a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

egarding POS than do more traditional employees. For that reason, the generalizability of the results of this study may be limited. Another limitation of this study is that it did not explicitly measure the social information processing, social comparison and social learning perspectives that were utilized to build theoretical linkages. While similarity in perceptions is a commonly used outcome for social network studies testing a social information processing model (for examples, see Ibarra & Andrews, 1993; Umphress et al., 2003), few network studies have assessed social comparison. Those that did (Shah, 1998; Ho, 2003) explicitly asked employees whether or not other employees were utilized as social referents for the dependent variables of interest. For instance, in examining employee perceptions of psychological contract fulfillment, Ho (2002) asked employees with which other employees they discussed perceptions of psychological contract fulfillment. Similarly, few if any network studies have assessed social learning as an outcome variable. In fact, one of the only studies directly assessing a social learning perspective examined similarity in performance of organizational citizenship behaviors in a workgroup as an outcome variable (Bommer et al., 2003). However, because the outcome variables of social information processing, social comparison and social learning are usually similarity with respect to an attitude or behavior, it is difficult to separate the effects of each social influence process in a given study. Future Research This dissertation presents a number of opportunities for future research. First, while this study explored the role that a number of different ties play in influencing employees’ POS, it likely that other network ties may also influence employees’ POS. For instance, Sparrow et al. (2002) investigated the role that hindrance networks play in organizations. They found that 95
employees who were widely regarded as individuals who made it more difficult for others to accomplish their goals generally received lower performance evaluations. It is possible that employees’ perceptions of organizational support are negatively related to the POS of employees with whom they have hindrance ties. Also, some researchers have investigated the role that “workflow ties,” defined as individuals who employees interact with through the completion of their work (Umphress et al., 2003), have on perceptual similarity. Workflow ties may also play a role in shaping employees’ POS. Second, future research could more thoroughly investigate the directionality of advice ties. In this dissertation, employees were only asked from whom they receive advice. It would have been interesting to also ask employees to identify whom they give advice to as well. It could be argued that “advice-givers” perceptions are important in shaping the perceptions of advice-receivers. Third, recognizing that employees’ POS is influenced by coworkers who are not agents of the organization suggests that perhaps other individuals who an employee interacts with may influence their perceptions of support as well. For instance, it is possible that the opinions of family and friends may affect an employee’s beliefs regarding organizational support when they offer their own opinions regarding the extent to which the employee is supported or discuss the treatment that they receive from their own organizations. For example, an employee who feels valued by the organization as a result of receiving a 5% raise may not feel quite as important upon learning that friends and family members have received 10% wages from their organizations. Such a perspective is consistent with recent research by Stoner and Gallagher (2005), who found that emotional family support moderates the relationship between psychological contract violations and turnover intentions. 96
Page 1 and 2:
TITLE PAGE A SOCIAL INFLUENCE ANALY
Page 3 and 4:
Copyright by Thomas J. Zagenczyk 20
Page 5 and 6:
with the expectation that reciproca
Page 7 and 8:
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Hypothesize
Page 9 and 10:
PREFACE Thank you to my chair, Audr
Page 11 and 12:
epresentatives of the organization
Page 13 and 14:
Researchers also consider the conte
Page 15 and 16:
Exploring the effects of social inf
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Orga
Page 19 and 20:
Levinson’s work explained the lar
Page 21 and 22:
Eisenberger and colleagues (1986) a
Page 23 and 24:
In subsequent studies, researchers
Page 25 and 26:
the organization is based on percei
Page 27 and 28:
esearch exploring the antecedents o
Page 29 and 30:
a manager with high formal status s
Page 31 and 32:
to carry out tasks on their own, an
Page 33 and 34:
occurs because the norm of reciproc
Page 35 and 36:
on their daily tasks. Examining thi
Page 37 and 38:
coworkers are able to provide infor
Page 39 and 40:
when forming perceptions and evalua
Page 41 and 42:
identifies with and interacts with
Page 43 and 44:
Miles, and Grover (2003) showed tha
Page 45 and 46:
instance, a researcher may find a p
Page 47 and 48:
likely to discuss sensitive issues
Page 49 and 50:
it does not require that the role m
Page 51 and 52:
among tellers. In one branch, no se
Page 53 and 54: eside outside of the focal individu
Page 55 and 56: To test the effects of social influ
Page 57 and 58: disseminating organizational inform
Page 59 and 60: less positive. Thus, the POS of the
Page 61 and 62: ties (and other combinations of str
Page 63 and 64: Research Setting Hypotheses were te
Page 65 and 66: network data concerning recurring i
Page 67 and 68: I explored these different requirem
Page 69 and 70: or not the employees with whom they
Page 71 and 72: frequent contact with person j, or
Page 73 and 74: employee held a leadership position
Page 75 and 76: correlation analysis has two steps.
Page 77 and 78: Organizational Support was .84, whi
Page 79 and 80: Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for
Page 81 and 82: Correlations. Two different types o
Page 83 and 84: Control Variables Table 7: Pearson
Page 85 and 86: Control Variables Table 9: Pearson
Page 87 and 88: Results of Hypotheses Tests using Q
Page 89 and 90: positions had perceptions of organi
Page 91 and 92: CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLU
Page 93 and 94: elationship may not have been consi
Page 95 and 96: social learning theory (Bandura, 19
Page 97 and 98: to provide false information is les
Page 99 and 100: Fourth, when studying social influe
Page 101 and 102: theoretical foundation of POS is so
Page 103: consistent with past research (Ibar
Page 107 and 108: etween employees, only strong frien
Page 109 and 110: of structure and behavior. Academy
Page 111 and 112: organizational support. In J. A-M.
Page 113 and 114: Hammer, M. (1985). Implications of
Page 115 and 116: Kohlberg, L. (1963). Moral developm
Page 117 and 118: Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D.
Page 119 and 120: Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of i
Page 121 and 122: networks: An introduction to Markov
Page 123 and 124: Name of employee Yes Yes No No Name
show all

a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?