a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants technological and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471-501. Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673-303. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791. Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S.B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sensemaking: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277-303. Ilgen, D., & Pulakos, E. (1999). The changing nature of performance. Jossey-Bass Publishers, USA. James, L.R., Joyce, W.F., & Slocum, J.W., Jr. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13, 129-132. Javidan, M., Bemmels, B., Stratton-Devine, K., & Dastmalchian, A. (1995). Superior and subordinate gender and the acceptance of superiors as role models. Human Relations, 48, 1271-1284. Jones, B., Flynn, D.M., & Kelloway, E.K. (1995). Perception of support from the organization in relation to work stress, satisfaction, and commitment. In S.L. Sauter & L.R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk and factors for job stress (pp. 41-52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kacmar, K, & Carlson, D. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658. Kapferer B. (1969). Norms and the manipulation of relationships in a work context. In Mitchell, J. (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kaufman, J.D., Stamper, C.L., & Tesluk, P.E. (2001). Do supportive organizations make for good corporate citizens? Journal of Managerial Issues, 13: 436-449. Kilduff, M. (1990). The interpersonal structure of decision-making: A social comparison approach to organizational choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 270-288. Knoke, D., & Burt, R.S. (1983). Prominence. In R.S. Burt & M.J. Miner (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp. 195-222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 105
Kohlberg, L. (1963). Moral development and identification. In H.W. Stevenson (Ed.), Child psychology: The sixty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1, pp. 277-332). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079. Krackhardt, D. QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness. (1987). Social Networks, 9, 171- 186. Krackhardt, D. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks, 10, 359-381. Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369. Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216-239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L.W. (1986). The snowball effect: Turnover in embedded communication networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 50-55. Krackhardt, D. & Stern, R.N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123-140. Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Ladd, D. & Henry, R.A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2028-2049. Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969-1000. Lam, S.S., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as change agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 987-995. Leonard-Barton, D. (1985). Experts as negative opinion leaders in the diffusion of technological innovation. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 914-926. Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390. 106
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 and 104: consistent with past research (Ibar
Page 105 and 106: employees who were widely regarded
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: Hammer, M. (1985). Implications of
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?