a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

similarity as a measure of social influence is consistent with many other social influence studies (e.g. Burkhardt, 1994; Coleman et al., 1966; Dabos & Rousseau, 2004; Erickson, 1988; Ho, 2002; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993; Meyer, 1994; Umphress et al., 2003). Social influence can occur through a number of processes, including social information processing, social comparison, and social learning, reviewed in the following section. Social Information Processing. Social information processing plays a key role in shaping perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in organizations and may play a similar role in shaping employees’ POS. Perceptions are influenced by the social context in which they form, either through direct statements from others or though intentional or unintentional behavioral cues (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). POS is perceptual and may therefore be affected by social information processing. Sherif’s (1935) investigation of the role that social factors play in shaping perceptions provided some early evidence indicating that individuals use information from other individuals in their environments to better understand what is happening and what it means. Subjects observed randomly moving points of light in an otherwise dark environment and then made estimates regarding the amount of movement they observed. The groups were positioned so that each member could hear the estimates of others. Sherif found that ultimately the groups’ estimates converged on a single group estimate of how far the light had traveled. These experiments indicate that a person will “accept information from another as evidence about reality” (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955: 629) Building on the work of these researchers, Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) proposed social information processing theory. They argue that because organizations are complex and ambiguous environments, individuals utilize information that they obtain from other members 29
when forming perceptions and evaluations concerning the organization and their jobs. Specifically, individuals use information they collect from others to (1) learn to react to social cues; (2) to form perceptions by focusing attention on some aspects of the work environment but away from others; (3) to construct their interpretations of organizational events; and (4) to understand the requirements of their jobs. Studies have demonstrated that social information processing results in similarity among attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of individuals who interact. For instance, Coleman et al. (1966) found that doctors’ decisions to prescribe a new drug were similar to the decisions of professional associates whom they had talked with about the drug. Other studies have shown that employees’ attitudes towards new technology were similar to the attitudes of individuals with whom they communicate frequently (Burkhardt, 1994, Rice & Aydin, 1991). Meyer (1994) found that employees had similar perceptions of organizational coordination to employees with whom they communicated frequently. Perhaps most relevant to the current study is the research of Dabos and Rousseau (2004), who showed that faculty members’ beliefs regarding promises made to them by their university were similar to the beliefs of individuals with whom they maintained direct relationships. Thus, employees’ beliefs about one aspect of their relationship with the organization are affected by social information. Overall, this research supports the idea that social information processing results in similarity among employees’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. Social Comparison. Social influence can also occur when individuals draw comparisons between themselves and other individuals to better understand ambiguous situations. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) suggests that (1) individuals learn about themselves through comparison with others; (2) individuals who have similar characteristics, such as race, gender, 30
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 and 34: occurs because the norm of reciproc
Page 35 and 36: on their daily tasks. Examining thi
Page 37: coworkers are able to provide infor
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?