Explaining supervisor–subordinate guanxi and subordinate performance through a conservation of resources lens

Abstract

Relationships outside of work impact employee effectiveness at work. But how do we explain this? Our study focuses on the guanxi relationship in China. This is based on close personal ties between supervisors and subordinates initiated outside the workplace. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, we develop a model that explains how supervisor–subordinate guanxi constitutes a social resource that spills over into the workplace and impacts subordinates’ job resources (including autonomy, support and development at work), job crafting (proactive behaviors aimed at increasing resources and reducing demands) and job performance (task performance and organizational citizenship behavior). Our model was tested on a sample of 406 subordinates and their supervisors from seven manufacturing organizations in China. The results of a multilevel path analysis indicate that high-quality guanxi relations with supervisors facilitate subordinates’ job resources, job crafting behaviors and organizational citizenship behavior at work. In addition, job resources mediate the relationship between supervisor–subordinate guanxi and job crafting, and job crafting mediates the relationship between supervisor–subordinate guanxi and subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Overall, our research highlights the importance of externally-generated guanxi between subordinates and supervisors and the mechanisms that contribute to improving employee performance in the workplace.

Keywords

job crafting job resources OCB organizational citizenship behavior supervisor–subordinate guanxi task performance

Guanxi refers to dyadic relationships or social connections between people implicitly based on mutual interest and benefits (Chen and Chen, 2012; Wong et al., 2003; Yang, 1993). It is a common form of social exchange in China that has been widely used for instrumental purposes (Lin, 2001). The personal and informal natures of guanxi are characterized by sentiment (qing) and obligation (yi) (Yang, 1994). Guanxi varies in quality and takes various forms, including jiaren guanxi (family members), shouren guanxi (familiar persons such as supervisors, colleagues and friends) and shengren guanxi (mere acquaintances or strangers). The three forms of guanxi are based on different principles of social interaction and treatment resulting in varying degrees of relational interdependence.

The current study focuses on supervisor–subordinate guanxi (SSG). It refers to a personal relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate developed largely from non-work related social interactions that might extend into the workplace. It is a kind of shouren guanxi (Yang, 1993), in which the exchange of favors and affection are conducive to the formation of conditional interdependence. Unlike leader–member exchange (LMX) developed in western society (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), SSG is developed mainly outside the work domain based on the particularistic principle of interpersonal uniqueness (Cheung et al., 2009). For example, during holidays or outside work hours, a particular employee might call or visit his/her supervisor or vice versa mainly to enjoy their company. However, SSG does combine expressiveness (feelings of affection, warmth, safety and attachment) with instrumentality, which may be job-related (Hwang, 1987).

SSG has been found to contribute to more effective human resource management, thereby facilitating positive organizational outcomes (Cheung et al., 2009). Previous studies suggest that SSG improves supervisory decisions (Law et al., 2000), contributes to constructive controversy (Chen and Tjosvold, 2007), enables participatory management (Cheung et al., 2009), facilitates subordinates’ career prospects (Wei et al., 2010), and increases job performance (Chen et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015). Theoretical explanations for these impacts have mainly been based on social exchange theory (i.e. subordinates who have developed high-quality guanxi with their supervisors expect to be trusted and treated favorably) (Cheung et al., 2009; Han et al., 2012; Liu and Wang, 2013; Wong et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2015). Other non-mutually exclusive perspectives used in analyzing SSG include social identity theory and social capital theory. In the former case, subordinates identify strongly with supervisors with whom they enjoy high-quality guanxi and show more loyalty and commitment (Farh et al., 1998). The social capital perspective suggests that high-quality guanxi supervisors display more confidence in subordinates and are more likely to provide them with additional opportunities and information so enabling more effective task execution (Cheung and Wu, 2011).

In this study, we use conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to conceptualize the mechanism linking SSG to subordinates’ job performance. People employ resources not only to respond to stress, but also to build a reservoir of resources for addressing future needs. We argue that SSG as a personal social resource facilitates subordinates’ accumulation of job resources including job autonomy, supervisor support and developmental opportunity at work. These job resources enable employees to further invest in job crafting, accruing additional job resources and reducing job demands that contribute to higher performance.

Our study makes three contributions to guanxi and job crafting theory. First, we extend understanding of the implications of guanxi in the workplace (Chen et al., 2013). Whereas prior research shows mainly similar effects of SSG on subordinates’ affective outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, trust in supervisor and organizational commitment; Chen et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2003; Zhai et al., 2013), our findings demonstrate the influence of guanxi on subordinates job-related resources (i.e. autonomy, support and developmental opportunity), task behaviors (i.e. job crafting) and performance outcomes (task accomplishment and organizational citizenship behavior [OCB]) within the workplace. We explain these relationships with a new model that uses COR theory to explain these instrumental aspects of guanxi.

Second, we respond to the call for additional studies on the antecedents of employee job crafting behaviors (Oldham and Fried, 2016; Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Our study shows that guanxi and job resources are novel antecedents of job crafting in the form of increasing resources and decreasing demands at work. We emphasize the role of supervisor–subordinate relationships in creating job resources that facilitate employee needs satisfaction and motivation to engage in job crafting. When organizations do not provide or reward employees with job resources, the long-term consequences are likely to be withdrawal from work and reduced motivation and commitment, with adverse impacts on job crafting and job performance (Bakker et al., 2004). On the other hand, if employees obtain additional job resources from close personal relationships with supervisors, they are likely to utilize these resources in creative job crafting with positive effects on performance.

Our third contribution concerns guanxi research. We use COR theory to explain the relationship between SSG and subordinates’ performance. Previous studies have investigated various mediating factors between SSG and employee performance. The mediators include organization-based self-esteem (Liu et al., 2013), trust in the supervisor (Wong et al., 2003), and psychological contract (Shih and Lin, 2014). However, these studies have largely emphasized the expressive or affective function of SSG. In addition, SSG has been found to be more strongly related to employees’ extra-role or contextual performance (i.e. OCB, helping co-workers, facilitating interpersonal relationships and job dedication) (Liu et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2015). Our study uses the COR framework in which resources are protected and invested to craft their jobs and attain valuable goals (Hobfoll, 1989). This complements relational motivation (affectivity and trust) as an explanation of the SSG-performance relationship highlighted in prior research. The present study also expands the crossover model in COR theory. Most previous crossover studies have examined the transference of negative emotions (i.e. stress, burnout) in organization context (Bakker et al., 2005). Our study investigates the positive crossover of resources by identifying guanxi between supervisor and subordinates as an important interpersonal social resource that promotes subordinates’ job resource generation and conservation in the workplace.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Resources are valued for individual goal attainment and therefore are the objects of acquisition, retention and protection (Hobfoll, 1989). COR theory proposes that individuals are motivated to protect their current resources (conservation) and invest in these resources (investment) to acquire new resources (acquisition) (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Whereas persons with fewer resources are more vulnerable to resource loss, those with more resources are, correspondingly, less vulnerable to resource loss, and more capable of resource gain (Hobfoll, 2001). An additional dimension in COR theory is the exchange of resources based on the crossover model (Hobfoll et al., 2018). The crossover model presents a mechanism by which experiences, emotions and resources are transferred within social and organizational contexts (Westman, 2001). For example, positive emotions and experiences outside work may be transferred to the work domain. Crossover of resources acts as a mechanism of resource exchange within resource caravans (Chen et al., 2015). Such an exchange triggers the accumulation of resources in a positive way (Hobfoll, 2002, 2011). Individuals are motivated to self-expand one resource in order to increase other resources to achieve their goals (Aron et al., 2001).

Guanxi ties are social resources (Bian and Ang, 1997; Hwang, 1987; Lin, 1982) that people develop and deploy for attaining favors and benefits. Our study investigates how SSG from the non-work domain facilitates crossover to assist individuals to gain job resources (i.e. job autonomy, supervisor support, developmental opportunities) at work and how these job resources, in turn, enable employees to craft their jobs by increasing job resources and decreasing hindrance demands (Crawford et al., 2010; Schaufeli and Taris, 2014), thereby achieving higher performance. Our proposed model, shown in Figure 1, is based on COR theory. It is intended to apply universally, providing a framework for explaining how SSG and subordinates’ performance are related through the mediating role of job resources and job crafting, regardless of types of work and employees. Nevertheless, we expect manual manufacturing work undertaken by migrant workers to have specific effects. In addition, SSG is likely to exert a stronger influence on the job resources and performance among these employees who are less socially integrated into the workplace and local community (Frenkel and Yu, 2015; Tian and Xu, 2015).

Figure 1.

Theoretical model and multilevel path modelling results.

SSG’s direct influence on subordinates’ job-related resources and behaviors

Job resources refer to work-related physical, social or organizational aspects that may contribute to reducing job demands and associated physiological and psychological costs, assist in achieving work goals, or stimulate personal growth, learning and development (Demerouti et al., 2001). In our study, we include job autonomy, supervisor support and developmental opportunities for two reasons: first, because of their motivational qualities, and second, because they are widely recognized as key contributors to individual and organizational performance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2003, 2004). Drawing on COR theory, we argue that subordinates who experience high-quality guanxi with supervisors possess superior social resources that increase their capability of gaining job resources, enabling job crafting behavior that contributes to high work performance.

SSG and job resources

As mentioned earlier, COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) focuses on individuals protecting, gaining and preserving resources. Importantly, one resource may crossover to trigger the accumulation of other linked resources (Hobfoll, 2002, 2011; Hobfoll et al., 2018).

In our study, subordinates experiencing high-quality guanxi with supervisors possess initial social resources. We suggest crossover of social resources is a practice that facilitates accrual of more job resources at work. Specifically, since employees in high-quality guanxi are trusted by their leader (Han et al., 2012), they are provided with more decision latitude and empowerment (e.g. Chen and Tjosvold, 2006, 2007; Cheung and Wu, 2011). This provides employees in high-quality guanxi relationships the freedom to decide for themselves which work assignments they will focus on, and how these will be executed (Law et al., 2000). Consequently, we expect SSG to be positively related to job autonomy. In addition, SSG is likely to be positively related to the social support subordinates receive at work from supervisors. Relationships along with role obligations in one domain (private guanxi–non-work ties) to influence relationships in other domains (work relations–work ties) (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Zhang et al., 2015). Research has found that supervisors categorize subordinates with close personal ties as in-group members to whom they have stronger role obligations and therefore provide them with additional emotional and task support at work (Chen et al., 2015; Cheung and Wu, 2011; Shih and Lin, 2014).

Finally, we expect employees in high-quality guanxi relationships to have more developmental opportunities compared to their counterparts. Employees in high-quality guanxi relationships have particular ways of communicating with the leader and are provided with desirable work assignments, while employees in low-quality relationships rarely meet with their supervisors and are more often provided with less desirable assignments (Dulebohn et al., 2012).This means that employees in high-quality guanxi relationships have more opportunities for self-development. These employees become more valuable to the leader who has a stronger incentive to maintain high-quality relationships with these employees. The ensuing social tie has been described as a mentoring relationship (Scandura and Williams, 2004) in which the leader acts as a coach and invests in the employee’s career success (Wei et al., 2010). In sum, SSG is likely to facilitate the acquisition of job resources including autonomy, support and development. Hence, the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: SSG is positively related to subordinates’ job resources at work.

SSG and job crafting

Based on job redesign theory that emphasizes ‘designing from below’ (Grant and Parker, 2009), employees are viewed as work role creators actively engaged in crafting their jobs. Job crafting is defined as self-initiated job design behavior that aims to satisfy employee needs and goals by increasing available resources and reducing hindrance demands (Tims et al., 2012). Specifically, crafting behaviors may encompass knowledge and skill development, realizing difficult goals and undertaking challenging tasks. When subordinates have high-quality guanxi with supervisors, they are more likely to perceive their work climate as being safe and supportive for job-related and interpersonal risk taking. Hence, they feel more comfortable in experimenting with new work routines and methods of working and are more confident in asking supervisors for coaching and feedback on job performance. Such behaviors may be particularly relevant for blue-collar workers who are strongly motivated to escape from, or compensate for, the worst features of job routinization and poor working conditions by adapting their work environments to detect, create and seize opportunities for job crafting (Berg et al., 2010; Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2012). Therefore, when subordinates have high-quality guanxi with supervisors, they are more likely to craft their jobs. Hence, the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Supervisor–subordinate guanxi is positively related to subordinates’ job crafting at work.

SSG and performance

In our study, we consider two aspects of subordinates’ performance: in-role task performance, that is, execution of job-related duties (Williams and Anderson, 1991), and extra-role, discretionary performance referred to as OCBs, which are not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system but that also contribute to organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988). Although task performance is the primary form of currency in the social exchange between supervisors and subordinates (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Wang et al., 2005), in order to maintain or enhance guanxi with supervisors, employees will be motivated and feel obliged to perform work outside their normal duties including maintenance of harmonious relations with co-workers (Lin and Ho, 2010). In short, both task performance and OCB are subject to guanxi influence (Farh et al., 2004; Miao, 2011; Wang et al., 2005). When this occurs, supervisors treat subordinates similar to family members, providing them with protection and potential privileges (Burris et al., 2009; Chen and Tjosvold, 2006; Zhang et al., 2015). In return for this preferable treatment, subordinates are likely to reciprocate with stronger motivation to achieve higher task and extra-role performance. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: SSG is positively related to subordinates’ task performance at work.

Hypothesis 4: SSG is positively related to subordinates’ OCB at work.

Job resources as a mediator between SSG and subordinates’ job crafting

We propose that job resources play a mediating role in the relationship between SSG and job crafting. As noted earlier, SSG facilitates subordinates’ acquisition of job resources at work, a process that is likely to further motivate employees to engage in job crafting. Specifically, job resources are instrumental in coping with job demands, buffering the negative impact of work overload and relieving associated psychological strain (Bakker et al., 2005; Meijman and Mulder, 1998). On the other hand, job resources facilitate work engagement by satisfying basic human needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Both as protective instruments and value-satisfiers, job resources play a motivational role and foster a positive state of mind. In turn, this motivational state encourages job crafting characterized by challenging and meaningful behaviors (Gagné and Deci, 2005; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008).

From a COR perspective, employees with initial job resource reservoirs tend to accumulate and enrich these job resources over time by adopting crafting strategies. When the external environment provides insufficient job resources, individuals find it difficult to cope with hindrance job demands (e.g. highly repetitive work) and negative emotions (e.g. job burnout) (Bakker et al., 2004). Obtaining additional job resources from personal ties with their supervisors increases the likelihood of stronger work motivation and enhanced capability to successfully execute more challenging work. Therefore, supervisor–subordinate relationships, viewed as a personal social resource, facilitates the acquisition of job resources; these additional job resources, in turn, enable employees to craft jobs as an investment intended to pay off in terms of future skill development and higher rewards (explained in the following hypotheses). Hence, the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Subordinates’ job resources mediate the relationship between SSG and subordinates’ job crafting at work.

Between SSG and subordinates’ performance: The mediating role of job crafting

Our argument so far suggests that SSG encourages subordinates’ job crafting behaviors that increase job resources and reduce hindrance job demands thereby contributing to higher work performance (Tims et al., 2015). According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting is motivated by personal needs for job control and social connectivity. When subordinates establish close relationships with supervisors, they are likely to have more resources in terms of autonomy, support and opportunity to craft their jobs. In addition, job crafting involves proactive behaviors that employees make to balance their job demands and resources with their personal capabilities and needs (Rudolph et al., 2017). These proactive changes contribute to better person-job fit (Bindl and Parker, 2010). Employees are more likely to find positive meaning in work and will devote more effort to improving both task performance and OCB (Parker and Bindl, 2017; Wrzesniewski, 2013).

On the other hand, when leaders view follower behavior as valuable, they are likely to reward that behavior by giving followers higher performance evaluations (Campbell, 2000; Fuller et al., 2015). When there is high-quality SSG, employees are more likely to participate in constructive conversation with supervisors (Chen and Tjosvold, 2007). Therefore, they tend to align their crafting behaviors more closely with the management’s performance expectations. In their meta-analysis, Tornau and Frese (2013) found a strong positive relationship between work-related proactivity and performance (r = 0.49). Rudolph et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis also suggests that job crafting is positively related to job performance (other-rated, r = 0.16) and contextual performance (r = 0.26). Overall, we propose that employees with high-quality SSG tend to participate in proactive crafting, tailoring their jobs to fit their work goals and the environment, thereby achieving higher task performance and OCB. Hence, the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 6: Subordinates’ job crafting mediates the relationship between SSG and subordinates’ task performance.

Hypothesis 7: Subordinates’ job crafting mediates the relationship between SSG and subordinates’ OCB.

Methods

Participants and procedures

Our study is based on seven manufacturing firms in Zhejiang Province in Eastern China. These firms are either privately-owned or joint ventures, supplying elevators, washing machines and flooring to both the domestic and international market. With agreement from company managers, one of the authors distributed 700 matched questionnaires to manufacturing employees and their supervisors. As a token of gratitude, participants who voluntarily completed the survey received a 10-yuan gift. The survey was mainly completed in the canteen or in the employees’ dormitory after working hours. The questionnaires included a cover letter summarizing the study’s purpose and assuring respondents that the data would only be used for research purposes without revealing individual identities. A time-lagged technique was used to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and data were collected independently of employees and supervisors respectively. Specifically, SSG was measured at time one based on employee responses. We received 624 completed surveys. Measurement was undertaken four weeks later when employees evaluated their job resources and job crafting, and employees’ supervisors rated their job performance and OCB. In this second round, 605 employees continued to participate in the research, yielding a valid sample of 599 employees whose performance rating was provided by their supervisors. In addition, employee representatives from enterprise improvement committees at each of the workplaces reviewed these performance ratings to reduce bias and to ensure that the ratings reflected employees’ contribution to the organization.¹

The response rate for the 599 matched subordinate–supervisor dyads was 85.6%. We deleted surveys with missing values relating to key variables in our study (e.g. insufficient supervisor information) resulting in 406 subordinate–supervisor dyads included in our final analysis. These employees came from 54 different teams with an average team size of 7.52 members. Nearly two-thirds (65%) were male employees and almost half (47%) had worked more than three years with their supervisors. Over three-quarters (79.3%) of the sample were educated up to high school level (only 3.9% had a university degree). The questionnaire did not require respondents to divulge any kind of identifying information except an ID number to match with supervisors’ evaluation of their performance. Supervisors and subordinates were requested to complete the survey in different locations to ensure confidentiality. The details of the key characteristics of respondents in each of the seven firms are included in Table 1.

Table 1.

Key characteristics of respondents in the seven firms.

Firm	Ownership/Product	No. of respondents	Gender(% female)	Age (% below 25 years)	Educational level (% below college)	Tenure(% below 3 years)	Position(% non-managerial)
A	Joint venture/ elevator	61	14.4	16.9	90.0	21.4	94.5
B	Private/ elevator	55	16.3	19.3	93.8	54.5	91.9
C	Private/motor	61	69.3	15.7	96.7	27.0	94.7
D	Joint venture/motor	59	58.4	34.3	97.5	63.6	97.7
E	Private/flooring	59	46.5	17.9	98.7	86.8	93.8
F	Joint venture/flooring	54	31.8	20.7	92.6	56.0	94.1
G	Private/apparel	57	37.5	19.8	95.0	53.7	90.3

Measures

Our measures use reliable, multi-item five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) except where otherwise noted. The scales were translated into Chinese using a back-translation strategy (Brislin, 1970). Considering the relatively low education level of the manufacturing employees, some reverse-coded items were simplified to reduce complexity and ambiguity and the ordering of the questions was designed to ensure a logical flow.

SSG was measured with reference to six activities developed by Law et al. (2000). Employees were asked to rate the likelihood of engaging in specified activities on a five-point scale from 1 = never to 5 = always. The scale includes items covering supervisor–subordinate non-work social exchange relationships. A sample item is: ‘during holidays or after office hours, I would call my supervisor or visit him/her.’ This scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89.

Job resources was measured using 12 items in three subscales representing job autonomy (at the task level), supervisor support (at the interpersonal level), and developmental opportunities (at the organizational level) (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2004; Hakanen and Roodt, 2010). Job autonomy comprised five items from Karasek et al.’s (1998) job content instrument used in Bakker et al.’s (2004) study. A sample item is: ‘I decide how to do my work.’ We adapted three items from the social support scale used by Karasek et al. (1998) to assess employees’ perceptions of professional support—supervisor’s care for their well-being and support at work. A sample item is: ‘I can count on my supervisor when I face difficulties at work.’ Professional development was measured using Bakker et al.’s (2004) scale. A sample item is: ‘My job offers me opportunity to learn new things.’ The Cronbach’s alpha for the job resources scale is 0.72.

Job crafting was assessed using the 21-item job crafting scale developed by Tims et al. (2012). The scale includes four dimensions, the first of which measures the crafting of structural job resources with five items. A sample item is: ‘I try to develop my capabilities.’ The second dimension measures the crafting of social job resources with five items. A sample item is: ‘I ask whether my supervisor is satisfied with my work.’ The third dimension measures increases in challenging job demands with five items. A sample item is: ‘If there are new developments, I am one of the first to learn about them and try them out.’ The fourth dimension measures decreases in hindering job demands with six items. A sample item is: ‘I try to ensure that I do not have to make many difficult decisions at work.’ Overall, this scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90.

Task performance was measured with three items adapted from Farh et al. (1991). Supervisors were asked to rate subordinates on (1) quality of work, (2) efficiency of work, and (3) accomplishment of work goals (1 = ‘poor’, 5 = ‘superior’). This scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75.

OCB was evaluated by participants’ supervisors who responded to a question based on a scale that included four items adapted from Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) helping measure for OCB. Items included: ‘He/She helps orient new employees and helps others who have a heavy work load.’ This scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82.

Controls

In order to minimize the possibility of other factors influencing employees’ job performance and OCB, and in accordance with previous SSG research (e.g. Cheung et al., 2009; Farh et al., 1998; Liu and Wang, 2013; Zhang et al., 2015), age, gender, education and job tenure were included as control variables in the analysis. Previous research (Ng and Feldman, 2009) had found a positive relationship between education level and job activities representing core task performance and citizenship behaviors. Ng and Feldman (2010) found a positive relationship between tenure and both performance and OCB.

Analytical strategy

While all study variables were captured at the individual level (Level 1) in our study, the data contains a hierarchical structure in which responses of employee were nested within supervisors’ (Level 2). The nested structure may violate the assumption of independent observations making ordinary regression inappropriate. The ICC(1) values for the dependent variables (i.e. task performance and OCB) were 0.29 and 0.42 respectively, supporting the use of multilevel methods to test the hypotheses (Bliese, 2000; James et al., 2006).

We analyzed the data using the Mplus 7.4 statistical package (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2012), first by conducting a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) on our measurement model to examine construct distinctiveness. Second, because multilevel structural equation models are too parameter-intensive for our data (Grizzle et al., 2009), we specified a multilevel path model to test the hypothesized structural relationships. The comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were used to examine the model fit. Results are shown in Table 2. We compared the fit index of our hypothesized five-factor model—including SSG, job resources, job crafting, task performance and OCB—with a four-factor model combining job resources and job crafting, and a three-factor model further combining task performance and OCB. We also compared our five-factor model with a two-factor model combining all self-reported variables, and with a one-factor model combining all constructs. The MCFA results showed that the proposed five-factor structure had the best fit to the data (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR-within = 0.05, SRMR-between = 0.11). Thus, although the evidence supporting the distinctiveness of the constructs is not as strong as anticipated at the between level, our analysis clearly supports the existence of four distinct constructs at the within level. As our theory is focused on the within level, we proceeded to test our model. Table 3 lists all the items used in the study together with standardized factor loadings for the relevant confirmatory factor analysis. Thus, SSG, job resource, job crafting, task performance and OCB were supported as distinct factors.²

Table 2.

Fit statistics for the measurement model.

Model	χ²	d.f.	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMRw	SRMRb
One-factor model: SSG + JR + JC + TP + OCB	1258.53	175	0.50	0.42	0.12	0.16	0.27
Two-factor model : SSG + JR + JC, TP + OCB	626.88	174	0.79	0.75	0.08	0.09	0.13
Three-factor model: SSG, JR + JC, TP + OCB	402.70	172	0.89	0.87	0.06	0.07	0.12
Four-factor model: SSG, JR + JC, TP, OCB	356.17	169	0.91	0.90	0.05	0.07	0.11
Five-factor model: SSG, JR, JC, TP, OCB	284.72	165	0.96	0.95	0.04	0.05	0.11

d.f. = degrees of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index, TLI: Tucker Lewis index, RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation and SRMRw: standardized root mean square residual for within; SRMRb: standardized root mean square residual for between; SSG: supervisor–subordinate guanxi, JR: job resource, JC: job crafting, TP: task performance, OCB: organizational citizenship behavior.

Table 3.

Fit statistics for the measurement model.

Items	Factor loading
	1	2	3	4	5
SSG 1	.811
SSG 2	.834
SSG 3	.844
SSG 4	.808
SSG 5	.825
SSG 6	.693
Job resource 1		.827
Job resource 2		.877
Job resource 3		.824
Job resource 4		.667
Job resource 5		.855
Job resource 6		.826
Job resource 7		.653
Job resource 8		.793
Job resource 9		.810
Job resource 10		.725
Job resource 11		.847
Job resource 12		.847
Job crafting 1			.733
Job crafting 2			.765
Job crafting 3			.763
Job crafting 4			.656
Job crafting 5			.555
Job crafting 6			.719
Job crafting 7			.710
Job crafting 8			.531
Job crafting 9			.605
Job crafting 10			.582
Job crafting 11			.527
Job crafting 12			.693
Job crafting 13			.631
Job crafting 14			.645
Job crafting 15			.624
Job crafting 16			.556
Job crafting 17			.684
Job crafting 18			.666
Job crafting 19			.646
Job crafting 20			.566
Job crafting 21			.533
Task performance 1				.836
Task performance 2				.864
Task performance 3				.750
OCB 1					.701
OCB 2					.834
OCB 3					.836
OCB 4					.841

SSG = supervisor–subordinate guanxi; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables including the alpha coefficients for the scales. The results show that SSG is positively and significantly correlated with job resources (r = 0.23, p < 0.01), job crafting (r = 0.21, p < 0.01) and OCB (r = 0.20, p < 0.01). Meanwhile, job resources are positively related to job crafting (r = 0.20, p < 0.01), and job crafting is positively and significantly associated with task performance (r = 0.18, p < 0.01) and OCB (r = 0.21, p < 0.01). These correlation analysis results are largely consistent with our expectations as indicated in our hypotheses.

Table 4.

Means, standard deviation, correlations and reliability.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender	1.35	0.48
2. Age	2.35	1.04	.15^**
3. Tenure	2.54	1.17	.02	.45^**
4. Education	1.21	0.55	.01	−.12^*	−.18^**
5. SSG	3.17	1.01	−.08	−.03	−.09	.09	.89
6. Job resources	3.46	0.60	−.11^*	−.02	−.13^*	.02	.23^**	.72
7. Job crafting	4.06	0.53	.07	−.05	−.08	.03	.21^**	.20^**	.90
8. Task performance	3.53	0.60	.03	−.03	.10	−.03	.08	.11^*	.18^**	.75
9. OCB	3.55	0.65	.02	−.05	−.00	−.04	.20^**	.18^**	.21^**	.66^**	.82

SD: standard deviation; SSG: supervisor–subordinate guanxi; task performance and OCB are rated by supervisors; alpha reliabilities are along the diagonal in bold. 1. Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; 2. Age: 1 = below 25, 2 = 25–35, 3 = 35–45, 4 = above 45; 3. Tenure: 1 = below 1 year, 2 = 1–3 years, 3 = 4–5 years; 4. Education: 1 = below college, 2 = college, 3 = bachelor, 4 = master and above; N = 406;

p < 0.05, ^** p < 0.01.

Hypotheses testing

We examined the path coefficients in the multilevel model to estimate support for our hypotheses. The results of all direct and indirect relationships proposed in our model are shown in Table 5. Regarding the direct relationship between SSG and four job outcomes (H1, H2 and H3, H4), the results indicate that SSG is positively and significantly related to job resources (β = 0.22, p < 0.01), job crafting (β = 0.16, p < 0.05) and OCB (β = 0.29, p < 0.01) but not task performance (β = 0.18, p > 0.05). Thus H1, H2 and H4 were supported. In addition, H5 predicted that job resources and job crafting were significantly related. The path coefficient between the two variables is positive and significant (β = 0.16, p < 0.01). Hypotheses 6 and 7 predicted significant relationships between job crafting, task performance and OCB. The results indicated that job crafting is positively and significantly associated to both task performance (β = 0.20, p < 0.01) and OCB (β = 0.23, p < 0.01). This provides initial support for H5, H6 and H7.

Table 5.

Results of multilevel path analysis.

	Coefficient	SE	95% CI
Direct effects
1. SSG → Job resources	0.22^**	0.07	[0.09,0.34]
2. SSG → Job crafting	0.16^*	0.07	[0.03,0.27]
3. SSG → Task performance	0.18	0.10	[–0.01,0.33]
4. SSG → OCB	0.29^**	0.10	[0.10,0.46]
5. Job resources → Job crafting	0.16^**	0.06	[0.05,0.25]
6. Job resources → Task performance	−0.04	0.07	[–0.18,0.08]
7. Job resources → OCB	−0.03	0.10	[–0.22,0.13]
8. Job crafting → Task performance	0.20^**	0.06	[0.09,0.30]
9. Job crafting → OCB	0.23^**	0.07	[0.09,0.35]
Indirect effects
1. SSG → Job resources → Job crafting	0.03^*	0.02	[0.01,0.06]
2. SSG → Job resources → Task performance	−0.01	0.02	[–0.04,0.02]
3. SSG → Job resources → OCB	−0.01	0.02	[–0.05,0.03]
4. SSG → Job crafting → Task performance	0.03^*	0.02	[0.00,0.06]
5. SSG → Job crafting → OCB	0.04^*	0.02	[0.00,0.07]

SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; OBC = organizational citizenship behavior.

Furthermore, using the bootstrapping approach (with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals) recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008), we tested the mediating role of job resources and job crafting (in H5, H6 and H7). The results show that job resources mediate the relationship between SGG and job crafting (indirect effect = 0.03; 95% CI from 0.01 to 0.06), providing further support for H5. In addition, the results indicate that job crafting mediates the relationship between job resources and both task performance (indirect effect = 0.03; 95% CI from 0.00 to 0.06) and OCB (indirect effect = 0.04; 95% CI from 0.00 to 0.07). Thus, H6 and H7 were both supported. In addition, we tested the alternative models with job resources mediating between SSG and performance. The results indicate that the mediating effects were not significant for either task performance (indirect effect = -0.01; 95% CI from -0.04 to 0.02) or OCB (indirect effect = -0.01; 95% CI from -0.05 to 0.03). A model of proposed relationships among the studied variables and the multilevel path model results is presented in Figure 1.

Additional analysis

In order to verify our model, we tested an alternative model with reverse causal relationships between job resources and job crafting. The results indicate that direct relationships between job resources and task performance (b = -0.04, p > 0.05) and OCB (b = -0.03, p > 0.05) were not significant. Neither were the mediating effects of job resources on guanxi and task performance (b = -0.01, p > 0.05), and OCB (b = -0.01, p > 0.05) significant. In short, there is no support for the alternative model with job crafting influencing resources and then performance. We also examined the sequential mediation of both job resources and job crafting in relation to SSG and performance. The results showed that these effects were positive and significant (i.e. 0.007 for task performance and 0.008 for OCB, p < 0.05). Therefore, SSG was positively associated with job performance sequentially mediated first through job resources and then job crafting.

Discussion

This study draws on COR theory to identify and explain the mechanisms linking SSG and subordinates’ workplace behaviors and performance. Our hypotheses regarding the direct relationship between SSG and performance and their indirect relationship through the mediation of job resource and job crafting were supported. Specifically, the results show that SSG is positively related to subordinates’ job resources, job crafting and citizenship behavior at work. In addition, job resources mediate the relationship between SSG and job crafting and job crafting mediates the relationship between SSG and subordinate performance. These findings have implications for research on SSG and job crafting and effective supervisor–employee relations management practices.

Our study is the first we know of that explicitly tests the relationship between SSG, job resources and job crafting. We found that subordinates who have high-quality guanxi with supervisors tend to have more job resources in the form of autonomy, supervisor support and developmental opportunities at work. This is consistent with prior research that argued that supervisors are likely to categorize subordinates with high-quality guanxi as in-group members who received valuable job-related information and resources (Cheung and Wu, 2011; Wei et al., 2010). In addition, the interpersonal relationship with supervisors creates a safe and encouraging climate for subordinates to experiment and demonstrate job crafting behaviors. According to Niessen et al. (2016), individuals with a high need for social connection are motivated to invest time and energy in crafting (particularly on relational aspects at work). In line with this result, our study also supports the view that subordinates who build close relationships with supervisors are likely to engage in more job crafting behaviors.

On the other hand, previous studies have emphasized the affective function of SSG, suggesting that SSG enhances employees’ positive emotions, including trust in their supervisor (Han et al., 2012), attachment to their supervisor (Chen et al., 2009), and job satisfaction (Cheung et al., 2009; Zhang and Deng, 2016). Our study demonstrates that SSG also has instrumental functions: facilitating employee procurement of job resources and participation in job crafting. In addition, job resources stimulate employees’ intrinsic motivation to engage in proactive crafting behaviors at work (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). SSG as a social resource spills over to the workplace and enables subordinates to obtain more job resources at work and investment in these resources for job crafting.

It is worth noting that job crafting may generate additonal job resources. In other words, job resources may be an outcome of job crafting (Tims et al., 2013). However, the results of our extended analysis do not support the hypothesis that there is a direct relationship between job resources and performance. According to job demands-resources theory, job resources facilitate employee performance on condition that the negative effects of burnout are buffered and work engagement and proactive behaviors are initiated (Bakker et al., 2004; Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008). In our study, job resources encourage subordinates’ job crafting behaviors that contribute to higher individual performance.

Regarding the relationship between SSG and performance, we found a significant direct relationship between SSG and subordinates’ OCB. Graen and Scandura (1987) concluded that leaders and members must provide items valued by each party in a balanced exchange. Subordinates who feel an obligation to reciprocate towards their supervisors can fulfil this obligation either directly or indirectly (Zhang et al., 2015). Our results are consistent with previous studies showing a positive relationship between SSG and subordinates’ OCB (Liu and Wang, 2013; Ouyang, 2011; Zhang, Li, et al., 2015). Such behavior is typically valued by the supervisor (Liu and Wang, 2013; Organ, 1994) for the additional productivity that it represents and for the organizational commitment that is signifies (Cheung et al., 2009). Furthermore, OCB reduces the supervisory burden of motivating and coordinating employees, benefitting both the supervisor and the organization (Weng, 2014; Zhang et al., 2015). For example, employees may display altruism towards colleagues through helping in task-related matters and coordinating teamwork and interpersonal relationships. This is likely to relieve tension between subordinates who experience different levels of guanxi with the supervisor (Luo et al., 2016).

Although posited as a significant relationship, the direct relationship between SSG and subordinates’ in-role performance was not found to be significant. SSG plays a substantial role in managing employees in the Chinese context. However, Chinese management is both relationship and task-oriented. For example, Law et al. (2000) found that guanxi had no effect on supervisors’ performance ratings and concluded that ‘Chinese supervisors can be objective and rational in their evaluation of their subordinates’ performance’ (p. 760).This is also consistent with Zhang et al.’s (2015) finding that personal ties, manifested by SSG, explained the unique variance in subordinate extra-role behaviors beyond that accounted for by work ties and job requirements. Furthermore, our study shows that job crafting fully mediates the relationship between SSG and task performance. This result indicates that subordinates’ in-role performance will increase when employees direct their social and job resources derived from SSG to addressing job demands and improving their jobs.

Practical implications

We have seen that high-quality SSG motivates employees to demonstrate high levels of in-role and extra-role performance through resource procurement and crafting behaviors. This suggests that to promote employee commitment and productivity, organizations should not only rely on formal human resource management policies and practices inside the workplace, but also facilitate personal guanxi between supervisors and subordinates through extra-work social activities of their choice. Team leisure activities that include supervisors and employees are likely to encourage more personal and work-related knowledge sharing that will support learning and improve worker motivation and capability (Sarin and McDermott, 2003). In addition, supervisors will be able to better understand and assist in expeditiously addressing the priorities of their subordinates (Han et al., 2012). In promoting a shared perspective, more frequent, meaningful dialogue between workers and their supervisors is likely to foster agreement concerning expectations regarding searching for and using job resources to craft jobs for improved performance.

Since the positive relationship between SSG is mediated by job resources and job crafting, supervisors need to ensure that resources are made available to employees, bearing in mind the semi-skilled manual work context. This requires that supervisors understand the function of resources as both alleviators of hindrance demands (e.g. reducing overtime working and adjusting work schedules) and facilitators of challenge demand (e.g. providing sufficient training and support to experiment with new job task routines) (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). In doing so, supervisors’ judgements may be based on guanxi relations as indicated by our study. This might lead to some employees being perceived as benefitting more than others (Chen et al., 2011). In order to avoid charges of favoritism and seeking to limit tension among employees, supervisors should attempt to treat all subordinates in a similar, supportive manner. SSG need not entail explicit positive discrimination. This will require an understanding of emotional intelligence and training in relationship management (Tischler et al., 2002).

Employees should be able to meet regularly with their supervisor. In addition to feedback from the supervisor, employees should be encouraged to provide feedback and suggestions to the supervisor (Hoogervorst et al., 2013). Favorable supervisor–subordinate relations might be reinforced by confidential semi-annual employee surveys that would include subordinate evaluations of supervisors’ contribution to employee development through assisting in building resources for job crafting that contributes to employee performance. Supervisors’ assistance might include both provision of tangible resources and role modelling of job crafting. These evaluations should function to encourage job crafting by being included in supervisors’ performance appraisals and salary determination.

Limitations and future research directions

Our study has several limitations that provide opportunities for future research. The first limitation is related to data collection. Our design included data from multiple sources (i.e. supervisors and subordinates) using a time-lagged method (four-week interval). However, as noted earlier, job resources may be an antecedent or outcome of job crafting; the exact relationship can only be established using a longitudinal design. Second, we relied on supervisor scores for assessing employee performance. In future, it would be desirable for researchers to obtain individual performance records from these and other data sources, where available; in effect, triangulating the research results.

A third issue concerns the limited conceptual and methodological scope of our study. It is possible to incorporate additional types of social resources (e.g. shouren guanxi such as co-worker guanxi and customer guanxi; jiaren guanxi such as family ties) to predict job resources. A further point relating to the mediators is that we only examined the positive gain spiral through the mediation of job resources and job crafting under the condition of adequate resources. Future studies might explore how guanxi operates in contexts that lead to higher job demands, for example, creating job challenge, work overload and work–family conflict. Regarding methodological scope, we followed Law et al. (2000) in focusing on employees’ perceptions of SSG. Future studies could usefully focus on both supervisors and subordinates’ rating of the quality of their guanxi relationship, including their demographic details. This would permit a more balanced view of the guanxi relationship and enable exploration of the hypothesis that employee performance will be positively related to a high level of agreement between employees and supervisors concerning strong guanxi that may be related to demographic similarities, for example, birthplace (hukou) or gender.

Fourth, we did not explicitly evaluate the effect of workplace climate on the relationships included in our model. Climate for co-operation and other variables may be moderators of the guanxi- performance relationship. Fifth and finally, our study is limited to several organizations in manufacturing industry. It will be helpful to rely on more representative samples in both manufacturing and services in China and other East Asian countries such as Singapore (Bian and Ang, 1997) where guanxi is commonly practiced.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that SSG are important for predicting subordinates’ job resources, job crafting and job performance in the workplace. Based on COR theory, we suggest that the crossover mechanism enables guanxi as social resources outside the work domain to facilitate job resource accumulation at work. These job resources are instrumental and motivational, enabling and promoting employees’ proactive crafting behavior aimed at achieving higher performance. In short, guanxi building between supervisors and subordinates contributes to higher individual performance in Chinese manufacturing firms. It is a neglected social practice that may also bring satisfaction to both employees and supervisors thereby sustaining firm performance.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Xiaoyu Guan graduated from UNSW in 2017 and this article was first submitted in 2017, though she wants to list her affiliation as Beijing Normal University, China.

Funding

This research was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers: 71802023 and 71871025) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant number: 2018NTSS58).

Notes

ORCID iD

Xiaoyu Guan

Xiaoyu Guan is Assistant Professor at the School of Government, Beijing Normal University, China. She got her PhD degree in UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Her research interests include HRM in global supply chains, leader–member relations, job crafting and thriving at work. Her work has appeared in international scholarly journals including Human Relations, Personnel Review, Journal of Career Assessment and Chinese Management Studies. [Email: guanxy@bnu.edu.cn]

Stephen J Frenkel is Professor of Organization and Employment Relations at the UNSW School of Business, University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Stephen has authored more than 70 journal articles and edited or authored 10 books. Stephen has undertaken research for the International Labour Organization and is currently joint leader of an international project on global supply chains and labor standards. He is an editorial board member of Industrial & Labor Relations Review, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Work, Employment and Society. His current research interests are the organization and dynamics of global supply chains, management and work in China, and sociological and psychological theories of work. [Email: s.frenkel@unsw.edu.au]

References

Aron

Norman

(2001) The self expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In: Clark

Fletcher

(eds) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 478–501.

Bakker

Demerouti

(2007) The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(3): 309–328.

Bakker

Demerouti

Euwema

(2005) Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10(2): 170–180.

Bakker

Demerouti

Schaufeli

(2003) Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the job demands–resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 12(4): 393–417.

Bakker

Demerouti

Verbeke

(2004) Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management 43(1): 83–104.

Berg

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

(2010) Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(2–3): 158–186.

Bian

Ang

(1997) Guanxi networks and job mobility in China and Singapore. Social Forces 75(3): 981–1005.

Bindl

Parker

(2010) Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In: Zedeck

(ed.) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 567–598.

Bliese

(2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein

Kozlowski

SWJ

(eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 349–381.

10.

Brislin

(1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216.

11.

Burris

Rodgers

Mannix

(2009) Playing favorites: The influence of leaders’ inner circle on group processes and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35(9): 1244–1257.

12.

Campbell

(2000) The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Perspectives 14(3): 52–66.

13.

Chen

Huang

(2013) Chinese Guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organization Review 9(1): 167–207.

14.

Chen

Westman

Hobfoll

(2015) The commerce and crossover of resources: Resource conservation in the service of resilience. Stress and Health 31(2): 95–105.

15.

Chen

(2012) Chinese guanxi: The good, the bad and the controversial. In: Huang

Bond

(eds) Handbook of Chinese Organizational Behavior: Integrating Theory, Research and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 415–435.

16.

Chen

Friedman

(2009) Supervisor-subordinate guanxi: Developing a three-dimensional model and scale. Management and Organization Review 5(3): 375–399.

17.

Chen

Friedman

Sun

(2011) Examining the positive and negative effects of guanxi practices: A multi-level analysis of guanxi practices and procedural justice perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 28(4): 715–735.

18.

Chen

Tjosvold

(2006) Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in China: The role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies 43(8): 1727–1752.

19.

Chen

Tjosvold

(2007) Guanxi and leader member relationships between American managers and Chinese employees: Open-minded dialogue as mediator. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24(2): 171–189.

20.

Cheung

(2011) Participatory management and employee work outcomes: The moderating role of supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(3): 344–364.

21.

Cheung

W-P

Chan

Wong

(2009) Supervisor–subordinate guanxi and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics 88(S1): 77–89.

22.

Crawford

LePine

Rich

(2010) Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(5): 834–838.

23.

Deci

Ryan

(2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.

24.

Demerouti

Bakker

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

(2001) The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 499–512.

25.

Dulebohn

Bommer

Liden

Brouer

Ferris

(2012) A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management 38(6): 1715–1759.

26.

Farh

Dobbins

Cheng

(1991) Cultural relativity in action: A comparison of self-ratings made by Chinese and US workers. Personnel Psychology 44(1): 129–147.

27.

Farh

Tsui

Xin

Cheng

(1998) The influence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science 9(4): 471–488.

28.

Farh

Zhong

Organ

(2004) Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science 15(2): 241–253.

29.

Frenkel

(2015) Chinese migrants’ work experience and city identification: Challenging the underclass thesis. Human Relations 68(2): 261–285.

30.

Fuller

Marler

Hester

Otondo

(2015) Leader reactions to follower proactive behavior: Giving credit when credit is due. Human Relations 68(6): 879–898.

31.

Gagné

Deci

(2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(4): 331–362.

32.

Gerstner

Day

(1997) Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(6): 827–844.

33.

Graen

Scandura

(1987) Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In: Cummings

Staw

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 175–208.

34.

Graen

Uhl-Bien

(1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 219–247.

35.

Grant

Parker

(2009) 7 redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 317–375.

36.

Grizzle

Zablah

Brown

, et al. (2009) Employee customer orientation in context: How the environment moderates the influence of customer orientation on performance outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(5): 1227–1242.

37.

Hakanen

Roodt

(2010) Using the job demands-resources model to predict engagement: Analysing a conceptual model. In: Bakker

Leiter

(eds) Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. New York: Psychology Press, 85–101.

38.

Halbesleben

JRB

Neveu

Paustian-Underdahl

Westman

(2014) Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management 40(5): 1334–1364.

39.

Han Peng

Zhu

(2012) Supervisor-subordinate guanxi and trust in supervisor: A qualitative inquiry in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Business Ethics 108(3): 313–324.

40.

Hobfoll

(1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44(3): 513–524.

41.

Hobfoll

(2001) The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology 50(3): 337–421.

42.

Hobfoll

(2002) Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology 6(4): 307–324.

43.

Hobfoll

(2011) Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84(1): 116–122.

44.

Hobfoll

Halbesleben

Neveu

Westman

(2018) Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5: 103–128.

45.

Hoogervorst

De Cremer

Van

(2013) When do leaders grant voice? How leaders’ perceptions of followers’ control and belongingness needs affect the enactment of fair procedures. Human Relations 66(7): 973–992.

46.

Hwang

(1987) Face and favor – the Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology 92(4): 944–974.

47.

James

Mulaik

Brett

(2006) A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods 9(2): 233–244.

48.

Karasek

Brisson

Kawakami

, et al. (1998) The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3(4): 322–355.

49.

Law

Wong

C-S

Wang

(2000) Effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management 11(4): 751–765.

50.

Lin

(1982) Social resources and instrumental action. In: Marsden

Lin

(eds) Social Structure and Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, 131–147.

51.

Lin

(2010) Guanxi and OCB: The Chinese cases. Journal of Business Ethics 96(2): 285–298.

52.

Lin

(2001) Guanxi: A conceptual analysis. Contributions in Sociology 133: 153–166.

53.

Liu

Hui

Lee

Chen

(2013) Why do I feel valued and why do I contribute? A relational approach to employee’s organization-based self-esteem and job performance. Journal of Management Studies 50(6): 1018–1040.

54.

Liu

Wang

(2013) Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour: Is supervisor-subordinate guanxi a mediator? International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(7): 1471–1489.

55.

Luo

Cheng

Zhang

(2016) Guanxi circle and organizational citizenship behavior: Context of a Chinese workplace. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 33(3): 649–671.

56.

Meijman

Mulder

(1998) Psychological aspects of workload. In: Drenth

PJD

Thierry

(eds) Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology. Hove: Psychology Press, 5–33.

57.

Miao

(2011) Perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, task performance and organizational citizenship behavior in China. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 12(2): 105–127.

58.

Muthén

(2012) Mplus User’s Guide, 6th edn. Los Angeles, CA.

59.

Feldman

(2009) How broadly does education contribute to job performance? Personnel Psychology 62(1): 89–134.

60.

Feldman

(2010) Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of Management 36(5): 1220–1250.

61.

Nielsen

Abildgaard

(2012) The development and validation of a job crafting measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress 26(4): 365–384.

62.

Niessen

Weseler

Kostova

(2016) When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job. Human Relations 69(6): 1287–1313.

63.

Oldham

Fried

(2016) Job design research and theory: Past, present and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136: 20–35.

64.

Organ

(1988) A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management 14(4): 547–557.

65.

Organ

(1994) Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management 20(2): 465–478.

66.

Ouyang

(2011) An exploration of LMX and personal guanxi on job performance: The mediating effects of CSR. Journal of Global Business Issues 5(1): 1–10.

67.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

Podsakoff

(2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

68.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

69.

Rudolph

Katz

Lavigne

Zacher

(2017) Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 102: 112–138.

70.

Salanova

Schaufeli

(2008) A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19(1): 116–131.

71.

Sarin

McDermott

(2003) The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences 34(4): 707–739.

72.

Scandura

Williams

(2004) Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(3): 448–468.

73.

Schaufeli

Taris

(2014) A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In: Bauer

Hämmig

(eds) Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health. Dordrecht: Springer, 43–68.

74.

Shih

C-T

Lin

C-C

(2014) From good friends to good soldiers: A psychological contract perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 31(1): 309–326.

75.

Tian

(2015) Investigating the job mobility of migrant workers in China. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 24(3): 353–375.

76.

Tims

Bakker

Derks

(2012) Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(1): 173–186.

77.

Tims

Bakker

Derks

(2013) The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 18(2): 230–240.

78.

Tims

Bakker

Derks

(2015) Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 24(6): 914–928.

79.

Tischler

Biberman

McKeage

(2002) Linking emotional intelligence, spirituality and workplace performance: Definitions, models and ideas for research. Journal of Managerial Psychology 17(3): 203–218.

80.

Tornau

Frese

(2013) Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology 62(1): 44–96.

81.

Van den Broeck

De Cuyper

De Witte

Vansteenkiste

(2010) Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the job demands–resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19(6): 735–759.

82.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

Lens

(2008) Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress 22(3): 277–294.

83.

Van Dyne

LePine

(1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41(1): 108–119.

84.

Wang

Law

Hackett

Wang

Chen

(2005) Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 48(3): 420–432.

85.

Wei

Liu

Chen

(2010) Political skill, supervisor–subordinate guanxi and career prospects in Chinese firms. Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 437–454.

86.

Weng

(2014) Improving employee job performance through ethical leadership and ‘guanxi’: The moderation effects of supervisor-subordinate guanxi differentiation. Asia Pacific Management Review 19(3): 321–345.

87.

Westman

(2001) Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations 54(6): 717–751.

88.

Williams

Anderson

(1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17(3): 601–617.

89.

Wong

Ngo

Wong

(2003) Antecedents and outcomes of employees’ trust in Chinese joint ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 20(4): 481–499.

90.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

(2001) Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review 26(2): 179–201.

91.

Yang

(1993) Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In: Cheng

Cheung

FMC

Chen

(eds) Psychotherapy for the Chinese: Selected Papers from the First International Conference. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 19–56.

92.

Yang

MMH

(1994) Gifts, Favors, and Banquets: The Art of Social Relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

93.

Zhai

Lindorff

Cooper

(2013) Workplace guanxi: Its dispositional antecedents and mediating role in the affectivity–job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Business Ethics 117(3): 541–551.

94.

Zhang

Deng

(2016) Guanxi with supervisor and counterproductive work behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics 134(3): 413–427.

95.

Zhang

Deng

Zhang

(2015) Why do Chinese employees build supervisor-subordinate guanxi. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 33(3): 617–648.

96.

Zhang

Harris

(2015) Putting non-work ties to work: The case of guanxi in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Leadership Quarterly 26(1): 37–54.