a social influence analysis of perceived organizational support

More documents

Recommendations

Info

find support for this hypotheses. Rather, she found that similarity or dissimilarity in perceptions resulted from the specific psychological contract term evaluated, regardless of whether or not that term was competitive or not. Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed that organizational actions that are non-reciprocated towards individual employees may be more strongly associated with POS than support provided to all employees in the organization. He explained that this could occur because individual support, such as promotions or pay raises etc., may be a stronger signal to an individual that their contributions are valued and that they are cared for by the organization. At the same time, not receiving such individual rewards may lead to lower levels of support. When friends compete over such rewards, and one wins and one loses, it seems logical that their perceptions of support would become dissimilar. On the other hand, friends may associate (and thereby have POS that is more similar) when the organization provides beneficial treatment for all employees in the organization, or when the organization provides favorable treatment to an employees’ friends. A third possible explanation for the absence of findings for hypotheses regarding strong friendship ties is that the measure of friendship ties was inadequate. This is discussed further in the limitations section of this chapter. As was expected, employees generally did not have similar perceptions of organizational support to those of employees with whom they maintained weak ties, with the exception of weak role model ties. Weak role model ties – role models whom employees interacted with infrequently and did not consider friends or advice-providers, were significantly related to similarity in POS among employees. A possible explanation for this finding is that the behaviors of these role models were observed by other employees who admired them. Based on watching the way role models behaved, employees could have inferred their perceptions, consistent with 85
social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Gibson (2003) defines role models such as this who influence other employees with low or no levels of interaction as “distant” role models. Non-Reciprocated Ties Analysis While a number of different network ties were related to similarity in POS among employees in the reciprocated ties analysis, fewer such relationships emerged in the non- reciprocated ties analysis. Overall, ties characterized by frequent contact between employees were not nearly as influential when reciprocity was not a requirement for tie strength. Only strong friend-advice-role model ties were significantly related to similarity in POS. This suggests that one-way ties were not as influential as reciprocal ties, unless a strong tie with a role model who was acknowledged as both a friend and a source of advice was considered. Strong advice-role model ties, friend-role model ties, role model ties, friend-advice ties, and friend- advice ties were all positively related to similarity in POS, but these relationships were not significant. Interestingly, strong friendship ties were negatively (albeit not significantly) related to similarity in POS. Among weak ties in this model, weak friendship ties and weak role model ties were marginally significantly related to similarity in POS (p ≤ .10). With respect to the results for weak friendship ties and similarity in POS, there were a very small number of weak friendship ties present in non-reciprocated ties analysis (n = 19). This small sample size could explain this result. The results for weak role model ties can be interpreted using the same explanation as in the reciprocated ties analysis, because the way that weak role model ties were operationalized did not differ across analysis. Reciprocal and Non-Reciprocated Ties Analysis 86
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 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: elationship may not have been consi
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?