33 FAMILY SUPPORTIVE SUPERVISOR BEHAVIOR AND THRIVING AT WORK: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL- BEING Waliu Mulero ADEGBITE ¹* Oluwatoyin Gbenga BAWALLA 2 ¹ University of Johannesburg, Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, adegbitewaliu@gmail.com 2 Olabisi Onabanjo University, Faculty of Social Science, bawalla.oluwatoyin@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng *Correspondent Author. Article history: Submission 21 July 2022 Revision 02 January 2023 Accepted 14 March 2023 Available online 30 April 2023 Keywords: Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviour, Thriving at Work, Psychology Well-Being. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32936/pssj.v7i1.351 A b s t r a c t The study investigates the impact of encouraging supervisor behavior on enjoying success at work. Further, it examines the mediating role of psychological well-being on the relationship between family support supervisor behaviour and thriving among Nurses in a tertiary health institution in Nigeria. One hundred and fifty nurses participated in the study. The hypothesized model was used to test descriptive and structural equation modelling. Findings failed to support hypothesis one as no direct relationship exists between family support supervisor behaviour and thriving at work. The results supported hypotheses two and three, indicating a positive and significant relationship between family supportive supervisor behaviour, thriving and psychological well-being. Furthermore, psychological well-being successfully mediates the relationship between family support supervisor behaviour and thriving at work; thus, hypothesis four was supported. Family- support supervisor behaviour policies and programmes may not be sufficient to promote thriving at work as other intervening factors could enhance its effectiveness. 1. Introduction The recent labour market shifts triggered by the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) technologies and the global pandemic have further exacerbated and heightened the debate and policy issues related to family support supervisor behaviour within organization (Pan, 2018; Rofcanin, Heras & Bakker, 2017).The increasing expectation of workers in terms of formal support from organizations for optimal performance has been brought to the fore by social scientists to establish the causality between family and work-related issues (Wadsworth et al., 2019). However, researchers have continuously argued that while necessary, such measures may not be enough to reduce growing workplace expectations, family conflict, and the need for more flexibility in the workplace (Asghar et al., 2018; Russo et al.). Currently, the debate is ongoing concerning the role of family support supervisor behaviour and its attendant consequences on workers' psychological well-being and other organizational outcomes. Family supportive supervisor behaviour (FSSB) is envisioned as supervisory behaviors that affirm family function by supporting feelings, instrumental, role forming, and innovative work-family management support could be described as family supportive supervisor behavior (FSSB) (Crain et al., 2014; Hammer et al., 2013; Rofcanin et al., 2017). According to Crain et al. (2014) and Bawalla (2020) emotional support entails supervisors listening to and showing concern for employees' work-family demands while adhering to the organization's policies and programs. Encouragement is the process through which managers respond to a worker's daily needs, including those related to their job and family (Straub, 2018). A supervisor's role-modeling support behavior is to combine family and work -related issues by simulating behaviors on the job, whereas innovative work-family management is encouraged when the supervisor takes steps to reorganize work to improve employee impressiveness on and off the job (Li, Shaffer, & Bagger, 2015; Russo et al., 2018). Experts in the family-work field have disputed that supportive surroundings enhance resources such as time, pliability, and mailto:adegbitewaliu@gmail.com mailto:bawalla.oluwatoyin@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng https://doi.org/10.32936/pssj.v7i1.351 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0139-7041 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7881-8791 34 psychological resources such as self-acceptance. Hammer et al. (2013) argued that an individual feels encouraged by management in leveling work and family, having lesser work requirement affecting family time or rate, with pessimistic career outcome in relation to family choices. Employees are not penalized for devoting time to family in a family-supportive culture because general managerial support for family-related needs is provided (Lizano et al., 2014; Pan, 2018). As a behaviour that shows support for employees' family roles to reduce the psychological burden and enhance work-life balance, studies have confirmed the adverse effects of lack of family support policy on individuals and organization, including well-being and thriving at work (Asghar et al., 2018; Okonkwo et al., 2019). The word thriving has been clarified as a psychological condition in which people feel energized and progress in their careers (Hammer et al., 2013; Li et al., 2015; Porath et al., 2012). As a result, it can enhance several crucial outcomes for people, including career advancement and overall health, while also gaining advantages for the company through increased effectiveness and decreased health care costs (Russo et al., 2018). Like several other studies on the family-work domain, we argued that family-supportive supervisor behaviour could serve as a mechanism to enhance employee vitality, learning, and career development (thriving). Furthermore, when employees enjoy the support of the management and supervisors towards family roles, it is expected that their state of mind and psychological well- being will receive a boost. Workers' experience of FSSB has been exhibited to be critical in deciding working adults' life quality, welfare, and involving both social and psychological factors (Li et al., 2015). As emphasized in the workplace and organisational literature, work–family-specific supervisor support in improving workers' well-being and job satisfaction has been documented. According to Russo et al., (2018) and Hammer et al. (2013) study, they deduced and distinguished supervisor support for family plays a significant role in balancing family life and an employee's career. Accordingly, a feeling of no support from one's supervisor connotes a lack of care. An employee who receives less or no support from supervisor and management on family-life issues may experience work-family quarrel and are more promising to have an increased turnover intention (Asghar et al., 2018). Ekici, Cerit, and Mert (2017) stated that a low level of support could result in less job satisfaction, an intense sense of vitality, and career development (Thriving). The theoretical exposition of Adeloye et al. (2017) maintained that flexible tasks improve work-family activities, increasing productivity, job satisfaction, and work-life balance. Drawing on the work-family border (WFBT), this study investigates the effect of FSSB on thriving at work using a sample from a tertiary health institution in Nigeria. More so, what role does psychological well-being play in boosting the relationship between FSSB and thriving among the sampled workers? Generally, the health profession is one of the most tasking and time-consuming occupations globally. The nature of the job requires working based on shift and rotation, resulting in spending less quality time attending to family-related issues (Adeloye et al., 2017). We expect workers who perceive higher levels of FSSB from their employers and supervisors to have more resources and control over balancing work and family obligations. Therefore, positive job and health outcomes thrive through psychological well-being (Russo et al., 2018). In this study, our model (see figure 1) demonstrated how family support supervisor behaviour, through psychological well-being, would result in increased thriving at work. The study aims to test this research model on nurses working in the health sector in Nigeria. Figure 1. Proposed model on the FSSB and Thriving at Work Note: H1: Famiily support supervisor behaviour directly affects thriving at work. H2: Family support supervisor’s behaviour directly affects psychological well-being. 35 H3: Psychological well-being has a positive direct relationship with thriving at work. H4: FSSB indirectly affects thriving at work through psychological well-being. 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Exposition 2.1.1. Supervisor Support Supervisor support shows interest to motivate employees, gives necessary resources, give a form to and favourable environment, response mechanism procedure, opportunities for career advancement and progression, information, and assisting employees in coping with work-related stress (Pandey, Schulz& Camp, 2018). Because of the supervisor's locus of power and ranking in workplace, supervisor support is more important to employees than other sources of support (Sguera et al., 2018). Supervisor support is critical for early profession accomplishment by elevating workers' self-awareness and individual target environment, according to Holland, Cooper, and Sheehan (2017). 2.1.2. Family Support Family support is a crucial resource that relates feelings, care, love, and affection; it is a vital form of social support, especially on family-related issues by the organization (Verma, Bhal & Vrat, 2018) and (Oladejo & Bawalla, 2019). Happiness and optimism aid an employee in transferring resources from the family to the work domain more efficiently. This purpose serves as an alien stimulator since it depicts good counsel and affection resources to the organization; it invariably assists employees to achieve their job aims. Scholars like (Pluut et al., 2018) detailed that family support encourages workers, especially employees from collectivistic societies, to work harder. It is noteworthy that family support is non-work-related social support, but it stimulates the employee's commitment to work in the organization. As a result, it can enhance several crucial outcomes for people, including career advancement and overall health, while also gaining advantages for the company through increased effectiveness and decreased health care costs (Yildirim & Aycan, 2008). Additionally, those who are able to get appropriate assistance from family or friends give themselves more time and energy to accomplish their objectives (Norizan, Intan & Prakash,2020). 2.1.3. Family Support Supervisor Behaviour (FSSB) Family support supervisors' behaviour is the desired attitude to balance employees' work and family roles. FSSB is social support, a personal judgemental supportive behavior displayed by employers and supervisors towards family members (Russo et al., 2018). According to Jia (2016), family-supportive supervisor behaviour is a multidisciplinary super ordinate pattern comprising four dimensions: (i) emotional support, (ii) instrumental support, (iii) role modeling, and (iv) creative work-family conflict management. Emotional support depicts leaders' concern for the subordinate family needs and the perception of whether the supervisor cares and provides adequate support when needed. The emotional support signifies no or less communication gap between supervisor and employees. In this context, the supervisor is aware of the subordinate family and how much the subordinate is committed to their personal life. (Muhammad et al., 2018). The instrumental support reflects the functional aspects of a favorable working environment and flexible scheme in which employees feel free to manage their work-family conflict. This form of support also includes the daily resources needed by employees at every step of life to assist the employees in successfully managing work-family roles. On the other hand, the modeling role behavior depicts organizational policy related to work and family requirements to model good behaviours in the workplace. The role modeling sets out strategies and behaviours that specify the preferred work-life outcomes. The last of the four is innovative work-family management; this depicts the managerial initiated actions in restructuring work on how an employee facilitates effectiveness concerning their job. The goal is to ensure that organizational goals are met without interfering with employees' work-life balance. It's worth noting that FSSB can assist an employee in striking a balance between work and family obligations. The goal is to ensure that organizational goals are met without interfering with employees' work-life balance. It's worth noting that FSSB can assist an employee in striking a balance between work and family obligations. 2.1.4. Psychological Well-Being The quality of life of employees at work is referred to as psychological well-being. The quality of life is a comprehensive index of tangible, intellectual, and social well-being, contentment, and fulfillment that includes aspects of life such as health, marriage, family, work, finances, access to education, ego, innovation, and faith in others (DiRenzo, 2010). Psychological well-being is a mixture of satisfied feelings and an effectively satisfied customer capability. It is defined as an individual's psychological operating overall effectiveness (Rahim, 2017). Adegbite, Bawalla and Adedeji (2020) avers that psychological contentment and well-being works along with 36 pessimistic emotions, which may alternate the individual's ability to perform efficiently in one's everyday life. Norizan et al. (2020) further clarify and explain that the thought of pleasant emotions includes positive emotions in terms of contentment, happiness, and emotions like engagement, confidence, interest, and affection. All these amounts to developing a person's potential related to the psychological perspective. 2.2. Thriving at Work Thriving at work is an optimistic psychological condition in which people feel alive and learn new things (Porath et al.,2012). Thriving at work means being progressive in place of work. Thriving is about being invigorate, being an enthusiast, feeling good and valued at the place of work. Thriving also entails being productive, learning and learning new things, one's capability or willingness to learn and grow, and using opportunities. Thriving at work is of great importance, and it has some outcomes that are germane for workers to succeed in the organization. Thus, thriving is associated within individual and organizational outcomes. These outcomes are in three phases: self-development, health, and performance. In self-development, thriving is seen as a powerful tool because it helps employees develop positively and aid workers in discharging their duties. It makes workers have a sense of adding value in the short-term or long-term for the adjustment of employees to work (Spreitzeret al., 2005). It should be noted that thriving at work serves adaptive importance that aids employees to direct its course and change their work to bring about good development Muraina and Bawalla, 2019). The second factor is health; individuals or employees who are progressing (thriving) are more likely to be in good health. Individuals who have a strong feeling of wellbeing are less likely to experience anxiety or depressed, and they are also more likely to be psychologically fit (Keyes, 2002). Employees with loftier equal of thriving (measured in terms of intensity and intricacy) have more than mental and physical health, according to Christianson et al. (2005), even when dealing with the effects of depression, anxiety, panicking, and other chronic illnesses conditions. It is noteworthy to mention that a feeling of acquiring knowledge can cause a positive physical health. The third is performance, and it is of the view that thriving has consequences for both individuals and organizational performance. We do not know much about the performance outcomes of thriving, but we can make some educated guesses. Because resilience and self-growth have been linked to excellent individual work performance (in terms of work effort and days lost to illness) and decreased health care consumption, the health effects discussed above may have important consequences for businesses. 2.3. Work-Family Border Theory The Work-Family Border Theory dwells on the premise of work and family domains. The approach focuses on the outcome of interest, overall contentment, and good role at home and works with a lowest degree of role conflict (Clark, 2000). According to Clark (2000), the theory substantiates how workers manage and, at the same time, engage themselves in both work and family spheres bearing in mind that a balance of attainment must be fulfilled. The central theme of this model is the opinion that work and family have divergent views in terms of constituting different domains or spheres that invariably influence each other. Undoubtedly, these contrast each other in terms of purposes and cultures. Work and home are two different views of ideology; there are differences in vision and mission, what constitutes exemplary behaviour, and, more importantly, how to accomplish the tasks. In this study, it is essential to know the relationship between family support in terms of feelings of love, care, and affection one gets from one's family and the supervisor support that focuses on motivating employees, providing necessary resources, and creating a structured favourable environment. In essence, the family supports supervisor behaviour is the employees' desire to balance work and responsibility. However, there is a emotional connection between family support supervisor behaviour and psychological well-being. It is presumed that when individuals are loved within the family, they will positively thrive in the workplace due to psychological well-being. This will enhance workers' quality of life in terms of physical, mental, and social being of gladness and contentment in the discharge of duty. The thriving at work aspect in the workplace relates to the positive psychological state and the progress made so far by employees in the workplace. This is often seen as a driving force or perhaps motivating factor for one toward the actualization of organizational goals. 3. Methodology 3.1. Study design, Sample, and Procedures This analytical study examines the connection between family support supervisor behavior and flourishing. It was created as cross-sectional research. Nurses working in a tertiary health institution in Nigeria constituted the study population. A non- probability convenient sampling technique was used to gather the nurses who were given a free will to agree to participate in the survey. Data collection lasted for nine months (November 2020 to July 2021). Using the construct with the highest number of indicators to determine the minimum sample size (Kline, 2015), we arrived at one hundred and twenty (120) cases as the minimum sample size for this research. Kline (2015) suggested that items from the construct with the highest indicators should have at least 37 ten cases; thus, the FSSB variable with twelve (12) indicators was used as the criteria for sample determination (12 x 10) given the minimum sample size of 120. Inferentially, this means that the minimal sample size for this study is 10 times the number of inner or outer model linkages that can point at any latent variable in the model. Based on the quantity of valid responses, it was found that the study's 150-sample size (n150) fell within the range of the ideal sample size. 3.2. Variable and Measurement Information was gathered through a questionnaire; participants were briefed about the study's objectives and assured of the confidentiality of identity and information. A combination of FSSB scales developed in previous studies (Clark, 2000; Hammer et al., 2013) was used to develop a one-dimensional instrument for this study. Generally, from the previous scale, FSSB has been categorized into four dimensions: (i) role modeling, (ii) emotional support, (iii) instrumental support, and (iv) creative work-family management. There are three items from Clark (2000), fourteen in Hammer et al. (2013), and eleven items on the Thompson et al. (1999) scale. These scales were validated with internal consistency greater than 0.70. From the measurement model (see figure 2), two items with low factor loadings weredeleted; thus, ten items were retained in the new FSSB scale with outer loading greater than 0.70. The instruments were drawn based on a 5-point Likert scale with options ranging from 1 for "Strongly disagree" to 5 for "Strongly Agree." Thriving connotes how employees grow as manifested in both learning and vitality (Spreitzer et al., 2005). The scale developed by Porath et al. (2012) and adapted by similar studies (e.g., Kocak, 2016; Sahin et al., 2021) was used to measure thriving at work. With vitality and learning being the two sub-dimensions of the scale, each dimension contained five items in the original scale, comprised of questions such as "I feel alive and vital" and "I find myself learning often." Accordingly, Porath et al. (2012) reported internal consistency of above 0.70 for the overall scale, while the reliability score reported for the scale by Sahin et al. (2021) using Cronbach's alpha was above 0.90.A composite reliability score above 0.70 was also reported by Kocak (2016) for the same scale. The instruments were drawn on a 6-point Likert scale with options ranging from 1 for "Never" to 6 for "Always." This study adapted the scale developed by Diener et al. (2010) for psychological well-being. The one-dimensional scale with eight items was structured using a 5-pointLikert scale ranging from 1 "Strongly agree" to 5 "Strongly disagree." According to Diener et al. (2010), the scale had a reliability score of 0.87 with the statement, "I lead a purposeful and meaningful life." A similar study conducted by Sahin et al. (2021) reported good internal consistency of 0.86 for the scale. 3.3. Data Analysis This study made use of the partial least square (PLS) technique to analyze the data and conceptual model using SmartPLS software. This approach was used because of its vast application and acceptability in management-related fields (Hair et al., 2012; Kura, Shamsudin & Chauhan, 2015). We adopted this method since this research intended to predict the dependent variable; thus, path analytical modeling was appropriate (Hair et al., 2016; Hair, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2012).The partial least square method accommodates the latent variables to be modeled reflectively or formatively with a lower restriction for sample size (Terzi et al., 2014).SPSS 27 program was used for descriptive data statistics and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). As Ringle et al. (2015) recommended, we constructed a two-stage hierarchical model reflectively to assess the measurement and structural models. SmartPLS 3.3 was used to confirm the outer loading of items (confirmatory factor analysis) and the hypothesized model. Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extractor (AVE) were used to test the instrument's reliability, while Fornel-Lacker, cross-loading, and HTMT tests were used for construct validity. A direct and indirect effect analysis was conducted through bootstrapping method by selecting 5000 sample sizes at a 0.05 level of significance (Preacher &Hayes, 2008). 3.4. Measurement Model In the structural equation modeling technique, it is essential to understand the relative importance of indicators vis-à-vis their constructs to establish the model's fitness (Kura, Shamsudin & Chauhan, 2015). The measurement model provides global fit indices to confirm that the latent variables (indicators) qualify to test the proposed hypotheses. In this study, all variables are measured reflectively, and fit indices such as AVE, composite reliability, Cronbach's alpha were used to test the model's fitness. In the re-specified reflective hypothesized model (see figure 2), new FSSB and PWB scales emerged after the EFA and CFA. Eight items were deleted from the FSSB and one from the PWB scales due to loading below 0.70. The re-specified model, therefore, contained four items (FSSB), seven items (PWB), and eight items (TVW). 38 Figure 2. Model Outer Loading Note: FSSB= Family support supervisor behaviour; PWB=Psychological well-being; TVW=Thrivingat work 3.4.1. Construct Reliability The instrument's reliability (internal consistency) was determined through the measurement model. A confirmatory factor analysis showing individual factor loading (outer loading) indicates that all items are above the recommended benchmark of 0.70 (see table 2). In addition to the above, the composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach alpha (CA) scores for all scales were above the 0.70 thresholds as recommended (Sarstedt, Ringle & Hair, 2017). The average variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs was also satisfactory (>0.5), as shown in table 2. Based on the above, individual item outer loading, CR, CA, and AVE scores are satisfactory, therefore confirming the constructs' appropriateness to test the hypothesized model. Table 2. Instruments’ Reliability Constructs Item Code Loading CA CR AVE Family Support Supervisor Behaviour FSSB1 FSSB2 FSSB3 FSSB4 0.777 0.714 0.832 0.748 0.782 0.852 0.592 Psychological Well-being PWB1 PWB3 PWB4 PWB5 PWB6 PWB7 PWB8 0.814 0.785 0.873 0.863 0.876 0.849 0.808 0.93 0.943 0.704 Thriving at Work TVW1 TVW2 TVW3 TVW4 TVW5 TVW6 TVW7 TVW8 0.856 0.872 0.878 0.713 0.765 0.786 0.732 0.763 0.918 0.933 0.636 Note: FSSB= Family support supervisor behaviour; PWB=Psychological well-being; TVW=Thriving at work 39 3.4.2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity To ensure that constructs and variables uniquely measured the hypothesized model and are divergent from one another, we deployed techniques: (i) factor loading, (ii) Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio, and (iii) Fornel-Lacker criterion to establish the validity of the constructs. This is to ensure that more than one variable did not perform the same function (discriminant validity) and ensures the construct converges to measure the hypothesized model. For factor loading, Sarstedt et al. (2017) stated that constructs are valid when there is no cross-loading or transpose loading of items (see table 3). Table 3. Factor Loading Indicators Loading 1 Loading 2 Loading 3 FSSB1 0.777 0.173 0.013 FSSB2 0.714 0.123 0.044 FSSB3 0.832 0.281 0.155 FSSB4 0.748 0.223 -0.001 PWB1 0.28 0.814 0.427 PWB3 0.326 0.785 0.389 PWB4 0.207 0.873 0.432 PWB5 0.116 0.863 0.438 PWB6 0.306 0.876 0.524 PWB7 0.192 0.849 0.57 PWB8 0.2 0.808 0.477 TVW1 0.018 0.477 0.856 TVW2 0.11 0.534 0.872 TVW3 0.149 0.508 0.878 TVW4 0.116 0.424 0.713 TVW5 0.2 0.347 0.765 TVW6 0.066 0.352 0.786 TVW7 0.037 0.424 0.732 TVW8 -0.137 0.461 0.763 Note: FSSB= Family support supervisor behaviour; PWB=Psychological well-being; TVW=Thriving at work For Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio, according to Hensler, Ringle, and Sarsdest (2015), the inter correlation between the construct should be less than 0.90. From table 4, the HTMT scores are below 0.90, suggesting no discriminant validity among the constructs. Table 4. Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio Construct FSSB PWB TVW FSSB - PWB 0.297 - TVW 0.171 0.592 - Note: FSSB= Family support supervisor behaviour; PWB=Psychological well-being; TVW=Thriving at work The rule of thumb of Fornell-Lacker as a determinant of construct validity states that the square root value of AVE of the constructs must be greater than the correlation value of the latent variables (Fornell & Lacker, 1981). As shown in Table 5, all AVE values are above the threshold of 0.50, and the square roots are greater than the correlation among the variables. Table 5. Fornel-Lacker Criterion Construct FSSB PWB TVW FSSB 0.769 PWB 0.28 0.839 TVW 0.088 0.561 0.798 Note: FSSB= Family support supervisor behaviour; PWB=Psychological well-being; TVW=Thriving at work 4. Results This study deployed two sets of statistical analyses. SPSS 27 program was used to analyze the demographics of the respondents and used for exploratory factor analysis. Secondly, the measurement and structural model was tested using the partial 40 least square (PLS) method. The sample's descriptive statistics show that the average age of the participants was 32.44 + 7.22. The sample data show that 29.5% of the 150 participants were bachelor's degrees, and over 70% held a general nursing certificate. More than 80% of the participants were women, 88% were married, 32 of the 150 (21.3%) had a managerial role. The majority (72%) reported they worked in shifts, and 50% worked on weekends. 4.2. Assessment of Structural Model In assessing the fitness of the structural model as recommended in the literature, it is essential to check for co-linearity to ascertain whether the latent constructs are causally related and genuinely distinct from one another (Kock, 2015; Podskoff, Mackenzie & Podasakoff, 2003). The model was tested for common bias using a common method variance (CMV) test utilizing the variance inflation factor (VIF). According to Kock (2015) and Hair et al. (2011), the value of VIF should be less than or equal to3.30 to be adjudged bias-free. In this study, the result of the standard bias test based on the VIF value show a VIF value of less than 3.30; thus, we concluded that the sample data for this study is free from the common bias issue. Moreso, in this study, the coefficient of determination (R2) was based on Chin (1998), categorized into 0.60 and above (substantial effect), 0.33 (moderate effect), and 0.19 and below as weak effect. We further checked for the predictive relevance (Q2) of the model. The value of the Q2 is greater than zero; thus, the model has predictive relevance. 4.1.2. Structural Model (Hypotheses Testing) Four hypotheses were proposed in this study (H1 – H4). Standards bootstrapping technique (5000 bootstrap sample) was used with our 150-sample observation to test the significance of the path coefficients. Figure 4 shows the complete SEM estimate. Figure 4. Path Coefficients The first and second hypotheses (H1and2) state that family support supervisor behaviour (FSSB) directly affects thriving at work and psychological well-being. Hypothesis three (H3) further states that psychological well-being directly and significantly affects thriving at work. The result from the SEM analysis did not support the first hypothesis (H1); thus, there is no direct relationship between FSSB and thriving at work (β= - 0.075, t= 0.968, p > 0.05). However, the result supports hypothesis two (β= 0.280, t= 2.872, p<0.05). The result for the H2, therefore, indicates that family support supervisor behaviour has a positive and significant relationship with psychological well-being. For the third hypothesis, the result from the SEM analysis supports H3(β= 0.582, t= 6.361, p<0.05), thus, psychological well-being shows a positive and direct relationship with thriving at work. Table 6. Summary of Hypotheses Assessment Hypotheses Paths Β T p-value Decision H1 FSSB → TVW -0.073 0.968 0.345 Not Supported H2 FSSB → PWB 0.280 2.872 0.004 Supported H3 PWB → TVW 0.582 6.361 0.000 Supported H4 FSSB → PWB → TVW 0.163 2.201 0.020 Supported 41 One of the purposes of this study was to examine the mediating effect (indirect relationship) of psychological well-being (PWB) between the relationship of family support supervisor behaviour (FSSB) and thriving at work (TVW). The bootstrapping SEM analysis shows that psychological well-being positively and significantly mediates the relationship between FSSB and thriving at work (β= 0.163, t= 2.201, p<0.05), hence, hypothesis four was accepted. 4.2. Discussion of Findings Investigating family support supervisor behaviour, and its implication on psychological well-being and thriving at work among health workers in Nigeria is a gap in the literature; thus, it was explored in this study. Family support supervisor behaviour (FSSB) is a way of reinforcing the psychological well-being of employees, as indicated in many studies; it has been documented to have a favorable impact on employees (Sahin et al., 2021; Mo et al., 2020). This study hypothesized and examined the perceived family-support supervisor behaviour policy and programmes on nurses' thriving at work (TVW) and psychological well-being (PWB). The connection between flourishing at work and psychological health was also put to the test. Similarly, nurses' perception of FSSB on thriving through the mediating role of psychological well-being was also examined. First, our results did not support hypothesis one as there was a negative and insignificant relationship between family support supervisor behaviour and thriving among the sampled nurses. Although previous studies (i.e., Sahin et al., 2021) reported a significant relationship between FSSB and TVW, our findings proved otherwise. For instance, Diener et al. (2010) concluded that a friendly environment that allows employees to balance family roles with duties at work would reduce work-family role conflict and improve workers' health and well-being, including learning and vitality (thriving). The above findings indicate that nurses perceived FSSB as low, which could be due to many factors. This study was conducted when the COVID-19 pandemic is very turbulent for many organizations, especially the health sector. During the pandemic, health workers, especially nurses, experienced high work-family conflict compared with workers in other sectors. Therefore, supervisor support may have been reduced during the pandemic due to nurses being at the frontline to save lives and contain the spread of the virus. Supporting this assertion, Mo et al. (2020) and Sun et al. (2020) reiterate that nurses are at the base of the struggle in the middle of the pandemic as demand for hospital care increases with a dramatic change in the social and economic life of the health workers. The interference of COVID-19 pandemic dynamics may be responsible for the outcome of the result on the direct relationship between FSSB and thriving at work. Therefore, it is suggested that a repeated study should be conducted with the sample when the world is finally healed of COVID-19. The impact of family-supportive supervisor behavior on the psychological health of the nurses was another important study finding. According to hypothesis 2, which is supported by our data, there is a direct, positive, and significant link between family-supportive supervisor behavior and psychological well. The nurses reported good psychological well-being despite the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, which led to an increase in work demands and longer shifts. The FSSB and psychological health are significantly positively correlated. Ordinarily, one would expect that health workers, especially nurses, will rate their psychological well-being low due to perceived conflict between work and family roles. In Nigeria and other parts of the world, health workers were celebrated due to their critical role in curtailing the pandemic. This, presumably, would have dignified the health profession, which could have enhanced their mental and psychological functioning; thus, nurses see themselves as the hero(ine) of the world. Our result contrasts with Gander et al. (2020) and James et al. (2020); they reported that increased working hours and high volume of work demand often resulted in fatigue for nurses. When the results of hypothesis three was evaluated, findings from the study uphold and support the prediction of the hypothesis. Specifically, according to the SEM analysis, there is a direct positive relationship between psychological well-being and thriving at work. Recall that the nurses reported positive psychological well-being in hypothesis two; therefore, it is not surprising to see the multiplier effect of the nurses' state of mind on other outcomes such as thriving at work. The period this study was conducted played a significant role in the results. During the pandemic, the nurses and other health workers pride themselves on their role in containing the pandemic. There are also new knowledge and information arising from the novel nature of the virus, a situation that boosts their vitality and learning experience (thriving). Therefore, it was concluded that the pandemic paved the way for the nurses to thrive by learning and being pride as hero by the local and international organization, including governments of various countries. The study not only assessed the direct link between family support supervisor behavior (FSSB) and flourishing at work (TVW), but also proposed that FSSB may have a moderating effect on thriving by promoting psychological wellbeing. The finding revealed the importance of psychological well-being in promoting the nurses' learning, happiness, and vitality in the sampled organization. The result showed significant improvement when psychological well-being was introduced into 42 the model; thus, hypothesis four (FSSB indirectly effect on thriving through psychological well-being) was supported. Specifically, psychological well-being positively and significantly mediates the relationship between family-support supervisor behaviour, and work performance. By implication, and within the context of this study, the chances are that a low FSSB, when combined with a positive state of mind, can create pathways for employees to thrive. Although nurses experienced a greater degree of work-family conflict during the pandemic because of excessive work demand, however, their positive state of mind resulting from the dignified role played and new knowledge acquired during the pandemic must have enhanced their vitality and happiness (thriving). With its theoretical implication, the present study being one of the first examining family support supervisor behaviour and thriving at work, especially among nurses in Nigeria, offers implications for nurses and policymakers in the health sector. A high level of thriving is vital to nurses maintaining excellent patient care. Policymakers, including human resource managers in the health sector, need to design management practices that will reduce work-family role conflict to enhance thriving at work. It is important to reiterate that other parameters can influence the effectiveness of FSSB on thriving; such variable as revealed in this study includes psychological well-being. 5. Conclusions A structural equation model analysis on family support supervisor behaviour and thriving at work was carried out among nurses in the health sector in Nigeria. The findings highlight no direct relationship between family support supervisor behaviour and thriving at work. Although the mediating effect of psychological well-being introduced into the model was significant, thus, a significant relationship between FSSB and thriving through the mediating role of psychological well-being was achieved. The study does affirm the importance of psychological well-being towards learning and vitality (thriving), as there was a direct, positive, and significant relationship between psychological well- being and thriving at working. Finally, the study concludes that family-support supervisor behaviour programmes and policies may not be sufficient to promote thriving at work as other intervening factors such as psychological well-being could enhance its effectiveness. References 1. Adeloye, D., David, R. A., Olaogun, A. A., Auta, A., Adesokan, A., Gadanya, M., Opele, J. K., Owagbemi, O., & Iseolorunkanmi, A. (2017). Health workforce and governance: the crisis in Nigeria. Human Resource for Heath, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-017-0205-4 2. Adegbite, M. W., Bawalla., O. G. & Adedeji., O. (2020). Measuring employees’ well-being among Nigerian banker: Exploring the sociocultural indicators, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 35(4), 279-304, https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2020 .183486 3. Asghar, M., Gull, N., Bashir, M., & Akbar, M. (2018). The Impact of Work-Family Conflict on Turnover Intentions: The Moderating Role of Perceived Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior. Hotel & Business Management, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-0286.1000178 4. Bawalla, O. G. (2020). Coping Strategies of Today’s Public Secondary School Teachers, Ogun State, Nigeria. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 14, 116-123. https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v14i0.27066. 5. Chin W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295–336. 6. Christianson, M., Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K. & Grant, A. (2005) 'An empirical examination of thriving at work.' Working paper, Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. 7. Crain, T. L., Hammer, L. B., Bodner, T., Kossek, E. E., & Moen, P. (2014). PDXScholar Work-Family Conflict, Family-Supportive Supervisor Behaviors ( FSSB ), and Sleep Outcomes. 8. Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770. 9. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, (97), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15 10. DiRenzo, M. S. (2010). An examination of the roles of protean career orientation and career capital on work and life outcomes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Drexel University. Philadelphia,PA 11. Ekici, D., Cerit, K., & Mert, T. (2017). Factors That Influence Nurses' Work-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Intention to Leave in a Private Hospital in Turkey. Hospital Practices and Research, 2(4), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.15171/hpr.2017.25 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-017-0205-4 https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2020%20.183486 https://doi.org/10.4172/2169-0286.1000178 https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v14i0.27066 https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15 https://doi.org/10.15171/hpr.2017.25 43 12. Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 9-50. 13. Gander, P., O'Keeffe, K., Santos-Fernandez, E., Huntington, A., Walker, L., & Willis, J. (2020). Development and evaluation of a matrix for assessing fatigue-related risk, derived from a national survey of nurses' work patterns. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 103573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103573 14. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. 15. Hair J. F., Sarstedt M., Ringle C. M., & Mena J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 40(3), 414–433. 16. Hair J. F., Ringle C. M. &Sarstedt M. (2011). PLS- SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152 17. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. 18. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Bodner, T., & Crain, T. (2013). Measurement Development and Validation of the Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior Short-Form (FSSB-SF). Journal of Management, 35: 837-856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032612 19. Holland, P., Cooper, B., & Sheehan, C. (2017). Employee voice, supervisor support, and 20. engagement: The mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 915-929 21. James, L., James, S. M., Wilson, M., Brown, N., Dotson, E. J., Dan Edwards, C., & Butterfield, P. (2020). Sleep health and predicted cognitive effectiveness of nurses working 12-hour shifts: An observational study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 103667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103667 22. Jia, L. (2016) The Effect of Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior on Work-Family Enrichment of Female University Teachers, International Journal of Science Vol.3 No.10 2016, ISSN: 1813-4890 23. Keyes, C.L.M. (2002) 'The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life', Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–22. 24. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. 25. Koçak, O. E. (2016). How to enable thriving at work through organizational trust? International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 5(4), 40– 52. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v5i4.580 26. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS- SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. 27. Kura K. M., Shamsudin F. M., & Chauhan A. (2015). Does self-regulatory efficacy matter? Effects of punishment certainty and punishment severity on organizational deviance. SageOpen, 5(2), 2158244015591822 28. Lee, C. S, Yen, C. C, Pei-L. T, & Tung-H. Y. 2014. Examining the relations between open innovation climate and job satisfaction with a PLS path model. Quality & Quantity 48: 1705–22 29. Li, A., Shaffer, J., & Bagger, J. (2015). The Psychological Well-Being of Disability Caregivers: Examining the Roles of Family Strain , Family-to- Work Conflict , and Perceived Supervisor Support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037878 30. Lizano, E. L., Hsiao, H., Barak, M. E. M., Casper, L. M., & Casper, L. M. (2014). Support in the Workplace : Buffering the Deleterious Effects of Work – Family Conflict on Child Welfare Workers' Well-Being & Job Burnout Support in the Workplace. Journal of Social Service Research , 37– 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2013.875093 31. Mo, Y., Deng, L., Zhang, L., Lang, Q., Liao, C., Wang, N., Qin, M., & Huang, H. (2020). Work stress among Chinese nurses to support Wuhan in fighting against Covid-19 epidemic. Journal of Nursing Management, 28(5), 1002–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13014 32. Muhammad A., Nida G., Mohsin B & Muhammad A. (2018). The Impact of Work-Family Conflict on Turnover Intentions: The Moderating Role of Perceived Family Supportive Supervisor Behavior Journal of Hotel & Business Management Hotel Bus Manage 2018, 7:1 33. Muraina, L. O., & Bawalla, O. G (2019). Entrepreneurial intention among Nigerian undergraduates: A sociological investigation of south-west universities, Covenant Journal of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103573 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032612 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103667 https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v5i4.580 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037878 https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2013.875093 https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13014 44 Entrepreneurship (CJoE), 3(1), 48-67. https://doi.org/10.20370/emkc-6656 34. Norizan B, R., Intan O. P. & Arumugam V. (2017). Do Supervisor and Family Support Moderate the Relationship between Work-Life Balance and Individual Well-Being? Evidence from Open Distance Learning (ODL) University Presented at: SIBR 2017 (Osaka) Conference on Interdisciplinary Business and Economics Research, 6th - 7th July 2017, Osaka, Japan. 35. Norizan B. R.,Intan O., & Prakash V. A. (2020) Linking Work-Life Balance And Employee Well- Being: Do Supervisor support And Family Support Moderate The Relationship?. International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 21 No. 2, 2020, 588-606 36. Okonkwo, E. A., Ekwochi, U., & Uwaezuoke, S. N. (2019). Nigeria Career Mothers and Work-To- Family Conflict: Health Implications for Their Children Under Five Years. 18(6), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1806116170 37. Oladejo S. Y & Bawalla O.G (2019) Attachment Level and Social Well-Being of Undergraduate Students in Obafemi Awolowo University. Taraba State University Journal of Education. 3 (2): 41-47. 38. Pan, S. (2018). Do workaholic hotel supervisors provide family-supportive supervision? A role identity perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.013 39. Pluut, H., Ilies, R., Curşeu, P. L., & Liu, Y. (2018). Social support at work and at home: Dualbuffering effects in the work-family conflict process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 146, 1-13. 40. Pandey, A., Schulz, E. R., & Camp, R. R. (2018). The impact of supervisory support for high performance human resource practices on employee in-role, extra-role and counterproductive behaviors 1. Journal of Managerial Issues, 30(1), 97-6 41. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research methods, 40(3), 879– 891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879 42. Porath C, SpreitzerG, & Gibson C (2012) Thriving at work: toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. J Organ Behav 33(2): 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756 43. Rahim, N. B. (2017). Leveraging the psychological well-being among Malaysian engineers: The role of protean career orientation and career strategy implementation. Journal Pengurusan (UKM Journal of Management), 49, 53-65. 44. Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2015). SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta). Hamburg, (www.smartpls.de). Stern, J. (n.d.). Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning. http://www.wlac.edu/online/documents/otl.pdf 45. Rofcanin, Y, Heras, M. L & Bakker, A. B (2017). 'Family supportive supervisor behaviors and organizational culture:Effects on work engagement and performance', Journal of occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000036 46. Russo, M., Buonocore, F., Carmeli, A., & Guo, L. (2018). When family supportive supervisors meet employees' need for caring: Implications for work– family enrichment and thriving. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1678-1702. 47. Sahin, S., Adegbite, W. M., & Sen, H. T. (2021). How do family support supervisors affect nurses' thriving? Research before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, (35) 602-609. www.elsevier.com/locate/apnu 48. Sguera, F., Bagozzi, R. P., Huy, Q. N., Boss, R. W., & Boss, D. S. (2018). The more you care, the worthier I feel, the better I behave: How and when supervisor support influences (un) ethical employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 615- 628. 49. Spreitzer., G & Sutcliffe., K (2006). Thriving in Organizations Consider these contrasting images of individuals in relation to their work, Nelson & Cooper-3456-Ch-06.qxd 8/14/2006 Page 7 50. Spreitzer, G.M., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J.E., Sonenshein, S. & Grant, A.M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work', Organization Science of, 16 (5), 537–50. 51. Straub, C. (2018). Antecedents and organizational consequences of family supportive supervisor behavior: A multilevel conceptual framework for research Human Resource Management Review, (22), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.08.001 52. Sun, N., Wei, L., Shi, S., Jiao, D., Song, R., Ma, L., Wang, H., Wang, C., You, Y., Liu, S., & Wang, H. (2020). A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of Covid-19 patients. American Journal of Infection Control, 48(6), 592– 598. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.03.018 https://doi.org/10.20370/emkc-6656 https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1806116170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.013 https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756 https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.08.001 45 53. Terzi, S., A. Trezzini, & L. Moroni. 2014. A PLS path model to investigate the relations between institutions and human development. Quality & Quantity 48: 1271–90. 54. Verma, M., Bhal, K. T., &Vrat, P. (2018). Relationship between gender-sensitive practices and family support and its impact on psychological well- being of women employees in call centers in India. Employee Relations, 40(1), 155-172. 55. Wadsworth, E., Leos-Toro, C. & Hammond, D. (2019). Mental health and medical cannabis use among youth and young adults in Canada. Substance use and misuse. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1691594 56. Yildirim, D. &Aycan, Z. (2008). Nurses' work demands and work-family conflict: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9), 1366-1378. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1691594