a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

this chapter. The first set of measures included reciprocated strong ties and a second set of measures included non-reciprocated strong ties. In the reciprocated ties analysis, both reciprocity and frequent contact were necessary analysis 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). In the following sections of this chapter, the sample is described and descriptive statistics for control and dependent variables are presented. Next, the descriptive statistics, correlations and regression results testing the hypotheses for the reciprocated ties analysis and the non- reciprocated ties analysis are presented. Sample and Descriptive Statistics for Control and Dependent Variables Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for the control and dependent variables assessed in this dissertation. Of the 138 members of the organization, 101 were present at the meeting and complete, usable data was obtained from 93 employees yielding a response rate of 92% of the available employees, or 67% of the entire organization. Although a higher response rate would have been desirable, many network studies are published with response rates ranging between 65% and 90% due to the difficulty associated with getting employees to complete such a long and cumbersome survey (Stork & Richards, 1992). The sample was 60.2% female and 80.6% Caucasian, 11.8% African-American, 5.4% Asian, and 2.2% other. Mean tenure was 1.94 years (Range = 0 to 6.33). Finally, respondents held, on average, .05 leadership positions. Mean POS was 3.21 (Range = 1.25 to 4.50). Cronbach’s alpha for the eight-item Survey of Perceived 67
Organizational Support was .84, which is consistent with past research which reveals alphas that range from .77 (Eisenberger et al., 1997) to .90 (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003). Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Control and Dependent Variables Variable Mean Standard Minimum Maximum Deviatio n Control Variables Female 60% .49 0 1 Tenure 1.94 1.26 0 6.33 Leadership Positions .05 .23 0 1 Dependent Variable Perceived Organizational Support Results for Reciprocal Ties Analysis 3.21 .67 1.25 4.50 Descriptive Statistics. Table 5 presents descriptive statistics for the reciprocal ties analysis. On average, respondents reported that they had .43 weak friendship ties (Range = 0 to 8), 3.16 weak advice ties (Range = 0 to 26), and 8.61 weak role model ties (Range 0 to 82). With respect to weak multiplex ties, respondents reported that they had, on average, .29 weak friend- advice ties (Range = 0 to 10), .32 weak friend-role model ties (Range 0 to 4), 4.46 weak advice- role model ties (Range 0 to 44), and .45 weak friend-advice-role model ties (Range = 0 to 6). Respondents indicated that they maintained an average .14 strong friendship ties (Range = 0 to 3), 1.61 strong advice ties (Range = 0 to 20), and 8.41 strong role model ties (Range = 0 to 56). With respect to multiplex ties, respondents reported, on average, .18 strong friend-advice 68
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 and 72: frequent contact with person j, or
Page 73 and 74: employee held a leadership position
Page 75: correlation analysis has two steps.
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?