a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to employees with whom they have high-quality exchange relationships, thus reinforcing such employees’ beliefs that the organization cares for them and values their contributions. Results of a study of 1,413 salaried employees from across the U.S. by Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) were consistent with this hypothesis, as were results of a later study by Wayne, Shore, Bommer and Tetric (2002) involving 211 employee-supervisor dyads. Research on the relationship between supervisory relationships and POS is important to the relationship between coworkers and similarity in POS because it demonstrates that individuals can influence POS. However, research on supervisor support and leader-member exchange views the supervisor as a representative of the organization. Thus, it has only considered the relationship between formal organizational representatives and POS. In this proposed study, I explore the possibility that informal relationships – coworker relationships – can play a role in shaping employees’ POS. However, the perspective presented in this dissertation differs from extant research because I do not view coworkers as an agent of the organization, but rather as a source of social influence. The information that coworkers provide to a focal employee regarding their beliefs about their relationship with the organization, not the treatment that they provide to a focal employee, will shape the POS of the focal employee. Human Resource Practices. Human resource practices that are perceived as an investment in human capital are expected to lead to high or low levels of POS because they signal to employees that they are valued. Consistent with this proposition, developmental experiences, training and feedback - investments in employees that convey to them that the organization values them - are positively related to POS (Hutchison, 1997; Wayne et al., 1997). Researchers have also investigated the relationship between autonomy and POS. Autonomy is a signal provided by the organization to employees that the organization trusts them 21
to carry out tasks on their own, and that the contributions that they make will benefit the organization. Like autonomy, HR practices such as inclusion, participation, and goal setting are expected to be indicators of the organization’s respect for the ability of employees and are all positively related to POS (Allen et al., 2003; Hutchison, 1997; Wayne et al., 2002). Finally, rewards provided by the organization, including developmental experiences and promotions, signal to employees that they are valued members of the organization and as a result are positively related to POS (Wayne et al., 1997). In fact, Eisenberger et al. (1986) speculated that individual rewards offered by the organization to employees would be more strongly associated with POS than support offered to all employees across the organization because individual rewards distinguished an employee receiving positive treatment from others employees, making that employee feel valued. Understanding the relationship between human resource practices and POS has important implications for understanding how employees’ relationships with their coworkers will influence POS as well. Specifically, employees may solicit the opinion of their coworkers to obtain information regarding treatment offered by the organization (Salancik & Pfeffer; 1978; Ho, 2002), particularly when conditions in the organization are ambiguous (Festinger, 1954; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Individuals may compare their own evaluations of the human resource practices offered by the organization to the evaluations of other employees in their social network, or ask their coworkers to help them make sense of the meaning of the organization’s HR policies. Through this process, employees may come to adopt beliefs that are similar to those of their coworkers. Summary of Antecedents to POS. Overall, research indicates that fairness of treatment, relationships with organizational agents, and human resource practices lead to employee POS. 22
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 and 28: esearch exploring the antecedents o
Page 29: a manager with high formal status s
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?