a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
the organization is based on perceived promises or obligations. Second, POS only considers the employee’s side of the employer-employee relationship, while classic definitions of the psychological contract consider both employer and employee beliefs about this relationship. Overall, then, POS and psychological contracts assess employee-organization relationships, but in different ways. Empirical Distinctiveness of Perceived Organizational Support Researchers have also investigated the construct validity of the SPOS with the intention of distinguishing it from other constructs. Because Eisenberger and colleagues intended to measure employee perceptions of the organization’s commitment to them, researchers initially worked to ensure that the construct was empirically distinct from measures of employee commitment to the organization. A factor analysis conducted by Shore and Tetrick (1991) revealed that the SPOS was empirically distinct from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al., 1979), as well as the Affective Commitment Survey and the Continuance Commitment Survey (Meyer & Allen, 1984). However, results from this study did not distinguish the SPOS from the Specific Satisfactions Scale, which includes measures of employees’ satisfaction with security, pay, growth, coworkers, and supervision (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). At this point in time, then, no empirical evidence existed that showed that POS was different than job satisfaction. To address this issue, Eisenberger et al. (1997) investigated the role that employee attributions for treatment provided by the organization played in the development of POS and satisfaction. They found that treatment which employees considered discretionary (or controlled by the organization), including the physical work environment, organizational procedures, training opportunities, and recognition, were seven times more strongly related to POS than were 16
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: In subsequent studies, researchers
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?