a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

.092, p = n.s.). Thus, reciprocity was an important requirement for strong advice-role model relationships when similarity in POS is the outcome variable. Hypotheses 3 states that an employee’s perceived organizational support is positively related to the perceived organizational support of coworkers with whom they have strong friendship relationships. No support was found for this hypotheses in the reciprocated ties analysis (ß = .020, p = n.s.), although the direction of the relationship was in the predicted direction. In addition, this hypotheses was not supported when non-reciprocated ties were considered (ß = -.126, p = n.s.). Thus, employees’ POS was not significantly and positively related to similarity in POS among reciprocal friendship ties. Hypotheses 4 states that an employee’s perceived organizational support will be positively related to the perceived organizational support of role models with whom they have strong advice and friendship relationships. QAP regression results provided support for this hypotheses in both the reciprocated analysis (ß = .138, p ≤ .01) and non-reciprocated analysis (ß = .330, p ≤ .01), indicating that employees adopted similar POS to role models with whom they maintain strong friendship and advice relationships regardless of whether or not reciprocity was a requirement. Additional Results from QAP Regression Analysis. All three control variables were significantly related to similarity in perceived organizational support. Gender was negatively related to similarity in perceived organizational support (ß = -.004, p ≤ .05), indicating that employees with similar gender had dissimilar perceptions of organizational support. Similarity in tenure was positively related to similarity in perceived organizational support (ß = .012, p ≤ .01), which suggests that employees who had been in the organization for the same amount of time had similar beliefs about organizational support. Finally, employees who held leadership 79
positions had perceptions of organizational support that were significantly different than those of employees who did not hold leadership positions (ß = -.083, p ≤ .01). Besides the control variables, a number of unhypothesized significant relationships emerged. In the reciprocated ties analysis, weak role model ties were positively related to similarity in perceived organizational support (ß = .211, p ≤ .05) as were strong role model ties (ß = .310, p ≤ .01). These results that employees had perceptions of organizational support to other employees whom they considered to be role models, but were 1) not friends, and 2) not advice contacts. Since both weak and strong role models were influential, these results indicate that even role models whom employees interacted with relatively infrequently were influential in terms of similarity in POS. Several unhypothesized significant relationships emerged in the non-reciprocated ties analysis as well. Interestingly, weak friendship ties between employees were negatively related to similarity in perceived organizational support among employees (ß = -.301, p ≤ .10), although this relationship was only marginally significant. This finding suggests that employees perceptions of support were dissimilar than those of friends whom they interacted with infrequently. Weak role model ties were also marginally significantly related to similarity in perceived organizational support (ß = .217, p ≤ .10), indicating that employees developed similar perceptions of support to those of employees they considered role models and interacted with infrequently. 80
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 and 86: Control Variables Table 9: Pearson
Page 87: Results of Hypotheses Tests using Q
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?