a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Control Variables Table 8: QAP Correlations for Reciprocated Ties Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Gender --- 2. Tenure .05* --- 3. Leadership Position .00 .18* --- Weak Ties 4. Friend .00 -.01 .00 --- 5. Advice .01 .00 .00 -.01 --- 6. Friend-Advice -.02 .03 .01 .00 -.01 --- 7. Role Model -.01 -.01 -.01 -.03** -.08** -.02* --- 8. Friend-Role Model .00 .00 -.02 .03 .00 .00 .00 --- 9. Advice-Role Model .00 -.06** .01 -.02 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01 --- 10. Friend-Advice Role Model .01 -.01 .03 -.01 -.01 .00 -.03* .00 -.02 --- Strong Ties 11. Friend .00 -.18 .02 .00 -.01 .00 -.02 .00 -.01 .00 --- 12. Advice -.01 .00 .03 .00 .00 .19** -.02 .00 -.05* .00 .00 --- 13. Friend-Advice .00 .00 .02 .00 -.01 .00 -.01 .00 -.01 .00 .00 .00 --- 14. Role Model .02 -.04 .15** -.02* -.06** -.02 -.02 -.02 -.07** -.02 -.01 -.01 -.01 --- 15. Friend-Role Model -.03* -.02 -.01 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.13** -.01 -.02* -.01 .00 .00 .00 -.03** --- 16. Advice-Role Model .03* -.06** .14** -.02 .06** -.01 -.04** -.01 -.07** -.02* -.01 .03 -.01 -.09** -.03** --- 17. Friend-Advice-Role Model -.02 -.08** .03 -.01 -.04** .00 -.08** -.01 -.04** -.01 -.01 .06** -.01 -.06** -.02 -.05** --- Outcome 18. Perceived Organizational Support -.01 .05 .07 -.01 -.03 .00 .06 -.03 .01 -.02 .00 .02 .01 .07** .00 .04* .10** Note. N = 93 for all variables. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 75
Control Variables Table 9: Pearson Correlations for Non-Reciprocated Ties Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Gender --- 2. Tenure -.13 --- 3. Leadership Position -.00 .33** --- Weak Ties 4. Friend -.06 .05 .05 --- 5. Advice -.12 .08 .034 -.12 --- 6. Friend-Advice .06 -.05 .04 .31** .19 --- 7. Role Model .12 .03 -.05 -.08 -.26* -.14 --- 8. Friend-Role Model .10 .08 -.07 .16 -.23* .04 .12 --- 9. Advice-Role Model .12 .07 -.02 -.19 .07 -.17 .05 -.17 --- 10. Friend-Advice Role Model -.09 -.02 -.07 .16 -.16 .05 .13 .34** .12 --- Strong Ties 11. Friend .05 -.05 .04 .58** -.10 -.05 -.12 .00 -.12 -.12 --- 12. Advice -.15 .03 .12 -.09 .38** -.09 -.23* -.15 -.11 -.18 -.01 --- 13. Friend-Advice .15 .03 .16 .39** -.12 .04 -.15 .19 -.22* .01 .51** .04 --- 14. Role Model -.11 .16 .40** -.04 -.09 .11 .12 -.02 -.13 -.05 -.04 -.08 -.06 --- 15. Friend-Role Model .27** -.12 -.06 .27** -.26* .02 .07 .50** -.23* -.11 .38** -.15 .51** .09 --- 16. Advice-Role Model -.15 .18 .41** -.15 -.01 -.10 -.15 -.17 .03 -.17 -.11 .33** -.11 .12 -.16 --- 17. Friend-Advice-Role Model .09 -.16 -.02 -.09 -.26* -.02 .00 .11 -.17 .25* -.08 -.17 .04 -.04 .07 -.07 --- Outcome 18. Perceived Organizational Support -.07 -.29** -.17 -.13 -.12 -.06 .11 .10 -.13 -.05 -.11 .10 .06 -.20 .03 .02 .25* Note. N = 93 for all variables.* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 76
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 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: Control Variables Table 7: 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?