a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Control Variables Table 10: QAP 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 .05* --- 3. Leadership Position .00 .18* --- Weak Ties 4. Friend .00 -.04 .01 --- 5. Advice .00 .00 .03 .16** --- 6. Friend-Advice -.01 .01 .04 .21** .68** --- 7. Role Model .01 -.01 .03 .27** .39** .41** --- 8. Friend-Role Model .01 -.06** .02 .75** .13** .18** .27** --- 9. Advice-Role Model .01 -.02 .04* .16** .72** .64** .33** .21** --- 10. Friend-Advice Role Model .01 -.01 .04* .19** .63** .78** .32** .25** .08** --- Strong Ties 11. Friend .01 -.12** .14** -.22** -.06** -.03** -.10** -.16** -.05** -.04** --- 12. Advice -.02 -.10** .08* -.18** -.05** -.02* -.04** -.13** -.04** -.03** .67** --- 13. Friend-Advice -.01 -.10** .08* -.17** -.05** -.02 -.06** -.12** -.04** -.03** .75** .91** --- 14. Role Model .00 -.11** 17* -.14** -.05** .31** -.08** -.10** -.03** -.07** .56** .52** .91** --- 15. Friend-Role Model .01 -.10** .14* -.20** -.06** -.03** -.09**- -.15** -.04** -.03** .92** .71** .71**. .62** --- 16. Advice-Role Model -.01 -.10** .08* -.18** -.05** -.02* -.06** -.13** -.04** -.03** .67** .97** .97** .55** .74** --- 17. Friend-Advice-Role Model -.01 -.10** .07* -.16** -.05** -.02 -.05** -.12** -.03** -.03* .74** .89** .89** .51** .81** .92** --- Outcome 18. Perceived Organizational Support -.01 .05 .07 -.03 .02 .00 .02 -.02 -.01 -.01 .08** .10** .10** .07** .09** .10** .10** Note. N = 93 for all variables.* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 77
Results of Hypotheses Tests using QAP Regression Analysis. Table 10 presents the results of QAP regression analysis used to test the hypotheses for the reciprocated ties and non- reciprocated ties analyses. Hypothesis 1 states that an employee’s perceived organizational support will be positively related to the perceived organizational support of coworkers with whom that employee has strong advice relationships. QAP regression analysis provided marginal support for this hypothesis (ß = .009, p ≤ .10) when reciprocated ties were utilized, indicating that employees do have similar perceptions of support to those of coworkers with whom they maintain strong, reciprocated advice ties. However, the relationship between these variables was not as strong as expected, as the beta coefficient was not significant at the p ≤ .05 level. In the analysis which utilized non-reciprocated ties, in which frequent contact was the only requirement for strong ties, this hypotheses was not supported (ß = .087, p = n.s.). This suggests that when one-way advice ties were considered in the analysis, employees’ beliefs are not similar to those of their strong advice contacts. Hypotheses 2 states that an employee’s perceived organizational support will be positively related to the perceived organizational support of role models with whom that employee has strong advice relationships. Results of regression analysis provided support for this hypotheses when reciprocated ties were considered, as strong role-model advice ties were positively and significantly related to similarity in perceived organizational support (ß = .231, p ≤ .01). This indicates that employees have similar perceptions of organizational support to those of their coworkers with whom they 1) consider to be role models; and 2) frequently share advice. However, in the non-reciprocated ties analysis, no support was found for this hypothesis (ß = 78
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 and 84: Control Variables Table 7: Pearson
Page 85: Control Variables Table 9: Pearson
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?