a plum in return for a peach”: A review of reciprocity theory of organizational behavior. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(11), 1879-1888.

Model	Factor	χ²	df	χ²/df	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Five-factor model	Each variable corresponds to one factor	177.21	125	1.42	-	0.98	0.98	0.04	0.04
Four-factor model 1	Cognitive trust and affective trust merged	741.63	129	5.75	564.42(4)	0.79	0.75	0.15	0.13
Four-factor model 2	Cognitive trust and supervisor support merged	568.23	129	4.40	391.02(4)	0.85	0.82	0.12	0.12
Four-factor model 3	Affective trust and supervisor support merged	480.60	129	3.73	303.39(4)	0.88	0.86	0.11	0.09
Three-factor model	Cognitive trust, affective trust, and supervisor support merged	1039.54	132	7.88	862.33(7)	0.69	0.64	0.18	0.12
Two-factor model	Cognitive trust, affective trust, supervisor support, and employee boundary spanning merged	1967.43	134	14.68	1790.22(9)	0.38	0.29	0.25	0.26
One-factor model	All variables merged into one factor	2147.25	135	15.91	1970.04(10)	0.31	0.22	0.26	0.26

Model	Factor	χ²	df	χ²/df	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Five-factor model	Each variable corresponds to one factor	177.21	125	1.42	-	0.98	0.98	0.04	0.04
Four-factor model 1	Cognitive trust and affective trust merged	741.63	129	5.75	564.42(4)	0.79	0.75	0.15	0.13
Four-factor model 2	Cognitive trust and supervisor support merged	568.23	129	4.40	391.02(4)	0.85	0.82	0.12	0.12
Four-factor model 3	Affective trust and supervisor support merged	480.60	129	3.73	303.39(4)	0.88	0.86	0.11	0.09
Three-factor model	Cognitive trust, affective trust, and supervisor support merged	1039.54	132	7.88	862.33(7)	0.69	0.64	0.18	0.12
Two-factor model	Cognitive trust, affective trust, supervisor support, and employee boundary spanning merged	1967.43	134	14.68	1790.22(9)	0.38	0.29	0.25	0.26
One-factor model	All variables merged into one factor	2147.25	135	15.91	1970.04(10)	0.31	0.22	0.26	0.26

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
1 Employee boundary spanning manipulation	0.50	0.50	-
2 Upward advice seeking manipulation	0.50	0.50	0.00	-
3 Cognitive trust	3.46	0.96	0.13	0.20^**	--
4 Affective trust	3.53	0.10	0.10	0.34^***	0.36^***	-
5 Supervisor support	3.65	0.82	0.12	0.20^**	0.40^***	0.50^***

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
1 Employee boundary spanning manipulation	0.50	0.50	-
2 Upward advice seeking manipulation	0.50	0.50	0.00	-
3 Cognitive trust	3.46	0.96	0.13	0.20^**	--
4 Affective trust	3.53	0.10	0.10	0.34^***	0.36^***	-
5 Supervisor support	3.65	0.82	0.12	0.20^**	0.40^***	0.50^***

Variables	Cognitive trust		Affective trust		Supervisor support
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Intercept	3.14^***(0.11)	3.14^***(0.11)	3.10^***(0.11)	3.10^***(0.11)	3.39^***(0.09)	1.69^***(0.21)
Employee boundary spanning manipulation	0.25 (0.13)	0.25 (0.12)	0.21 (0.13)	0.21 (0.13)	0.20 (0.11)	0.08 (0.09)
Upward advice seeking manipulation	0.39^**l(0.13)	0.39^**(0.12)	0.67^***(0.13)	0.67^***(0.13)	0.33^**(0.11)	0.02 (0.10)
Employee boundary spanning manipulation × Upward advice seeking manipulation		0.65^*(0.25)		0.56^*(0.25)
Cognitive trust						0.21^***(0.05)
Affective trust						0.33^***(0.05)
R²	0.06	0.09	0.13	0.15	0.05	0.31
ΔR²	0.06^**	0.03^*	0.13^***	0.02^*	0.05^**	0.25^***
F	6.59^**	6.75^***	15.57^***	12.27^***	6.23^**	23.90^***