Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 Perceived Organizational Support PDF

    Uploaded by

    gashica
    24 views8 pages

    Original Title

    22_Perceived_Organizational_Support.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    24 views8 pages

    22 Perceived Organizational Support PDF

    Uploaded by

    gashica

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    (it yh mri Poi Ane Perceived Organizational Support Robert Eisenberger and Robin Huntington University of Delaware Steven Hutchison U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory, ‘Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland Debora Sowa University of Ilinois at Urbana-Champaign Evidences presented that a) employees in an organization form global beliefs concerning the extent ‘to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. (b) such per- ‘ceived organizational support reduces absenteism, and () the relation between perceived organiza tional support and absentecism is greater for employees with a strong exchange ideology than those with a weak exchange ideology. These findings support the social exchange view that employees’ ‘commitment to the organization is strongly influenced by their perception ofthe organization's ‘commitment to them. Perceived oganizational support is assumed to increas the employee's affec- tive atachment tothe organization and his or her expectancy that greater effort toward meeting ‘organizational goals wll be rewarded. The extent to which these factors increase work effort would ‘depend on the strength of the employee's exchange ideology favoring the trade of work effort for ‘material and symbolic benefits. ‘The word commitment is often used in everyday language to ‘denote the “sense of being bound emotionally or intellectually to some course of action” (American Heritage Dictionary, 1979), which may include a person's relationship with another individual, group, or organization. There has been an increas- ‘ng concern with factors that influence the stability and inten- sity of employee dedication to organizations as employers. The frequent allusion to employment as the trade of effort and loy- alty for material commodities or social rewards (e.g., Etzioni, 1961; Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965; March & Simon, 1958; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982) suggests the usefulness of de- veloping a detailed social exchange interpretation of organiza- tional commitment. The present research investigates pro- cesses involved in employees” inferences concerning the organi- zation’s commitment to them, and the contribution of such perceived organizational support to employees commitment to the organization. (One major view of organizational commitment emphasizes the economic costs of leaving a current employer (Becker, 1960; Farrell & Rosbult, 1981). For example, employees may believe ‘that specialized skills acquired in their present job have less ap- plication elsewhere and would therefore be less valued (Scholl, 1981) orthat frequent job changes may damage a person's repu- tation for stability or loyalty (Becker, 1960; Stew, 1981). The ‘We are indebted to the following individuals for thir suggestions and efforts on behalf ofthis project: Chaudene Baker Jane Bradshaw, Linda For, James Jones, D. Michael Kuhlman, Donna Manzo, John Ogilvie Liane Schaefer, Jeff Quinn, Jerry Seibert, Robin Sigman, and Georg- anne Walters. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rob- ert Eisenberger, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, ‘degree of involvement in organizational activities may similarly ‘depend on such economic benefits as anticipated promotions and pay raises (Etzioni, 1961; Gould, 1979; March & Simon, 1958). In contrast to these economic views of commitment, ‘others have stressed emotional ties to the organization (¢., Bu- chanan, 1974, 1975; Etzioni, 1961; Hrebiniak, 1974; Kelman, 1961; Levinson, 1965). The most detailed account to date of affective attachment tothe organization characterizes organiza tional commitment as an “employee's identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Identi- fication, in ths case, means the employee's sense of nity with the organization, Such affective attachment, as assessed by the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, has been found to influence productivity, absenteeism, and turnover (Meyer & Al- Jen, 1984; Mowday etal, 1982). The preceding economic and affective interpretations of or- g2nizational commitment may be integrated and extended into a social exchange approach that emphasizes employees’ beliefs concerning commitment to them by the organization. Beliefs in organizational support or malevolence may be fostered by employees’ anthropomorphic ascription of dispositional traits, to the organization. Levinson (1965) noted that employees tend to view actions by agents of the organization as actions of the organization itself. The personification of the organization, Lev- inson suggested, is abetted by the following factors (a) the orea- nization has a legal, moral, and financial responsibility for the actions ofits agents; (b) organizational precedents, traditions, policies, and norms provide continuity and prescribe role be- hhaviors; and (©) the organization, through its agents, exerts ower over individual employees. The personification of the or- ‘ganization was assumed to represent an employee’ distillation ‘of views concerning all the other members who control that in- . An employee who i treated badly bythe organization ‘should lower his or her work effort. 0 3. How hard an employee works should not be affected bby how wel the organization treats him or her. (R) 4 1. An employee's work effort should have nothing todo ‘hth the feimess of his or her py. (R) 6s The failure ofthe organization to appreciate an ‘employee's contribution should not affect how hard he orshe works (R) 30 Note. (R) indicates the item is reverse scored, PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 504 Tabled Correlations of Perceived Organizational Support With Absenteeism for Low, Middle, and High Exchange Ideologies (Private High School Teachers) (N= 71), Exchange leve! E Overall Absenteeism Low Middle High ___ correlation Periods =05 nase

    You might also like