a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

individual feels good about the success of a similar other and will have a more positive self- concept as a result of their association with him or her (Cialdini et al., 1976). However, the success of a similar other can also result in a more negative self-concept for ego when it threatens the focal individual’s self concept. That is, the focal individual will feel worse about him/herself when comparing him or herself to the successful similar other (Weiss, 1981). Whether or not “basking in reflected glory” or the comparison process occurs is dependent on how relevant the outcome variable is to the focal individual’s self-concept. If the outcome is something that is very important to the focal individual, then the comparison process will likely occur, and the success of another similar individual will threaten the focal individual. On the contrary, if the similar other’s success is not relevant to the focal individual’s success, basking in reflected glory will occur. Social Learning. In addition to social information processing and social comparison, social influence can occur through social learning. Bandura’s (1986) social learning theory emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others in learning the behaviors and attitudes of those individuals. Initially, an individual may model a behavior performed by a respected coworker. However, if they continue to engage in the behavior, they may come to develop the perceptions and attitudes that justify the behavior that they are performing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). This would occur because employees may feel compelled to justify their behavior by holding attitudes and perceptions consistent with that perception. Therefore, by modeling the behavior of another, an individual may eventually come to have perceptions similar to that individual. Research on social learning theory in organizations demonstrates that individuals do in fact learn by observing the behavior and attitudes of others. For instance, a study by Bommer, 33
Miles, and Grover (2003) showed that employees’ performance of organizational citizenship behaviors was related to the frequency and consistency of organizational citizenship behavior performance by other employees in their workgroup. In addition, Ibarra (1999) showed that employees at an investment bank and a management consulting firm making the transition from entry-level to management positions observed and interacted with employees whom they admired in order to learn what behaviors, attitudes and perceptions made the admired employees successful. They then adopted these behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions to see if what they learned would help to make them successful (Ibarra, 1999). These studies show that social learning can affect the behavior, attitudes and perceptions of employees. Social Networks: Defining Relationships Social networks analysis focuses on patterns of social relations among a set of actors to explain social phenomena (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and thus provides the conceptual and methodological basis for measuring social influence (Burkhardt, 1994; Erickson, 1988; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993; Meyer, 1994; Rice & Aydin, 1991). An individual’s social network contacts are important to the formation of perceptions because they provide an opportunity for that individual to understand what other individuals think, feel, say, and do about what is happening in an organization. Thus, social networks are the medium through which social influence occurs in an organization (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993) because they provide access to the beliefs of other employees who may be useful in helping an employee to better understand the work environment or their relationship with the organization. 34
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 and 38: coworkers are able to provide infor
Page 39 and 40: when forming perceptions and evalua
Page 41: identifies with and interacts with
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?