a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

indication that the organization cared about them. Overall, the Hawthorne studies suggest that when organizations signaled to employees that they were valuable by paying attention to them or providing favorable treatment for them such as work breaks, they had higher levels of productivity and better attitudes. Mayo (1941) extended the findings of the Hawthorne studies by arguing that the socio- emotional support organizations offered employees helped them deal with societal changes such as massive industrialization of the 1940s. Rather than living in small towns or villages where they were known for performing a specific task or trade, individuals moved to large cities where they lost the esteem and identity that they had previously derived from their jobs. To deal with this loss of identity (or “anomie”), employees increasingly turned to their organizations and the individuals within them for support, esteem, and identity. Levinson (1965) also argued that organizational support was important for employees dealing with changes in social and geographic mobility in the 1960s. When people moved away from their friends and family, they lost a valuable source of support and esteem. Levinson contended that employees derived esteem and support from the organizations they worked for to compensate for this loss. He theorized that employees attribute human-like characteristics to, or personify, the organizations that employ them. Thus, the actions of individuals who represent the organization are attributed to the intent of the organization itself. This is because (1) organizations are legally, financially and morally responsible for the actions of their agents; (2) organizational precedents, traditions, policies and norms provide continuity and prescribe role behaviors of organizational agents; and (3) the organization, through its agents, exert power over individual employees. 9
Levinson’s work explained the larger scope and justification for employee-organization relationships. The importance of the employee-organization relationship continued to grow in the business environment of the 1970s and 1980s as organizations became increasingly concerned with developing and retaining productive employees to gain a competitive advantage in a global marketplace. Research shifted from investigating employees’ beliefs about how they were treated by the organization (or the extent to which the organization was committed to them) to understanding what made the employee committed to the organization. Employee commitment to the organization, or organizational commitment, is defined as an employee’s “identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday, Steers, & Porter., 1979). Organizational commitment has become an important variable to both managers and researchers because it is related to productivity, turnover, and absenteeism (for a review, see Meyer & Allen, 1997). Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed a social exchange approach to integrate employees’ beliefs about how they were treated by the organization and organizational commitment. Eisenberger and colleagues argued that when employees believe that the organization is committed to them, they will be committed to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Tetrick, 1991). Social Exchange, Reciprocity, and Attributions in Perceived Organizational Support To measure employee beliefs about the organization’s commitment to them, Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed a new construct called perceived organizational support (POS) and laid out the theoretical foundations for a social exchange model of the employee-organization relationship. His seminal work utilized social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) to integrate different perspectives of the employee-organization relationship. Social exchange relationships, according to Blau (1964), are based on the exchange 10
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: CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Orga
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?