It has long been recognized that employees tend to value feedback most from those closest to them (Greller & Herold, 1975). When employees receive feedback from and interact with their supervisor, they form perceptions of how the supervisor supports them (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). This may manifest itself based on how employees feel the supervisor helps them in times of need, praises them for a job well done or recognizes them for extra effort. This is known as perceived supervisory support (PSS) which is defined as employees’ global beliefs concerning the extent to which the supervisor values their contribution and cares about their well-being (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). Research shows that the perceptions employees have of the supervisors’ support for them impacts organizational objectives such as performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intentions (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 2004, Eisenberger et al., 2002 and Lambert, 2000).
Boundary spanning employees play an essential role in the organization (Behrman and Perreault, 1984, Jolson et al., 1993 and Singh, 1993). A boundary spanning employee is any organizational employee who “engages in job-related interactions with a person who is considered part of the environment, who is not a member of the organization” (Robertson, 1995, p. 75). Boundary spanning employees not only include salespeople but also include any frontline or customer-contact employee such as customer service representatives, service technicians, retail employees, delivery personnel, nurses, and professional buyers (e.g. McNeilly and Russ, 1992, Russ et al., 1998 and Singh et al., 1996). These employees work under the constraints of both the internal organizational environment and the external environment. They have two unique roles that set them apart from other organizational members who work only within the internal organizational environment. Boundary spanners represent the organization to the outside world (Schneider & Brown, 1984) and are responsible for disseminating information from the environment back to the organization (Bettencourt et al., 2001 and Schneider and Brown, 1984). In essence, these employees are directly responsible for service quality and customer satisfaction as well as the overall performance of the firm (Bitner, 1990 and Hartline and Ferrell, 1996).
Understanding boundary spanners has received much research attention, especially relating to role stressors such as role conflict and role ambiguity (e.g. Behrman and Perreault, 1984, Boles and Babin, 1996, Churchill et al., 1976, Harris et al., 2006, Kim et al., 2009 and Singh, 1993), relationship marketing (e.g. Sharma, Tzokas, Saren, & Kyziridis, 1999), job satisfaction (e.g. Bagozzi, 1978, Bagozzi, 1980, Behrman and Perreault, 1984, Churchill et al., 1974, Harris et al., 2006, Jaramillo et al., 2005, Jaworski and Kohli, 1991, Kim et al., 2009, Kohli, 1985, Paulin et al., 2006 and Schwepker, 2001), performance (e.g. Churchill et al., 1976 and Jaramillo et al., 2005), self efficacy (e.g. Barling and Beattie, 1983 and Lee and Gillen, 1989), organizational commitment (e.g. Paulin et al., 2006, Schwepker, 2001 and Werbel et al., 1996), support (e.g. Boyer and Edmondson, 2006 and Riggle et al., 2009), trust (e.g. Pappas & Flaherty, 2008), stress (e.g. Tuten & Neidermeyer, 2004), turnover (e.g. Schwepker, 2001), and burnout (e.g. Cordes & Dougherty, 1993).
However, despite the two unique roles boundary spanners play, limited to no research exists that has empirically examined the extent to which boundary spanning employees and non boundary spanning employees vary. Researchers however have been examining the role of perceived supervisory support on important organizational outcomes using different samples, including boundary spanners, non boundary spanners and a mixture of both. It appears to be assumed that the relationship between perceived supervisory support and these constructs are equivalent, given the deficit of evidence outlining the differences. This fundamental assumption requires investigation because it bears large consequences on practitioners and researchers. For example, if the relationship between perceived supervisory support and performance is low in studies examining non boundary spanners (e.g. Lambert, 2000 and Sargent and Terry, 2000), and it is accepted that this is the relationship for all employees, then managers of boundary spanning employees may believe that perceived supervisory support is not a major contributor to performance. This would lead to fewer resources allocated to establish higher levels of support for boundary spanning employees. However, if it is determined that the relationship between perceived supervisory support and performance is stronger for boundary spanners, then more organizational resources should be invested in this area. Therefore, if research continues to commingle findings on boundary spanners and non boundary spanners, we may essentially miss an important opportunity that may improve boundary spanning functions and the organization as a whole.
The above discussion outlines several goals for this manuscript that are critical for researchers and practitioners concerned with the influence of perceived supervisory support on organizational objectives and the unique differences the boundary spanning role presents. Specifically, this study examines the moderating role of the boundary spanning position through a meta-analytic investigation of perceived supervisory support. In this meta-analytic investigation, the relationship between perceived supervisory support and four key organizational objectives (performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intentions) are examined.
