Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,398

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Perceived Organizational Support

·2017·The SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd edition
DOI 10.4135/9781483386874.n398
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

What is perceived organizational support? Perceived organizational support (POS) refers to employee perceptions regarding the extent to which their employer “values their contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). In the social exchange between employees and employers, it is the organizational equivalent of employees’ commitment to the organization, though it is based on employees’ perceptions, rather than the organization’s perspective. In short, it represents “employees' inferences concerning the organization's commitment to them” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 500). Beliefs about the organization’s commitment are thought to stem from employees’ interactions with other members who are seen as representatives of the organization; attributions about those members and interactions are then extended to the entire organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The most commonly used measure is the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986), of which there are many versions, of varying lengths. Example items include, “The organization cares about my opinions” and “The organization strongly considers my goals and values” (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997; Eisenberger et al., 1986). In the realm of recruitment, the concept of anticipated organizational support among job candidates has also been minimally explored, by adapting the items to be future oriented (e.g., “This organization would care about my opinions”; Casper & Buffardi, 2004). Why is POS important? POS is important because it is associated with many job attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, POS is strongly connected to (a) lower burnout and stress and (b) higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rockstuhl et al., 2020). POS is modestly connected to higher job performance and moderately associated with fewer citizenship behaviors, especially those that benefit the organization rather other individuals (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rockstuhl et al., 2020). Finally, POS is strongly associated with lower intentions to leave and moderately associated with actual turnover (Kurtessis et al., 2017; Rockstuhl et al., 2020; Rubenstein, Eberly, Lee, & Mitchell, 2017). What contributes to POS? Due Meta-analytic research on POS thus far has focused on assessing factors that are merely associated with POS, not on strategies for improving it or on examining whether improving it affects outcomes like performance and turnover. These factors fall into four categories: (a) treatment by organizational members, (b) employee-organization relationship quality, (c) HR practices, and (d) job conditions. In general, organizational support theory argues that factors under the organization’s control are more likely to be associated with POS, because those factors are voluntary, rather than compulsory; if the organization chooses to be supportive (or not), then it is more meaningful and reflects intent (Eisenberger et al., 1997). Treatment by Organizational Members Considering the role of other organizational members, perceived support from supervisors is very strongly related to POS, with perceived support from coworkers or teams being moderately related (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Regarding the nature of the relationships with leaders, stronger connections to POS are found for leadership behavior that is people oriented, rather than task oriented. Leadership that involves respect and concern for employees’ needs and feelings is strongly connected to POS, whereas leadership that involves work-focused emphasis on role expectations, organization, structure, and performance management is less strongly related (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Abusive supervision is moderately related to lower POS (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Employee-Organization Relationship Quality POS is strongly related to several types of fairness perceptions, including those related to procedures, outcomes, and interpersonal treatment (Kurtessis et al., 2017). It is also strongly related to value congruence, which is the alignment between employees’ values and beliefs and those of the organization (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Perceptions of organizational politics and psychological contract breach are very strongly and negatively connected to POS (Kurtessis et al., 2017). When employees perceive organizational politics (e.g., favoritism and self-serving behavior) to be high, their POS is low. Likewise, when employees believe that their employer has not fulfilled their explicit or implicit promises or obligations to them, POS is low (Kurtessis et al., 2017). HR Practices In this category, POS is most strongly connected to perceptions of developmental opportunities and job security (Kurtessis et al., 2017). The availability of flexible work schedules and perceptions of family-supportive organizational practices are moderately associated with POS (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Job Conditions Several job

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4135/9781483386874.n398

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Venue
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd edition
Publisher
SAGE Publications, Inc
Published
2017
DOI
10.4135/9781483386874.n398
OpenAlex
W3144139892
Cited by
4,398
References
0
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.