a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

information related to your job as a member of this organization (yes/no).” Employees were instructed to circle “yes” if they considered an individual to be an advice tie, and “no” if they did not. Role Model Ties. Role model ties were assessed in a manner similar to friendship and advice ties. Each employee was asked to identify whether or not each other individual in the organization was a “role model” to them, described as “an employee who has a high level of performance and serves as an excellent example of the goals and values of the organization.” Data on employee friendship ties, advice ties, and role model ties were compiled into a friendship matrix, an advice matrix, and a role model matrix respectively. Friendship, advice, and role model matrixes were created according to the following procedure (explained here in terms of friendship ties): If person i selected person j as a friend, or person j selected person i as a friend, cell entry Xij in the friendship matrix was 1. If both persons i and j did not indicate that a friendship tie existed, 0 was entered into cell Xij in the friendship matrix. These matrixes were utilized to create strong and weak friendship ties, strong and weak advice ties, strong and weak role model ties, strong and weak friend-role model ties, and strong and weak advice-role model ties, and strong and weak friend-advice-role model ties. The procedure utilized to create these ties is explained below. The general procedure used for measuring tie strength in this dissertation is as follows. First, I created a frequent contact matrix. Nelson (1989) suggested that tie strength could be measured by asking respondents how frequently they interacted with others in the network. To build the frequent contact matrix, each employee was asked whether or not they interacted with every other employee “at least once a week (yes/no).” If person i indicated that they had 61
frequent contact with person j, or person j indicated that they had frequent contact with person i cell entry Xij in the frequent contact matrix was 1. Strong Friendship Ties. The next step was to compute the strong friendship matrix. In the reciprocated ties analysis, the strong friendship matrix was computed by multiplying the frequent contact matrix and the friendship matrix which contained only reciprocated friendship ties. In the non-reciprocated ties analysis, the strong friendship matrix was computed by multiplying the frequent contact matrix and the friendship matrix which included all ties regardless of whether or not they were reciprocated. The same procedure was utilized to create all other network ties assessed in this study as well. As is the case in most social networks research, all network measures were assessed using a single measure. This is typical because assessing each type of tie with multiple measures would be time-consuming and impractical for respondents. If each network was measured using multiple items, each respondent would have had to respond to multiple items for each network and for each of 137 other employees. A drawback to single-item measures is that they do not allow for the assessment of reliability, but our methods (roster, recurring ties) allows for the highest possible reliability (Marsden, 1990). Control Variables In addition to the independent variables, information on tenure, gender and leadership positions held was collected to rule out other possible explanations for results. Similarity matrixes were constructed for each of these variables and utilized in the analysis 2 . 2 Quadratic Assignment Procedure analysis requires that similarity with respect to variables, not the absolute value of the variables, be utilized (See Umphress et al., 2003). 62
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 and 66: network data concerning recurring i
Page 67 and 68: I explored these different requirem
Page 69: or not the employees with whom they
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?