a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

POS than would distributive justice because instances of procedural justice occur on a day-to- day basis while promotions and pay raises occur only once in a while. Consistent with expectations, researchers have found that procedural justice and distributive justice are both positively related to POS (Cropanzano, Hayes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Tekleab et al., 2005; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetric, 2002) and that this relationship is stronger for procedural justice than distributive justice. The relationship between fairness perceptions and POS offers some support for the proposition that POS is socially constructed. This is because perceptions of procedural and distributive justice themselves are socially constructed, as there is no absolute level of organizational justice (Umphress et al., 2003). When employees are trying to decide whether or not the treatment offered by the organization is fair, they may try to obtain this information from their coworkers in the organization. Previous research on social influence shows that employees’ beliefs about organizational justice are similar to the beliefs of other employees in their social networks (Umphress et al., 2003). Therefore, I expect that POS will be driven by interaction with coworkers as well. Support from Organizational Representatives. While employees pay attention the fairness of organizational policies when forming POS, they also consider their relationships with organizational agents. One of the key assumptions of POS is that employees aggregate the treatment that they receive from organizational agents who control the outcomes that they value into a general perception of support. The greater the extent to which an employee believes that the actions of an organizational agent are representative of the actions of the organization itself, the stronger the influence an organizational agent will have on that employee’s POS. Therefore, 19
a manager with high formal status should have a stronger impact on an employee’s POS than should a manager with lower formal status (Eisenberger, Jones, Aselage, & Sucharski, 2004). The majority of the research examining the relationship between organizational agents and POS has focused on supervisory relationships. Treatment that employees receive from supervisors is often interpreted as coming directly from the organization itself. That is, employees believe that the actions of their supervisors are representative of the organization’s positive or negative orientation towards them. Supervisors are considered particularly important because they are responsible for directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance, as well as conveying these evaluations to higher-level managers (Eisenberger, Stinglehaumber, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Research shows that employees’ beliefs regarding the extent to which they are supported by supervisors are positively related to POS (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Yoon & Lim, 1999). In a longitudinal study of the supervisor support-POS relationship among retail sales employees, Eisenberger et al. (2002) determined that perceived organizational support changed in response to changes in perceived supervisor support, suggesting that supervisor support is an antecedent to POS. Further, the perceived status of the supervisor moderated the relationship between supervisor support and POS such that employees’ relationships with higher- status supervisors had a stronger influence on POS than did relationships with lower-status supervisors (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Like perceived supervisor support, leader-member exchange focuses on the quality of exchange between the employee and the manager and is based on the degree of emotional support and exchange of valued resources (Graen & Cashman, 1975). Leader-member exchange was expected to be positively related to POS because supervisors tend to allocate more rewards 20
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 and 26: the organization is based on percei
Page 27: esearch exploring the antecedents o
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?