a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

support for, the idea that POS would be positively related to job involvement because it makes employees believe that they are better at their jobs. Behavioral Consequences of Perceived Organizational Support. In addition to holding attitudes favorable to their jobs and the organization, employees are expected to behave in a manner that helps their organizations to reach their goals and objectives when they believe that they are supported. Accordingly, researchers have investigated the relationship between POS and organizational citizenship behavior, in-role performance, and withdrawal behaviors. Results of these studies are discussed next. Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (4). Consistent with Blau’s (1964) suggestion that individuals will reciprocate favorable treatment from the source that it came from, it is expected that employees who recognize that the organization has gone “above and beyond” to support them by providing discretionary support will go “above and beyond” their job duties in order to help the organization succeed. A number of studies have explored the relationship between POS and OCB. This research confirms that POS is indeed related to organizational citizenship behavior (Ladd & Henry, 2000; Masterson et al., 2000; Kaufman, Stamper, & Tesluk, 2001, Eisenberger et al., 1990). In addition to organizational citizenship behavior, a number of studies have demonstrated a relationship between POS and employees’ in-role performance, or performance of formal job duties (Armeli et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Lynch et al., 1999). These researchers explain that the relationship between POS and in-role performance occurs because employees with higher levels of POS trust that the organization will reward them for their increased effort 25
on their daily tasks. Examining this perspective, Orphen (1994) found that POS was positively related to work effort of employees. Besides obligating employees to have higher levels of performance, POS is expected to reduce withdrawal behavior in employees. Withdrawal behaviors include absenteeism, turnover intentions, and turnover. Generally, it is expected that employees who feel supported by their organizations will be less inclined to leave and seek work elsewhere because of the strong exchange relationship they have with their employer. In addition, employees with high levels of POS are expected to help their organizations succeed by attending work consistently. As expected, Allen et al. (2003) demonstrated that the positive relationship between POS and organizational attitudes makes employees less likely to seek employment with other organizations. Further, employees with high POS are less likely to intend to quit (Wayne et al., 1997; Masterson et al., 2000) or be absent from work (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Summary and Discussion of Perceived Organizational Support Research Figure 1 depicts the extant research on POS. Over the past fifty years, researchers have examined organizations and employees in the context of a rapidly changing business environment and society, drawing on work from the social sciences. Eisenberger’s initial work on POS drew on social exchange theory, the reciprocity norm and attribution theory. Research examining antecedents and outcomes of POS reveals that favorable treatment in the form of fairness, organizational representatives, and human resource practices creates a felt obligation within employees to reciprocate favorable treatment by holding attitudes favorable to the organization and the job and behaving in a manner that helps the organization to reach its goals (Eisenberger et al., 2001; see Figure 1 for a model summarizing the extant research on POS.). However, the extant research deals only with the intrapsychic processes that are related to the 26
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 and 30: a manager with high formal status s
Page 31 and 32: to carry out tasks on their own, an
Page 33: occurs because the norm of reciproc
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?