Perceived Supervisor Support Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support
Perceived Supervisor Support:Contributions to Perceived Organizational
Support and Employee Retention
Robert Eisenberger
University of Delaware
Florence Stinglhamber and Christian Vandenberghe
Catholic University of Louvain
Ivan L.Sucharski and Linda Rhoades
University of Delaware
Three studies investigated the relationships among employees’perception of supervisor support (PSS),perceived organizational support (POS),and employee turnover.Study 1found,with 314employees drawn from a variety of organizations,that PSS was positively related to temporal change in POS,suggesting that PSS leads to POS.Study 2established,with 300retail sales employees,that the PSS–POS relationship increased with perceived supervisor status in the organization.Study 3found,with 493retail sales employees,evidence consistent with the view that POS completely mediated a negative relationship between PSS and employee turnover.These studies suggest that supervisors,to the extent that they are identified with the organization,contribute to POS and,ultimately,to job retention.
Organizational support theory (Eisenberger,Cummings,Armeli,&Lynch,1997;Eisenberger,Huntington,Hutchison,&Sowa,1986;Rhoades &Eisenberger,in press;Shore &Shore,1995)supposes that to meet socioemotional needs and to determine the organization’s readiness to reward increased work effort,employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (perceived organiza-tional support,or POS).Accordingly,employees showed a consistent pattern of agreement with various statements concerning the extent to which the organization appreciated their contributions and would treat them favorably or unfavorably in differing circumstances (Eisen-berger,Fasolo &Davis-LaMastro,1990;Eisenberger et al.,1986;Shore &Tetrick,1991;Shore &Wayne,1993).Employees evidently believe that the organization has a general positive or negative orien-tation toward them that encompasses both recognition of their con-tributions and concern for their welfare.
Just as employees form global perceptions concerning their valuation by the organization,they develop general views concern-ing the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being (perceived supervisor support,or PSS;Kottke &Sharafinski,1988).Because supervisors act as agents of the organization,who have responsibility for directing and evalu-ating subordinates’performance,employees would view their su-
pervisor’s favorable or unfavorable orientation toward them as indicative of the organization’s support (Eisenberger et al.,1986;Levinson,1965).Additionally,employees understand that super-visors’evaluations of subordinates are often conveyed to upper management and influence upper management’s views,further contributing to employees’association of supervisor support with POS.Although over a dozen studies have reported positive rela-tionships of POS with PSS (e.g.,Hutchison,1977a,1997b;Kottke &Sharafinski,1988;Malatesta,1995;Rhoades,Eisenberger,&Armeli,2001;Yoon,Han,&Seo,1996;Yoon &Lim,1999;Yoon &Thye,2000)and related measures (e.g.,Allen,1995;Hutchison,Valentino,&Kirkner,1998),little attention has been given to assessing the direction of causality between POS and PSS,the mechanisms responsible for this association,or the behavioral consequences of the POS–PSS relationship.
Temporal Relationships Between PSS and POS
On the basis of organizational support theory,findings of a positive relationship between PSS and POS have usually been interpreted to indicate that PSS leads to POS (e.g.,Hutchison,1997a;Malatesta,1995;Rhoades et al.,2001;Yoon et al.,1996;Yoon &Lim,1999).Yoon and Thye (2000)suggested that cau-sality might also occur in the reverse direction,with POS increas-ing PSS:employees’perception that the organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being might lead them to believe that supervisors,as agents of the organization,are favor-ably inclined toward them.A relationship between the initial value of one variable and changes in a second variable over time pro-vides stronger causal evidence than is afforded by the simulta-neous measurement of the two variables (Finkel,1995).We there-fore used a panel design to examine the relationship of PSS to temporal change in POS and the relationship of POS to temporal change in PSS.
Robert Eisenberger,Ivan L.Sucharski,and Linda Rhoades,Department of Psychology,University of Delaware;Florence Stinglhamber and Chris-tian Vandenberghe,Department of Psychology,Catholic University of Louvain,Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium.
Linda Rhoades is now at The Working Data Group,Wayne,Pennsylvania.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert Eisenberger,Department of Psychology,University of Delaware,Newark,Delaware 19716.E-mail:eisenber@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/aa7872178.html,
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002by the American Psychological Association,Inc.
2002,Vol.87,No.3,565–5730021-9010/02/$5.00DOI:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.565
565
Hypothesis1:PSS is positively related to temporal change in POS.
Supervisor’s Perceived Organizational Status as a Moderator of the Relationship Between PSS and POS Because supervisors act as organizational agents in their treat-ment of subordinates,PSS should contribute to POS(Levinson, 1965).The strength of this relationship would depend on the degree to which employees identify the supervisor with the orga-nization.Supervisors who appear to be highly valued and well treated by the organization would be highly identified with the organization’s basic character and would therefore strongly influ-ence POS.Of course,an employee may attribute a supervisor’s high perceived status to the organization’s misperception of the supervisor’s character.But,on average,supervisors who appear to be highly regarded by the organization would be assumed by workers to strongly embody the organization’s character. Employees’perception of the status accorded their supervisor by the organization,and therefore the employees’belief that su-pervisor support also represents organizational support,would increase with employees’perceptions concerning(a)the organi-zation’s positive valuation of the supervisor’s contributions and its concern about the supervisor’s well-being,(b)the supervisor’s influence in important organizational decisions,and(c)the auton-omy and authority accorded the supervisor in his or her job responsibilities.The supervisor’s informal organizational status,as conveyed by these features of the organization’s favorable treat-ment of supervisors,should moderate the relationship between PSS and POS.
Hypothesis2:The relationship between PSS and POS is positively related to the supervisor’s perceived status within the organization. POS as a Mediator of the Relationship Between PSS and
Employee Turnover
Insufficient consideration has been given as to why PSS and POS have both been found to be related to employee withdrawal behaviors.According to organizational support theory,PSS should decrease voluntary employee turnover by increasing POS.The POS resulting from PSS would strengthen employees’felt obliga-tion to help the organization reach its goals and increase affective organizational commitment,with a resultant reduction in turnover and other withdrawal behaviors(Eisenberger,Armeli,Rexwinkel, Lynch,&Rhoades,2001;Eisenberger et al.,1986;Rhoades et al., 2001;Shore&Shore,1995).
Malatesta(1995)maintained that based on the reciprocity norm, PSS should increase obligations to the supervisor and to the organization.Malatesta found evidence for both relationships:PSS increased extra-role performance beneficial to supervisors,and PSS increased POS,which,in turn,led to greater extra-role per-formance beneficial to the organization.Concerning voluntary employee turnover,Malatesta(p.23)suggested that when PSS was low,employees would believe that they could deal with the un-pleasant situation by switching to a new supervisor or,we would add,minimizing contact with the supervisor while continuing to carry out usual job responsibilities.However,by reducing POS, low PSS would have general unfavorable implications for the employees’future.Thus,in Malatesta’s view,POS would entirely mediate a negative PSS–turnover relationship.However,Malatesta did not test the mediating effect of POS on the possible association between PSS and turnover.
Hypothesis3:POS mediates a negative relationship between PSS and voluntary employee turnover.
Study1:Temporal Relationship Between PSS and POS Organizational support theory assumes that PSS leads to POS. Because prior studies assessed PSS and POS simultaneously,ev-idence is unavailable concerning causal direction.We therefore measured PSS and POS at two points in time3months apart.We used structural equation modeling to assess Hypothesis1,holding that initial PSS would be related to a temporal change in POS.We also examined the relationship between POS and temporal change in PSS.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The final sample consisted of314alumni of a Belgium university who graduated between1997and1998.To obtain a diverse sample of job types and organizations,names and addresses of a random sample of578alumni were obtained from university records.We sent prospective participants a questionnaire packet containing a cover letter,the survey,and a postage-paid return envelope.The cover letter explained to the alumni that the purpose of the study was to examine the opinions of the University’s graduates about their work environment,informed them that they would receive the questionnaire a second time3months later,stressed the importance of responding to both questionnaires,and provided assurances of confidentiality.Two weeks later,we mailed follow-up letters to non-compliant individuals stressing the value of the survey and the importance of their participation.Three months after we received a completed ques-tionnaire from any participant,we sent that participant the second version of the questionnaire.If the follow-up questionnaire was not returned within2weeks,we sent a letter encouraging participants to complete and return the questionnaire.
Fifty-four percent of the initial sample returned questionnaires at Time1 and then again at Time2.This final sample of employees had an average age of30.8years(SD?4.1)and had been employed by their organization an average of4.1years(SD?3.4)before receipt of the first questionnaire. Seventy-one percent of participants were male.Overall,20%of the re-spondents were working in heavy and chemical industry,13%in public administration,11%in computer science,11%in banking and insurance, 9%in consulting,8%in research,7%in law,7%in transportation and communication,5%in construction,3%in media and advertising,2%in public health,2%in environmental agencies,and2%in commerce.A total of35%of the respondents worked in large organizations(more than1,000 employees),35%in midsize organizations(100–1,000employees),and 30%in small organizations(less than100employees).
Measures
Because participants had graduated from a French-speaking university, all survey measures were first translated from English into French and then independently back-translated into English by a second translator,follow-ing the procedure recommended by Brislin(1980).The few discrepancies between the original English version and the back-translated version re-sulted in adjustment in the French translation based on direct discussion between the translators.
Control variable.Because we used employees drawn from a variety of organizations,we controlled statistically for organizational size.We also
566EISENBERGER ET AL.
controlled for employee tenure.This information was obtained from the first questionnaire.
Perceived organizational support.Studies surveying many occupa-tions and organizations provided evidence for the high internal consistency and unidimensionality of the survey generally used to assess POS (Survey of Perceived Organizational Support,or SPOS;Eisenberger et al.,1986,1990;Shore &Tetrick,1991;Shore &Wayne,1993).The scale has been found to be related to,but distinguishable from,measures of similar beliefs and attitudes (e.g.,Aquino &Griffeth,1999;Cropanzano,Howes,Grandey,&Toth,1997;Eisenberger et al.,1990;Randall,Cropanzano,Bormann,&Birjulin,1999;Rhoades et al.,2001;Settoon,Bennett,&Liden,1996;Shore &Tetrick,1991;Vandenberghe &Peiro,1999;Wayne,Shore,&Liden,1997).To assess employees ’perception that the organi-zation valued their contribution and cared about their well-being,we selected three high-loading items from the SPOS (Items 1,4,and 9;Eisenberger et al.,1986)with factor loadings,respectively,of .71,.74,and .83.For this and the PSS measure,respondents rated their agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1?strongly disagree ;5?strongly agree ).
Perceived supervisor support.To assess employees ’perception that their supervisor valued their contribution and cared about their well-being,we adapted the SPOS in the same manner as Kottke and Sharafinski (1988),Hutchison (1997a,1997b),Rhoades et al.(2001),and others,replacing the word organization with the term supervisor .We adapted three items from the SPOS (Items 10,27,and 35;Eisenberger et al.,1986)on the basis of their high loadings (respectively,.72,.76,and .80).
Results and Discussion
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Means,standard deviations,internal reliabilities,and intercor-relations among variables at Times 1and 2are displayed in Table 1.As predicted,PSS at Time 1was positively related to POS at Time 2.
Temporal Relationships Between PSS and POS
To assess the temporal relationships between PSS and POS,we estimated a two-wave panel model with PSS and POS measured at both Time 1and Time 2(see Figure 1).We used the latent variable structural equation modeling approach of LISREL 8(Jo ¨reskog &So ¨rbom,1993).Paths connected the antecedent variables (Time 1PSS,Time 1POS,tenure,and organizational size)with Time 2PSS and Time 2POS.As recommended by Finkel (1995,p.29),Time 2latent variable variances were allowed to covary.Addi-tionally,we allowed for autocorrelated error variances by freeing
the error covariances of identical terms administered at both Time 1and Time 2(Finkel,1995,p.61).
Evidence consistent with an effect of PSS on POS would be provided by a statistically significant path between Time 1PSS and Time 2POS.Because this path controlled for Time 1POS,such an effect would be interpretable as a relationship between PSS and temporal change in POS (Finkel,1995,p.27).We also examined the relationship between Time 1POS and Time 2PSS,which,controlling for Time 1PSS,would provide evidence con-cerning the influence of POS on PSS.
Figure 1gives the estimated path model with standardized regression coefficients.For ease of presentation,we show the structural model rather than the full measurement model,and we describe the effects of the two control variables (tenure and orga-nizational size)in the text rather than the figure.Tenure was not significantly related either to Time 2PSS (??.05)or Time 2POS (??.01).Similarly,organizational size was not significantly related to Time 2PSS (??.01)or Time 2POS (???.04).As predicted,controlling for employees ’tenure and organizational size,PSS was positively related to the temporal change in POS.In contrast,POS was not associated with the temporal change in PSS.The overall model showed adequate fit to the data:root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)?.04;comparative fit index (CFI)?.98;goodness-of-fit index (GFI)?.96;adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI)?.93;?2(63)?91.8,p ?.01.In sum,consistent with Hypothesis 1that PSS leads to POS,PSS was found to be positively related to the temporal change in POS.In contrast,the relationship between initial POS and the temporal change in PSS was not statistically significant.
Study 2:Moderating Effect of Perceived Supervisor
Status on the PSS –POS Relationship
Those supervisors believed to be most favored by the organiza-tion would be perceived by employees as most strongly embody-ing the organization ’s basic character.Thus,support received from supervisors who appear highly favored by the organization should have the greatest impact on POS.Study 2examined the moderat-ing effect of the supervisor ’s perceived status in the organization on the PSS –POS relationship.The supervisor ’s informal organi-zational status,as perceived by employees,was assessed by em-ployees ’judgments of (a)the organization ’s positive valuation of the supervisor and care about the supervisor ’s welfare,(b)the supervisor ’s influence over important organizational decisions,
Table 1
Study 1:Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variable
M SD 1234561.Tenure
4.08 3.34—
.05?.13*?.10?.12*?https://www.wendangku.net/doc/aa7872178.html,anizational size
———
.10.09?.11?.103.Perceived supervisor support at Time 1 3.37.87(.81)
.74***.47***.47***4.Perceived supervisor support at Time 2 3.34.92(.82)
.37***.55***5.Perceived organizational support at Time 1 2.85.77(.74)
.65***6.
Perceived organizational support at Time 2
2.85
.74
(.75)
Note.N ?314.Internal reliabilities (coefficient alphas)are given in parentheses on the diagonal.*p ?.05.***p ?.001.
567
PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR SUPPORT
and (c)the authority and autonomy allotted supervisors to carry out their job responsibilities.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The final sample consisted of 300employees who worked for a chain of large discount electronics and appliance stores located in the northeastern United States.These employees comprised 98%of the 313employees who received questionnaires and returned them completed during their regularly scheduled working hours in the organization ’s cafeterias.To encourage candidness,we gave employees verbal and written assurances that their individual responses would be kept confidential and that only group data would be reported to the organization.Surveys were distributed and col-lected by the researchers in sealed envelopes.We attribute the extraordi-narily high return rate in this and the following study to the survey ’s administration during paid working hours and to the favorable long-term professional relationship between the investigators and the employees.Employees trusted that their individual identities would be kept confiden-tial,that their views would be accurately represented,and that they would have access to the same information given to management.
Of the final sample,27%were hourly paid sales-support employees,45%were hourly paid salespeople,21%were salaried sales-support em-ployees,and 7%were salaried salespeople.These employees had an average age of 34.3years (SD ?11.9)and had been employed by their organization an average of 4.6years (SD ?4.2)before receipt of the questionnaire.Twenty-seven percent of respondents were women.
Measures
Tenure.We controlled statistically for employee tenure in the organi-zation.The number of months that each employee had worked for the organization before the questionnaire administration was obtained from company records.
Perceived organizational support.We selected eight high-loading items (Items 4,8,9,13,20,22,23,and 25;loadings from .66to .84)from the SPOS to assess POS (Eisenberger et al.,1986).For this and the following measures,respondents indicated their agreement with each item using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1?strongly disagree ,7?strongly agree ).
Perceived supervisor support.We measured PSS with the same 8items used to assess POS,as modified by replacing the word organization with supervisor .
Supervisor’s organizational status.We developed a 12-item scale,given in Table 2,to assess employees ’perceptions of their supervisor ’s organizational status.Four items examined the organization ’s valuation of the supervisor and care about his or her well-being.Four items examined the supervisor ’s contributions to important organizational decisions.And the final four items considered the supervisor ’s authority and autonomy in carrying out job responsibilities.
Results and Discussion
Dimensionality of the Supervisor’s Perceived Organizational Status
We carried out a principal-components analysis to determine whether the 12supervisor ’s organizational status items comprised a unitary dimension or multiple dimensions.The results suggested a single factor,as indicated by a strong loading on the first factor,accounting for 47.4%of the total variance,a related break in the scree plot,and eigenvalues far less than 1.0for the remaining presumptive factors.The resultant single-factor scale had an ac-ceptable internal consistency (Cronbach ’s alpha of .89).As shown
Table 2
Study 2:Factor Analysis of Supervisor’s Perceived Organizational Status Items
Item no.Statement
Factor loading
Item category a
1.The organization holds my supervisor in high regard.
.81VAL 2.The organization gives my supervisor the chance to make important decisions..80INF 3.The organization values my supervisor ’s contributions.
.79VAL 4.The organization gives my supervisor the authority to try new things..78AUT 5.The organization supports decisions made by my supervisor.
.76AUT 6.My supervisor participates in decisions that affect the entire organization..72INF 7.My supervisor influences decisions made by upper management.
.69INF 8.The organization allows my supervisor to run things the way he wants.
.64AUT 9.The organization consults my supervisor when deciding on new policies and procedures..61INF 10.The organization gives my supervisor the freedom to determine how to treat me..57AUT 11.If my supervisor decided to quit,the organization would try to persuade him to stay..54VAL 12.
Even if my supervisor did well,the organization would fail to notice.
.45
VAL
a
VAL designates the organization ’s high valuation and positive regard for supervisor.INF designates supervisor ’s influence in important organizational decisions.AUT designates supervisor ’s authority and autonomy in carrying out job
responsibilities.
Figure 1.Structural equation model of the relationship between per-ceived supervisor support (PSS)and perceived organizational support (POS)over time.(Study 1).***p ?.001.
568
EISENBERGER ET AL.
in Table2,principal-components loadings for the items ranged from.45to.86,with a mean loading of.68.The factor loadings of the three types of items(organization’s positive valuation of su-pervisor;supervisor’s influence over important organizational de-cisions;and authority and autonomy afforded supervisors)over-lapped in magnitude.Because each item loaded highly on the single factor,all items were used to compute the total perceived organizational status score.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Means,standard deviations,internal reliabilities,and intercor-relations among variables are displayed in Table3.Of greatest interest,PSS was positively related to POS.
Moderating Effect of Supervisor’s Perceived Organizational Status
We used standard hierarchical regression analysis to assess the moderating effect of the supervisor’s perceived organizational status on the PSS–POS relationship(see Table4).To reduce the potential collinearity between the interaction term and its compo-nent variables,we followed Aiken and West’s(1991)recommen-dation to center the independent variables(PSS and supervisor’s perceived organizational status)involved in the presumptive inter-action.Tenure was entered in the first step as a predictor of POS; PSS and supervisor’s organizational status were added in the second step;and the product term(i.e.,PSS?Supervisor’s Or-ganizational Status)was entered in the third step to assess the interaction between these two variables.As shown in Table4, controlling for tenure,PSS and supervisor’s perceived organiza-tional status were reliably related to POS.Of more direct interest, the interaction between PSS and supervisor’s organizational status was statistically significant.
To examine this interaction in more detail,regression lines representing the relationship between PSS and POS were plotted, as shown in Figure2,at high and low levels of supervisor’s perceived organizational status(i.e.,1SD above and below the mean;cf.Aiken&West,1991;Cohen&Cohen,1983).Simple effects tests(Aiken&West,1991)indicated reliable positive relationships between PSS and POS at both one standard deviation above,t(295)?7.56,p?.001,and one standard deviation below, t(295)?6.66,p?.001,the mean supervisor’s organizational status score.Consistent with Hypothesis2,the slope of the rela-tionship between PSS and POS was greater when supervisors had high perceived organizational status than when they had low status,t(295)?2.76,p?.01.
The strength of the relationship between PSS and POS depended on employees’perception concerning their supervisors’organiza-tional status.PSS was positively related to POS at both high and low organizational status,but the effect was stronger when the supervisor was highly favored by the organization.These findings suggest that supervisors with high perceived organizational status are taken by subordinates to more completely embody the organi-zation’s basic character,leading to a stronger relationship between PSS and POS.
Study3:POS as a Mediator of the PSS–Employee
Turnover Relationship
Both PSS and POS have been found to be related to employee withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover.Accord-ing to organizational support theory,POS should mediate a neg-ative relationship between PSS and employee turnover(Hypothe-sis3).Therefore,using sales employees,we examined the relationships among PSS,POS,and turnover.
Method
The final sample consisted of493employees who worked for the same organization investigated in Study2.A total of532employees were administered the questionnaire under the same conditions as in the second study;306of these employees were those surveyed in Study2plus an additional226employees who received the same PSS and POS scales given the employees in Study2but who did not receive the scale items used in Study2to assess the supervisor’s organizational status.Five hundred twenty-one employees(98%)returned completed questionnaires. We used the entire available sample to maximize statistical power for assessing the relationships among PSS,POS,and turnover.Because we were interested in voluntary employee turnover,we excluded from the analysis28of the respondents who were laid off during the6months after the survey.
Twenty-nine percent of the final sample were hourly paid sales–support employees,44%were hourly paid salespeople,20%were salaried sales–support employees,and7%were salaried salespeople.The average tenure of these employees was60months(SD?49months).Seventy-two percent were men.We obtained voluntary employee turnover data from organiza-tional records6months after the survey administration.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Means,standard deviations,internal reliabilities,and intercor-relations among variables are displayed in Table5.Thirteen per-cent of the employees voluntarily left the organization during the6
Table3
Study2:Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variable M SD1234
1.Tenure55.5050.09—.04.18**.21***
2.Perceived supervisor support 4.41 1.21(.88).47***.60***
3.Supervisor’s perceived organizational status 3.90 1.15(.89).69***
4.Perceived organizational support 3.54 1.33(.88) Note.N?300.Internal reliabilities(coefficient alphas)are given in parentheses on the diagonal.
**p?.01.***p?.001.569
PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR SUPPORT
months after the questionnaire administration.As predicted,PSS was positively related to POS and negatively related to turnover.This pattern of correlations satisfies Kenny,Kashy,and Bolger ’s (1998,p.260)first two conditions required to provide evidence consistent with mediation,stating that the exogenous variable (PSS)should be related to both the mediator (POS)and the outcome variable (turnover).
Mediating Role of POS
Because turnover was a binary variable,we used hierarchical logistic regression to provide evidence consistent with a mediating role of POS in the PSS –turnover relationship.As shown in Ta-ble 6,we entered tenure in the first step as a control variable,PSS in the second step,and,finally,POS in the third step.Because we used logistic regression,statistical significance was assessed with the Wald statistic,which approximates a Z 2distribution.The third mediation requirement of Kenny et al.(1998),that POS should be associated with turnover while controlling for PSS,was met (see Step 3in Table 6).Fulfilment of the fourth and final mediation requirement,that the relationship between PSS and turnover be reduced when POS is entered into the model,is suggested by the nonsignificant relationship between PSS and turnover in the final regression step.More precisely,using the Kenny et al.formula (p.260),we found that the drop in the relationship of PSS with POS from Step 2to Step 3was statistically significant,b ?.32,SE ?.08,Z ?3.94,p ?.001.The presumptive mediation effect was complete,with only a negligible relationship between PSS and turnover remaining after controlling for POS.
The findings were consistent with POS ’s mediation of a nega-tive relationship between PSS and voluntary employee turnover.This result follows from organizational support theory,holding that PSS leads to POS,which in turn,reduces turnover by strength-ening felt obligation toward the organization and affective orga-nizational commitment.
General Discussion
The present findings provide a greater understanding of the relationship between PSS and POS,including evidence concerning the causal direction,the mechanism underlying employees ’gen-eralization of PSS to POS,and POS ’s role in the association
between PSS and employee turnover.Employees appear to infer POS from PSS based on their perception of their supervisors ’status in the organization,leading to reduced turnover.With due regard to the limitations of correlational research for assessing causality,the findings are consistent with PSS ’s role in POS ’s development,as maintained by organizational support theory.Consistent with the view that PSS leads to POS,we found that PSS was positively related to the temporal change in POS.The results supplement prior findings involving the simultaneous as-sessment of PSS and POS that left the association ’s direction indeterminate.Such a finding of a positive cross-lagged relation-ship would occur if the interval between the assessments of PSS at Time 1and POS at Time 2were long enough for PSS to influence POS but not so long that the effect would have substantially decayed (Maruyama,1998,pp.115–117).
Table 4
Study 2:Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Perceived Organizational Support
Regression steps
B SE B ??R 2Step 1.04**Tenure .01.00.21***
Step 2.54***
Tenure
.00.00.10**Perceived supervisor support .39.05.36***Supervisor ’s organizational status .58.05.50***
Step 3.01**
Tenure
.00.00.09*Perceived supervisor support (PSS).44.05.40***Supervisor ’s organizational status
.57.05.49***PSS ?Supervisor ’s Organizational Status
.09
.03
.11**
Note.Final model:F (4,295)?106.55,p ?.001;total R 2?.59.*p ?.05.**p ?.01.***p ?
.001.
Figure 2.The relationship between perceived supervisor support (PSS)and perceived organizational support (POS)as a function of the supervi-sor ’s perceived organizational status (Study 2).High status is indicated by the top,bold line,and low status is indicated by the bottom line.High and low supervisor ’s perceived organizational statuses are,respectively,1SD above and 1SD below the mean.
570
EISENBERGER ET AL.
Although the relationship between PSS and temporal change in POS provides stronger evidence of causality than does simulta-neous measurement of PSS and POS,the observed association could still be due to variables other than those for which we controlled(Finkel,1995).The finding of a positive relationship between PSS and change in POS is nevertheless consistent with organizational support theory,according to which supervisors,as representatives of the organization,contribute to POS.Our use of individual scale items as indicators of PSS and POS at both times had the benefit of taking into account autocorrelated error vari-ances between successive measurements of the same latent vari-ables over time(Maruyama,1998,pp.111–112).Future research might include more distinctive indicators of PSS and of POS to better assess measurement error(Farkas&Tetrick,1989).
The failure to find a cross-lagged relationship between POS and temporal change in PSS is less definitive.We cannot assume that the duration required for PSS to influence POS is the same as that required for POS to influence PSS(Maruyama,1998,p.116).One might argue that the relationship should be bidirectional.To the extent that employees believe that supervisors are influenced by the organization’s views,support for employees by the organiza-tion should increase PSS(cf.Yoon&Thye,2000).The present research examined changes of POS and PSS over a3-month interval,which may have been too short to observe a relationship between POS and change in PSS.Future research might assess the possibility of such a longer-term relationship by examining PSS and POS several times,using the same3-month interval between successive measurements as in our study.POS could then be related to changes in PSS over3months,6months,or longer.
Study2found that the relationship between PSS and POS was greater for employees who perceived their supervisors to have high informal status within the https://www.wendangku.net/doc/aa7872178.html,anizations generally have a high regard for members who are reputed to embody favored characteristics.Therefore,perceived high standing of a supervisor within the organization would generally be seen by employees as indicating the supervisor’s exemplification of the organization’s character.Perceived high supervisor status was found to involve beliefs concerning the organization’s positive valuation of the supervisor’s contributions and its concern about the supervisor’s well-being;the supervisor’s influence in impor-tant organizational decisions;and the autonomy and authority accorded the supervisor in his or her job responsibilities.
From the viewpoint of organizational support theory,the indi-vidual employee’s attribution of informal status to the supervisor, whether accurately reflecting the beliefs of others in the organiza-tion or not,should moderate the relationship between PSS and POS.Employee perceptions of supervisor status would be based on personal observation of upper management’s treatment of su-pervisors as well as the communicated views of upper manage-ment,supervisors,and fellow employees.Future research might examine the relative contributions of these sources of belief con-cerning informal supervisor status.
PSS may also contribute to perceived supervisor status.Being viewed favorably by a supervisor who plays an important role in the organization may enhance fulfillment of socioemotional needs and increase expectations of future favorable treatment from the organization.Therefore,employees who believe that their super-visor values their contributions may be motivated to view the
Table5
Study3:Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variable M SD1234
1.Tenure60.2248.83—.00.21***?.21***
2.Perceived supervisor support 4.34 1.24(.90).58***?.11*
3.Perceived organizational support 3.38 1.31(.87)?.24***
4.Turnover.13.34—Note.N?493.Internal reliabilities(coefficient alphas)are given in parentheses on the diagonal.For turnover, stayers were coded as0and voluntary leavers as1.
*p?.05.***p?.001.
Table6
Study3:Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Turnover on Perceived Supervisor Support and Perceived Organizational Support
Regression steps B SE B Wald Step1
Tenure?.02.0020.18*** Step2
Tenure?.02.0020.69*** Perceived supervisor support?.27.11 6.59* Step3
Tenure?.02.0116.31*** Perceived supervisor support.00.120.01 Perceived organizational support?.53.1316.18*** Note.Wald coefficient is Z2.
*p?.05.***p?.001.571
PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR SUPPORT
supervisor as having an important organizational role.However,it should be noted that the relationship between PSS and perceived supervisor status was moderate,indicating that some employees were reporting high supervisor support even when supervisors were not perceived to have high status.Perceived supervisor status,whatever its sources,enhanced the relationship between PSS and POS.Support from a supervisor who is perceived to strongly embody the organizational ethos is more likely to be taken as organizational support than is support from a supervisor whom, the employee believes,less well represents the organization. Study3found evidence consistent with POS’s mediation of a negative PSS–voluntary turnover relationship.Employees who believed that the supervisor valued their contributions and cared about their well-being showed increased POS,which in turn was related to decreased turnover.This finding is consistent with organizational support theory,which holds that beneficial treatment received from supervisors should increase POS,lead-ing to felt obligation to aid the organization and to affective organizational commitment,both of which should reduce turn-over(Eisenberger et al.,2001;Rhoades et al.,2001).The presumptive mediation effect was complete in that PSS did not have a statistically significant relationship with turnover be-yond the mediational role played by POS.Employees with low POS may believe that their prospective success in the organi-zation is greatly limited.Thus,a reduction of POS,resulting from low PSS or other sources,may increase employees’like-lihood of quitting the organization.
In all three studies,PSS was higher on average than POS. Because supervisors have greater daily contact with most employ-ees than do upper level managers,they may be able to more readily convey positive valuations and caring.To foster personal loyalty, many supervisors may exaggerate their positive valuation of their subordinates and their own role in obtaining benefits for subordi-nates,resulting in greater PSS than POS.Future research might examine how supervisor self-presentational behaviors influence PSS and POS.
Study1of the temporal relationships between PSS and POS involved Belgian university graduates,whereas Studies2and3, concerning the moderating effect of perceived supervisor organi-zational status on the PSS–POS relationship and the mediating influence of POS on the PSS–turnover association,involved U.S. retail sales employees.The confirmation of organizational support theory’s predictions with samples of differing nationality and job type adds to the generality of the findings.Future studies might assess organization-level and national-level differences in PSS–POS relationships.For example,because small organizations usu-ally have fewer levels of hierarchy than large organizations,em-ployees in small organizations might generally identify their supervisors more with the organization’s basic character than those in large organizations,resulting in stronger PSS–POS relation-ships.Also,in some collectivistic nations,employees may prefer to view themselves as part of a highly integrated hierarchy of organizational authority(termed vertical collectivism by Triandis &Gelfand,1998).Such identification could increase employees’perception that supervisors embody the organization’s character, resulting in a greater PSS–POS relationship than in individualistic cultures.
References
Aiken,L.S.,&West,S.G.(1991).Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage.
Allen,M.W.(1995).Communication concepts related to perceived orga-nizational support.Western Journal of Communication,59,326–346. Aquino,K.,&Griffeth,R.W.(1999).An exploration of the antecedents and consequences of perceived organizational support:A longitudinal study.Unpublished manuscript,University of Delaware,Newark. Brislin,R.W.(1980).Translation and content analysis of oral and written material.In H.C.Triandis&J.W.Berry(Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology(pp.398–444).Boston:Allyn&Bacon. Cohen,J.,&Cohen,P.(1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. Cropanzano,R.,Howes,J.C.,Grandey,A.A.,&Toth,P.(1997).The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes,and stress.Journal of Organizational Behavior,22,159–180. Eisenberger,R.,Armeli,S.,Rexwinkel,B.,Lynch,P.D.,&Rhoades,L. (2001).Reciprocation of perceived organizational support.Journal of Applied Psychology,86,42–51.
Eisenberger,R.,Cummings,J.,Armeli,S.,&Lynch,P.(1997).Perceived organizational support,discretionary treatment,and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,82,812–820.
Eisenberger,R.,Fasolo,P.,&Davis-LaMastro,V.(1990).Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,commitment,and inno-vation.Journal of Applied Psychology,75,51–59.
Eisenberger,R.,Huntington,R.,Hutchison,S.,&Sowa,D.(1986).Per-ceived organizational support.Journal of Applied Psychology,71,500–507.
Farkas,A.J.,&Tetrick,L.E.(1989).A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions.Journal of Applied Psychology,74,855–868.
Finkel,S.E.(1995).Causal analysis with panel data.Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Hutchison,S.(1997a).A path model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,12,159–174. Hutchison,S.(1997b).Perceived organizational support:Further evidence of construct https://www.wendangku.net/doc/aa7872178.html,cational and Psychological Measurement,57, 1025–1034.
Hutchison,S.,Valentino,K.E.,&Kirkner,S.L.(1998)What works for the gander does not work as well for the goose:The effects of leader behavior.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,28,171–182.
Jo¨reskog,K.G.,&So¨rbom,D.(1993).LISREL8:Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language.Chicago:Scientific Software International.
Kenny,D.A.,Kashy,D.A.,&Bolger,N.(1998).Data analysis in social psychology.In D.T.Gilbert,S.Fiske,&G.Lindzey(Eds.),The handbook of social psychology(pp.233–265).New York:McGraw-Hill. Kottke,J.L.,&Sharafinski,C.E.(1988).Measuring perceived supervi-sory and organizational https://www.wendangku.net/doc/aa7872178.html,cational and Psychological Mea-surement,48,1075–1079.
Levinson,H.(1965).Reciprocation:The relationship between man and organization.Administrative Science Quarterly,9,370–390. Malatesta,R.M.(1995).Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment using a social exchange framework.Un-published doctoral dissertation,Wayne State University,Detroit,MI. Maruyama,G.M.(1998).Basics of structural equation modeling.Thou-sand Oaks,CA:Sage.
Randall,M.L.,Cropanzano,R.,Bormann,C.A.,&Birjulin,A.(1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes,job performance,and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,20,159–174.
Rhoades,L.,&Eisenberger,R.(in press).Perceived organizational sup-port:A review of the literature.Journal of Applied Psychology. Rhoades,L.,Eisenberger,R.,&Armeli,S.(2001).Affective commitment
572EISENBERGER ET AL.
to the organization:The contribution of perceived organizational sup-port.Journal of Applied Psychology,86,825–836.
Settoon,R.P.,Bennett,N.,&Liden,R.C.(1996).Social exchange in organizations:Perceived organizational support,leader-member ex-change,and employee reciprocity.Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 219–227.
Shore,L.M.,&Shore,T.H.(1995).Perceived organizational support and organizational justice.In R.S.Cropanzano&K.M.Kacmar(Eds.), Organizational politics,justice,and support:Managing the social cli-mate of the workplace(pp.149–164).Westport,CT:Quorum. Shore,L.M.,&Tetrick,L.E.(1991).A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational support.Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy,76,637–643.
Shore,L.M.,&Wayne,S.J.(1993).Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support.Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 774–780.
Triandis,H.C.,&Gelfand,M.J.(1998).Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism.Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology,74,118–128.Vandenberghe,C.,&Peiro,J.M.(1999).Organizational and individual values:Their main and combined effects on work attitudes and percep-tions.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,4, 569–581.
Wayne,S.J.,Shore,L.M.,&Liden,R.C.(1997).Perceived organiza-tional support and leader-member exchange:A social exchange perspec-tive.Academy of Management Journal,40,82–111.
Yoon,J.,Han,N-C.,&Seo,Y-J.(1996).Sense of control among hospital employees:An assessment of choice process,empowerment,and buff-ering hypotheses.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,26,686–716. Yoon,J.,&Lim,J.C.(1999).Organizational support in the workplace: The case of Korean hospital employees.Human Relations,52,923–945. Yoon,J.,&Thye,S.(2000).Supervisor support in the work place: Legitimacy and positive affectivity.Journal of Social Psychology,140, 295–316.
Received February27,2001
Revision received October18,2001
Accepted October24,2001Ⅲ
573
PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR SUPPORT