a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multiplex Ties. While it is important to recognize that network ties have different content, some ties overlap and contain multiple types of content (such as friendship and advice). Multiplexity refers to “overlapping social networks where the same people are linked together across different roles” (Portes, 1998: 16). Coleman (1988) suggests the wholesale diamond market in New York City functions effectively due to the presence of multiplex ties. Merchants in this market do business together, attend the same synagogues, and live in the same community. Therefore, the relationships between merchants are multiplex, or characterized by more than one type of tie. As a result, merchants do not fear that their diamonds will be stolen or replaced with less valuable diamonds because an individual who cheats the system will suffer consequences in a number of different contexts. A study by Meyer (1994) showed that attitudinal similarity was usually higher when multiplex ties existed between individuals. In this dissertation, I examine several different types of multiplex ties: role model-advice ties and role model-friendship-advice ties. Consistent with Meyer (1994) and the observations of Coleman (1988), I expect that employees’ perceptions of organizational support will be similar to those of other employees with whom they maintain multiplex ties. Tie Strength. Ties vary in strength along a continuum from weak to strong. Tie strength is defined as "the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and reciprocal services that characterize the tie" (Granovetter, 1973: 1361). Strong ties are more intimate, involve more self-disclosure and provide more than just instrumental exchange (Granovetter, 1982; Marsden & Campbell, 1984). Individuals who maintain strong ties are likely to have similar attitudes, background, experiences, and access to resources (McPherson & Smith- Lovin, 1987). In contrast to strong ties, exchanges that occur through weak ties are less frequent and less intimate. Weak ties are based on infrequent interaction, usually with individuals who 43
eside outside of the focal individual’s network. Weak ties are significant because they have access to different sources of information or resources that an individual does not receive through strong ties (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973). Accordingly, research reveals that both strong and weak ties are beneficial to individuals, albeit in different ways. Strong ties are more likely to facilitate the sharing of more complex information and provide timely access to resources (Granovetter, 1982). Weak ties provide access to unique resources which may not be accessible through strong ties (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973, 1987). For instance, Granovetter (1973) demonstrated that individuals were more likely to find new jobs through weak ties than through strong ties. Studies have assessed the effects of both strong and weak ties. For example, Morrison (2002) found that strong advice ties were related to task mastery and role clarity among newly- hired accountants, but weak ties were not. Hansen (1999) found that weak ties were best for transferring noncomplex knowledge, while strong ties were better for transferring complex knowledge between departments in an organization. While these studies do not directly assess the role of tie strength on social influence, the general pattern of results suggest that weak ties are less influential and less useful in transferring information than are strong ties. While studies reveal that it is important to consider the strength of ties, there is no consensus as to just what is the best indicator of tie strength. Nelson argued that frequent contact approximates all components of Granovetter’s (1973) tie strength definition (time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services). He notes that ideally, all of these dimensions would be measured, but that such a process would create too much strain on respondents completing surveys. On the other hand, Marsden and Campbell’s (1984) study revealed that intimacy and reciprocity were effective predictors of outcomes expected to be related to tie strength. In order 44
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 and 50: it does not require that the role m
Page 51: among tellers. In one branch, no se
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?