a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

describe as noncompetitive, that drive POS. Accordingly, I expect that employees will likely engage in association rather than comparison when discussing perceptions of organizational support. This reasoning yields the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: An employee’s perceived organizational support will be positively related to the perceived organizational support of coworkers with whom that employee maintains strong friendship relationships. Employees may develop role model-friendship-advice ties with coworkers. Such multiplex ties may be extremely influential because they are a source of social information processing and social learning. However, they also may be a source of social comparison, which could lead to dissimilarity in POS, as hypothesized in the preceding section. However, some social comparison research indicates that employees will avoid making social comparisons with individuals who are extremely successful because they recognize that they will never obtain such success themselves, and therefore making such comparisons will lead to reduced self-concept (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; 1999). As a result, employees may avoid making social comparisons with high-performing role models. Therefore, I expect an employee’s POS will be positively related to the POS of role model-friendship-advice ties, as such ties will be a source of social information processing and learning, but may not suffer because employees protect their self-concepts by avoiding comparison with friend-role models. Hypothesis 4: An employee’s perceived organizational support will be positively related to the perceived organizational support of role models with whom they have strong advice and friendship relationships. Finally, although I offer this only as an exploratory hypothesis and do not formally test it, I expect that consideration of strong friendship and advice ties (and other combinations of strong friendship and advice ties) which require both frequency of contact and reciprocity will be more strongly associated with similarity in POS than will consideration of strong friendship and advice 51
ties (and other combinations of strong friendship and advice ties) that only require frequent contact (and not reciprocity). This is because reciprocal ties will be characterized by information exchange between employees. Employees may discuss their views with one another, and when they do this, both employees in the dyad may come to adjust their perceptions of support so that POS in the dyad becomes more similar. On the other hand, non-reciprocated (one-way) ties will not be as strongly related to similarity in POS because only one employee is providing information to another employee regarding their perceptions of support. As a result, the employee who receives advice or information from this individual may try to adjust their own POS as a result of the influence of the employee who provides information, but it is unlikely that the employee receiving information will really understand what level of POS the other employee actually has. This may occur because employees who are more powerful may provide socially desirable information to others, hiding their true beliefs. Hypothesis 5: The overall pattern of results will show that strong ties characterized by frequent contact and reciprocity will be more strongly associated with similarity in POS than will strong ties characterized by only frequent contact. 52
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 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: less positive. Thus, the POS of the
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?