a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

job conditions that were considered non-discretionary, such as long hours worked on a demanding job. While attributions mattered such that POS was more strongly affected by discretionary treatment provided by the organization, they did not matter for job satisfaction. Job satisfaction changed regardless of the attribution that the employee made for job conditions. These findings indicate that job satisfaction assesses an employees’ evaluation of their job, while POS assesses employees’ evaluations of treatment provided by the organization. Finally, Kottke and Sharfinski (1988) investigated the distinctiveness of POS and perceived supervisor support. Perceived supervisor support is defined as employees’ general views concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being (Kottke & Sharfinski, 1988). Factor analysis revealed that employees differentiate support offered by the organization from support offered by supervisors. Hutchinson (1997) replicated and extended this study by showing that employees distinguish between perceptions of support from their supervisor, the management of the organization and the organization itself (POS). Overall, the results of research investigating the conceptual and empirical distinctiveness of POS reveal that it is distinct from affective and continuance organizational commitment, psychological contracts, job satisfaction, perceived supervisor support and managerial support. Antecedents of Perceived Organizational Support Given that POS is a distinct construct and related to important outcomes such as organizational commitment, going “above and beyond” duties specified in job descriptions, and turnover (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), researchers have investigated the factors that lead to POS within employees. Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed that employees’ POS results from favorable organizational treatment attributed to the discretion of the organization. Generally, 17
esearch exploring the antecedents of POS can be divided into three main categories: (1) fairness of treatment, (2) support from organizational representatives, and (3) human resource practices (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Research on the antecedents of POS is reviewed in the following three subsections of this dissertation. Fairness of Treatment. Shore and Shore (1995) provided the conceptual justification for the relationship between the fairness of treatment provided by an organization and POS. These authors argued that perceptions of fairness create trust between employees and the organization. Such trust is critical so that employees do not see themselves as being at greater risk of not being compensated for their efforts to help the organization reach its goals. Fair treatment affects POS because it increases employee expectations that the organization will reward their efforts. In addition, fair treatment creates “closer, open-ended social exchange relationships” that “produce obligations for the employee to repay the supervisor or organization” (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001: 42). Employees assess how fairly they are treated by their organizations through the lenses of procedural and distributive justice (Greenberg, 1990). Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of formal procedures underlying the decisions the organization makes concerning employees (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), while distributive justice is concerned with the fairness of the distribution of outcomes in the organization (Greenberg, 1990). Researchers have hypothesized that both procedural and distributive justice would be related positively to POS because fair policies and procedures strengthen employee beliefs that they will be rewarded for their efforts to help the organization (procedural justice), while receiving benefits from the organization would signal to an employee that s/he is valued (distributive justice). In addition, Shore and Shore (1995) proposed that procedural justice would be more strongly associated with 18
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: the organization is based on percei
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?