Next Article in Journal
Carbon Emission Prediction Model for the Underground Mining Stage of Metal Mines
Previous Article in Journal
Municipal-Based Biowaste Conversion for Developing and Promoting Renewable Energy in Smart Cities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Leadership towards Sustainability: A Review of Sustainable, Sustainability, and Environmental Leadership
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/su151712739
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior on Employees’ Proactive Behavior: A Cognitive and Affective Integration Perspective

by
Chuanhao Fan
1,2,
Chunlan Ye
1,
Long Zhang
2,3,* and
Yao Gong
1
1
School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
2
Institute of Human Resources of the Ministry of Water Resources, Nanjing 210098, China
3
College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(17), 12739; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712739
Submission received: 4 July 2023 / Revised: 11 August 2023 / Accepted: 21 August 2023 / Published: 23 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Business Practices and Theories in Leadership, Innovation and Organizational Behaviour)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the increasing complexity of the external organizational environment, employees’ proactive behavior has become a critical factor for organizational success. However, there is limited research exploring the mechanisms behind employees’ proactive behavior from the perspective of family supportive supervisor behavior, which satisfies employees’ work–family balance. Based on the Cognitive–Affective Personality System theory and in the context of escalating work–family conflict and the Chinese cultural context, which emphasizes reciprocity, this study collected survey data from 535 employees in two stages. The study aimed to investigate the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior. The results show that family supportive supervisor behavior has a positive impact on employees’ proactive behavior; perceived insider status and affective commitment partially mediate the impact of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior; and perceived insider status and affective commitment play chain-mediating roles in the influence of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior. This study innovatively reveals the “black box” of the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior from the internal perspective of individual cognition–emotion. This expands the research on the consequences of family supportive supervisor behavior in the work field and provides inspiration for enterprises on how to motivate employees’ proactive behavior.

1. Introduction

Under intense market competition pressure, organizations are increasingly extending employees’ working hours, requiring them to balance competing demands from multiple roles in both work and non-work domains [1,2]. As a result, work–family balance is facing significant challenges. The advent of the digital era has brought about significant changes in the way that employees work, with technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, the Internet, and the Internet of Things altering traditional work practices. As a result, workplace constraints, including time and location, have become more flexible, blurring the boundaries between work and home. Additionally, the prevalence of dual-income households has made it increasingly common for employees to face the dual pressures of work and family [3]. The conflict between employees’ work and family responsibilities has been intensifying, making it both a practical issue and a research focus in terms of whether organizations can provide resources or support to help employees balance their work and family relationships [4].
Many studies have confirmed that the imbalance of employees’ work–family relationships will have a negative impact on employees [5], including the endangerment of physical and mental health, a reduction in work well-being, and the generation of low performance levels [6,7]. Organizations have explored a variety of ways to reduce the potential negative impact of work–family conflict, such as supporting telecommuting, setting flexible working hours, setting up special maternity leave, etc. [8,9,10]. However, it is difficult to fully meet the needs of employees only by giving employees specific benefits [11]. In contrast, a supervisory role with direct discretion in the first-line area may be more critical. Studies have shown that the cognition and implementation of the relevant measures and systems of the organization’s family support for employees is the top priority to allow the system to play a key role [12]. Based on this, scholars have proposed the concept of “family supportive supervisor behavior” in which supervisors provide support to employees to help employees balance work and family. Its specific connotation is “the behavior of supervisors to support employees to fulfill their family responsibilities, aiming to better help employees deal with the relationship between work and family” [13]. With the gradual deepening of research, scholars have found the mechanism for the influence of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees, whereby supervisors show a series of behaviors that support employees’ families, which can not only help employees alleviate work–family conflicts but can also help employees to better carry out their work and improve their task performance [14]. At present, scholars have conducted extensive discussions on the influence mechanism of family supportive supervisor behavior from different perspectives [15], but there is still some research space. For example, in terms of influencing results, more attention is paid to the work–family interface, work attitude, and work performance [1,16,17], and the related research is generally based on the resource perspective and the exchange perspective. So, can we explore its impact on employee behavior from different perspectives or specific situations? What are the key factors? What is the mechanism of action? These questions need to be explored further.
In related research on employee behavior, proactive behavior has been a wide concern of scholars [18]. Proactive behavior is the proactive behavior of employees aimed at improving the work situation or individual roles, which is spontaneous, forward-looking, and transformative [19]. In the context of increasingly fierce competition among organizations, the spontaneous behavior of employees at work is an important resource for organizations and a key factor for them to gain unique competitive advantages. Previous studies have confirmed that employee proactive behavior can improve job performance [20], stimulate innovative behavior [21], and promote organizational change [19]. The academic community has carried out a lot of research on the antecedents of employees’ proactive behavior. At present, it mainly focuses on the individual level, job characteristics, and organizational context. Some scholars have confirmed that family supportive supervisor behavior in an organizational context has a positive impact on employees’ proactive behavior [22]. However, there is a scarcity of existing research in this area, and scholars have primarily approached it from the perspective of social exchange theory. Furthermore, when explaining the underlying mechanisms between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior, researchers have typically focused on individual cognitive, emotional, or motivational variables as separate mediating factors [23]. The exploration of a chain-mediated perspective is needed to enhance our understanding of this phenomenon. The Cognitive–Affective Personality System (CAPS) [24] believes that the stimulation of the organizational context will not only directly affect individual behavior but will also affect individual potential behavior by activating individual cognitive and emotional factors in turn. The implementation of family-supportive behaviors by supervisors may potentially activate employees’ perceived insider status, leading to the generation of affective commitment and ultimately influencing employees’ proactive behavior. Especially in the cultural context of China, which emphasizes reciprocity, employees tend to feel a sense of indebtedness and gratitude when they perceive support and care from their supervisors on behalf of the organization. This, in turn, stimulates employees’ desire to reciprocate and proactively identify themselves as insiders of the organization. They develop emotional attachment and identification with the organization, leading to an increase in positive behaviors that are beneficial to the organization in their daily work. Therefore, this study further examines the mediating effect of the two variables in the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior by introducing two variables: perceived insider status and affective commitment.
This study is grounded in the Cognitive–Affective Personality System. By constructing a chain-mediated model, the study aims to delve into the direct effects of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior, as well as the internal pathways through which these effects are transmitted, involving the mediating factors of perceived insider status and affective commitment. Given the escalating work–family conflict among employees, the accelerated advent of the digital economy driving transformative shifts in work methodologies, and the increasingly complex and dynamic external milieu that triggers proactive behavior among employees, delving into the “black box” of the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employee proactivity has emerged as a salient concern within both the business community and academia. Therefore, it is imperative to explore the nexus between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior. This research contributes in three key ways. Firstly, it extends the investigation of the consequences of family supportive supervisor behavior in the domain of work. Prior studies have predominantly focused on the outcomes of family supportive supervisor behavior in relation to the work–family interface, work attitudes, and job performance [1,16,17]. In the context of prolonged work hours, an increasing work intensity, the prevalence of dual-income households in China, and the growing complexity of organizational environments, this study explores the impact of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior within the workplace. This enriches the understanding of the mechanisms through which family supportive supervisor behavior operates in the realm of work. Secondly, while existing research largely stemmed from social exchange theory, this study employs the Cognitive–Affective Personality System to investigate the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior. This provides novel theoretical perspectives and entry points for management practices, thereby deepening the comprehension of the influence mechanisms of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior. Thirdly, this study focuses on an individual’s intrinsic perspective by integrating the perceived insider status (individual cognition) and affective commitment (individual emotions) into the theoretical framework, forming a chain-mediated model. This approach differentiates from prior research that often treats these two factors as independent systems. It thoroughly considers the combined role of cognition and emotions within the behavioral chain, thus offering a complementary perspective to existing research.

2. Theory and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior and Employees’ Proactive Behavior

Family supportive supervisor behavior encompasses four dimensions: emotional support, instrumental support, innovative work–family management, and role modeling behavior. As an informal form of family support, it offers greater flexibility compared to formal policies and demonstrates more significant advantages in meeting employees’ work and family needs [9]. As immediate superiors, supervisors, by providing employees with increased support on family-related matters and empathizing with their circumstances [22], not only contribute to the enhancement of employees’ family performance and family well-being [25] but also elevate employees’ sense of work meaningfulness [26]. Consequently, employees are inclined to exhibit greater proactivity in their work [27].
Employees’ proactive behavior is a series of behaviors that employees carry out spontaneously and actively in order to improve themselves and the surrounding environment, to strive to improve personal skills, and to achieve organizational goals and complete organizational tasks [19]. There are many factors that affect employees’ proactive behavior, and a positive leadership style is one of them. Some scholars have pointed out that inclusive leadership, self-sacrificing leadership, and transformational leadership have significant positive impacts on employees’ proactive behavior [28,29,30]. As a positive superior support behavior, family supportive supervisor behavior also has a profound impact on employees’ daily work attitudes, behaviors, and environments. According to the Cognitive–Affective Personality System, individual behavior is a consequence of situational stimuli [24]. Supervisors, as integral components of the organizational context, continuously influence employees’ daily work and their work environment. Family supportive supervisor behavior, a pivotal organizational contextual variable, serves as a significant stimulus for employees within the workplace, potentially fostering proactive behavior [22]. For employees in the workplace, family supportive supervisor behavior conveys a friendly contextual message, and such benevolent contextual cues enhance employees’ positive psychological states [24], which might lead to heightened positive behaviors. Specifically, the display of emotional support tools by supervisors, such as care, respect, understanding, or sympathy, could evoke positive emotions in employees. This perception of organizational concern may subsequently prompt employees to engage in proactive behaviors, such as offering suggestions, seeking feedback, and initiating innovation, which is conducive to long-term organizational well-being [19,31]. The instrumental support provided by supervisors, such as flexible work arrangements, meets the needs of employees’ work–family management and also makes them feel grateful to their supervisors, which, in turn, feeds back to the organizational level. Building on the social exchange theory and the principle of reciprocity, McKersie et al. [32] also argued that employees, upon receiving valuable and expectation-fulfilling resources from their supervisor in the form of family-supportive supervision, are likely to reciprocate by showcasing their own creativity. Especially in the Chinese cultural context, which values reciprocity [33], employees are more willing to contribute to the organization, exhibit more proactive behavior, and strive relentlessly to achieve organizational goals. Furthermore, supervisors show the example behavior of integrating and balancing work and family, conveying the idea that work and family are equally important to employees and creating a family-supported organizational atmosphere, which can stimulate employees’ sense of identity and belonging to the organization and can promote active work. In addition, supervisors innovate work–family management and redesign work arrangements to reduce work–family conflicts. Employees can not only improve work well-being [34] but also realize the value of work and the meaning of life, which is conducive to the realization of self-worth and the willingness to undertake proactive behaviors for the organization. Therefore, this study proposes the following:
H1: 
Family supportive supervisor behavior has a positive impact on employees’ proactive behavior.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Perceived Insider Status

According to the Cognitive–Affective Personality System, cognitive processing is a crucial facet of cognitive–emotional processing units, referring to the process through which individuals acquire, store, retrieve, and manipulate information. Thinking, reasoning, perception, imagination, and memory all constitute integral elements of cognitive processing, leading individuals to form corresponding cognitive outcomes following the cognitive processing of situational information [24]. Positive interpersonal cognition pertains to favorable interpretations being derived by individuals from their roles and relationships during interpersonal interactions, encompassing two primary types: self-perceived identity and interpersonal relationship cognition [35]. Perceived insider status, as a significant component of individual identity cognition, is likely to play a pivotal mediating role in the process by which family supportive supervisor behavior influences employee proactive behavior. Perceived insider status is defined as employees’ cognitive perceptions of their personal space and acceptance within the organization, reflecting the extent to which employees perceive themselves as belonging to the internal membership of the organization [36]. Numerous studies have shown that perceived insider status not only fulfills employees’ affiliation needs, elevates job satisfaction, and diminishes turnover intentions, but also augments job performance, work engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and even innovative behavior [37,38]. In organizations, supervisors hold authoritative power, which is endowed with their positional authority, and are pivotal figures for employees within the organizational context [39]. Employees gauge their position and degree of recognition and acceptance in the organization by perceiving supervisors’ attitudes and behaviors towards them [40]. Demonstrations of care and support by supervisors reinforce employees’ perceived insider status [41]. Notably, when supervisors provide cross-boundary resources to meet employees’ work–family needs or exhibit other family-supportive behaviors, employees are more inclined to perceive themselves as internal members [38]. Research indicates that a heightened sense of perceived insider status fosters a mutual dependency and a profound sense of integration with the organization among employees. They regard themselves as part of the collective destiny of the organization and consciously safeguard organizational interests, echoing the Chinese adage “A scholar who dies for a confidant” [37]. The Leader–Member Exchange Theory posits that when employees perceive themselves as internal members, they strive to maximize their talents and potential to fulfill job tasks [42]. Especially in contexts marked by a highly collectivist culture, driven by the motive to attain group membership identity, employees are more likely to embrace their organizational responsibilities, displaying positive job behaviors. This process is also influenced by the traditional leadership styles of supervisors [43].
Based on the “situation–cognition–behavior” pathway in the Cognitive–Affective Personality System, the cognitive outcomes of individuals’ perceptions of situational information influence their subsequent behavioral responses. Family supportive supervisor behavior, as a people-oriented “relational” leadership approach that emphasizes care, attentive listening, and understanding towards employees, constitutes a positive external contextual stimulus. This behavior assists in alleviating work–family conflicts faced by employees and facilitates the establishment of friendly and close relationships between supervisors and subordinates. Simultaneously, family supportive supervisor behavior demonstrates respect for employees and empathizes with their perspectives, mitigating the pressures arising from work–family imbalances. By conveying the signal of being an “organizational insider” to employees, it reinforces positive perceptions of supervisors and the organization [44], prompting employees to develop higher levels of perceived insider status. This enhanced identity strengthens employees’ sense of belonging and loyalty to the organization, thereby fostering proactive behaviors that are conducive to the sustained healthy development of the organization. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2: 
Perceived insider status has a mediating role between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior.

2.3. The Mediating Role of Affective Commitment

According to the Cognitive–Affective Personality System, emotional processing constitutes another vital component of cognitive-emotional processing units. It pertains to the process by which individuals encode and interpret situational information, leading to the generation of corresponding emotional outcomes. Contextual information shapes an individual’s emotional state and subsequently determines their behavioral responses [24]. From this perspective, it can be inferred that affective commitment might play an intermediary role in the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior. Affective commitment is one of the main dimensions of organizational commitment. It is the degree of emotional attachment and recognition of employees to the organization [45]. Previous studies have shown that positive emotions generated by employees’ perceptions of organizational support can promote employees to work hard to achieve personal and organizational reciprocity [27], to enhance the emotional connection between the two [46], and to strengthen employees’ affective commitment to the organization. According to the theory of affective events, the characteristics of the organizational environment induce work events and will further awaken the individual’s emotional response [47]. Supervision is an important factor affecting the working environment. When it focuses on the work–family relationship of employees and shows family support behavior, employees may regard the interaction with supervisors as a positive work event. As the agent of the organization, the positive emotions of the employee toward the supervisor will be transferred to the organization and stimulate their affective commitment [27]. Some scholars have pointed out that having a supportive work–family culture or welfare will reduce employees’ turnover intention and deepen employees’ emotional dependence on the organization [48]. Affective commitment is a psychological attachment to social entities other than themselves, and employees’ attachment to the organization is an important motivator for them to generate beneficial organizational behavior [49]. When employees experience respect and understanding in their interactions with their superiors, those with clear personal commitments are more likely to understand the organization’s goals and make positive contributions, demonstrating higher levels of organizational identification and loyalty and a greater sense of responsibility. Research has shown that affective commitment influences employees’ work attitudes and behaviors [50,51]. High levels of affective commitment enable employees to internalize the organization’s tasks and goals, focus on work, and show more proactive behavior [52,53,54,55].
According to the Cognitive–Affective Personality System theory, the “situation–affect–behavior” pathway suggests that situational/environmental factors activate affective factors which, in turn, influence individual behaviors [24]. When confronted with positive or negative, favorable or detrimental, urgent or significant, and personally relevant situational information, an individual’s emotional processing mechanism is triggered, resulting in corresponding emotional experiences. Family supportive supervisor behavior has the ability to convey a benevolent contextual message to employees within the workplace, activating their emotional processing mechanism, fulfilling their emotional needs, and generating positive emotional experiences. Moreover, these experiences possess enduring and pervasive characteristics [56], actively fostering interactions with work or the organization. Consequently, they enhance job satisfaction and organizational commitment, manifest higher levels of dedication and loyalty, and motivate employees to fully tap into their potential, proactively investing greater effort. Therefore, based on the above discussion, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:
H3: 
Affective commitment has a mediating role between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior.

2.4. The Chain-Mediating Effect of Perceived Insider Status and Affective Commitment

The Cognitive-Affective Personality System posits that individuals, following exposure to situational information stimuli, subsequently activate their cognitive–emotional processing units. By comparing the information with their own expectations, beliefs, goals, and values, individuals formulate cognitive and emotional responses that are influenced by the context, which subsequently guide their subsequent behavioral reactions [24]. Individuals typically hold positive expectations, beliefs, and goals regarding themselves and their environments. When the actual circumstances align with these expectations, individuals are inclined to develop positive cognitive and emotional responses about themselves and the environment, thereby engendering corresponding individual behaviors. Combined with the theoretical model framework of “situation–cognition–emotion-behavior”, family support supervisors will actively communicate with employees, discover and guide the problems encountered by employees in a timely manner, provide relevant work resources for solving problems, share skills related to balancing work and life with subordinates, and set an example for employees to effectively fulfill their family responsibilities, innovate management methods, adopt flexible working mechanisms, and coordinate working methods according to the different situations of employees. The external situational stimulation brought by these behaviors to employees can greatly reduce the psychological pressure caused by the unbalanced relationship between work and family, increase their work autonomy [57], and help to strengthen employees’ positive cognition of supervisors and organizations [58], which also lays the foundation for employees to form a higher perceived insider status [59]. Rhoades et al. [27], perceived insider status is believed to meet the needs of employees’ social and emotional affiliation to a certain extent. Masterson and Stamper also point out that perceived insider status is the core premise of employees’ sense of belonging to their organization [36]. Chen et al. [55] confirmed that employees’ perceived insider status enhances their sense of belonging to the organization, makes them show positive work behaviors and attitudes, and can positively affect job performance.
When employees have a higher understanding of their insider status, employees will further have a strong psychological resonance with the organization, enhancing the emotional connection with the organization and the affective commitment of employees to the organization [55,60]. Employees with affective commitment have a sense of attachment to the organization, which enhances their willingness to participate in organizational activities and achieve organizational goals, and enjoy being part of the organization, increasing their work engagement, participation, organizational behavior, and willingness to take the initiative to improve themselves and the organization’s work through additional efforts [52,61]. Employees with internal organizational identity are more likely to make full use of the family support provided by supervisors to balance their work and family roles, generating higher organizational affective commitment [38]. In summary, this paper proposes the following research hypotheses:
H4: 
Perceived insider status and affective commitment have a chain-mediating effect between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior.
In summary, the theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Design

3.1. Research Sample

This study employed a questionnaire survey method to collect data, with the survey sample primarily being composed of full-time employees from various industries, including internet, finance, and manufacturing, in the eastern region of China, encompassing Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, Anhui, and surrounding areas. A dual approach was utilized. First, contacts were established with MBA alumni from a prominent business school in the eastern region via phone calls, emails, and other means. With the assistance of these alumni, the compiled questionnaire was distributed to employees within their respective organizations. On the other hand, connections were established with friends who were already working, and their cooperation was sought in forwarding the questionnaire to colleagues in their vicinity for completion. In order to reduce the impact of the common method bias, this study adopted the method of dividing time intervals and collecting data in stages. The first stage was carried out in November 2022. The demographic variables, family supportive supervisor behavior, and perceived insider status of the respondents were collected. A total of 680 questionnaires were distributed, and 627 questionnaires were collected. The second stage was conducted in January 2023. A total of 627 respondents who had completed the questionnaire in the previous stage were invited to evaluate their affective commitment and proactive behavior, and 592 questionnaires were collected. After manually eliminating the invalid questionnaires due to filling errors, omissions, significant regularity, an answer time of less than 120 s, obvious logical errors, or inconsistent answers, 535 valid samples were obtained, and the effective sample rate was 90.37%.
This study conducted an analysis of the demographic characteristics of the research sample, as detailed in Table 1. In terms of gender, the male sample size accounted for 52.3%, and the female sample accounted for 47.7%. The proportions of men and women were balanced, which is basically consistent with the gender distribution of team members in reality. In terms of the age distribution, participants aged 25 years and younger accounted for 19.1%, those aged 26 to 35 years comprised 33.6%, the 36 to 45 age group represented 31.6%, and participants aged 45 years and above constituted 15.7% of the sample. The highest proportion in the sample was accounted for by individuals with a bachelor’s degree, at 48.7%, followed by a relatively significant proportion with a master’s degree, at 38.3%. In terms of marital status, the married group constituted 70.7% of the participants, while the unmarried group accounted for 29.3%.With regard to work experience, participants with 1 year or less of experience represented 10.5%, those with 1 to 5 years accounted for 15.7%, participants with 5 to 10 years of experience comprised 26.0%, individuals with 10 to 15 years of experience constituted 45.0%, and those with 15 years or more of experience made up 2.8% of the population. In terms of the organizational nature, 39.6% of the employees in the sample were employed in private enterprises, which had the highest proportion.

3.2. Variable Measurement

(1)
Family supportive supervisor behavior: For the four-item scale adapted by Hammer et al. [14], such as “leaders show good example behavior in how to balance work and life”, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is 0.91.
(2)
Employees’ proactive behavior: A three-dimensional scale of individuals, teams, and organizations developed by Griffin et al. [62] was used, with a total of nine items, such as “I will take the initiative to think about ideas for improving my job”, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is 0.93.
(3)
Perceived insider status: A single-dimensional scale developed by Stamper and Masterson [63] was used, with a total of six items, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.84. Considering the influence of the reverse scoring method on the actual filling effect in previous studies, questions 3,4, and 6 of the original scale that needed to be scored reversely were modified.
(4)
Affective commitment: Using the scale developed by Meyer et al. [64], a total of six items, such as “I feel that the organization is my thing”, were used. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is 0.91.
(5)
Control variables: Previous studies have shown that employees’ gender, age, working years, etc. have certain correlations with proactive behavior [65], while marital status may have an impact on the effect of family supportive supervisor behavior [66]. In addition, unit characteristics affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors [67]. Therefore, this study chose demographic characteristics such as gender, age, marital status, education level, working years, marital status, and unit nature as control variables.

4. Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity Test

In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficients of the four variables of family supportive supervisor behavior, perceived insider status, affective commitment, and employee initiative were 0.764, 0.868, 0.897, and 0.894, respectively, which are all greater than the critical value of 0.7, and the reliability of each scale was good. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the four-factor model had the best fitting effect and was very significant (χ2/df = 1.926, RMSEA = 0.054, TLI = 0.931, CFI = 0.938, IFI = 0.939), indicating that the four factors were independent constructs and had good discriminant validity (Table 2).
In this study, the standardized factor loading, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extraction (AVE) were used as the evaluation indexes for convergent validity. The results of AMOS24.0 software showed that the standardized factor loading coefficient of each item was basically greater than 0.5. The AVE values of the four research variables were as follows: family supportive supervisor behavior (0.461), perceived insider status (0.542), affective commitment (0.597), and employees’ proactive behavior (0.487). The CR values were 0.771, 0.874, 0.899, and 0.894, respectively. Referring to the research by Fornell et al. [68], if the AVE value is less than 0.5, but the corresponding CR is greater than 0.6, the aggregation validity of the model is still considered to meet the requirements. Based on this, the convergent validity of the four variables is acceptable.
Furthermore, this study employed AMOS 24.0 software to assess the discriminant validity. The results revealed significant intercorrelations among the four factors (p < 0.001). The absolute value of the correlation coefficient between the variables was lower than 0.5, and both were lower than the square root of the corresponding AVE, so the discriminant validity was good (Table 3), which provides reliable support for subsequent research.

4.2. Common Method Variance

In this study, the principal component analysis was initially conducted using the Harman single-factor test to examine the four core variables. Four independent factors were extracted, accounting for 61.15% of the total variance. The factor with the largest eigenvalue explained 39.447% of the variance, which is below the recommended threshold of 40% [69], indicating the absence of a severe common method bias. Then, the unmeasurable latent method factor test was further used to compare the model with the common method factor with the original model. The results indicated that the inclusion of a common method factor did not significantly improve the fit of the data in the model (χ2/df = 1.52, RMSEA = 0.041, TLI = 0.961, CFI = 0.969, IFI = 0.969), This further suggests the absence of a substantial common method bias in this study, indicating that it is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the statistical analysis results.

4.3. Correlation Analysis

The means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for each variable are presented in Table 4. Family supportive supervisor behavior is significantly and positively correlated with perceived insider status (r = 0.414, p < 0.01), affective commitment (r = 0.487, p < 0.01), and employees’ proactive behavior (r = 0.404, p < 0.01). Perceived insider status is significantly and positively correlated with affective commitment (r = 0.663, p < 0.01) and employees’ proactive behavior (r = 0.547, p < 0.01). Affective commitment is significantly and positively related to employees’ proactive behavior (β = 0.552, p < 0.01). These findings are consistent with the proposed hypotheses, providing preliminary support for the research hypotheses and laying the foundation for subsequent analysis.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

4.4.1. Main Effect Test

This study employed a hierarchical regression analysis to examine the main effect of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior. The results, as shown in Table 5, revealed that family supportive supervisor behavior had a significant positive effect on employees’ proactive behavior (β = 0.404, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis H1. This finding was consistent across Model 1 and Model 2.

4.4.2. The Mediating Effect Test of Perceived Insider Status

The mediating effect of perceived insider identity was primarily examined through a hierarchical regression analysis, as shown in Table 6. Model 4 demonstrated that family supportive supervisor behavior had a significant positive effect on perceived insider status (β = 0.406, p < 0.001). Model 6 revealed that perceived insider identity had a positive effect on employees’ proactive behavior (β = 0.559, p < 0.001). Model 7 indicated that family supportive supervisor behavior continued to have a significant positive effect on employees’ proactive behavior (β = 0.213, p < 0.001), although the effect size was attenuated compared to Model 2, where the regression coefficient β between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior decreased from 0.404 to 0.213. This suggests that perceived insider status partially mediates the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior. This study further employed the Sobel test to verify the mediating effect of internal perceived insider status. The results indicated a Z value of 5.969 with a p value of less than 0.001, confirming the significant mediating effect, thereby confirming hypothesis H2.

4.4.3. The Mediating Effect Test of Affective Commitment

Similarly, as shown in Table 7, it can be seen from Model 9 that family supportive supervisor behavior positively affects affective commitment (β = 0.482, p < 0.001). Model 11 shows that affective commitment positively affects employees’ proactive behavior (β = 0.573, p < 0.001). At the same time, although the positive impact of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior still exists, the degree of influence is weaker than that of Model 2, and the β value decreases from 0.404 to 0.169. This suggests that affective commitment partially mediates the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employee proactivity. This study further employed the Sobel test to verify the mediating effect of affective commitment. The results indicated a Z value of 6.612 with a p value of less than 0.001, confirming the significant mediating effect, thus confirming hypothesis H3.

4.4.4. Chain-Mediating Effect Test

Drawing on the research by Fang Jie et al. [70], we tested the multiple chain-mediating effect in Amos24.0, and the results are shown in Figure 2. At the same time, the bootstrap method was further used for verification, and the results are shown in Table 8. The 95% confidence interval shows that the values do not contain 0, the total mediating effect value is 0.332, and the confidence interval under the 95% confidence level is [0.233, 0.474], which does not contain 0, indicating that the overall mediating effect of the model is significant. The mediating effect between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior is mainly generated from the following three paths: The first is the cognitive path (M1), that is, family supportive supervisor behavior → perceived insider status → employees’ proactive behavior. The mediating effect value of this path is 0.145, and the confidence interval at the 95% confidence level is [0.055, 0.271], excluding 0, indicating a significant mediation effect of perceived insider status. Hypothesis H2 is further supported by these findings. The second is the affective pathway (M2), that is, family supportive supervisor behavior→ affective commitment → employees’ proactive behavior. The mediating effect value of this path is 0.089, and the confidence interval at the 95% confidence level is [0.046,0.164], excluding 0, indicating that the mediating effect of affective commitment is significant, assuming that H3 is further verified. The third is the cognitive–affective integration pathway (M3), that is, family supportive supervisor behavior → perceived insider status → affective commitment → employees’ proactive behavior. The mediating effect value of this path is 0.098, and the confidence interval at the 95% confidence level is [0.048,0.166], excluding 0, indicating a significant serial mediating effect of perceived insider identity and affective commitment in the relationship between family-supportive supervisory behavior and employee proactivity. Hypothesis H4 is supported by these findings. At the same time, according to the proportions of mediating effects of different paths in the table, the cognitive path (M1) accounted for 43.76%, the emotional path (M2) accounted for 26.73%, and the cognitive–emotional integration path (M3) accounted for 29.54%. It can be found that the proportion of the single mediating effect of perceived insider status is significantly higher than those of the other two paths, indicating that the influence of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior largely occurs through cognitive factors, that is, perceived insider status.

5. Discussion

Building upon the Cognitive–Affective Personality System Theory, this study employed the two-stage collection of 535 survey questionnaires from employees of various enterprises as the sample data. The study constructed a chain-mediated model “family supportive supervisor behavior → perceived insider status → affective commitment → employees’ proactive behavior” to systematically investigate the pivotal roles played by perceived insider status and affective commitment in mediating the impact of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior. Based on the results of our research analysis, the following discussion is conducted.
Firstly, this study validates the significant positive impact of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior. Prior research indicated that family supportive supervisor behavior is a crucial factor that influences employees’ proactive engagement [31], and the findings of this study support this perspective. Specifically, family supportive supervisor behavior conveys to employees that supervisors are approachable and empathetic, reflecting a humanistic caring spirit [71], thereby enhancing employees’ sense of meaningfulness in their organizational roles [26]. When employees perceive a sense of purpose in their work within the organization, they tend to exhibit greater proactive behavior that enhances the long-term development of the organization [27,72]. Particularly in the cultural context of China, which values reciprocity [33], employees might respond with gratitude to supervisors’ implementation of family-supportive behaviors. Consequently, they might proactively seek various ways and means to enhance organizational efficiency and quality as a form of reciprocation, thus demonstrating constructive and beneficial behaviors that enhance the organization’s continuous and healthy growth.
Secondly, the mediation role of internal organizational identification in the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employee proactive behavior is confirmed. Previous literature predominantly explained the mechanisms through which family supportive supervisor behavior influences employee-related positive behaviors by focusing on factors such as job autonomy [31] and work–family balance [38], overlooking the underlying intrinsic motivations. This study, anchored in the fulfillment of employees’ deeper-level needs, contends that family supportive supervisor behavior provides employees with a sense of familial care within the organization, satisfying their need for self-value recognition. This, in turn, fosters higher levels of internal organizational identification. Subsequently, internal organizational identification fulfills employees’ need for presence and belonging in the organization, motivating them to establish interdependence with the organization and demonstrate proactive behavior to enhance the organization’s long-term interests.
Thirdly, the partial mediating role of affective commitment in the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior is confirmed. This study explores the mediation mechanism from an affective perspective, supporting the notion that affective commitment is a crucial variable through which leadership influences employee processes [23]. The Cognitive–Affective Personality System theory posits that situational information shapes an individual’s emotional state and subsequently determines their behavioral responses [24]. As a significant component of the work environment, family-supportive supervisors emphasize the provision of care and understanding for employees’ work and family matters, conveying a friendly contextual message. Positive interactions between employees and family-supportive supervisors fulfill employees’ emotional needs, leading to positive emotional experiences. This, in turn, fosters strong emotional attachment to the organization, enhancing affective commitment and thereby manifesting greater dedication. Consequently, employees engage in more organizational citizenship behaviors.
Fourthly, this study confirms the chain-mediated effect of internal identity cognition and affective commitment in the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employee proactive behavior. Previous researchers have predominantly focused on individual mediating factors such as cognitive or affective factors in the context of the impact of family supportive supervisor behavior [73]. In contrast, this study takes an integrated perspective that combines cognition and emotion. By adopting the “context–cognition–emotion–behavior” framework, it substantiates the existence of a chain-mediated mechanism between family supportive supervisor behavior and employee proactive behavior. This exploratory research responds to the call by Li et al. [1] to analyze the mechanisms of family supportive supervisor behavior from multiple theoretical perspectives, thus enriching the field. Family supportive supervisor behavior, as a crucial organizational contextual factor, aids in satisfying employees’ work–family needs by providing cross-domain resources. This contributes to the strengthening of employees’ positive perceptions of supervisors and the organization, thus fostering elevated levels of internal identity cognition. Employees with heightened internal identity cognition are more likely to resonate with the organization on a psychological level, intensifying their emotional connection to the organization and fostering positive emotional experiences. This, in turn, enhances their affective commitment to the organization [55,60], leading employees to exhibit more proactive behaviors in support of the organization’s long-term development.

5.1. Theoretical Significance

(1) This study enriches the research on the mechanism of family supportive supervisor behavior. As an informal form of organizational support, there are not many research results on family supportive supervisor behavior, but it has gradually attracted the attention of scholars in recent years. In the existing research, scholars have mainly explored the influence of family supportive supervisor behavior on the work–family interface, work attitude and work performance, and its internal mechanism [1,16,17]. This study examined the influence of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive workplace behavior. It demonstrates that, in the context of China, which is characterized by significant collectivist features, the boundaries between work and family are more blurred, and employees perceive and respond to the family supportive supervisor behavior of their supervisors. This perception significantly increases their likelihood of engaging in behaviors that benefit the organization. These findings provide theoretical support for organizations to cultivate family supportive supervisor behaviors and encourage employees to demonstrate proactive behaviors. Furthermore, they contribute to the expansion of research on the consequences of family supportive supervisor behavior in the workplace.
(2) This study broadens the applicability of Cognitive–Affective Personality System theory. Based on the Cognitive–Emotional Personality System theory, this study explored how family supportive supervisor behavior affects employees’ proactive behavior from the perspective of individual cognitive–emotional internal integration. In the existing research on the influence mechanism of family-supported supervisor behavior, scholars mainly used social exchange theory and resource conservation theory [15] and rarely explored from the perspective of Cognitive–Emotional Personality System theory. This study provides a new theoretical perspective and entry point for related research.
(3) This study confirmed the independent mediating effects and serial mediating effects of perceived insider identity and affective commitment. The present study developed an integrated model that includes family supportive supervisor behavior, perceived insider identity, affective commitment, and employees’ proactive behavior. The study confirmed that family supportive supervisor behavior first influences perceived insider status, which subsequently influences affective commitment, ultimately impacting employees’ proactive behavior. In the existing research on the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior, cognition, emotion, and motivation are usually discussed separately as mediating variables [22].The research mechanism of serial mediation needs further enrichment, and this study acts as a supplement to uncover the “black box” mechanism underlying the relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ proactive behavior.

5.2. Practical Implications

The escalating intensity of work and the need for employees to reconcile competing demands from work and non-work domains have become prominent challenges in contemporary organizations. Simultaneously, the emergence of the digital era, characterized by advancements in technologies, such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, the Internet, and the Internet of Things, has revolutionized employees’ work arrangements, dismantling the constraints of traditional workplace settings and temporal boundaries. Furthermore, the prevalence of dual-earner families has established itself as the prevailing family structure in present-day society, intensifying the inherent conflict between work and family obligations for employees. Consequently, supporting employees to effectively balance their work and family responsibilities is of paramount significance for ensuring the sustained and thriving growth of organizations. According to the conclusions of this paper, the following suggestions are put forward:
(1) Organizations should pay attention to the application and cultivation of family supportive supervisor behavior in organizational management. First of all, the organization should establish a family-supportive organizational culture and actively intervene to enhance family supportive supervisor behavior, for instance, by providing formal family support systems including employee assistance programs, childcare services, paid leave, and remote work options. Secondly, organizations should strengthen the cultivation of managers’ family supportive supervisor behavior, which can be carried out in the form of special lectures. Finally, the organization should focus on supervisors’ behavior to supporting employees’ families in the assessment system and give appropriate recognition to supervisors who demonstrate personnel adjustment, salary increase, and promotions.
(2) Organizations should strengthen employees’ cognition of their insider status. In the Chinese context, when employees perceive that they belong to the organization and are “insiders” of the organization, they will be loyal to the organization and will be willing to devote their time and energy to the organization and actively realize their self-worth. Therefore, the organization should pay attention to the employees’ pay, care for the welfare of employees, respect the differences among employees, share more key information with employees, encourage employees to have a voice, and allow employees to put forward unique and personalized ideas. At the same time, the organization can incorporate ways to improve employees’ insider identity into the leadership training and assessment system, encourage supervisors to build a good relationship between employees and leaders, enhance employees’ sense of ownership, and thus enhance employees’ initiative in the workplace.
(3) Organizations should establish an emotional connection between employees and the organization. First of all, the organization should recruit employees with a sense of “belonging” and “loyalty” to the organization, which is conducive to the establishment of closer emotional ties between employees and the organization so as to continuously improve the level of affective commitment of employees in the organization. Secondly, supervisors should provide employees with emotional support resources, strengthen humanistic care, give employees sufficient psychological compensation, and promote positive spillover effects. For example, we can understand the current situation of employees’ affective commitment through discussion, questionnaire surveys, and so on and guide them correctly according to the reflected situation so as to stimulate employees to undertake more constructive behaviors and make greater contributions to organizational development.

5.3. Research Limitations and Future Prospects

First, the data for all variables in this study were collected through self-report measures, which inevitably exposed the respondents to a social desirability bias, thereby introducing a certain degree of common method bias. Although this study employed both the Harman single-factor test and the unmeasured latent factor approach to demonstrate the absence of a severe common method bias, future research can further mitigate this issue by employing data collection methods that involve supervisor–employee pairing, thus enhancing the objectivity of the survey data.
Second, in terms of the research content, in this study, family supportive supervisor behavior is discussed as a single overall dimension, but whether there are significant differences in the impacts of different dimensions of family supportive supervisor behavior on employees’ proactive behavior remains to be further studied. Therefore, in the future, we can deeply explore the influences of the four dimensions of family supportive supervisor behavior on the perceived insider status, affective commitment, and employees’ proactive behavior so as to further understand the specific mechanisms associated with family supportive supervisor behavior.
Third, in terms of the situation selection, this study is based on the Chinese context, which will have a certain impact on the cross-cultural applicability of the conclusions of this study. Especially in different cultural backgrounds (such as individualism and collectivism), employees may have different understandings of family supportive supervisor behavior, perceived insider status, affective commitment, and proactive behavior. Therefore, future research can consider the use of a cross-cultural research design to further test the reliability and universality of the conclusions of this study with employees from different cultures and organizational situations as samples.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.F., C.Y. and L.Z.; Data curation, C.F., C.Y. and L.Z.; Formal analysis, Y.G.; Investigation, C.F.; Project administration, C.Y.; Resources, L.Z.; Software, C.Y.; Supervision, L.Z.; Validation, Y.G.; Writing—original draft, C.F.; Writing—review & editing, C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Soft Science Research Project of Nanjing [No. 202206007]; and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [No. B220207044]; the Social Science Fund of Jiangsu Province [No. 23GLB004] and the Social Science Applied Research Project of Jiangsu Province [No. 22SYA-002].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Li, C.; Meng, X.; Xu, Y. Effects of family supportive supervisor behavior on employee outcomes and mediating mechanisms: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2023, 55, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shockley, K.M.; Shen, W.; DeNunzio, M.M. Disentangling the relationship between gender and work-family conflict: An integration of theoretical perspectives using meta-analytic methods. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 1601–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sargent, A.C.; Shanock, L.G.; Banks, G.C.; Yavorsky, J.E. How gender matters: A conceptual and process model for family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2022, 32, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shao, H.; Fu, H.; Ge, Y.; Jia, W.; Li, Z.; Wang, J. Moderating Effects of Transformational Leadership, Affective Commitment, Job Performance, and Job Insecurity. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 847147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Carr, J.C.; Boyar, S.L.; Gregory, B.T. The moderating effect of work-family centrality on work-family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 244–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tan, C.; Tian, R.; Zhang, Y. Research on the influence mechanism and gender differences of family-supportive supervisor behavior on employee workplace well-being. J. Manag. 2022, 35, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  7. Erden, B.Z.; Bayazit, M. How do flexible work arrangements alleviate work-family-conflict? The roles of flexibility i-deals and family-supportive cultures. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 405–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhao, F.; Yang, S.; Chen, Y. Impact of WFB-HRM on employee performance: Effects of thriving at work and authentic leadership. Hum. Resour. Dev. China 2017, 375, 81–96. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kossek, E.E.; Lewis, S.; Hammer, L.B. Work-life initiatives and organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the mainstream. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Allen, T.D. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. J. Vocat. Behav. 2001, 58, 414–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saltzstein, A.L.; Yuan, T. Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Adm. Rev. 2001, 61, 452–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Greenhaus, J.H.; Ziegert, J.C.; Allen, T.D. When family-supportive supervision matters: Relations between multiple sources of support and work-family balance. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hammer, L.B.; Kossek, E.E.; Zimmerman, K.; Daniels, R. Clarifying the construct of family-supportive supervisory behaviors (fssb): A multilevel perspective. Res. Occup. Stress Well Being 2007, 6, 165–204. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hammer, L.B.; Kossek, E.E.; Bodner, T.; Crain, T. Measurement development and validation of the family supportive supervisor behavior short-form (FSSB-SF). J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Crain, T.L.; Stevens, S.C. Family-supportive supervisor behaviors: A review and recommendations for research and practice. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 869–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yu, A.; Pichler, S.; Russo, M.; Hammer, L. Family-supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB) and work-family conflict: The role of stereotype content, supervisor gender, and gender role beliefs. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2022, 95, 275–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, S.; Liu, H.; Liu, R. The influence of family supportive supervisor behavior on employee helping behavior: From the perspective of family-like exchange relationship. Chin. J. Manag. 2018, 15, 980–987. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bauer, T.; Perrot, S.; Liden, R.; Erdogan, B. Understanding the consequences of newcomers proactive behaviors: The moderating contextual role of servant leadership. Post-Print 2019, 112, 356–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Parker, S.K.; Williams, H.M.; Turner, N. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 636–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Crant, J.M. Proactive behavior in organizations. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 435–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, H.W.; Pak, J.; Kim, S.; Li, L.Z. Effects of human resource management systems on employee proactivity and group innovation. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 819–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, P. The Impact of Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior on Employees’ Proactive Behavior; Jinan University: Guangzhou, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  23. Solinger, O.N.; Van, O.W.; Roe, R.A. Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mischel, W.; Shoda, Y. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 1995, 102, 246–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L. The relationship between family supportive supervisor behavior and employees’ sleep quality the mediating effects of work family enrichment and perceived stress. J. Northeast. Univ. (Soc. Sci.) 2020, 22, 50–57. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, S.; Tu, Y. Cross-domain effects of ethical leadership on employee family and life satisfaction: The moderating role of family-supportive supervisor behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 1085–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R.; Armeli, S. Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liang, H. Does transformational leadership transition necessarily affect employee’s proactive behavior? East China Econ. Manag. 2022, 36, 105–116. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yang, G.; Zhou, Y. The influence of self-sacrificial leadership on employees’ taking charge behavior: The roles of psychological safety and perceived organizational goal clarity. Hum. Resour. Dev. China 2021, 38, 97–109. [Google Scholar]
  30. Xu, Y.; Xi, M.; Zhao, S. The effect of inclusive leadership on follower proactive behavior: The social influence theory perspective. Manag. Rev. 2021, 33, 201–212. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pan, S.Y. Do workaholic hotel supervisors provide family supportive supervision? A role identity perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 68, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McKersie, S.J.; Matthews, R.A.; Smith, C.E.; Barratt, C.L.; Hill, R.T. A process model linking family-supportive supervision to employee creativity. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2019, 92, 707–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pan, A.; Zhang, H.; Xiao, Y. Break the cocoon into a butterfly: Grateful behavior turns organizing into strategizing. J. Manag. World 2016, 276, 84–101+188. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mills, M.J.; Matthews, R.A.; Henning, J.B.; Woo, V.A. Family-supportive organizations and supervisors: How do they influence employee outcomes and for whom? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 1763–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kenny, D.A. Interpersonal Perception: The Foundation of Social Relationships; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. Masterson, S.S.; Stamper, C.L. Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate framework representing the employee–organization relationship. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 473–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ju, G.; Yan, J.Q.; Yong, T.G. Workplace incivility and work engagement: The chain mediating effects of perceived insider status, affective organizational commitment and organizational identification. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 41, 1809–1820. [Google Scholar]
  38. Choi, J.; Kim, A.; Han, K.; Ryu, S.; Park, J.G.; Kwon, B. Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction with work–family balance: A moderating role of perceived insider status. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liao, P.Y. The role of self-concept in the mechanism linking proactive personality to employee work outcomes. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 64, 421–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhan, Y.O.; Jie, W.; Ting, T.C. Managing organizational entry in China: The roles of newcomer–supervisor exchange, incumbent support, and perceived insider status. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 485–509. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sahin, S.; Adegbite, W.M.; Sen, H.T. How do family supportive supervisors affect nurses’ thriving: A research before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2021, 35, 602–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dulebohn, J.H.; Bommer, W.H.; Liden, R.C.; Brouer, R.L.; Ferris, G.R. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1715–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, J.; Kim, T. Proactive socialization behavior in China: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of supervisors’ traditionality. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Russo, M.; Buonocore, F.; Carmeli, A.; Guo, L. When family supportive supervisors meet employees’ need for caring: Implications for work-family enrichment and thriving. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 1678–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 139–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Meyer, J.P.; Stanley, D.J.; Herscovitch, L.; Topolnytsky, L. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002, 61, 20–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Casper, W.J.; Harris, C.; Taylor-Bianco, A.; Wayne, J.H. Work–family conflict, perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment among Brazilian professionals. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 640–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Thompson, C.A.; Prottas, D.J. Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 100–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Weiss, H.M.; Cropanzano, R. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 1996, 18, 1–74. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rebecca, R.; Kehoe, P.M. The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 366–391. [Google Scholar]
  51. Daan, V.K.; Sleebos, E. Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 571–584. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhao, X.; Yang, Y.; Han, G.; Zhang, Q. The Impact of Positive Verbal Rewards on Organizational Citizenship Behavior-The Mediating Role of Psychological Ownership and Affective Commitment. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 864078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Xu, S.; Yang, L.; 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]
  54. Thomas, J.P.; Whitman, D.S.; Viswesvaran, C. Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 275–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, Z.X.; Aryee, S. Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, Y.; Weng, H.; Zhu, T.; Li, N. The trickle-down effect of territorial behavior: A moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 721806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Fay, D.; Sonnentag, S. Within-person fluctuations of proactive behavior: How affect and experienced competence regulate work behavior. Hum. Perform. 2012, 25, 72–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rahman, S.; Batool, S.; Akhtar, N.; Ali, H. Fostering individual creativity through proactive personality: A multilevel perspective. J. Manag. Sci. 2015, 9, 163–178. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zagladi, A.N.; Hadiwidjojo, D.; Rahayu, M. The role of job satisfaction and power distance in determining the influence of organizational justice toward the turnover intention. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 211, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Marie-Ève, L.C. Bringing the outside in: Can “external” workers experience insider status? J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 919–940. [Google Scholar]
  61. Armstrong-Stassen, M.; Schlosser, F. Perceived organizational membership and the retention of older workers. J. Organ. Behav. 2011, 32, 319–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Griffin, M.A.; Neal, A.; Parker, S.K. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 327–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Stamper, C.L.; Masterson, S.S. Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 875–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J.; Smith, C.A. Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J. Vocat. Behav. 1993, 78, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Grant, A.M.; Parker, S.; Collins, C. Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Pers. Psychol. 2010, 62, 31–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pattusamy, M.; Jacob, J. A test of Greenhaus and Allen (2011) model on work-family balance. Curr. Psychol. 2015, 36, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tang, Y.; Huang, X.; Wang, Y. Good marriage at home, creativity at work: Family-work enrichment effect on workplace creativity. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 749–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fornell, C. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fang, J.; Wen, Z.L.; Zhang, M.; Ren, H. Analyzing multilevel mediation using multilevel structural equation models. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 22, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hammer, L.B.; Kossek, E.E.; Anger, W.K.; Bodner, T.; Zimmerman, K.L. Clarifying work-family intervention processes: The roles of work-family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Parker, S.K.; Collins, C.G. Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 633–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liu, X.Y.; Kwan, H.K. Introverts maintain creativity: A resource depletion model of negative workplace gossip. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2020, 37, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 12739 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 12739 g001
Sustainability 15 12739 g002
Figure 2. Chain-like mediation path (*** p < 0.001).
Figure 2. Chain-like mediation path (*** p < 0.001).
Sustainability 15 12739 g002
Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis.
Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis.
Sample CharacteristicsClassification CriteriaFrequencyPercentage (%)
GenderMale28052.3
Female25547.7
Age25 Years and Below 10219.1
26–35 Years18033.6
36–45 Years16931.6
45 Years and Above 8415.7
Educational BackgroundCollege Degree Or Below489.0
Bachelor’s Degree26148.7
Master’s Degree20538.3
Doctorate or Above214.0
Marital StatusUnmarried15729.3
Married37870.7
Work Experience1 Year or Less5610.5
1–58415.7
5–1013926.0
10–15 24145.0
15 Years or More 152.8
Organizational NatureState-Owned Enterprises12022.4
Private Enterprises21239.6
Foreign Companies6111.4
Government Units8816.5
Other5410.1
Table 2. The comparison results of the four-factor model and competition model fitting.
Table 2. The comparison results of the four-factor model and competition model fitting.
Modelχ2χ2/dfRMSEATLICFIIFI
Four factors: FSSB, PIS, AC, PB518.2111.9260.0540.9310.9380.939
Three factors: FSSB, PIS + AC, PB751.0842.7610.0750.8690.8810.882
Two factors: FSSB + PB, PIS + AC992.8563.6240.0910.8050.8220.823
One factor: FSSB + PIS + AC + PB1446.7815.2610.1160.6830.7090.711
Note: N = 535; FSSB represents family supportive supervisor behavior, PIS represents insider identity cognition, AC represents affective commitment, and PB represents employees’ proactive behavior.
Table 3. Results of the discriminant validity analysis.
Table 3. Results of the discriminant validity analysis.
Family Supportive Supervisor BehaviorPerceived Insider StatusAffective CommitmentEmployees’ Proactive Behavior
Family supportive supervisor behavior(0.679)
Perceived insider status0.251 ***(0.736)
Affective commitment0.325 ***0.426 ***(0.773)
Employees’ proactive behavior0.221 ***0.291 ***0.324 ***(0.698)
Note: N = 535; *** p < 0.001, the “( )” number is the square root of AVE.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables.
VariablesVariables
12345678910
1. Gender
2. Marital status−0.096
3. Education level−0.054−0.178
4. Age−0.0790.284 **0.027
5. Working hours of the unit−0.0930.409−0.060.304
6. Unit nature0.010−0.1120.161 **−0.0830.01
7. Family supportive supervisor behavior−0.0560.014 **0.0330.0680.048−0.058
8. Perceived insider status−0.0210.0130.149 **0.1090.0230.0790.414 **
9. Affective commitment−0.070.1900.0610.0260.127 *0.122 *0.487 **0.663 **
10. Employees’ proactive behavior−0.0730.0650.0260.034 *−0.0040.0110.404 **0.547 **0.552 **
Mean1.4801.1802.3601.8101.8502.7703.0413.3633.0123.396
standard deviation0.5000.3820.7010.7490.8221.4760.7650.7320.7850.645
Note: N = 535; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 5. Main effect test results.
Table 5. Main effect test results.
VariablesEmployees’ Proactive Behavior
Model 1Model 2
Control variables:
Gender−0.072−0.050
Marital status0.1110.087
Education level0.0360.013
Age−0.0030.038
Working hours of the unit−0.119−0.126 *
Unit nature0.0230.051
Independent variable:
Family supportive supervisor behavior 0.404 ***
R20.022 0.182
ΔR20.0220.160
F1.179 9.815 ***
Note: N = 535; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Step-by-step test results of the mediating effect of the perceived insider status.
Table 6. Step-by-step test results of the mediating effect of the perceived insider status.
VariablesPerceived Insider StatusEmployees’ Proactive Behavior
Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6Model 7
Control variables:
Gender−0.0160.005−0.072−0.062−0.053
Marital status0.0870.0620.1110.0630.058
Education level0.158 **0.1360.036−0.053−0.05
Age−0.132 *−0.091 *−0.0030.0710.081
Working hours of the unit−0.009−0.016−0.119−0.114 *−0.118 *
Unit nature0.0530.0810.023−0.0070.013
Independent variable:
Family supportive supervisor behavior 0.406 *** 0.213 ***
Perceived insider status 0.559 ***0.470 ***
Sobel test0.161 *** (Z = 5.969)
R20.0440.2050.0220.3210.358
ΔR20.0440.1620.0220.2990.336
F2.3611.372 ***1.17920.797 ***21.397 ***
Note: N = 535; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Step-by-step test results of the mediating effect of affective commitment.
Table 7. Step-by-step test results of the mediating effect of affective commitment.
VariablesAffective CommitmentEmployees’ Proactive Behavior
Model 8Model 9Model 10Model 11Model 12
Control variables:
Gender−0.05−0.024−0.072−0.043−0.039
Marital status0.2300.201 ***0.111−0.021−0.011
Education level0.0830.0560.036−0.012−0.014
Age−0.097−0.048−0.0030.0530.061
Working hours of the unit0.0320.024−0.119−0.138 **−0.138 **
Unit nature0.126 *0.159 **0.023−0.049−0.027
Independent variable:
Family supportive supervisor behavior 0.482 *** 0.169 ***
Affective commitment 0.573 ***0.487 ***
Sobel test0.198 *** (Z = 6.612)
R20.0730.3010.0220.3270.348
ΔR20.0730.2280.0220.3050.326
F4.06218.953 ***1.17921.400 ***16.688 ***
Note: N = 535; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 8. Chain-mediating effect test results (standardized).
Table 8. Chain-mediating effect test results (standardized).
PathEstimateS.E.Bias-Corrected 95%CI
LowerUpperEffect Ratio
M: Total mediating effect0.332 0.073 0.233 0.474 100.00%
M1: FSSB → PIS → PB0.145 0.066 0.055 0.271 43.76%
M2: FSSB → AC → PB0.089 0.035 0.046 0.164 26.73%
M3: FSSB → PIS → AC → PB0.098 0.036 0.048 0.166 29.54%
Note: N = 535; FSSB represents family supportive supervisor behavior; PIS represents insider identity cognition; AC expresses affective commitment; PB represents employee proactive behavior.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fan, C.; Ye, C.; Zhang, L.; Gong, Y. The Impact of Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior on Employees’ Proactive Behavior: A Cognitive and Affective Integration Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712739

AMA Style

Fan C, Ye C, Zhang L, Gong Y. The Impact of Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior on Employees’ Proactive Behavior: A Cognitive and Affective Integration Perspective. Sustainability. 2023; 15(17):12739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712739

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fan, Chuanhao, Chunlan Ye, Long Zhang, and Yao Gong. 2023. "The Impact of Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior on Employees’ Proactive Behavior: A Cognitive and Affective Integration Perspective" Sustainability 15, no. 17: 12739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712739

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop