Eisenberger Et Al (1997)

7/27/2019 Eisenberger Et Al (1997)

1/9

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.1997, Vol. 82, No. 5, 812 -82 0 0021-9010/97/ 3,00

Perceived Organizational Sup port Discretionary Treatmentand Job SatisfactionRobert Eisenberger, Jim Cummings, Stephen Armeli, and Patrick LynchUniversity of DelawareA diverse sample of 295 employees drawn from a variety of organizations was surveyedto investigate (a) whether the relationship between the favorableness of job conditionsand perceived organizational support (POS) depends on employeeperceptions concerningthe organization's freedom of action and (b) whether POS and overall job satisfactionare distinct constructs. The favorableness of high-discretion ob conditions was found tobe much more closely associated with POS than was the favorableness of low-discretionjob conditions. No such relationship was found between ob conditions and satisfaction.To decide how much the organizationvalues their contributions and well-being, employeesdistinguish job conditions whose favorableness the organization readily controls versusjob conditions whose favorableness is constrained by limits on the organization'sdiscretion.

Organizational theorists and researchers have fre-quently alluded to employment as the trade of effor t andloyalty for such impersonal benefits as pay and fringebenefits and such socioemotional benefits as esteem andapproval (e.g., Angle Perry, 1983; Etzioni, 1961;Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965; March Simon, 1958;Mowday, Porter, Steers, 1982). Social exchange theory,developed to explain the initiation, strengthening, and con-tinued maintenance of interpersonal relationships, pro-vides a possible conceptual basis for understanding rela-tionships between individuals and their work organization.Central to social exchange theory is the norm of reciproc-ity, which obligates people to respond positively to favor-able treatment received from others (Blau, 1964; Gould-ner, 1960).Employees' view of employment as a reciprocal-exchange relationship may be encouraged by the anthro-pomorphic attribution of benevolent or malevolent intentto the organization (Levinson, 1965). Such personifica-tion of the employer, suggested Levinson, is abetted byits legal, moral, and financial responsibility for the actionsof its agents; by organizational policies, norms, and cul-ture that provide continuity and prescribe role behaviors;and by the power that the organization exerts over individ-ual employees. Thus, employees would view many actions

Robert Eisenberger, Jim Cummings, Stephen Armeli, and Pat-rick Lynch, Department of Psychology,Universityof Delaware.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressedto Robert Eisenberger, Department of Psychology,University ofDelaware, Newark, Delaware 19716. Electronic mail may besent via Internet to [email protected].

by agents of the organization as representing the organiza-tion itself.

The norm of reciprocity requires employees to respondpositively to favorable treatment from one's employer.Consistent with this view, Rousseau (1989, 1990) foundthat many employees believed that they and their workorganization had reciprocal obligations that exceeded for-mal responsibilities by both parties. Rousseau character-ized this psychological contract as an implicit understand-ing by employees that they and their employer will con-sider each other's needs and desires when taking actionsthat affect the other. Continued reciprocation of resourcesbeyond those required by formal agreements wouldstrengthen the psychological contract; in contrast, the em-ployer's failure to fulfill the terms of the psychologicalcontract would reduce employees' inclination to workbeyond their explicit job responsibilities (RobinsonMorrison, 1995; Rousseau Parks, 1993).

Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986)suggested that employees form a general perception con-cerning the degree to which the organization values theircontributions and cares about their well-being. High per-ceived organizational support (POS) would (a) meetneeds for approval, esteem, and social identity and (b)produce the expectation that superior conventional perfor-mance and extrarole behavior, carried out for the organiza-tion, will be recognized and rewarded. On the basis ofthe norm of reciprocity, POS would strengthen affectivecommitment to the organization and increase efforts madeon its behal f (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore Shore,1995 ). By comparison, repeated indications that the orga-nization places little value on one's contributions and

8 1 2


2/9

RESEARCH REPORTS 81 3w e l l -b e in g w o u l d r e d u c e P O S a n d l e s se n t h e e m p l o y e e ' sperce ived ob l iga t ions to the employer . Here , employeeswo u ld decrease the i r a f fec t ive o rgan iza t iona l c omm itmen tand les sen the i r per fo rmance o f s t andard job ac t iv it i es andex t ra ro le behav io rs . Employees wou ld fu r ther decreaseo rgan iza t iona l invo lvemen t by be ing absen t more o f tena n d w o u l d b e m o re l i k e ly t o s e a r c h fo r e m p l o y m e n t e l s e -where o r to t ake ear ly re t i remen t .

Cons i s ten t wi th the v iew tha t em ployees fo rm a genera lbe l i e f regard ing the o rgan iza t ion ' s com mitmen t to them,employees showed a cons i s ten t pa t t e rn o f ag reemen t wi tha var ie ty o f s t a temen ts concern ing whether the o rgan iza-t ion apprec ia ted the i r con t r ibu t ions and wou ld t rea t themfavorab ly o r un favorab ly in d i f fe r ing c i rcums tances (Ei -senberger e t a l. , 19 86) . Exp lo ra to ry and conf i rmato ry fac-to r ana lyses ind ica te tha t POS can be empi r ica l ly d i s t in -gu i shed f rom af fec t ive o rgan iza t iona l co mm itmen t (Ei -senberger, Fasolo , Da vis-L aM astro , 1990; Set toon,Benn et t , Liden, 1996; Sho re Tetrick, 1991 ) , ef fo rt -reward expec tanc ies (Eisenberger e t a l . , 1990) , con t inu -ance comm itmen t (Shore Tetr ick , 1991) , and lea de r-me mbe r exchange (Se t to on e t a l. , 1996 ; Wayn e , Shore ,Liden , 1997) . PO S wa s pos i tive ly re la ted to a var ie ty o fwork-re la ted ou tcom es , inc lud ing a f fec t ive o rgan iza t iona lcom mitmen t (Eisenberger e t al ., 1990 ; Guzzo , Noonan ,Elron, 1994; Set to on et al ., 1996; Shore Tetrick, 1991 ) ,e f fo r t - r e w a rd e x p e c t a n c i e s (E i s e n b e rg e r e t a l . , 1 9 9 0 ) ,eva lua t ive and ob jec t ive measures o f in - ro le job per fo r -man ce (E isenberger e t a l. , 1990 , 1 986) , he lp g iven co -workers (Shore W ayne , 1993; W ayne e t a l. , 1997 ; Wi t t ,1991 ) , con s t ruc t ive sugges t ions fo r improv ing the opera-t ions o f the o rgan iza t ion (Eisenb erger e t a l. , 1990) , andin f luence tac t i cs des igned by em ployees to make superv i -so rs aware o f the i r ded ica t ion and accompl i shmen ts(Sho re Wayn e , 1993) . PO S was nega t ive ly re la ted toabsen tee i sm (E isenberger e t a l. , 1990 , 1 986) and tu rnoverin ten tion (Gu zzo , Noonan , El ron , 1994; W ayne e t a l. ,1997) . In add i t ion , PO S mode ra ted nu rses ' nega t ive a f fec tresu lt if fg f rom c on tac t s wi th AID S pa t ien t s (Ge orge ,Reed , Bal la rd , Co l in , F ie ld ing , 1993) .

Less ev idence has been ga thered concern ing an teced-e n t s o f P O S . G u z z o e t a l . ( 1 9 9 4 ) fo u n d a m o n g m a n a ge r sho ld ing overseas as s ignmen ts tha t the su f f ic iency o f f i -nanc ia l inducemen ts , fami ly -o r ien ted ac t ions , and o therfavorab le job co nd i t ions was pos i t ive ly re la ted to POS .Also pos i t ive ly assoc ia ted wi th POS were deve lopmen ta lt ra in ing exper iences , p rom ot ions , and o rgan iza t iona l t en -u re (W ayne e t a l ., 1997) and p rocedura l ju s t i ce in per fo r -mance appra i sa l dec i s ions (Faso lo , 1995) . In con t ras twi th these s tud ies, the p resen t research was n o t concernedwi th iden t i fy ing spec i f i c job cond i t ions tha t con t r ibu tem o s t t o P O S . W e i n v e s t ig a t e d h o w e m p l o y e e b e l i e f s c o n -ceming the o rgan iza t ion ' s mot iva t ion fo r t rea t ing them

favorab ly o r un favorab ly migh t mo dera te the re la t ionsh ipb e t w e e n j o b -c o n d i t io n f a v o ra b le n e s s a n d P O S .

Socia l exchange theor i s t s have a rgued tha t the rece ip to f resources f rom ano ther person i s va lued more h igh lyi f though t to be d i scre t ionary ra ther than d ic ta ted by c i r -cums tance s l a rge ly bey ond the dono r ' s con t ro l . Such vo l -un tary a id wou ld be welcomed as an ind ica t ion tha t thedonor genu ine ly va lues and respec t s the rec ip ien t (e .g . ,Bla u, 1964; Cotte rell, Eisenberger, Speicher, 1992; Ei-senberger, Cotterel l , Ma rvel , 1987; Gouldner, 196 0).Accord ing ly , rec ip ien t s re tu rned g rea te r benef i t s and ex -p ressed g rea te r l ik ing fo r the donor i f a id was made toappear vo lun tary ra ther than requ i red by the exper imen ter(Go ranson Berkow i tz , 1966 ; Gross La tane , 1974 ;Kiesler, 1966; Nem eth, 19 70). Similarly , em ploy ees ma ybe a t t en t ive to whether o r no t var ious aspec t s o f the i rt rea tmen t by the o rgan iza t ion resu l t f rom d i scre t ionarydec i s ions o r f rom ex terna l cons t ra in t s . K oys ( 1991 ) foundtha t the s t reng th o f em ployee be l i e fs tha t the o rgan iza-t ion ' s personnel po l ic ies w ere enac ted to t rea t them fa i r lyand jus t ly was pos i t ive ly re la ted to a f fec t ive comm itmen tto the organizat ion. In contrast , bel iefs that such pol icieswere requ i red by l ega l regu la t ions were no t re la ted toaf fec t ive o rgan iza t iona l comm itmen t .

Accord ing to soc ia l exchange theory , the favorab lenesso f jo b cond i t ions shou ld con t l ibu te to POS more subs tan -t i a l ly i f be l i eved to be the resu l t o f vo lun tary ac t ion bythe organizat ion, thereby reflect ing the organizat ion 's val-ua t ion o f the emp loyee (c f . Ei senberger e t a l ., 1986 ;Shore Shore , 1995) . In con t ras t , th e favorab leness o fjob con d i t ions over wh ich em ployees be l i eve the o rgan iza-t ion has low con t ro l shou ld exer t l i tt l e in f luence on PO S.Em p l o y e e v i e w s c o n c e rn in g w h i c h j o b c o n d i ti o n s a r e t h eresu l t o f d i scre t ionary ac t ions by the o rgan iza t ion shou ldvary sys temat ica l ly across o rgan iza t ions . The employer ' sf reedo m to de te rmine pay , t ra in ing , p romot ions , w orkschedu le , t ask var ie ty , s tres s and p ressu re , and so on canbe in f luenced by a var ie ty o f fac to rs . Cons t ra in t s mayinclude the financial we ll-being of the organizat ion, con-t rac tua l ob l iga t ions concern ing pay and work ru les , gov-ernmen t hea l th and safe ty regu la tions , t echno log ies re -qu i red fo r the p roduct o r se rv ice supp l ied by the em-p loyee , e f f i c ienc ies requ i red by c ompet i t ion , s up p ly anddemand fo r jobs , and soc ie ta l no rms tha t def ine s tandardsfo r the t rea tmen t o f employees . We su rveyed a d iverses a m p l e o f e m p l o y e e s d r a w n f ro m a v a r i e t y o f o rg an i z a-t ions to t es t the hypo thes i s tha t the favorab leness o f jobcond i t ions, over wh ich the o rgan iza t ion i s be l i eved to haveh igh d i scre t ionary con t ro l , i s more s t rong ly re la ted to POSthan the favorab leness o f job cond i t ions over wh ich theorganizat ion has l i t t le d iscret ionary control .

A s e c o n d p u rp o se o f o u r s t u d y w a s t o p ro v i d e e m p i r ic a lev idence fo r the d i s t inc t ion be tween POS and overa l l jobsa t i sfac t ion . The hypo thes ized co n t r ibu t ion o f the o rgan i -


3/9

81 4 RESEARCH REPORTSz a t i o n ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i o n s t o P O S m a y h e l p d i s t in g u i s hP O S f r o m o v e r a l l j o b s a t is f a c ti o n . B e l i e f s a b o u t t h e o r g a -n i z a t i o n ' s d i s c r e t i o n a r y c o n t r o l o v e r j o b c o n d i t i o n s s h o u l de x e r t l e s s in f l u en c e o n j o b s a t i sf a c t io n t h a n o n P O S . O v e r -a l l j o b s a t is f a c t io n w o u l d b e i n f lu e n c e d b y t h e f a v o r a b l e -n e s s o f j o b c o n d i t i o n s , l a r g e l y i n d e p e n d e n t o f w h e t h e rt h o s e c o n d i t io n s r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e e m p l o y e r ' s f r e e c h o ic e .F a v o r a b l e j o b c o n d i t io n s s h o u l d i n c r e a s e o v e r a l l j o b s a ri s -f a c t i o n e v e n w h e n t h e y r e s u l t f r o m a c t i o n s d i c t a t e d b yo u t s i d e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . F o r e x a m p l e , a p a y r a i s e d u e t oa n i n c r ea s e i n th e g o v e r n m e n t - m a n d a t e d m i n i m u m w a g ew o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n . S i m i l a rl y ,t h e in s t it u t io n o f u n f a v o r a b l e j o b c o n d i t io n s w o u l d r e d u c eo v e r a l l j o b s a t i sf a c t io n e v e n i f e m p l o y e e s d i d n o t a s s i g nr e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . B y i l l u s t r a ti o n , t h e f a i l -u r e t o r e c e i v e a n e x p e c t e d p a y r a is e , i f u n d e r s to o d t or e s u l t f r o m t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s f i n a n c i a l d if f i c u lt i e s , s h o u l dr e d u c e j o b s a t is f a c ti o n w i t h o u t h a v i n g m u c h e f f e c t o nP O S . W e t e s t e d t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e -t w e e n f a v o r a b l e n e s s o f j o b c o n d i t io n s a n d o v e r a l l j o b s a t-i s f a c ti o n w o u l d b e l e s s i n f lu e n c e d b y e m p l o y e e b e l ie f sc o n c e r n i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s c o n t r o l th a n w o u l d b e t h er e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e f a v o r a b l e n e s s o f j o b c o n d i t i o n sa n d P O S .

S h o r e a n d T e t r i c k ( 1 9 9 1 ) n o t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a lc o n c e p t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n P O S a n d o v e r a l l j o b s a ti s -f a c t io n . P O S w a s c o n c e i v e d a s a d e s c r i p t iv e b e l i e f a b o u tt h e o r g a n i z a ti o n , w h e r e a s j o b s a t i s f a c ti o n w a s c o n s i d e r e da n a f f e c t i v e - l a d e n a t t it u d e . F u r t h e r m o r e , o v e r a l l j o b s a t i s -f a c t i o n w a s a r g u e d t o b e m o r e s u b j e c t t o r e c e n t c h a n g e si n j o b c o n d i t i o n s t h a n w a s P O S , w h i c h w a s a s s u m e d t od e p e n d o n a c c u m u l a t e d e x p e r i e n c e . D e s p i t e t h e s e th e o r e t -i c a l d i s t i n c t io n s b e t w e e n P O S a n d o v e r a l l j o b s a t i s f a c t io n ,a c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s is c a r r i e d o u t b y S h o r e a n dT e t r i c k f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e a c l e a r e m p i r i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o no f th e t w o c o n s t r u c t s . B e c a u s e S h o r e a n d T e t ri c k s a m p l e de m p l o y e e s i n a s i n g le o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e v a r i a b i li t y o f P O Sa n d o v e r a l l j o b s a t is f a c ti o n a m o n g e m p l o y e e s m a y h a v eb e e n l i m i t e d . W e c a r r i e d o u t a c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y -s is o f t h e r e l a t io n s h i p b e t w e e n P O S a n d o v e r a l l j o b s a ti s -f a c ti o n , u s i n g a d i v e rs e s a m p l e o f o r g a n i z a t io n s t o h e l pe n s u r e h i g h d e g r e e s o f v a r i a t io n i n P O S a n d o v e r a l l j o bsa t i s f ac t i on .

M e t h o dDesign

E mpl oyees o f va r i ous wo r k o r gan i za ti ons wer e su r veyed con-cemin g POS, overal l job sati s faction, favorablene ss of job con-di tions, and the orga nizat ion 's di scret ionary cont rol ove r jobcondit ions . Par t ic ipants ra ted the. favorablen ess of 18 job condi -t ions . They were a l so asked to select 6 job condi t ions that theorganizat ion cont rol led most , 6 condi t ions cont rol led intermedi -ately, and 6 condit ions con trolled least. The relat ion ship betw een

favorablene ss of job condit ions and POS w as exam ined for thejob condit ions ident if ied b y each em ployee as being cont rol ledby the organizat ion to a high degree, intermediate degree, andlow deg ree. S imi lar ly, the assoc iat ion between the favorab lenessof job condit ions and overal l job sat i s fact ion was com pared forcondit ions ident if ied by ea ch em ployee as being und er high,intermediate, and low em ploye r control. Also, conf i rm atory fac-tor analys i s assessed whether POS and overal l job sat i s fact ionwere bet ter represented by a s ingle common const ruct or bytw o related-but-distinct constructs.Sample and Procedure

To obtain a diverse samp le of job types and organ izat ions ,names and phone num ber s o f a r andom sam pl e o f 485 a l umni ,whose ages ranged between 25 and 60, of the Univers i ty ofDelaware were obtained f rom univers i ty records . Prospect ivepar t ic ipants were contacted by phone and asked whether theywould be wi l l ing to par t ic ipate in a larger s tudy examiningwork, heal th, and dai ly l iving. Emplo yees who agreed to par t ic i -pate were m ai led a quest ionnaire packet containing a consentform, the survey, a postage-paid re turn envelope, and an a lumnisticker as an incentive for completing the survey. FollowingDi l lm an's (19 78) suggest ion for max imizing re turn ra tes , wemai led fol low-up le t ters to no ncom pl iant par t ic ipants a t 7 days ,3 weeks , and 6 weeks af ter the ini t ia l mai l ing to remind themthat thei r par tic ipat ion was impor tant . The thi rd fo l low-up le t terincluded a dupl icate copy o f the survey.

Of t he empl oyees con t ac ted by phone , 447 ( 92 ) ag r eed t opar t ic ipate , and, amo ng this group, 295 (70 ) re turned com -pleted quest ionnaires. The a verage age of the f inal sam ple was41.5 years SD = 1 5.0) , of wh om 58 were female . Overall ,37 of the respondents worke d in pr ivate business , 28 workedin educational insti tutions, 18 wo rked in other pub lic secto rjobs , 10 worked in hospita ls , and 6 worke d in other pr ivatenon profi t inst itut ions. Forty -eigh t perce nt of the respondentswer e empl oyed i n l a r ge o r gan iza t ions ( m or e t han 700 em pl oy-ees ) , 18 wor ked i n mi ds i zed o r gan i zat ions ( 20 0- 7 00 em pl oy-ees) , and 34 worke d in smal l organizat ions ( fewer than 200employees) . The average organizat ional tenure was 9.4 yearsSD = 9.1) .Measures

POS. Because of the high internal re l iabi l i ty repor ted forthe Survey o f Perceived O rganizat ional Suppor t (Eisenb erger e ta l ., 1990, 1986 ) , we selected 8 of the 36 i tems that had beenfound to load highly on the main factor and that seemed appl ica-ble to a wide ar ray o f organizat ions (see F igure 1 ) . Respondentsindicated the extent of their agreem ent wi th each i tem on a 7-point L iker t - type scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly dis-agree). In the scale ' s source publ icat ion (Eisenberger e t a l . ,1986) , a pr incipal -compon ents analys i s conducted on responsesf rom 361 respondents in nine organizat ions revealed a s inglefactor account ing for 48 of the tota l var iance. The Cronba ch'salpha found for thi s scale in our s tudy was .90.Favorableness of job conditions. For assess ing the favor-ableness o f job con dit ions, 18 job condit ions were selec ted forthei r diversi ty and re levance to a var ie ty of job types (see Table


4/9

RESEARCH REPORTS 815I T E M S

I M y o r g a n i z a t i o n c a r e s a b o u t m y o p i n i o n s .

2 M y o r g a n i za t i on r e a ll y c a re s a b o u t m y w e l l -b e i n g .

3 ) M y o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r o n g l y c o n s i d e r s m y g o a l s a n d v a l u e s .4 ) H e l p i s a v a i l a b l e f r o m m y o r g a n i z a t i o n w h e n I h a v e ap r o b l e m .

) l ~ y o r i g an i z e t i e n w o u l d f o r g i v e a n h o n e s t m i s t a k e o n m ypa r t ~6 ) I f g l v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i ty , m y o r g a n i z a t io n w o u l d t a k ea d v a n t a g e o f m e . R )7 ) M y o r g a n i z e t t o n s h o w s v e r y l i tt le c o n c e r n f o r m e . ( R )8 ) M y o r g a n i z a t i o n i s w i l li n g t o h e l p m e i l l n e e d a s p e c i a lfa v o r .

I ) I r a g o o d f r ie n d o f m i n e t o l d m e t h at h e / s h e w a si n t e r e s t e d i n w o r k i n g i n a j o b l i k e m l a e I w o u l d s t r o n gl yr e c o m m e n d it .

2) Al l i n a l l , I a m v e r y s a t i sf i e d w i t h m y c u r r e n t j o b .3 ) I n g e n e r a l , m y j o b m e a s u r e s u p t o th e s o r t o f j o b Iw a n t e d w h e n X t o o k i t .4 ) K n o w i n g w h a t I k n o w n o w , i l l h a d t o d e c i d e 8 U o v e ra g a i n w h e t h e r t o t a k e m y j o b , I w o u l d .

P o s

. 9 4 - - ( O J S

Figure 1 . Confirmatory factor analysis with a two-factor solution for items assessing perceivedorganizational support (POS) and overall job satisfaction (OJS). Indicator loadings and thefactor correlation are all standardized. Asterisk indicates items with loadings fixed to 1.0 to setthe metric of latent variable. R = reverse-coded items that have been receded.

1). Respondents rated the favorableness of job conditions ona 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = v e r y u n f a v o ra b l e , 5 = v e r yf a v o r a b l e .

D i s c r e t i o n a r y c o n t r o l o v e r j o b c o n d i ti o n s . Respondentsevaluated the degree of the organization's discretionary controlover the 18 job conditions. The employees were asked to select6 job conditions they believed were most controlled by theorganization, then 6 job conditions that were least controlled,and finally 6 job conditions over which the organization hadan intermediate level of control. We used this ipsative scalingprocedure to assess the individual employee's beliefs concerningwhich job conditions were more controlled by the organizationand which job conditions were less controlled. We were notinterested, for the purposes of this study, in employees' beliefsabout the total amount of control by the organization, accumu-lated across job conditions. Our method allowed assessment ofthe individual employee's beliefs concerning the relative degreesof organizational control over different job conditions, no matterwhether the employee believed that the organization had a lowor high overall level of control.

O v e r a l l j o b s a t i sf a c t io n . To assess employees' overall level

of job satisfaction, we used four items from Quinn and Shep-ard 's (1974) job satisfaction index (see Figure 1 ). Respondentsindicated the extent of their agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = s t rong ly agree , 7 = s t rong ly d i s -a g r e e . Quinn and Shepard reported satisfactory internal consis-tency (Cronbach's a = .72), and subsequent studies have re-ported similar degrees of internal reliability (Rice, McFarlin,Hunt, Near, 1985).

R e s u l t sThe percentage of employees in the total sample who

rated each job condition as being under the organization'shigh, intermediate, or low discretionary control is givenin Table 1. Employees varied considerably concerningwhich of the 18 job conditions they believed to be underhigh, medium, or low control. Job conditions that pro-duced substantial agreement concerning the organiza-tion's high control were training opportunities, physicalworking conditi ons, and fringe benefits. There was also


5/9

8 1 6 R ES E R C H R EPOR TSTable 1Percentages of Employees Who Designated the Organization s Control OverEach Job Condition as Low, Medium, or High

ControlJob condition Low Medium High

1. Tim e for personal life 36.92. Opp ortunity for challenging tasks 33.63. Train ing oppo rtunities 8.84. Physical working conditions 15.95. Relationship with supervisor 43.76. Job security 22.47. Freedom to adopt own approach to job 30.58. Relationship with coworkers 71.29. Fring e benefits 24.410. Opp ortunity o ma ke contribution to organization's success 34.9t 1. Opp ortunity for high earnings 32.212. Recog nition for good work 6.813. W ork schedule 24.414. Opp ortunity or advancement 32.215. Variety and adventure 51.216. Oppo rtunity o wo rk in prestigious organization 31.717. Oppo rtunity o help others 50.818. Low stress and pressure 48.5

41.0 22.139.3 27.128.8 62.422.4 61.733.6 22.731.2 46.437.3 32.220.0 8.816.6 59.0.44.1 21.027.8 40.040.3 52.938.0 37.636.6 31.236.9 11.937.3 31.226.8 22.442.0 9.5

s u b s t a n t i a l a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n h a d l i t t l e c o n -t r o l o v e r r e l at i o n s h ip s a m o n g c o w o r k e r s . I n c o n t ra s t , e m -p l o y e e s w e r e a l m o s t e v e n l y d iv i d e d a m o n g t h o s e d e s i g n a t -i n g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a d v a n c e m e n t , f r e e d o m t o a d o p to n e ' s o w n a p p r o a c h t o t h e j o b , a n d o p p o r t u n i t y t o w o r ki n a p r e s t i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n a s b e i n g u n d e r t h e h i g h ,i n t e r m e d i a t e , o r lo w c o n t r o l o f th e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

E m p l o y e e v i e w s c o n c e r n i n g o r g a n i z a ti o n a l c o n t ro l o v e rj o b c o n d i t io n s w e r e b r o k e n d o w n b y t h e fi v e c a t e g o r i e so f o r g a n i z a t i o n s w e s t u d ie d ( p r i v a t e b u s in e s s , e d u c a t i o n ,p u b l i c s e c t o r , h o s p i t a l s , a n d o t h e r n o n p r o f i t i n s t i t u t i o n s ) .C h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s e s r e v e a l e d t h a t e m p l o y e e s ' a s s e s s m e n to f p a r t i c u la r j o b c o n d i t i o n s a s b e i n g u n d e r h i g h , i n t e r m e -d i a t e , o r l o w c o n t r o l d i f f e r e d r e l ia b l y a c r o s s o r g a n i z a t i o n sf o r 9 o f th e 1 8 j o b c o n d i t i o n s , w i t h 3 a d d i t i o n a l j o b c o n d i -t i o n s b e i n g m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( p s < . 1 0 ) . S 0 m e j o bc o n d i t io n s p r o d u c e d s u b s t a n ti a l d is a g r e e m e n t , f r o m o n et y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n t o a n o t h e r, c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i s c r e t i o n -a r y c o n t r o l e x e r t e d b y t h e o r g a n i z a ti o n . F o r e x a m p l e , p r i -v a t e b u s i n e ss e m p l o y e e s w e r e t w i c e a s l ik e l y a s t e a ch e r st o b e l i ev e t h e i r o r g a n i z a ti o n h a d h i g h c o n t r o l o v e r o p p o r -t u n it ie s f o r a d v a n c e m e n t ( 4 0 . 9 a n d 1 9. 3 , r e s p e c -t i v e l y ) , o v e r a l l X 2 ( 8 , N = 2 9 5 ) = 2 4 . 7 , p < . 0 0 2 , a n dw e r e 3 t i m e s m o r e l i k e l y t h a n t e a c h e r s t o b e l i e v e t h a tt h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d t i m e f o r p e r s o n a l l i f e( 3 2 . 3 a n d 1 2 . 0 ) , X 2 ( 8 , N = 2 9 5 ) = 2 0 . 3 , p < . 0 1.T e a c h e rs w e r e t w i c e a s l i k e l y a s p r iv a t e b u s i n e s s e m p l o y -e e s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d t h ee m p l o y e e s ' r e l a ti o n s h i p w i t h t h e ir s u p e r v i s o r ( 3 0 . 1 a n d1 6 . 1 ) , X 2 ( 8 , N = 2 9 5 ) = 2 0 . 3 , p < . 0 3. H o s p i t a l e m -p l o y e e s w e r e t w i c e a s l i k e ly a s g o v e r n m e n t e m p l o y e e s t ob e l i e v e t h a t t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d f r i n g e

b e n e f i t s ( 8 4 . 6 a n d 4 0 . 4 ) , X 2 ( 8 , N = 2 9 5 ) = 2 1 . 6 , p< .006.

T h e m a i n a n a l y s i s o f i n t e re s t c o n c e r n e d w h e t h e r t h er e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e f a v o r a b l e n e s s o f j o b c o n d i t io n sa n d P O S w o u l d b e g r e a t e r fo r c o n d it i o n s c o n s i d e r e d b ye m p l o y e e s t o b e h i g h l y d i s c r e t io n a r y b y t h e o r g a n i z a t io n ,a s o p p o s e d t o j o b c o n d i t io n s t h a t e m p l o y e e s b e l i e v e d t oi n v o l v e l i tt l e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l . W e a v e r a g e d t h e e m -p l o y e e ' s f a v o r a b l e n e s s r a t i n g s f o r t h e s i x j o b c o n d i t io n sh e o r s h e d e s i g n a t e d a s h i g h l y c o n t r o l le d b y t h e o r g a n i z a -t i o n . W e t h e n o b t a i n e d s i m i l a r a v e r a g e s f o r t h e s i x i n t e r -m e d i a t e - c o n t r o l jo b c o n d i t io n s a n d t h e s i x l o w - c o n t r o l j o bc o n d i ti o n s . N e x t , w e o b t a i n e d t h e c o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n t h ef a v o r a b l e n e s s o f j o b c o n d i t io n s a n d P O S , u s i n g t h e a v e r-a g e f a v o r a b l e n e s s s c o r e f o r th e s i x jo b c o n d i t io n s d e s i g -n a t e d b y e a c h e m p l o y e e a s h i g h l y d i s c r e ti o n a r y . T h i s p r o -c e d u r e w a s t h e n r e p e a t e d f o r i n t e r m e d i a t e - d i s c r e t i o n j o bc o n d i t i o n s a n d l o w - d i s c r e t i o n j o b c o n d i t i o n s .

B e c a u s e n o n o r t h o g o n a l m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s c a n i n -f l a te th e n u m b e r o f r e s u l t s f o u n d r e l i a b l e a t a c o n v e n t i o n a ll e v e l o f s t a t is t i c a l si g n i f i c a n c e , w e c o m p u t e d a c o n s e r v a -t i v e c r i t e r i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e p l a n n e dc o m p a r i s o n s . T h e c o n v e n t i o n a l l e v e l o f s ta t i s ti c a l s i g n if i -c a n c e w a s d i v i d e d b y t h e n u m b e r o f n o n o r t h o g o n a lp l a n n e d c o m p a r i s o n s ( K i r k , 1 9 6 8 ) . E i g h t n o n o r t h o g o n a lc o m p a r i s o n s a m o n g c o r r e l a ti o n s w e r e p l a n n e d s o th a t th ep r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c eo f e a c h c o m p a r i s o n w a s s e t a t . 0 5 / 8 , o r . 0 06 3 .

A s i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e n e x t - t o - l a s t r o w o f T a b l e 2 , th er e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e f a v o r a b l e n e s s o f j o b c o n d i t io n sa n d P O S w a s g r e a t e r f o r h i g h - d i s c r e ti o n j o b c o n d i ti o n st h a n f o r l o w - d i s c r e t io n jo b c o n d i t i o n s t ( 2 9 2 ) = 5 . 79 ,


6/9

R E S E A R C H R E P O R T ST a b l e 2orrelations and D escript ive Stat is tics of Measu res

M e a s u r e M S D 1 2 3 4 51 . Fa v o ra b l e n e ss o f l o w-d i sc re t i o n j o b c o n d i t i o n s 3 .1 0 0 .7 5 ( .6 3 )2 . Fa v o ra b l e n e ss o f me d i u m-d i sc re t i o n j o bcondi t ion s 3 .26 0 .71 .35* ( .62)3 . Fa v o ra b l e n e ss o f h i g h -d i sc re t io n j o b c o n d i t i o n s 3 .3 8 0 .8 8 .1 0 .54 *4 . Perc eived organ iza t ional suppor t 4 .69 1 .28 .24* .57*5 . Ove ra l l job sa t i sfac t ion 5 .36 1 .28 .45* .56*

(.77).61 ( .90).49* .60*N o t e Al l s i g n i f i c a n ce le v e l s a re two - t a i l e d . N = 2 9 5 . C ro n b a c h ' s a l p h a s a re i n p a re n th e se s .*p < .01 .

(.85)

817

p < .001. Similarly, the favorableness of intermediate-discretion job conditions was more closely related to POSthan was the favorableness of low-discretion job condi-tions, t(292) = 5.92, p < .001. The favorableness ofhigh-discretion ob conditions and intermediate-discretionjob conditions did not differ in their relationship to POS,t(292) = 0.94. As seen in the final row of Table 2, theorganization's discretionary control did not reliably mod-erate the relationship between the favorableness of jobconditions and overall job satisfaction. The relationshipbetween the favorableness of job conditions and overalljob satisfaction was not reliably greater for high-discre-tion job conditions than for low-discretion job conditions,t(292) = 0.62. Similarly, the favorableness of intermedi-ate-discretion job conditions was not more closely relatedto job satisfaction than was the favorableness of low-discretion job conditions, t(292) = 2.04. The favorable-ness o f high-discretion job conditions and intermediate-discretion job conditions also did not differ in their rela-tionship with overall job satisfaction, t(292) = -1.54.Favorableness of high-discrerion job conditions was morestrongly associated with POS than with overall job saris-faction, rs = .61 and .49, respectively, t(292) = 3.18, p< .003. In contrast, the favorableness of low-discretionjob conditions was more strongly associated with overalljob satisfaction than with POS, rs = .45 and .24, respec-tively, t(292) = 5.47, p < .001.The obtained estimates of the relationships between thefavorableness of job conditions and both POS and overalljob satisfaction can be argued to underestimate the truerelationships because of unreliability in the measurementinstruments. The hypothetical true relationship betweenjob-condition favorableness and POS can be obtainedwith the standard formula for disattenuating the effects ofsuch unreliability (Cohen Cohen, 1983, p. 68). Thedisattenuated correlations of POS with the favorablenessof low-discretion job conditions, intermediate-discretionjob conditions, and high-discretion job conditions were.32, .76, and .74, respectively. By squaring these correla-tions, it can be seen that the favorableness of high-discre-tion job conditions accounted for about 5.5 times as much

variance in POS as did low-discretion ob conditions. Cor-responding disattenuated correlations between job-condi-tion favorableness and overall job satisfaction at low, in-termediate, and high discretion, respectively, were .45,.56, and .49. Thus, organizational discretion reliably mod-erated the relationship between the favorableness of jobconditions and POS but did not reliably moderate therelationship between the favorableness of job conditionsand overall job satisfaction.To assess the distinction between POS and job satisfac-tion further, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysison the combined set of POS and overall-job-satisfactionitems, using LISREL8 statistical software. The modelswere estimated from the covariance matrix produced byPRELIS2 and used maximum likelihood estimation. Wecompared two models: one with all of the items loadingon a global overall job satisfaction-POS latent variable(Model 1 ) and a second model with the overall job saris-faction items and POS items loading on two separatelatent variables (Model 2). The indices of fit used toexamine the two models were as follows: the comparative-fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the Tucker-Lewis Index(TLI; Tucker Lewis, 1973; see also Marsh, Balla,McDonald, 1988), the root mean square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA; Browne Cudeck, 1993), the good-ness-of-fit index (GFI), and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; JOreskog S6rbom, 1993). To assesswhether Model 2 fit the data better than Model 1, weperformed chi-square significance test of the differencebetween the two models (James, Mulaik, Brett, 1982).Model 1, supposing a combined POS-overall-job-sat-isfaction model, showed a poor fit as indicated by a highlysignificant RMSEA (. 15, p < .01 ) and low values of CFI,TLI, GFI, and AGFI (.83, .79, .78, and .69, respectively).Examination of the items and their standardized factorloadings revealed that overall-job-satisfaction items wereamong the lower loading items on the global factor. Fur-thermore, examination of the modification indices showedevidence of significant correlated measurement erroramong the overall-job-satisfaction items. Model 2, whichhypothesized separate factors for POS and overall job


7/9

818 RESEARCH REPORTSsatisfaction, is shown in Figure 1. This model yieldedvalues of CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI (.97, .96, .94, and .91respectively) that were much greater than the suggestedcutoffs for satisfactory model fit. The RMSEA value wasnonsignificant (.06, p = .12), indicating a close fit to thedata. Comparing Model 2 with Model 1 directly, Widaman(1985) suggested that increases in CFI of greater than0.01 represent substantive model improvement. The CFIincreased by 0.14, far more than this amount, from theone-factor model to the two-factor model. Furthermore,the chi-square difference between Model 1 and Model 2was significant, X2( 1, N = 295) = 285.4, p < .01, simi-larly suggesting that the two-factor model provided a bet-ter fit than the one-factor model. Finally, examination ofthe individual items for the two-factor model revealed thatall of the items significantly loaded on their expectedfactors and that all of the hypothesized loadings wereabove .51, whereas none of the cross-loadings surpassed.28. Thus, confirmatory factor analysis provided strongevidence that POS and overall job satisfaction are relatedbut distinct factors.

DiscussionTo decide how much the organization values theircontributions and well-being, employees distinguish jobconditions whose favorableness the organization readilycontrols versus job conditions whose favorableness is con-strained by limits on the organization's freedom of action.

The favorableness of job conditions that employees be-lieved were readily controlled by their employer was morestrongly related to POS than was the favorableness of jobconditions over which the employer was believed to havelittle control. Systematic differences across organizationswere found in the job conditions believed by employeesto be under the high, intermediate, or low control of theorganization. Therefore, the findings are not attributableto a strong relationship between a specific set of job condi-tions and POS. Because (a) POS is far more stronglyrelated to the favorableness of high-discretion job condi-tions than low-discretion job conditions and (b) employ-ees' views concerning the job conditions that are readilycontrolled by their employer differ systematically acrossorganizations, the job conditions that contribute most toPOS vary from one organization to another.Employee attention to the organization's discretionarycontrol over job conditions is consistent with the viewthat workers attribute benevolent or malevolent intent tothe organization's actions (Levinson, 1965). Becausemost employers have substantial influence over individu-als' gainful employment and quality of work life, employ-ees are strongly motivated to make inferences concerningtheir employer's valuation of them. The personification ofthe employer as a social exchange partner (Levinson,

1965) may lead to the use of the same attributional pro-cesses that people use generally to infer commitment byothers to interpersonal relationships. Making a generalattribution concerning the extent to which the organizationvalues one's contributions and cares about one's well-being provides a basis for deciding whether increasedeffort for the organization will be noticed and rewarded(Eisenberger et al., 1986).The results support social exchange interpretations thattreat employment as a reciprocal-exchange relationshipbetween the organization and employees. Rousseau( 1989, 1990) suggested that the employee' s psychologicalcontract involves the belief that the employer takes intoaccount the employee 's best interests. Repeated favorabletreatment of the employee by the organization would in-crease trust in the organization's general benevolence(Robinson Morrison, 1995). The present results indi-cate that employees consider the organization' s discretionwhen evaluating their treatment by the organization.Highly discretionary actions by the employer should havegreater influence on employees' perceived obligations andproduce a stronger psychological contract than treatmentdictated by outside influences.POS and overall job satisfaction were found to bestrongly related but distinct constructs. The favorablenessof high-discretion job conditions was more strongly re-lated to POS than was the favorableness of low-discretionjob conditions. In comparison, the relationship betweenthe favorableness of job conditions and overall job satis-faction did not differ reliably across levels of control. Thefavorableness of high-discretion job conditions was morestrongly associated with POS than with overall job saris-faction. The favorableness of low-discretion job condi-tions was more strongly associated with overall job satis-faction than with POS.An employee may believe that the organization stronglyvalues his or her contribution and cares about his or herwell-being yet have low overall job satisfaction becausethe employer does not have the resources to prevent unfa- vorable treatment. For example, poor economic conditionsmay reduce sales of products or services and therebylessen a company's ability to give substantial pay raisesor improve physical working conditions. The employee' srecognition of these financial restrictions may prevent adecline in POS but not stop a loss of overall job satisfac-tion. Conversely, favorable job conditions over which theorganization has little discretionary control may lead toan increase in overall job satisfaction without an accompa-nying increase in POS. For example, favorable pay andphysical working conditions resulting from a union strikewould be more likely to increase job satisfaction than toincrease POS.The distinctiveness of POS and overall job satisfactionis also indicated by the results of the confirmatory factor


8/9

RESEARCH REPORTS 81 9a n a l y s i s . A m o d e l t h a t t r e a t e d P O S a n d o v e r a l l j o b s a ti s -f a c t i o n a s s e p a r a t e f a c t o r s p r o v i d e d a b e t t e r a p p r o x i m a -t i o n o f t h e p a tt e r n o f e m p l o y e e r e s p o n s e s t h a n d i d a m o d e lt h a t t r e a t e d P O S a n d o v e r a l l j o b s a t i s f a c ti o n a s a s i n g l ef a c t o r . T h u s , a l t h o u g h a s t r o n g p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e -t w e e n P O S a n d o v e r a l l j o b s a t is f a ct i o n w a s f o u n d b yS h o r e a n d T e t r i c k ( 1 9 9 1 ) a n d b y o u r s e l v e s , e m p l o y e e sc a n d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e t w o f a c t o r s . T h e s e r e s u l t sa r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e v i e w t h a t P O S i s a g e n e r a l b e l i e fc o n c e r n i n g t h e b e n e v o l e n t o r m a l e v o l e n t i n te n t o f t h e o r -g a n i z a t i o n t o w a r d t h e e m p l o y e e , w h e r e a s o v e r a l l j o b s a ri s -f a c t i o n re p r e s e n t s a s u m m a r y t a b u l a ti o n o f t h e f a v o r a b l e -n e s s o f v a r i o u s a s p e c ts o f t h e j o b ( S h o r e T e t r i c k , 1 9 9 1 ) .

W e a r e n o t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t o v e r a l l j o b s a t i s f a c ti o n i si r r e le v a n t to t h e e x c h a n g e r e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n e m p l o y e ea n d e m p l o y e r . B o t h P O S a n d j o b s a ti s f ac t io n m i g h t c r e a t ea f e l t o b li g a t io n t o r e p a y t h e o r g a n iz a t i o n . O r g a n ( 1 9 8 8 )m a i n t a i n e d t h a t m e a s u r e s o f j o b s a t i s f a c ti o n m a i n l y a s s e s sj u d g m e n t s o f f a i r n e s s o f t r e a t m e n t t h a t c r e a t e a d e s i r e t or e c o m p e n s e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h e x t r a - r o l e p e r f o r m a n c e .F a i r t r ea t m e n t c a n r e s u l t f r o m e i t h e r d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i o nb y t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s i m p o s e d o nt h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . F a i r tr e a t m e n t r e q u i r e d b y e x t e r n a l c o n -s t r a i n t s m a y p r o d u c e a r e c i p r o c a l o b l i g a t i o n t o w o r kh a r d e r f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s n o t a s g r e a ta n o b l i g a t i o n a s w h e n t h e f a i r n e s s i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y .

T h e f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t a c t i o n s t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s m a yt a k e t o e n h a n c e p o s i ti v e e f f e c t s o f f a v o r a b l e jo b c o n d i -t i on s o n P O S a n d t o l e s s e n n e g a ti v e e f f e c t s o f u n f a v o r a b l ej o b c o n d i t i o n s . P O S i s s tr o n g l y r e l a t e d t o e m p l o y e r a c -t i o n s a n d p o l i c i e s o f t h e e m p l o y e r b e l ie v e d b y e m p l o y e e st o b e v o l u n t a r y ( c f . E i s e n b e r g e r e t a l ., 1 9 8 6 ; S h o r eS h o r e , 1 9 9 5 ) . M a n a g e r s a n d s u p e r v i s o r s m i g h t s t r en g t h e ne m p l o y e e s ' b e l i e f s t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s c o m m i t t e d t ot h e m b y m a k i n g s a li e n t ( a ) t h e d i s c re t i o n a r y n a t u re a n db e n e v o l e n t i n t e n t o f f a v o r a b l e t r e a t m e n t ( c f . K o y s , 1 9 9 1 )a n d ( b ) t h e e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t r e s t r i c t t h e o r g a n i z a -t i o n ' s a b i l i ty t o r e l i e v e u n f a v o r a b l e j o b c o n d i t i o n s . F o re x a m p l e , a n e w p o l i c y a l l o w i n g e m p l o y e e s s e v e r a l d a y so f f f r o m w o r k . a n n u a l l y f o r p e r s o n a l r e a s o n s c o u l d b ep r e s e n t e d a s b e i n g d e s i g n e d t o i n c r e a s e e m p l o y e e s a ti s f a c -t i o n . O r , a n e m p l o y e r e x p e r i e n c i n g a d e c l i n e i n p r o f i tst h a t p r e v e n t s g i v i n g t r a d i t i o n a l b o n u s e s m i g h t b r i e f e m -p l o y e e s o n t h i s p r o b l e m , i n c l u d i n g a c c e s s t o f i n a n c i a li n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o m a k e t h e c l a i m c r e d i b l e.

F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s n e e d e d o n f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g e m -p l o y e e p e r c e p t i o n s a b o u t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s d i s c r e t io n a r yc o n t r o l o v e r t h e f a v o r a b l e n e s s o f j o b c o n d i t i o n s . W h e nO r g a n iz a ti o n s i n f o r m e m p l o y e e s t h a t i m p r o v e m e n t s o f j o bc o n d i t i o n s a r e v o l u n t a r y o r t h a t p o o r w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n sa r e u n a v o i d a b l e , w o r k e r s m a y c o n s i d e r t h e v e r a c it y o fp r i o r c l a i m s . F o r i n s t a n c e , i f t h e e m p l o y e r p r e v i o u s l y u s e dt h e e x c u s e o f f i na n c i al e x i g e n c y f o r t h e a b s e n c e o f h i g hp a y b u t w a s f o u n d t o h a v e m a d e a h i g h p r o f it o r to h a v e

g i v e n a h i g h p a y o u t t o t o p m a n a g e r s , p r e s e n t c l a i m s o fi n a b il i ty t o i m p r o v e j o b c o n d i t i o n s m i g h t b e m e t w i t hc o n s i d e r a b l e s k e p t i c i s m .

R e f e r e n c e sAngle , H .L. , Perry, J .L . (19 83) . Organizational comm it-ment: Individual and organizational influences. Work and Oc-cupations, 10, 1 2 3 - 1 4 6 .Bentler, P. M. (19 90 ). Comparative fit indices in structural equa-tion modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 2 3 8 - 2 4 6 .Blau, E M. (1964). Exchange and powe r in social l i fe . NewYork: Wiley.Brow ne, M .W. , Cudeck, R. (19 93) . Alternative ways ofassessing model f it . In K. A. B ollen J . S . Long (Eds . ) ,Testing structural equation models (pp . 136-162) . NewburyPark, CA: Sage.Cohen, J ., Cohen, R (19 83) . Applied multiple regression/

correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed. ) .Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cotterell, N., Eisenherger, R., Speicher, H. (19 92 ). Inhibitingeffects of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relation-ships. Journ al of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,6 5 8 - 6 6 8 .Dil lman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The totaldesign method. New York: Wiley.Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., Marvel, J . (19 87 ). Reciproca-tion ideology. Journ al of Personality and So cial Psychology,53, 7 4 3 - 7 5 0 .Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, E M., Davis-LaMastro, V. (19 90 ).Effec ts of perceived organizational suppo rt on emplo yee dili-gence, innovation, and comm itment. Journal o f Appl ied Psy -chology, 53, 5 1 - 5 9 .Eisenberge r, R., Hun tington, R., Hutchison , S., Sow a, D.(1 98 6). Perceived organizational support. Journal o f Appl iedPsychology, 71, 5 0 0 - 5 0 7 .Etzion i, A. ( 1961 . A comp arative analysis o f com plex organi-zations. New York: Free Press.Fasolo, R (199 5). Procedural jus t ice and perceived organiza-tional support: Hypothesized effects on job performance. InR. Cropanzano K. M. Kacm ar (Eds . ) , Organizationalpoli-tics, justice, and support: M anag ing social climate at wo rk(pp. 18 5-1 95 ). W estport, C'12. Qu orum Press.Ge orge, J. M., Reed, T. E , Ballard, K. A., Colin, J. , Fielding,J . (199 3). Contact with AIDS pat ients as a sou rce of work-related distress: E ffects of organizational and social support.Academ y o f Mana gement Journal , 36, 1 5 7 - 1 7 1 .Goranson, R. E. , Berkowitz , L . (19 66). Reciproci ty and re-sponsibility to prio r help. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 3, 2 2 7 - 2 3 2 .Go uld, S. (19 79 ). An equity-exchange m odel of organizationalinvolvement. Academy of Management Review, 4, 5 3 - 6 2 .Gouldner, A. W. (196 0). The no rm of reciproci ty: A prel iminarystatement. American Sociological Review, 25, 1 6 1 - 1 7 8 .Gross, A. E. , Latan e, J. G. (1 97 4). Receiving help, recipro ca-tion, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 4, 2 1 0 - 2 2 3 .Guzzo , R. A. , Noonan , K. A. , Elron, E. (199 4). Expatria te


9/9

82 0 RESEARCH REPOKTSmanag ers and the psychological cont ract . Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79, 6 1 7 - 6 2 6 .James, L . R. , Mulaik, S . S . , Bret t , J . M. (1982 ) . Causal anal-ysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Bev erly Hills, CA: Sage.J~Sreskog, K. G., Stirbom , D. ( 1993 ). LISREL 8: User s refer-ence guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.Kiesler, S . B. (19 66) . The ef fec t of perceived role requi rementson react ions to favo r doing. Journal o f Experimental SocialPsychology, 2, 1 9 8 - 2 1 0 .Kirk, R. E . (19 68) . Experimental design: Procedures fo r thebehavioral sciences. Bel mont , CA: Br ooks / Col e .Koys, D. J . (1991 ) . Fairness , l ega l compl iance, and organiza-t ional commitment . Employee Responsibil i t ies and RightsJournal, 4, 2 8 3 - 2 9 1 .Levinson, H. (1965 ) . Reciprocat ion: The re la t ionship betweenman and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9,3 7 0 - 3 9 0 .

March, J . G. , S imon, H. A. (195 8) . Organizations. New York:Wiley.Marsh, H. W., Bal la , J . R. , McD onald, R. P . (198 8) . G ood -ness-of - f i t in conf i rm atory factor analysi s: The ef fect of sam -

ple size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3 9 1 - 4 1 1 .Mowday, R.T. , Por ter , L .W ., S teers , R. M . (198 2) . Em-ployee-organizational l inkages: The psychology o f commit-ment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academ ic Press.Nemet h , C . ( 197 0) . E f f ec ts o f f r ee ve r sus cons t ra i ned behav i o r

on at t ract ion between people . Jout _nal of Perso nality andSocial Psychology, 15, 3 0 2 - 3 1 1 .Or gan , D . W . ( 1988) . A r e s ta t ement o f the s a t i s f ac t i on- pe r f o r -mance hypothesis. Journal o f Managem ent, 14, 5 4 7 - 5 5 7 .Quinn, R. P., Shepard, L. G. (19 74 ). The 1972-197 3 quali tyof employment survey. Ann Arbor : Ins t i tute for Social Re-

search, Un iversity o f Michigan.Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., Hunt, R. G., Near, J. P. (19 85 ).Job impor tance as a moderator of the re la t ionship betweenjob satisfaction an d l ife sat isfaction. Basic andA ppl ied SocialPsychology, 6, 2 9 7 - 3 1 6 .

Robinson, S. L., Mo rrison, E. W. (19 95 ). Psychological con -t racts and OC B: Th e ef fect of unful fi ll ed obl igat ions on c ivicvirtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16,2 8 9 - 2 9 8 .Rousseau, D. M. (1 989 ) . Psychological and impl ied cont racts

in organizations. Employee Rights and Responsibili t ies Jour-nal 2 , 1 2 1 - 1 3 9 .Rousseau, D .M . (199 0) . New hi re percept ions of thei r own

and thei r emplo yer ' s obligations: A s tudy of psychologicalcontracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 3 8 9 - 4 0 0 .Rousseau, D. M. , Parks, J . M. (1993 ) . The cont racts of indi-viduals and organizat ions . In L . L . Cum ming s B. M. S taw(Eds.) , Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 1-47 ) . Greenwich, Cq2. JAI Press .Settoon, R. P., Bennett , N., Liden , R. C. (19 96 ). Social ex-

chan ge in organizations: Perceived organ izational suppo rt ,l eade r - me mb er exchange , and empl oyee r ec ip roc it y. Journalof Applied Psychology, 81, 2 1 9 - 2 2 7 .

Shore, L. M., Shore, T. H. (19 95 ). Perceived organ izationa lsuppor t and organizat ional jus t ice . In R. Cropa nzano K. M.Kacm ar ( E ds . ) , Orga nizational politics, justice, and suppo rt:Managing social cl imate at work ( pp . 149- 164) . W es t por t ,C1~. Qu oru m Press.

Shore , L. M., Tetrick, L. E. ( 1991 ). A cons truct validity studyof the survey o f perceived organizat ional support . Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76, 6 3 7 - 6 4 3 .

S hore , L .M . , W ayne , S . J . (1993) . Comm i t ment and em-p l oyee behav i o r: C ompar i son o f a f f ec t ive comm i t ment andcontinuance com mitm ent wi th perceived organizat ional sup-port . Journal o f Applied P sychology, 78, 7 7 4 - 7 8 0 .Tucker, L . R. , Lewis , C. (197 3) . A re l iabi li ty coeff ic ient forma xim um l ikelihood factor analys is . Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.

Wayne, S. J. , Sho re, L. M., Liden, R. C. (19 97 ). Perceivedor gan iza t iona l suppor t and l ead e r - m em ber exchange: A so-cial exchange perspective. Academy of Managem ent Journal,40, 8 2 - 1 1 1 .

Widam an, K. E (1 985 ) . Hierarchical ly nes ted covar iance s truc-ture models for mul t i t ra l t -mul t im ethod data . Applied Psycho-logical Measurement, 9 , 1 - 26 .W i tt , L . A . ( 1991) . E xchange i deo l ogy a s a m oder a t o r o f j obat t i tudes-o rganiza t ional c i t izenship beha viors re la tionships.Journal o f App lied Social Psychology, 21, 1490- 1501 .

R e c e i v e d N o v e m b e r 2 2, 1 9 9 6R e v i s i o n r e c e i v e d M a y 1 0, 1 9 9 7

A c c e p t e d M a y 1 2 , 1 99 7

Documents

Eisenberger Et Al (1997)