a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Network Ties The relationships examined in social networks research are often referred to as ties. A tie is said to exist when a pair of actors has one or more relationships. Ties can vary in direction, content, and strength. Characteristics of ties are important because they can affect how influential a specific tie may be. In terms of direction, ties may be non-reciprocated (one-way) or reciprocal (two-way). In a non-reciprocated tie, for instance, an individual may provide advice for, but not receive advice from, another individual. On the other hand, an individual may receive advice from another individual, but not provide advice to that individual (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1999). In a reciprocal, or two-way tie, an employee receives advice from and gives advice to another employee. Whether or not a tie is reciprocated is important because it often explains the nature of a relationship between individuals. A non-reciprocated tie may be characteristic of one-way social influence; that is, the beliefs of the advice-providing employee may influence the beliefs of the advice-receiving employee. Consistent with this proposition, Henry and Butler (2005) found that software and service firm employees who received advice from others adopted communication technology beliefs similar to those of the individuals who provided advice to them. On the other hand, reciprocal advice ties may encourage information sharing between individuals. Such sharing may result in convergence of employee attitudes because each employee has the opportunity to explain his or her point of view. Tie content is also important to consider because ties that have different content are often related to different outcomes (Erickson, 1988; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993). Ignoring tie content may cause researchers to find spurious relationships (Harrington, 2002; Ibarra, 1993). For 35
instance, a researcher may find a positive relationship between friendship ties and other individuals’ perceptions of an individual’s power, but not measure advice ties in their analysis. The perceived power of the individual may actually have little to do with friendship ties and may be the result of the advice ties that the individual maintains. Therefore, it important to assess different types of ties to determine which are related to a dependent variable (Ibarra, 1993). When tie content is considered, social networks researchers usually distinguish between advice and friendship ties (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993). Advice Ties. Employees share information and knowledge related to the completion of their work through advice ties (Ibarra, 1993). Such ties are characterized by cognitive trust, or the belief that another has the ability and competence to provide help (McAllister, 1995; Ho, 2002; Ho, Levesque, & Rousseau, 2003). Therefore, asking an individual for advice is an indication of respect for the opinion of that individual and an expectation that help from that individual is available and useful. The provision or exchange of advice is related to important outcomes in organizations. Employees who frequently provide advice to others are often perceived as being more powerful than individuals who are not a frequent source of advice (Brass, 1984; Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Knoke & Burt, 1983) because others are dependant on them for information needed to complete their jobs (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993). A study by Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, and Kramer (2001) showed that employees who provided more advice to their coworkers received more favorable performance evaluations from supervisors. Settoon and Mossholder (2002) showed that individuals with more advice relationships were more likely to perform citizenship behaviors for their coworkers. 36
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 and 42: identifies with and interacts with
Page 43: Miles, and Grover (2003) showed tha
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?