Is supervisor-subordinate Guanxi always good for subordinate commitment toward organizations? An inverted U-shaped perspective

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to explore the relationship between supervisor-subordinate Guanxi (SSG) and employee affective commitment. Integrating social exchange theory (SET) with conservation of resource (COR) theory, this paper explores the mixed effect of SSG on affective commitment as well as the moderating roles of an individual difference (subordinate work ethic) and a contextual variable (procedural fairness).Design/methodology/approachThis research adopted a survey involving 249 subordinates to test the hypothesized model.FindingsThe results showed that the relationship between SSG and affective commitment was inverted U-shaped, and this relationship was moderated by work ethic and procedural fairness, respectively.Research limitations/implicationsDespite those contributions listed above, there are still some limitations that future research should seek to address. First, the data of this research are cross-sectional, which might cause common method bias to responses. However, all the hypotheses are higher-order forms of the main effects (curvilinear and moderating effects), which are not affected by the cross-sectional nature of the study (Podskoff et al., 2003). Moreover, given these variables in the model are related to subordinates' internal psychological states or perceptions, data for the study should be collected from subordinates. Relatedly, the cross-sectional nature of the dataset may raise a question about the directionality of the relationships. However, the research model is based on strong theories (i.e. SET and COR theory). In addition, prior research has indicated that Guanxi has an influence on commitment, not vice versa (Cheung et al., 2009; Chen and O'Leary, 2018). However, given that only experimental design can conclusively prove the directionality of the relationship, the authors encourage to replicate the current study using such a design. In addition, the authors encourage future studies to collect longitudinal data and replicate the current study. Second, this study only tested how work ethic and procedural fairness moderated the relationship between SSG and affective commitment. The authors encourage future research to explore the moderating effect of other moderators, such as the integrity of supervisors. In particular, when the supervisor has a high level of integrity, the negative influence of higher SSG may be weakened. Third, this study did not explore the mechanism linking SSG with affective commitment. Future studies should explore the potential mechanisms. For example, subordinates' emotional exhaustion might be the potential mechanism between SSG and affective commitment.Practical implicationsThe results imply that supervisors should treat SSG as a double-edged sword and maximize the positive influence of SSG. In addition, organizations should hire individuals with high work ethic or provide related training. At last, organizations should realize the importance of procedural fairness and set a sector that oversees making and executing well-designed roles.Originality/valuePrevious studies on SSG mainly focused on its positive effect on affective commitment, neglecting to explore its negative effect. This paper helped to illustrate the relationship between SSG and affective commitment comprehensively by indicating the relationship between SSG and affective commitment was inverted U-shaped and moderated by work ethic and procedural fairness, respectively.