APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2001, 50 (4), 615±634

Perceived Organisational Support as a Mediator of

the Relationship of Perceived Situational Factors to
Affective Organisational Commitment
Unnikammu Moideenkutty*
Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, USA

Gary Blau
Temple University, Philadelphia, USA

Ravi Kumar
Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India

Ahamedali Nalakath
SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (India) Limited, Bangalore, India

Cet article examine le roÃle que joue la perception du support organisationnel

en tant que meÂdiateur de la relation entre les facteurs situationnels et l'engage-
ment affectif; les facteurs situationnels consideÂreÂs eÂtaient: la justice proceÂdur-
ale, une distribution eÂquitable des taÃches, le degre de satisfaction concernant
les rapports avec le supeÂrieur et le plus ou moins favorable climat des relations
de travail. L'analyse des donneÂes, sur un eÂchantillon de 185 repreÂsentants de
produits pharmaceutiques, en Inde, indique pleinement que la perception du
support organisationnel est effecetivement un meÂdiateur entre chacune de ces
variables situationnelles et l'engagement affectif envers l'organisation.

This paper examines the role of perceived organisational support as a mediator

of the relationship between perceived situational factors and affective
organisational commitment. Perceived situational factors examined were:
procedural justice, distributive justice, communication satisfaction with super-
visor, and labor±management relationship climate. Analysis of data from a
sample of 185 pharmaceutical sales representatives from India indicated that
perceived organisational support fully mediates the relationship between each
of these perceived situational variables and affective commitment to the
organisation.

________________

* Address for correspondence: Dr Unnikammu Moideenkutty, Sultan Qaboos University,

P.O. Box 20, Postal Code 123, Al-Khod, Sultanate of Oman 515-850. Email: uunikammu.
moideen@squ.edu.om

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001. Published by Blackwell Publishers,

108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
616 MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

INTRODUCTION
Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) proposed that em-
ployees form global beliefs about the extent to which an organisation values
their contributions and cares about their well-being. They called this set of beliefs
Perceived Organisational Support (POS). POS can be viewed as a measure
of an organisation's commitment to its employees (Shore & Tetrick, 1991).
Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity
(Gouldner, 1960), Eisenberger et al. suggested that POS will be an antecedent
of organisational commitment. In other words, an employee's perception of
an organisation's commitment to him or her contributes to the employee's
subsequent commitment to the organisation (Shore & Tetrick, 1991).
Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-La Mastro (1990) suggested that employees
would consider positive discretionary activities by the organisation that ben-
efited them as evidence that the organisation cared about their well-being.
However, with few exceptions (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Wayne,
Shore, & Liden, 1997) very little research has attempted to identify the factors
that explain the development of POS. Moorman and colleagues found that
procedural justice was related to POS and that POS mediated the relationship
between procedural justice and organisational citizenship behavior. Wayne
and colleagues (1997) found that POS was explained by number of devel-
opmental experiences and promotions. They also found that POS mediated
the relationship between these variables and organisational citizenship
behavior and affective commitment. It appears then that, as suggested by
Eisenberger and colleagues (1990), POS may be vital for determining if any
attitudes or behaviors benefiting the organisation, like affective commitment
or citizenship behaviors, emerge from the employment relationship.
This study attempts to extend this line of research by identifying a set
of correlates of POS and examining the role of POS as a mediator of the
relationship between these correlates and affective organisational commit-
ment. The set of correlates identified were procedural justice, distributive
justice, communication satisfaction with supervisor, and cooperative labor±
management relationship climate. Prior research has not tested the medi-
ating role of POS in the relationship of distributive justice, communication
satisfaction with supervisor, and cooperative labor±management relationship
climate to affective organisational commitment. This study is also unique
with respect to its sample. The sample consists of pharmaceutical sales rep-
resentatives from India. The use of an Indian sample allows the examination
of the importance of POS in a different culture.

Correlates of POS
Moorman et al. (1998) argued that POS would be explained by factors that

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

 PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT 617

affect the evaluation of the discretionary actions taken by an organisation or

its agents. Organisational justice is one such factor. Organisational justice is
concerned with the description and explanation of the role of fairness in the
workplace (Greenberg, 1990). Two main sources of organisational justice
have been distinguished in the literature, procedural justice and distributive
justice (Greenberg, 1987, 1990). Procedural justice focuses on the process, the
fairness of the means used to achieve ends. Distributive justice focuses on the
content, the fairness of the ends achieved. Procedural justice has two aspects
(Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). One aspect refers to the fairness of organisational
procedures. The other aspect, sometimes called interactional justice (Bies &
Moag, 1986), focuses on employees' perceptions of the quality of interpersonal
treatment received during the enactment of organisational procedures.
Some researchers (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Moorman et al., 1998;
Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993) argue that procedural justice has both
instrumental and non-instrumental aspects. Instrumentally, fair procedures
are the means to fair distributive outcomes. On the other hand, fair
procedures imply respect for the rights of employees. They also convey an
organisation's concern for fair treatment of employees. Thus, procedural
justice should have a positive effect on POS. Using a sample of civilian
employees of a large military hospital, Moorman et al. (1998) found a
positive relationship between procedural justice and POS.
Empirical findings appear to indicate that procedural justice, especially
interactional justice, provides a better explanation for employee attitudes
and behavior than distributive justice (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky
& Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991). However, very little research has looked
directly at the relationship between distributive justice and POS. Distribu-
tive justice refers to the fairness of rewards received from the organisation in
relation to various performance inputs (Price & Mueller, 1986). Distributive
justice can therefore lead employees to make positive inferences regarding
the willingness of the organisation to reward extra effort to meet organis-
ational goals. Such inferences can lead to the perception that the organ-
isation values the contributions of employees. It is therefore reasonable to
expect a positive relationship between distributive justice and POS.
Apart from the quality of interpersonal treatment during the enactment of
organisational procedures (interactional justice) other aspects of the
supervisor±employee relationship can also affect POS. Eisenberger et al.
(1990) suggest that leader behavior that indicates concern for special needs
of individual employees will have a positive effect on POS. Thus, a positive
relationship can be expected between the quality of supervisor±employee
relationship and POS. A number of constructs have been proposed in the
literature to describe the nature of the supervisor±employee relationship.
These include: Leader±Member Exchange (LMX; Dienesch & Liden, 1986;
Liden & Graen, 1980), structure and consideration (Fleishman & Harris,

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

618 MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

1962), trust in supervisor (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Deluga, 1994), and
communication satisfaction with supervisor (Putti, Aryee, & Phua, 1990).
What is common among all these constructs is that they all attempt to
capture some aspect of the quality of the relationship between supervisors
and employees. A number of studies have found a positive relationship
between LMX and POS (Wayne et al., 1997; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden,
1996). There is little research regarding the other measures of supervisor±
employee relationship quality and POS. In this study, communication
satisfaction with supervisor (Putti et al., 1990) was used as the measure of
the quality of supervisor±employee relationship. Communication satisfac-
tion with supervisor refers to the extent to which information available
through the supervisor fulfills the individual's need for information
pertaining to task-role or for simply being informed about organisational
activities (Putti et al., 1990). Generalising from the findings regarding the
relationship between LMX and POS, it is reasonable to expect a positive
relationship between communication satisfaction with supervisor and POS.
In unionised settings, employee perceptions regarding the organisation
are likely to be affected by the quality of the labor±management relationship
climate (Angle & Perry, 1986). Labor±management relationship climate
refers to the relative amounts of cooperation that reside in the two parties'
orientation toward one another (Angle & Perry, 1986). Since unions
represent the interests of the employees, attempts on the part of manage-
ment to maintain cooperative relations with the union are likely to be seen
by employees as caring for their well-being. On the other hand, unionised
employees are less likely to have positive perceptions about the organisation
when labor±management relations are conflictual (Angle & Perry, 1986;
Fukami & Larson, 1984). Thus, a positive relationship can be expected
between cooperative labor±management relationship climate and POS.
In summary, the above review suggests that procedural justice, distribu-
tive justice, communication satisfaction with supervisor, and cooperative
labor±management relationship climate will have a positive relationship to
POS. Thus, it is hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 1a: Procedural justice will be positively related to POS.
Hypothesis 1b: Distributive justice will be positively related to POS.
Hypothesis 1c: Communication satisfaction with supervisor will be
positively related to POS.
Hypothesis 1d: Cooperative labor-management relationship climate will
be positively related to POS.

Mediating Effect of POS

Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) characterised organisational commit-
ment as (a) strong belief in, and acceptance of, organisational goals and

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

 PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT 619

values, (b) willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organ-

isation, and (c) strong desire to maintain membership in the organisation.
Recently, Meyer and Allen have proposed a three-component conceptual-
isation of organisational commitment consisting of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996; Meyer & Allen,
1991). Affective commitment reflects a desire to maintain employment in an
organisation. It refers to an employee's emotional attachment to, identi-
fication with, and involvement in the organisation. Continuance commit-
ment reflects a need to remain in the organisation and refers to an awareness
of the costs associated with leaving the organisation. Normative commit-
ment reflects a feeling of obligation to remain in the organisation. In this
case, employees stay in the organisation because they feel they ought to do so.
Organisational commitment as conceptualised by Mowday et al. is measured
with the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday et al.
1982). Dunham, Grube, and Casteneda (1994) have demonstrated that organ-
isational commitment measured with the OCQ provides the same infor-
mation as that of the affective commitment measure of Allen and Meyer
(1990). In this study, affective organisational commitment was measured
with affective commitment items from the Allen and Meyer (1990) scale.
Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest that affective commitment develops as the
result of experiences that satisfy employees' need to feel physically and
psychologically comfortable in the organisation. These experiences include
those that lead to a perception of support from the organisation. From a
social exchange perspective, it can be argued that employees who perceive a
high level of support from the organisation are more likely to feel an
emotional attachment to the organisation (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore &
Wayne, 1993). Thus, POS is likely to lead to reciprocation in the form of
organisational commitment from the employees.
Studies have shown that procedural justice (Folger & Konovsky, 1989),
communication satisfaction with supervisor (Putti et al., 1990), and co-
operative labor±management relationship climate (Angle & Perry, 1986) are
positively related to organisational commitment. Findings regarding the
relationship between distributive justice and affective commitment are more
equivocal. Folger and Konovsky (1989) examined the effects of both dis-
tributive and procedural justice on organisational commitment and con-
cluded that only perceptions about the procedures used in determining pay
raises made a unique contribution to organisational commitment. However,
the measure of distributive justice used by Folger and Konovsky (1989)
referred to the fairness of a recent pay hike. One reason why they did not
find a significant relationship between distributive justice and affective organ-
isational commitment may be that they used this narrow operationalisation
of distributive justice. Other studies have shown a positive relationship
between equity of overall reward distributions and affective organisational

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

620 MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

commitment (Ogilvie, 1986). When distributive justice is operationalised

more broadly (as was done in this study) as the fairness of overall rewards
received from the organisation in relation to various performance inputs, it
is more likely that distributive justice will have a unique positive impact on
affective organisational commitment. It has been argued that procedural
justice, distributive justice, communication satisfaction with supervisor, and
cooperative labor±management relationship climate will be positively related
to POS. Since POS leads to organisational commitment (Eisenberger et al.,
1986), one mechanism by which the above variables affect organisational
commitment may be through employees' perceptions that they are valued by
the organisation (POS). Thus the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 2a: POS will mediate the relationship of procedural justice to
affective organisational commitment.
Hypothesis 2b: POS will mediate the relationship of distributive justice to
affective organisational commitment.
Hypothesis 2c: POS will mediate the relationship of communication
satisfaction with supervisor to affective organisational commitment.
Hypothesis 2d: POS will mediate the relationship of cooperative labor±
management relationship climate to affective organisational commit-
ment.

METHODS
Sample
The sample for this study consisted of sales representatives from the Indian
subsidiary of a multinational pharmaceutical company. The data were col-
lected as part of a larger study of the sales representatives of the company.
The sales representatives were based in different parts of India and the
surveys were mailed to individual representatives from the Human Re-
sources department of the company. Surveys were mailed to all the sales
representatives of the company. The officials of the Human Resources
department assured us that all sales representatives were fluent in English
because English is the language of business in India. Therefore, the surveys
were in English. The respondents were told that the purpose of the survey
was to study the job related attitudes and behavior of sales representatives
and that it was being conducted with the approval of the management and
the union. Confidentiality was assured. Addressed and stamped envelopes
were provided for returning the completed surveys to one of the researchers
who was based in India.
Of the 385 surveys mailed, 185 were returned for a response rate of 48 per
cent. Of the 185 respondents, 94.5 per cent were males and 68.5 per cent
were married. Almost two-thirds of the respondents (63.6%) had worked

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

 PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT 621

for the company for at least five years. The age of 75.5 per cent of the
respondents was 35 or less. All respondents had a bachelor's degree and
12.6 per cent had graduate degrees. On average each respondent supported
3.4 people including him/herself. Demographics of the population were not
available for comparison with sample demographics. Discussion with
company officials indicated that employees in this group had at least
undergraduate degrees, were relatively young, and predominantly men.

Measures
Demographic Variables. The demographic variables measured were age,
tenure, marital status, education level, and number of individuals supported
by the respondent including him/herself. Age was measured by asking, ``In
which age category are you?'', with response categories: 1 = 21±25 years,
2 = 26±30 years, 3 = 31±35 years, 4 = 36±40 years, 5 = 41±50 years, and
6 = 51 years or above. Tenure in the organisation was measured by asking,
``How long have you worked in (name of the company)?'' with response
categories: 1 = Less than a year, 2 = One to two years, 3 = Two to three
years, 4 = Three to five years, 5 = Five to ten years, and 6 = Ten years or
more. Since age and tenure in the organisation were strongly correlated
(r = 0.83, P50.0001) only age was used in the analysis. Dummy variables
were used for marital status (with married = 0 and unmarried = 1) and
education level (with bachelor's degree = 0 and graduate or higher degree
= 1). The response format for number of individuals supported was from
1 = One to 10 = Ten or more.

Procedural Justice. Procedural justice was measured with seven items

from the scale reported in Moorman (1991) and Niehoff and Moorman
(1993). This scale contains items indicating judgments about decisions made
about the respondent's job in general by the manager or representatives
of the company. The items refer to both fair procedures in the workplace
(5 items, e.g. ``When decisions are made about your job in general, your
manager and/or representative of your company: Allow employees to
challenge or appeal decisions'') and the degree to which procedures are
applied fairly by organisational representatives (5 items, e.g. ``When
decisions are made about your job in general, your manager and/or
representative of your company: Treat you with respect and dignity'').
Reliabilities ranging from 0.85 to 0.98 have been reported for the full scale
(Moorman, 1991; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Three items measuring
fairness of procedures were dropped at the insistence of the company in
order to shorten the length of the survey. The reliability for this scale
was 0.87 in this study. The responses for this scale were ``never true'' (1) to
``always true'' (7).

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

622 MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

Distributive Justice. Distributive justice was measured with four items

from the Distributive Justice Index developed by Price and Mueller (1986).
This scale measures the degree to which rewards received by employees are
perceived to be related to performance inputs. Each item refers to the degree
to which each respondent believes he or she is rewarded fairly in relation to
his or her education, experience and so on (e.g. ``Please indicate the extent to
which you feel fairly rewarded by your organisation: Considering the
responsibilities that you have?''). Two items were dropped from the survey
at the insistence of the company. Moorman (1991) reports reliability of 0.94
for the full scale. In this study, the four-item scale had a reliability of 0.91.
The responses to this scale ranged from ``extremely unfair'' (1) to ``extremely
fair'' (7).

Communication Satisfaction with Supervisor. Communication satisfac-

tion with supervisor was measured with four items from the Organisation
Communication Relationship scale reported in Putti, Aryee, and Phua
(1990). This scale measures communication satisfaction with co-workers,
immediate supervisor, top management, and organisational influence. Only
four out of nine items measuring communication satisfaction with immediate
supervisor were used in this study (e.g. ``I can tell my immediate supervisor
when things are wrong''). Though six items with the highest factor loadings
were included in the draft survey, two items were dropped at the insistence
of the company. Putti et al. report reliability of 0.90 for the composite scale.
The reliability of the four-item scale used in this study was 0.91. Responses
ranged from ``disagree strongly'' (1) to ``agree strongly'' (7).

POS. POS was measured by three items with high factor loadings from
the short version of the scale developed by Eisenberger and colleagues
(1986). Only three items (e.g. ``The organisation really cares about my well-
being'') could be used to measure this construct due to the limitations on the
length of the survey. The short version of the original scale had 17 items.
Eisenberger et al. report reliability of 0.93 for this version of the scale. The
three-item scale used in this study had a reliability of 0.80. The responses for
this scale ranged from ``strongly disagree'' (1) to ``strongly agree'' (7).

Affective Organisational Commitment. Three items based on the affective

commitment scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990) were used to
measure affective organisational commitment. Items were selected on the
basis of factor loadings. One item (``I really feel as if this organisation's
problems are my own'') was taken directly from the Allen and Meyer (1990)
scale. The other two items (``I feel like `part of the family' at my
organisation'' and ``I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation''),
were worded negatively (reverse scored) in the original survey. Allen and

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

 PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT 623

Meyer (1990) reported reliability of 0.87 for their eight-item affective

commitment scale. In this study, the three-item scale had a reliability of
0.86. The response format for this scale was 1 = ``disagree strongly'' to
7 = ``agree strongly''.

Labor±Management Relationship Climate. Labor±management relation-

ship climate was measured with three items from the union form of the scale
developed by Angle and Perry (1986) including, ``The management is
reasonable in dealing with the union''. The original form had 23 items
regarding various aspects of the labor±management relationship. Angle and
Perry (1986) report reliability of 0.95 for their scale. Only three items were
used in the current study due to limitations of space. The items were selected
on the basis of factor loadings. In this study, the reliability obtained for this
scale was 0.78. The response format ranged from ``disagree strongly'' (1) to
``agree strongly'' (7).

Analysis
Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d stated that procedural justice, distributive
justice, communication satisfaction, and cooperative labor±management
relationship climate, respectively, would be positively related to POS. These
hypotheses were tested using regression analysis. POS was regressed on the
independent variables controlling for demographic variables. Hypotheses 2a
to 2d stated that POS would mediate the relationship between perceived
situational variables and affective organisational commitment. Mediation
was tested by the approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). This
approach consists of three steps: first the mediator is regressed on the inde-
pendent variable; second, the dependent variable is regressed on the inde-
pendent variable; finally, the dependent variable is regressed simultaneously
on both the independent variable and the mediator. Mediation is indicated
when the following conditions are met: the independent variable has a
significant effect on the mediator in the first regression; the independent
variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable in the second
regression; the mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable in
the third regression; finally the effect of the independent variable on the
dependent variable is less in the third regression than in the second
regression. This procedure was used to test hypotheses 2a±2d.

RESULTS
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations for all
variables used in the study. Table 2 shows the results of the regression
analysis that tested hypotheses 1a to 1d. Procedural justice, distributive

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

624
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

Variables N Means s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 184 2.76 1.37 NA

2. Marital status 185 0.31 0.47 70.70 NA
3. Education level 185 0.12 0.33 0.13 70.15* NA
4. Number of individuals 183 3.43 1.55 0.30** 70.28** 0.04 NA
supported by respondent
5. Procedural Justice 171 4.51 1.24 70.25** 0.30** 70.11 70.20** (0.87)
6. Distributive Justice 185 4.74 1.56 70.33** 0.34** 70.15* 70.10 0.55** (0.91)
7. Supervisory Communication 182 5.54 1.38 70.22** 0.28** 70.06 70.23** 0.65** 0.51** (0.91)
Satisfaction
8. Labor±Management 176 5.02 1.19 0.13 70.03 70.03 0.04 0.31** 0.33** 0.34** (0.78)
Relationship Climate
9. Perceived Organisational 185 5.08 1.27 70.26** 0.28** 70.13 70.16* 0.61** 0.68** 0.59** 0.43** (0.80)
Support
10. Affective Commitment 185 6.04 1.13 70.19* 0.23** 70.18* 70.16* 0.41** 0.43** 0.44** 0.27** 0.64** (0.86)

Notes: * P50.05. ** P50.01.

Reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.
NA: Not Applicable.
The response categories for age were: 1 = 21±25 years, 2 = 26±30 years, 3 = 31±35 years, 4 = 36±40 years, 5 = 41±50 years, and 6 = 51 years or more.
For Marital status: 1 = Not married, and 0 = Married.
For Educational level: 1 = Undergraduate degree, and 0 = Graduate or higher degree.
Means and standard deviations of Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, Supervisory Communication Satisfaction, Labor±Management Relationship
Climate, Perceived Organisational Support, and Affective Commitment have been transformed to a 7-point scale.
 PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT 625
TABLE 2
Results of Regression AnalysisöDependent Variable: Perceived
Organisational Support

Variables Standardised Betas

Intercept 0.0000
Age 70.0620
Marital status 70.0331
Education level 70.0078
Number of individuals supported by respondent 70.0148
Procedural Justice 0.1848*
Distributive Justice 0.4069**
Supervisory Communication Satisfaction 0.2106**
Labor±Management Relationship Climate 0.1438*
R squared 0.5811
Adj. R squared 0.5583
F 25.494**
df 8

* P50.05; ** P50.01.

justice, communication satisfaction with supervisor, and cooperative labor±

management relationship climate all have significant relationships to POS.
Thus, hypotheses 1a to 1d are fully supported.
Tables 3 to 6 show the results of mediated regression analyses. In all
cases, the independent variable has a significant positive relationship to the
mediator in the first equation. The independent variable also has a signifi-
cant positive relationship to the dependent variable in the second equation.
In the third equation, when the dependent variable is regressed on both the
independent variable and the mediator simultaneously, the effect of the
independent variable becomes non-significant in all cases, while the effect of
the mediator becomes significant. For instance in Table 3, procedural justice
(independent variable) has a significant positive relationship to POS (medi-
ator) in the first equation and a significant positive relationship to affective
commitment (dependent variable) in the second equation. In the third equation
in Table 3, when affective commitment (dependent variable) is regressed on
both procedural justice (independent variable) and POS (mediator) simul-
taneously, the effect of POS (mediator) is significant, while the effect of
procedural justice (independent variable) becomes non-significant, provid-
ing full support for the mediating effects of POS. Similar results are seen
in the case of the other independent variable-mediator-dependent variable
relationships in Tables 4±6. These results provide full support for hypoth-
eses 2a to 2d.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

626
TABLE 3

MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

Results of Mediated Regression AnalysisöIndependent Variable: Procedural Justice

Dependent Variable

(First equation) (Second equation) (Third equation)

Perceived Affective Commitment Affective Commitment
Organisational Support

Variables Standardised Betas Standardised Betas Standardised Betas

Intercept 0.0000** 0.0000** 0.0000**

Age 70.0833 70.0309 0.0161
Marital status 0.0059 0.0393 0.0360
Education level 70.0656 70.1219 70.0851
Number of individuals supported by respondent 0.066 70.0252 70.0289
Procedural Justice 0.5682** 0.3851** 0.0657
Perceived Organisational Support ± ± 0.5621**
R squared 0.3718 0.2025 0.4009
Adj. R squared 0.3523 0.1777 0.3785
F 19.060** 8.174** 17.846**
df 5 5 6

* P50.05; ** P50.01.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

TABLE 4
Results of Mediated Regression AnalysisöIndependent Variable: Distributive Justice

Dependent Variable

(First equation) (Second equation) (Third equation)

Perceived Affective Commitment Affective Commitment
Organisational Support

Variables Standardised Betas Standardised Betas Standardised Betas

PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT

Intercept 0.0000** 0.0000** 0.0000**
Age 70.0189 0.0220 0.0336
Marital status 0.0335 0.0766 0.0561
Education level 70.0150 70.0995 70.0903
Number of individuals supported by respondent 70.0811 70.0927 70.0434
Distributive Justice 0.6432** 0.4066** 70.0140
Perceived Organisational Support ± ± 0.6103**
R squared 0.4626 0.2295 0.4297
Adj. R squared 0.4473 0.2075 0.4100
F 30.134** 10.425** 21.847**
df 5 5 6

* P50.05; ** P50.01.

627
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

628
TABLE 5

MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

Results of Mediated Regression AnalysisöIndependent Variable: Communication Satisfaction with Supervisor

Dependent Variable

(First equation) (Second equation) (Third equation)

Perceived Affective Commitment Affective Commitment
Organisational Support

Variables Standardised Betas Standardised Betas Standardised Betas

Intercept 0.0000** 0.0000** 0.0000**

Age 70.1238 70.0265 0.0456
Marital status 70.0548 0.0788 0.0469
Education level 70.0453 70.0895 70.0631
Number of individuals supported by respondent 0.0258 70.0294 70.0444
Communication Satisfaction with Supervisor 0.5422** 0.4019** 0.0860
Perceived Organisational Support ± ± 0.5825**
R squared 0.3692 0.2184 0.4324
Adj. R squared 0.3508 0.1957 0.4125
F 21.130** 9.614** 21.715**
df 5 5 6

* P50.05; ** P50.01.
# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

TABLE 6
Results of Mediated Regression AnalysisöIndependent Variable: Labor^Management Relationship Climate

Dependent Variable

(First equation) (Second equation) (Third equation)

Perceived Affective Commitment Affective Commitment
Organisational Support

Variables Standardised Betas Standardised Betas Standardised Betas

PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT

Intercept 0.0000** 0.0000** 0.0000**
Age 70.2198** 70.0861 0.0559
Marital status 0.1229 0.1497 0.0658
Education level 70.0440 70.0594 70.0309
Number of individuals supported by respondent 70.0738 70.0944 70.0467
Labor±Management Relationship Climate 0.4509** 0.2870** 0.0042
Perceived Organisational Support ± ± 0.6459**
R squared 0.3109 0.1526 0.4401
Adj. R squared 0.2902 0.1271 0.4197
F 14.982** 5.979** 21.616**
df 5 5 6

* P50.05; ** P50.01.

629
630 MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to test an explanation of why organis-
ational justice, communication satisfaction with supervisor, and cooperative
labor±management relationship climate are related to organisational commit-
ment. It was examined if these variables impact commitment by influencing
the degree to which an employee perceives organisational support and if this
perception of support is positively linked to affective organisational commit-
ment. Results offer full support for this explanation. In the case of all the
independent variables tested, their relationship with affective organisational
commitment was fully mediated by POS.
These results are consistent with other work examining the mediating role
of POS in the relationship between situational factors and employee atti-
tudes and behaviors (Moorman et al., 1998; Wayne et al., 1997). Moorman
et al. found that POS mediated the relationship between procedural justice
and organisational citizenship behavior. Wayne et al. found that POS
mediated the relationship between developmental experiences and number
promotions on the one hand, and organisational citizenship behavior and
affective organisational commitment on the other. The present study contri-
buted to this line of research by testing the mediating role of POS in the case
of independent variables (distributive justice, communication satisfaction
with supervisor, and labor±management relationship climate) not examined
so far.
Wayne and colleagues (1997) suggest that leader±member exchange (LMX)
may play a key role in affecting employees' perceptions of organisational
support. Combining this suggestion with the results of the present study
indicates that POS may mediate the relationship between LMX and positive
employee behaviors and attitudes directed toward the organisation. A sig-
nificant contribution of this study was the use of a unique sample consisting
of Indian pharmaceutical sales representatives. At least two things about
India make the study important. First, India is one of the few countries in
which pharmaceutical sales representatives are unionised. This study has
shown that POS is related to organisational commitment in unionised
settings and that cooperative labor±management relationship climate is a
significant correlate of POS. Second, India has a moderately collectivistic
culture (Hofstede, 1984). In collectivistic cultures, organisations are expected
to protect the interests of their members (Hofstede, 1984). Though collectiv-
ism was not measured in this study, we can speculate that in collectivistic
cultures, POS will be an important work-related variable as this study indicates
for India. POS is likely to be even more important in more collectivistic
cultures like Japan and Mexico.
In this study, the strongest correlate of POS was distributive justice. This
may have been due to the nature of the sample. The sample consisted of

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

 PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT 631

pharmaceutical sales personnel who are paid partly on the basis of

commissions. This method of payment may make distributive justice issues
more salient for this sample. Another interesting finding is the significant
negative correlations between age and procedural justice, distributive justice,
communication satisfaction with supervisor, POS, and affective commit-
ment. These relationships become non-significant in the regression analysis,
except in the case of cooperative labor±management relationship climate. It
appears that employee attitudes become less positive as employees become
older. Perhaps, in this company, as employees become older, they perceive
limited opportunities for advancement leading to negative attitudes toward
the organisation.
While the study makes important contributions regarding the mediating
role of POS, it also has a number of limitations that suggest caution while
interpreting the results. The most important limitation has to do with the
effects of common method bias. All variables were measured from the same
source and it is possible that the results are contaminated by common
method bias. However, a principal components factor analysis with oblique
rotation of the items was supportive of a six-factor solution, with six factors
in general representing: procedural justice, distributive justice, communica-
tion satisfaction with supervisor, labor±management relationship climate,
POS, and affective commitment. Moreover, the zero-order correlations
between the variables, though high, are similar to those found in other
studies (Moorman et al., 1998; Wayne et al., 1997; Shore & Wayne, 1993;
Settoon et al., 1996; Folger & Konovsky, 1989). These findings provide
some confidence for the conclusion that the results obtained are due to
substantive relationships between the variables. Another limitation is the
cross-sectional nature of the study which makes it impossible to rule out
reverse causality or to test causal inferences. A third limitation of the study
is the use of shortened scales to measure the variables. This may raise
concerns about comparing the results of this study with those of others that
have used the full scales to measure the variables. As indicated earlier, the
scales were shortened at the insistence of the company in order to shorten
the survey and to reduce what the organisation considered to be redun-
dancies. The rule we followed in deleting items was to ensure that there were
at least three items for each scale. We chose to retain at least three items for
each scale rather than shorten some scales and retain more items to measure
our focal construct, POS. We did this in order to avoid stronger oper-
ationalisation of our focal construct relative to others, which could lead to
lack of procedural equivalence and therefore to unfair comparisons (Cooper
& Richardson, 1986). However, all scales had more than adequate reliability
and the relationships between the variables were consistent with theory.
Future research could address these limitations by measuring the inde-
pendent, mediating, and dependent variables at different points in time.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

632 MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

Further, full scales rather than shortened versions could be used in future
studies to avoid concerns about comparability of results.
POS appears to be a variable with important implications for employee
behavior and attitudes. Relatively little research attention has focused on
the antecedents of POS. Future research should identify other antecedents
of POS and the mediating role of POS in the relationship between these
antecedents and employee behavior and attitudes. Other possible ante-
cedents of POS include job characteristics and participation in decision
making. Apart from organisational citizenship behavior and affective
commitment, POS may have mediating impact on other outcome variables
like turnover, absenteeism, and in-role performance. Future research should
examine these possibilities. This study has shown that POS mediates the
relationship of procedural justice, distributive justice, communication
satisfaction with supervisor, and cooperative labor±management relation-
ship climate to affective organisational commitment. It would be interesting
to examine the mediating impact of POS on continuance and normative
organisational commitment.
This study has important practical implications. The results of this study
in combination with those of Moorman et al. (1998) and Wayne et al. (1997)
indicate that many organisational factors affect employee behaviors and
attitudes by enhancing the perceptions of support from the organisation.
This means that organisational characteristics like fairness, apart from being
the means to an end, also play a non-instrumental role of communicating to
employees that they are valued by the organisation (Moorman et al., 1998).
This should provide an added incentive for managers to pay greater
attention to these aspects of organisational governance.

REFERENCES
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occu-
pational Psychology, 63, 1±18.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commit-
ment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 49, 252±276.
Angle, H.L., & Perry, J.L. (1986). Dual commitment and labor±management rela-
tionship climates. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 31±50.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator±mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173±1182.
Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of
fairness. In R.J. Lewicki, B.M. Sheppard, & M.H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on
negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43±56). Greenwich CT: Jai Press.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

 PERCEIVED ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT 633
Cooper, W.S., & Richardson, A.J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 179±184.
Deluga, R.J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader±member exchange and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67, 315±326.
Dienesch, R.M., & Liden, R.L. (1986). Leader±member exchange model of leader-
ship: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11,
618±634.
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., & Castaneda, M.B. (1994). Organizational commitment:
The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370±380.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-La Mastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 51±59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500±507.
Fleishman, E.A., & Harris, E.F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to
employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 45±53.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice
on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115±130.
Fukami, C.V., & Larson, E.W. (1984). Commitment to company and union: Parallel
models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 367±371.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25,
161±178.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 9±22.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Journal of Management, 16, 399±432.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences. London: Sage Publications.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656±669.
Liden, R.L., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model
of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451±465.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organ-
izational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61±89.
Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organ-
izational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee
citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845±855.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.I., & Niehoff, B.P. (1998). Does perceived organiz-
ational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organiz-
ational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 331±357.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P., & Organ, D.W. (1993). Treating employees fairly
and organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employees Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 6, 209±225.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee±organization linkage:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic
Press.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.

634 MOIDEENKUTTY, BLAU, KUMAR, AND NALAKATH

Niehoff, B.P., & Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527±556.
Ogilvie, J.R. (1986). The role of human resource management practices in predicting
organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 11, 335±359.
Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement.
Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Putti, J.M., Aryee, S., & Phua, J. (1990). Communication relationship satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 44±52.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R.L. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader±member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219±227.
Shore, L.M., & Tetrick, L.E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637±643.
Shore, L., & Wayne, S. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison
of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organiz-
ational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774±780.
Skarlicki, D.P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 434±443.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., & Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 37, 765±802.
Wayne, S.J., & Green, S.A. (1993). The effects of leader±member exchange on
employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46,
1431±1440.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.L. (1997). Perceived organizational support
and leader±member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 10, 82±111.

# International Association for Applied Psychology, 2001.