a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

are becoming an increasingly important relationship in the changing organizational environment (Gibson, 2004; Ibarra, 1999). Shapiro, Haseltine and Rowe (1978) define role models as “individuals whose behaviors, personal styles, and specific attributes are emulated by others” (52). Social learning theories suggest that individuals observe role models because they are helpful in learning new tasks, skills, or norms (Kohlberg, 1963). Observation of a coworker who is considered a role model does not ensure that an employee will know what that role model thinks about how he or she is treated by the organization. I argue that role model ties will be influential when they are multiplex – or comprised of more than one type of relationship (Portes, 1998). For instance, by having an advice relationship with a role model, an employee will gain a better understanding of the role model’s perceptions concerning the level of support the organization provides for employees. Information or advice from role models may be more influential than advice or information from non-role models because employees emulate perceptions and beliefs of role models. When employees “learn” the perceptions of support of admired role models, their POS will become similar to the POS of the role models. Tie strength also plays an important role in social influence (Granovetter, 1982; Krackhardt, 1990). Tie strength is defined as "the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and reciprocal services that characterize the tie" (Granovetter, 1973: 1361). Repeated interaction increases the repetition of information, which increases the opportunity for the transference of social cues and as a result leads to greater similarity in attitudes or perceptions (Krackhardt, 1990). Therefore, I expect that strong advice ties and strong advice ties with role models will be more strongly associated with similarity in POS. 5
Exploring the effects of social influence on perceptions of organizational support will inform the organizational literature and management practice in important ways. Demonstrating the shaping effects of role model, friendship, and advice relationships, as well as the strength of these relationships, on employees’ POS challenges the traditional assumption that the formation of POS is driven only by the employees’ independent evaluation of treatment offered by the organization. The social influence analysis that I propose demonstrates that the development of employees’ POS is a social process, not simply an intrapsychic one. This is an important contribution because it adds to the literature on antecedents of POS. This dissertation also informs research on role models and social influence. To date, role models research has emphasized their importance in career development (Bucher & Stelling, 1977; Gibson, 2003, Ibarra, 1999) and in helping employees who observe them to learn skills and norms necessary to succeed in an organization (Earley & Kanfer, 1985; Ibarra, 1999; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Little attention has been given to the possibility that employees’ interaction with role models may influence perceptions and attitudes about the organization itself. In today’s decentralized organizations, employees may work off-site or in team contexts in which opportunities to interact with supervisors are limited (Cross & Prusak, 2002). Employees may look to role models for information that they can use to better understand their relationship with the organization. In these cases, role models may play an important role in shaping employees’ POS. Specifically, role models with whom employees maintain advice or friendship relationships may be a particularly important social influence agent. Further, this dissertation will inform social influence research by considering the role that the strength, reciprocal nature and multiplexity of ties play in the social influence process. 6
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: Researchers also consider the conte
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?