a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

e a role model by each other individual in the organization. Thus, role model ties, like an advice or friendship ties, are conceptualized at the dyadic level. Role models are important because employees learn from interacting with or observing them (Gibson, 2003; Gibson, 2004) through processes described in social learning theory. An excellent example of how role models can help employees to learn in organizations is provided in Ibarra’s (1999) study of thirty-four investment bank and management firm employees making the transition from junior to senior positions. Ibarra argued that individuals adapt to new professional roles by temporarily holding images of “provisional selves” (765). Essentially, employees try on the identities of individuals they identify as role models. If they believe that these identities help them to effectively perform their jobs, they adopt them. Through interaction and observation, employees acquire the tacit knowledge, attitudes, routines, and impression management techniques that are useful in making role transitions (Ibarra, 1999: 774). In order to explain the importance of role models in shaping organization-related beliefs of employees, I draw on opinion leadership research. Opinion leaders are individuals who informally influence the attitudes or perceptions of others in an intended direction (Reynolds & Wells, 1977), often as a “word of mouth” information source in interpersonal communications (Vernette, 2004). Marketing studies show that individuals consult opinion leaders in their social networks before purchasing a product; opinion leaders are often more influential than the media because of the impact of word-of-mouth communication (Price & Feick, 1984). Studies on opinion leadership in organizations also reveal that opinion leaders can be influential in promoting positive attitudes towards organizational initiatives. For instance, Lam and Schaubroeck (2004) conducted a quasi-experiment in three bank branches implementing a service quality initiative 41
among tellers. In one branch, no service quality leaders were used. In the second branch, tellers were randomly selected as service quality leaders. In the third branch, tellers who were opinion leaders were utilized as service quality leaders. Tellers in the branch utilizing opinion leaders as service quality leaders had significantly better attitudes towards the initiative and also had higher self and supervisory ratings of performance. The results of this study indicate that opinion leaders are very important in change efforts because they are credible sources of information capable of influencing other employees. This point is illustrated by Leonard-Barton’s (1985) study in which opinion leaders viewed a new technology negatively and therefore made adoption of the new technology more difficult because others adopted their negative beliefs. There are important similarities between opinion leaders and role models. Rogers (1995) contends that employees who are from the same hierarchical level and occupation as their followers are more often regarded as opinion leaders due to the fact that they are accessible and have similar socioeconomic status. Both opinion leaders and role models are trusted sources of information, are accessible to employees, and may be in similar hierarchical positions. I argue that employees who are considered to be role models by their peers will play a role similar to that of opinion leaders in an organization. When employees are uncertain about how to interpret what is happening in an organization, they will go to role models to get their opinions on the issue. The more employees seek out their role models for information on events occurring in the organization, the more their opinions concerning organizational events will become similar to those of their role models. As a result, role models will be an important source of social influence in organizations – and will influence the perceptions of employees who interact with them. 42
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 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: it does not require that the role m
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?