a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

scores represented higher levels of POS. The composite scores were then used to create a POS dissimilarity matrix. Consistent with past research on social influence (e.g. Meyer, 1994), the degree of dissimilarity was computed by taking the absolute difference between individual i’s mean POS score and individual j’s mean POS score. For example, if individual i rated their level of POS as 5 and individual j rated their POS to be 3, the cell entry Xij in the similarity matrix for POS would be 2. Therefore, smaller numbers represented greater interpersonal similarity in POS. Social Network Ties. Social network ties were measured using the sociometric survey described previously. Each question on the survey explored whether or not a certain type of tie existed between employees. In this dissertation, two different sets of measures were utilized. Thus, a different set of regression analyses was conducted for each of these assumptions. The first set of measures included reciprocated strong ties (reciprocated ties analysis), as well as all other ties shown in Table 1 and described in the following section. A second set of measures included non- reciprocated strong ties (non-reciprocated ties analysis) as well as all other ties described in Table 2. Each set of measures represented different assumptions about the way tie strength is represented in social network research. In the reciprocated ties analysis, both reciprocity and frequent contact were necessary for a strong friendship or advice tie to exist between actors. In the non-reciprocated ties analysis, only frequent contact (not reciprocity) was required for strong friendship and advice ties. I did not apply the reciprocity requirement to role model ties, as such ties by definition do not need to be reciprocal (Gibson, 2003; Ibarra, 1999). 57
I explored these different requirements for strong friendship and advice ties for several reasons. In the reciprocated ties analysis, which required both frequent contract and reciprocity for strong friendship and advice ties, both employees in a dyad needed to acknowledge that a tie Variable Description Strong Ties Friend Advice Friend-Advice Role Model Friend-Role Model Advice-Role Model Friend-Advice-Role Model Table 2: Reciprocated Ties Measure Descriptions Friendship Matrix (reciprocated) + Frequent Contact Matrix Advice Matrix (reciprocated) + Frequent Contact Matrix Friendship Matrix (reciprocated) + Advice Matrix (reciprocated) + Frequent Contact Matrix Role Model Matrix + Frequent Contact Matrix Friendship Matrix (reciprocated) + Frequent Contact Matrix + Role Model Matrix Advice Matrix (reciprocated) + Frequent Contact Matrix + Role Model Matrix Friendship Matrix (reciprocated) + Advice Matrix (reciprocated) + Frequent Contact Matrix + Role Model Matrix Table 3: Non-Reciprocated Ties Measure Descriptions Variable Description Strong Ties Friend Advice Friend-Advice Role Model Friend-Role Model Advice-Role Model Friend-Advice-Role Model Friendship Matrix + Frequent Contact Matrix Advice Matrix + Frequent Contact Matrix Friendship Matrix + Advice Matrix (reciprocated) + Frequent Contact Matrix Role Model Matrix + Frequent Contact Matrix Friendship Matrix + Frequent Contact Matrix + Role Model Matrix Advice Matrix + Frequent Contact Matrix + Role Model Matrix Friendship Matrix + Advice Matrix + Frequent Contact Matrix + Role Model Matrix 58
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 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: network data concerning recurring i
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?