a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Tenure. Tenure was utilized as control variable because research has shown that individuals with higher levels of POS tend to remain in an organization longer than other employees who have lower POS (note the strong relationship between POS and turnover in Rhoades & Eisenberger’s (2002) meta-analysis). Tenure was operationalized as the number of years that an employee worked in the organization. A tenure similarity matrix was constructed based on absolute difference values between employees’ tenure. Similarity in tenure between employees was determined by subtracting the tenure of individual i from the tenure of individual j. The difference between the tenure of these individuals was entered in cell Xij in the tenure matrix. Gender. Gender was also utilized as a control variable because research indicates that gender can influence an individual’s position in informal networks (Brass, 1984; Brass, 1985; Ibarra, 1993) and in some cases, employees’ perceptions of support (Liaoi, Joshi, & Chung, 2005). Gender was utilized as a dummy variable in which 0 = male and 1 = female. A gender similarity matrix was constructed which represents the difference between the gender of two employees, similar to the tenure matrix. With respect to gender, two females would have similar gender because (dummy variable) 1 – (dummy variable) 1 = 0, indicating similarity in gender. However, a female (dummy variable 1) – and a male (dummy variable 0) would have a difference of 1 entered into the corresponding cell in the gender similarity matrix. Leadership Positions. Whether or not an employee held a leadership position in the organization was also utilized as a control variable because POS research shows that perceived supervisor support (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and leader-member exchange (Wayne et al., 1997; Wayne et al., 2002) are positively related to POS. Leadership was utilized as a dummy variable in which 0 indicated that an employee did not hold a leadership position and 1 indicated that an 63
employee held a leadership position. A leadership similarity matrix was constructed which captured the difference between employees who were leaders and employees who were not. With respect to leadership positions, a leader and a non-leader would have a dissimilar leadership score because (dummy variable) 1 – (dummy variable) 0 = 1, indicating dissimilarity in whether or not a leadership position was held. However, a leader (dummy variable 1) – and another leader (dummy variable 1) would have similarity in leadership as 0 was entered into the corresponding cell in the leadership matrix. 64
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 and 70: or not the employees with whom they
Page 71: frequent contact with person j, or
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?