a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

ecognition of the “costs” (or lost side bets) associated with discontinuing the activity” (Allen &
Meyer, 1990: 3). The key distinction between POS and affective and continuance commitment
is that affective and continuance commitment assess an employee’s commitment to the
organization, while POS assesses employees’ beliefs regarding the organization’s commitment
to the employee (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Tetrick, 1991).
Conceptually distinguishing POS from job satisfaction was also an important step in
demonstrating the value of the POS construct. Shore and Tetrick (1991: 641) argued that POS
was conceptually distinct from job satisfaction because “POS is a global measure of employer
commitment, whereas satisfaction is focused on various facets of work.” In addition, they noted
that POS is a set of beliefs about how much the organization cares for their well-being, while job
satisfaction is an affective response to different aspects of the work situation (Shore & Tetrick,
1991). Finally, Eisenberger et al. (1997) argued that only discretionary organizational actions, or
actions that employees believe the organization controls, influence POS (Eisenberger et al.,
1997). In contrast, job satisfaction is affected by any actions taken by the organization or any
aspects of an employee’s job that makes him or her more or less satisfied, regardless of whether
or not the organization controls them (Eisenberger et al., 1997).
Other researchers have noted the similarity between POS and the psychological contract
(Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). Rousseau (1995) defines a psychological contract as a relatively
stable mental model that an employee holds regarding promises the organization has made to
them in exchange for their efforts on behalf of the organization. Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1998)
argue that psychological contracts are based on perceived promises that an employer makes to an
employee and the employee’s subsequent obligations, while POS is a measure of favorable
treatment from the organization that does not consider whether or not the treatment provided by
15