If employees are rewarded and valued in the organization they will be more satisfied and relaxed that will raise job performance and organization citizenship behavior
2. 2
SIGNIFICANCE OF TOPIC AND THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS:
1.1. INTRODUCTION:
Research on perceived organizational support shows that how much an organization cares
about his employee’s wellbeing and valued to his employees. Because employees need to be
valued by the organization. Organization is the main source of their tangible benefit such as
medical benefit salaries and social benefit such as admiration and caring. Employees need to
be valued and more covered being valued by the organization yield such as
pay,promotion,respect other forms of aid and right to use to information by which they can
easily hold out their responsibility. Reciprocity norms applied on both employees and
employer in their relationship directs them with beneficial results. When employees treated
well by their organization then reciprocity norm obligate encourage fulfilling once action in
return (Gouldner, 1960).
Perceived organization support concept is getting admired day by day in the management
sphere of modern business world especially in the service sector. Organizational support and
satisfaction are directly connected with motivation and job performance. Organizational
support is very important for the development of the employees. If employees are rewarded
and valued in the organization they will be more satisfied and relaxed that will raise job
performance and organization citizenship behaviour (Mowday, 1998).
Employees ‘universal belief that organization values their involvement and cares about their
well-being (perceived organizational support (POS). A meta-analysis showed that 3 main
categories of beneficial conduct received by employees (justice, controller support, and
3. 3
organizational rewards) were linked with perceived organizational support (POS). Perceived
organizational support (POS) in turn, was associated with results favourable to staffs (e.g.,
job satisfaction) and the organization (e.g.performance, withdrawal behaviour and affective
commitment). These associations depended on procedures assumed by organizational support
theory employees' belief that the organization's activities were flexible, feeling of
responsibility to aid the organization, fulfilment ofsocioemotional needs, and performance-
reward expectations.(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) established
that persons tend to “form global opinions concerning the extent to which the organization
values their assistances and cares about their welfare” (p. 504). Specifically, individuals
assess the behaviour of organizational agents to them and infer the general motive
underlying that action, with the groupsthat are considered vital varying significantly
between organizations and between individuals. Some persons might base their sense
of perceived organizational support (POS) upon such features as the organization
followers’ willingness to provide them with special support or special equipment in
order to complete a plan. Others might develop a strongsense of POS built upon the
organization followers’ willingness to deliver them with extrachances for training in an
area that was of specificattention to them. Moreover, employees are normally sensitive
to relevant environmental and organizational restrictions that might limit the capability to
offer them with anticipated rewards (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, &Lynch, 1997).
Employees who understanding a strong level of perceived organizational support
theoretically feel the necessity to respondfavourable organizational behaviour with
attitudes and treatment that in turn profit the organization (Eisenberger et al. 1986).
Overall, it seems that staffs with greater stages of perceived organizational support are
likely to be more loyal and maybe more willing to involve in additional role or
4. 4
“organizational citizenship” behaviour’s (Organ, 1988) than those employees who feel
that the organization does not worth them as extremely.
To the degree that the perceived organizational support POS feltresponsibility association is
due to the standard of reciprocity, the asset of this association should be influenced by
workers' acceptance of the reciprocity norm as a foundation for employee-employer
relationships. Employee exchange ideology mentions to employees' trust that it is suitable
and valuable to base their concern with the organization's wellbeing and their work effort on
how favourably they have been treated by the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
1.2. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:
According to organizational support theory the connection between perceived organizational
support and performance-incentive expectancies should be reciprocal (Eisenberger et al.,
1986; Shore &Shore, 1995). Satisfactory opportunities for rewards would carry the
organization's positive valuation of employees' assistances and thus contribute to POS
(cf.Gaertner and Nollen, 1989). Perceived organizational support, In turn, would raise
employees' expectancies that high performance will be satisfied. Consistent with these
opinions, the meta-analysis by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found that chances for better
pay, gratitude, and promotion were positively linked with POS. Extra research is wanted
concerning the mediating role of incentive expectancies in the association between
performance and perceived organizational support. Globalization has formed a vastly
competitive business atmosphere for multinational companies (Dowling al., 1999; Konopaske
et al., 2005).Organizational researchers have inspected the relational ties between
organizationalsupport and employee work results. There is indication that workers who
recognize high degree of organizational support in terms of the extent to which an
organization cares about their welfare (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Wayne et al., 2002), display
5. 5
increased affective commitment (Cropanzano et al., 1997; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades
and Eisenberger, 2002; Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006), organizational citizenship
behaviours (OCBs) (Moor manet al., 1998; Shore and Wayne, 1993), as well as lower rates of
turnover objective (Wayneet al., 1997) From these findings, the notion of organizational
support has been accepted as a main factor Influencing worker organizational behaviour and
involvement.Following social exchange theory, perceived organization support is said to
contribute to organization citizenship behaviour (Wayneet al., 1997). Previous study has
found that employees who feel they are well supported by their organizations tend to
reciprocate by engaging in more acts of citizenship behaviour than those having lower stages
of perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al, 2001; Shore and Wayne, 1993).
Kraimer et al. (2001) specified that expatriates’ POS assists expatiates’ adjustment and
contextual performance, such as technical capability and meeting job goals.
1.3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
The purpose of our research is to empirically inspect the relationships between perceived
organizational support, creativity(CR), job performance (JP), counterproductive
behaviour(CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) for expatriates.
1.4. SCOPE OF PROJECT:
In particular, while preceding perceived organization support emphasis largely about POS
and its outcomes and we also examine the relationship between POS with organizational
citizenship behaviours. Creativity, job performance and counterproductive work behaviours.
.undertaking competence, purpose properties, as well as information about environmental
surroundings to describe interactions having effects, We provide a few researches offering a
higher knowledge of this interdependence involving perceived organizational support (POS)
6. 6
with counter productive work behaviour, JOB performance, Creativity, and citizenship
behaviours.
1.5. PROBLEM STATEMENT:
“To inspect the influence of perceived organizational support on job outcomes (citizenship
behaviour, creativity, Job performance, and Counterproductive work behaviour).
1.6. RESEARCHQUESTIONS:
The current research has been conducted to see whether;
Perceived organizational support (POS) has a positive relationship with organization
citizen ship behaviour (OCB)?
Perceived organizational support (POS) negatively affects counterproductive
behaviour (CWB)?
Perceived organizational support (POS) is positively related to creativity (CR)?
Perceived organizational support (POS) is positively related to Job performance (JP)?
8. 8
2.1. PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT (POS):
Organizational support is vital and very important because it assurance reinforce provided by
the organization to modify the difficult conditions, and to hold out ones job with competence
and with success (George, Reed, Ballard, Colin & Fielding, 1993). Employees have to be
compelled to be valued and that they square measure a lot of involved with the loyalty of the
organization and trusted or being valued by the Organization submit such edges like pay,
motivation, encouragement, admiration, alternative styles of aids, and access to data by that
they will carry their jobs responsibilities. Correspondence standard applied by each worker
and leader in their relationship lead them with helpful results. Once individual’s area unit
treated well, the reciprocity norm obligates encouraging satisfying once action reciprocally
(Gouldner, 1960). Organization is responsible (monetarily, ethically, and legally), for the
dealings of its staff and structure such leads, approaches and practices and force them. In the
event that staff consider that thus to Organizational deliberate activities saw structure backing
is normally helped by prizes gave by the Organization to the labourers, for example,
advancement, pay, to make authoritative arrangements (Eisenberger et al. 1997; Eisenberger
et al., 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995). Employees clearly accept that negative or positive
impacts towards them are every in light of their commitments and welfare. As per
Eisenberger et al., (1986) in authoritative help hypothesis there exists three sorts of enabling
treatments through that perceived organizational support need to be expanded they are
authoritative business conditions and prizes, executives sponsorship, and decency. Shore and
Shore (1995) watched that asset dispersion choices should show reasonableness that
9. 9
influences the apparent organizational support exhibiting sympathy toward employee’s
welfare. in keeping with Cropland and Joseph Greenberg (1997) perceived organizational
support is effect by structural viewpoints incorporates formal guidelines and strategies
choices and their executions concerning staff though social angles contains staff are being
treated with respect and good manners and providing them with information how to
determine final results. By and large word supervisor is utilized for organization as staff
square measure discerning that their appraisal is normally pass on to higher administration
and extra staff relationship of supervisor or administrator support help to perceived
organizational support (Kottke&Sharafinski, 1988; Malatesta, 1995; Rhoades et al., 2001;
Shore &Tetrick, 1991;Yoon, Han, &Seo, 1996;Yoon & Lim, 1999).
Inviting conduct winds up in positive relations with colleagues or co-workers and supervisors
though negative affectivity winds up in unpleasant and forceful conduct that order the
occasion of ideal working relations and lessens perceived organizational support. As
indicated by (Aq&griffeth, 1999) as an aftereffect of organizations treatment with
representatives or employees their conduct is effected which in exchange may impact
perceived organizational support.
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) expressed that perceived organizational support was
specifically connected with 3 classifications of positive treatment got by representatives, as
an example, organizational prizes and ideal occupation conditions, reasonableness and
supervisor support, as associate exchange nice results are earned to, as an example, work
fulfilment and organizational responsibility of these relations support organizational support
hypothesis. Mullen et al. (2006) analyzed that preparation impacts respondents, results, duty
and exchange of making ready, as a result of getting ready there's unbelievable change within
the view of perceived organizational support, and this variation would possibly b negative or
positive and might be seen by watching preened post preparing tests. Eisenberger et al.
10. 10
(1990) expressed that there exist positive connections of perceived support with occupation
participation and execution. Perceived support was unquestionably connected to execution
result anticipations and packed with feeling association, and also the profit of any old
recommendations for serving to the organization. Supervisor support fixated a part of
commitment towards perceived organizational support and in exchange turnover reason As
perceived organizational support straightforwardly impart to supervisor support that
demonstrates that supervisor support prompts perceived organizational support, and through
this association Supervisors status expanded within the organization. Whereas perceived
organizational support connections negative relationship of representative turnover and
supervisor support (Eisenberger, 2002). POS has been found to get vital and very important
penalty performance and prosperity. (Case in purpose, a representative accepts his
organization would suit him within the event that he had a child care issue or would forget
associate innocent error on his part) and satisfies socio-enthusiastic desires. Examination
demonstrates that people see their organization as supportive once prizes are thought-about
affordable, once employees contains a voice in selections, and once their administrators are
seen as supportive. many discoveries suggest that representatives with solid POS
discernments area unit additional vulnerable to have larger amounts of organizational
citizenship conduct and occupation execution. Research on perceived organizational support
(POS) started with the perception that If administrators region unit enclosed with their
workers' dedication to the organization, employees zone unit centred on the organization's
dedication to them (Eiesenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986). For
labourers, the organization may be a crucial provide of socioemotional assets, within the
same method as admiration and minding, and clear edges, within the same method as Wages
and therapeutic edges. being revered surprisingly by the organization serves to satisfy
workers' cravings for support, regard, and alliance. Bosses normally worth working man
11. 11
commitment and loyalty. Although there are nearly few investigations of POS until the
middle 1990's, Investigation on the topic has thrived within the past number of years.
Rhoades and Eiesenberger's (2002) meta-examination coated within the vary of seventy POS
studies connected through 1999, and in way over 250 studies are performed following. The
meta-examination discovered clear and inevitable connections of POS with its anticipated
forerunners and Outcomes. Since perceptive thought relating to perceived organizational
support has basically distended. a couple of variables could clarify the association with
organizationally vital results, as an example, citizenship behaviour .perceived organization
support includes a sequence that driving from read of support by the organization (supervisor
support) to the arrangement of nice LMX association with their subordinates. Who
incorporate astounding structure the organization eventually reimburses the organization that
distended the commitment and exertion and reduce withdrawal conduct. Supervisor feel a
commitment to reimburse the organization for his or her perceived organization support settle
for that they'll be paid for doing in and of itself. Supervisors with High POS could also be
spurred to make glorious LMX associations with their subordinates keeping in mind the top
goal to reply their own specific substantiative treatment from the organization (Wayne et al.,
2012). Further supervisors report high POS might have right to use to a lot of noteworthy
assets to administer to subordinates. Consequently supervisors with High POS square
measure doubtless roused to form nice associations with their subordinates (Tangirala, Green,
&ramanujam, 2007).
2.2:COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE WORKBEHAVIOUR (CWB):
Counterproductive behaviour is enormous term which includes such behaviour that is against
the oppositebenefit of organization (Gruys&sackett, 2003). Another theory states that CWB
12. 12
consists of four dimensions namely production deviance, property deviance, political
deviance and personal aggression (Robinson Bennett, 1995).
There are various dimensions proposed for CWB for the purpose of research but a two
dimension model has generally accepted in defining the counterproductive work behaviour.
This two dimension model states that deviance is of two kinds, i.e.the interpersonal deviance
and the organizational deviance (Bennet&Robinson, 2000).For almost 20 years there has
been a rising interest for research on workplace behaviours that harm employees or the
organization, especially because of the harmful consequences and associated costs. These
include costs at economical (loss of productivity due to delay at the workplace, theft or
sabotage) or psychological level (withdrawal or low job satisfaction- for those who are
targets of counterproductive interpersonal behaviours or high stress and uncertainty for those
who perceive such behaviours (Varda and Weitz, 2004). Counterproductive behaviours
include: abusive behaviour, physical and verbal aggression, making intention ate improper
work, sabotage, theft, absenteeism, delays etc. These behaviours are a set of different acts
that have common characteristics: are intentional (not accidental) and intend to harm the
organization and / or their stakeholders- customers, colleagues and supervisors (Fox and
Spector 2005).When employees are treated favourably by the organization they feel obliged
to respond in kind through encouraging behaviour and attitude towards the source of the
treatment. When treated poorly employees by the organization will reduce or withdraw their
positive attitude and behaviour and produce negative behaviour once in their place.
One of the most prominent social exchange theories is Adams (1965) equity theory which
says that employees feel uncertainty treat will seek compensation. This theory suggest that
employees who are disappointed with the fairness of their employers produce negative
behaviour such as incoming late for work, reducing effort or may occupied in interpersonally
oriented CWB such as making badly remarks about their managers acting rudely with
13. 13
colleagues .another frame work is used to understand CWB derives from the work stress
literature spactor (1998) model. When individual perceives environmental stress (e.g. unfair
provision of CWB. They experience negative emotions such as anxiety & anger.
2.3. CREATIVITY:
It is said that the effectiveness of organization is dependent on diverse factors out of which
creativity is one. Organization tend to keep employees and workers who give their creative
inputs at work .the term creativity still needs to b precisely defined we find in the literature
that there are numerous definitions of creativity. But in his case we shall study creativity at
work Creativity is described as originality, but it is more of creating something new or bring
something to the world that is new and revolutionary (dimock, 1986). In a scientific research,
creativity is defined as production of nova and useful products(Mumford,2003).as it has
already been mentioned that how important creativity is for the organization, it is also
important to enhance the creativity to achieve The competatitive advantage .it is because the
innovation or a new product is only new for a little time .it needs to be improved overtime to
keep it creative .one work on the literature review provides that there are three factors
compulsory to enhance creativity in organization i.e. technical and procedural expertise,
creative thinking skills and intrinsic motivation(Amabile,1998). For an organization to
function effectively, new and interesting and creative behaviours are particularly important.
These behaviours, though mainly not considered for job development and performance, but
they can greatly add/give to the operation and performance of an organization in long run.
2.4. JOB PERFORMANCE(JP):
The work linked actions expected of workers and how well those actions were executed.
Many business staffs directors evaluate the job performance of all workers on yearly or
quarterly basis in order to benefit them classify suggested areas for improvement.
14. 14
Job performance is avital construct in organizational. In fact, most of what
industrialorganizational psychologists do is geared to have a positive influence on job
performance. The importance of calculation of individual job performance is maybe reflected
in the capacity of literature devoted to it, and many important researchers in our field have
written on the subject of individual job performance.What we do as researchers and
practitioners. Organizations need that the expenditurerelated with training agendas(e.g.,
socialization or orientation programs, skills training) be justified with evidence that such
exerciseprogresses individual job performance. In short, individual job performance is a
dominant construct in our field. For over a century, researchers have contended with the
matters involved in assessment of individual job performance. It is no wonder that numerous
researchers have innovativestandards for assessing these assessments.
Freyd (1926) claimed that measures of individual job performance valuations should
be authorized.
While Freyd argued for the importance of establishing the construct rationality of
standards, Farmer (1933) stressed the necessity for evaluating the dependability of
measures.
Burtt (1926) providing a list of variables (e.g., opportunity bias) that could disturb
Organizational records or objective performance.
2.5. ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR (OCB):
Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB) Organ et al describes OCB as Individual
behaviour that is optional, not directly or openly recognized by the officialincentive system,
and in the aggregate encourages the effective and efficient functioning of the organization
(2005: 8). Empirical and (i.e., sportsmanship or civic virtue). L. J. illiams and Anderson
15. 15
(1991) establish that staffs directed some organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) at peers
in the organization, such as assisting or taking a personal interest in others, and directed other
organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) at the organization, such as typicalpresence,
offering ideas, contributing in the lifespan of the organization, or frequently using
organizational capitals.
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) has been thoughtful since the late 1970s. Over
the past three decades, awareness in these behaviours has highly meaningfully.
Organizational performance has been associated to overall organizational achievement, thus
these types of staff behaviours have dominant consequences in the workplace. There has been
increasing research conducted in the past field of flexible and impulsive behaviours that are
meant for the profit of organization. smith et al.(1983) has named the concept of
organizational citizenship behaviour(OCB) has been estimated by organ (1988) which was
apply for this study he well-defined it has separate behaviour that is non-compulsory , not
directly or openly recognized by official reward structure and that in the
cooperativeencourages the effective functioning of the organization (Organ,1988)Empirical
inspection of citizenship behaviour have mainly pay attention on identifying performance of
this behaviour .definitely analysis (organ and ryan,1995,podsakoff Mackenzie, panie and
bachrach,2000.Further exclusively ,kamdar and Morrisonindicate that one can do extra
organizational citizenship behaviour(OCB’S)depending on their believes
whetherorganizational citizenship behaviour(OCB’S) are roll behaviour performance or
behaviour of extra roll presentation.
Kamdar et al.2006 ;Morrison 1994).in 1994 Morrisonestablished that those employees who
involve in organizational citizenship behaviour(OCB) they strongly deliberate that they are
really performing in role behaviours on the effort not the extra-role behaviours and that is the
purpose they are rewarded. Therefore the connection linked the worker’s succeeding
16. 16
behaviour and conceptualization of effort roles has been recognized (e.g., coyle-shaprio et
al.2004 hoffmanet al.2003; morrison1994; parker et al.1997).Social exchange theory is
maybe the key regularly mentioned hypothetical foundation for organizational citizenship
behaviour(OCB) (see e.g.cropanzano et al., 2003; konovsky&pugh ,1994 ;organ,1990).social
exchange theory describes the intended substitute of profit that takes place among two
indivuals or groups.(Lester,Mnglino .Korsgaar ,2007 ).
Chapter 3
18. 18
Organizational support theory (OST: Eiesenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa,
1986; Rhoades & Eiesenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995) grips that the
organization standards their assistances and cares concerning their well-being.
On the beginning of organizational support theory (Wiesenberger et al., 1986), 3 universal
Styles of perceived favourable treatment established from the organization (i.e., fairness,
Controller support, and structure rewards and job conditions) have togrowthe perceived
organizational support (POS).Organizational support theory (OST)specify three
proceduresbeneath the association between perceived organizational support (POS) and its
consequences.First based on the worker behaviour and job performance. Worker who observe
organizational support feel obliged to reciprocate toward the organization. Secondperceived
organizational support (POS) help accomplish Socioeconomically requirements such as needs
for esteem, approval and leading to organizational association and improve employee
wellbeing(Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002).perceived organizational support (POS)support to
resolve organizations readiness efforts made on its behalf (Rhoades and Eisenberger
2002).employee getting favourable treatment from their organization and its manager respond
with high commitment and job performance and effort. Leader–member exchange (LMX)
theory (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Graen&Scandura, 1987)
emphases on the exchange relationship among the subordinate and the controller.
Subordinates who are treated favourably by their bosses respond by working tougher and
providing more help to supervisors, leading to high-quality LMX relationships.By
assessment, organizational support theory (Eisenberger&Stinglhamber, 2011; Rhoades
&Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995) considers subordinates’ and supervisors’
favourable dealings with the organization.
Organizational support theory grips that, in direction to meet socio emotional requirements
and to regulate the organization’s willingness to reward enlarged efforts, workersprogress a
19. 19
universalawareness concerning the degree to which the organization values their assistances
and cares about their well-being (perceived organizational support or POS; Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986).
3.2. THEORETICAL FRAME WORK AND HYPOTHESES:
Perceived organization support (POS) and counterproductive wok behaviour (CWB).
Perceived organization support (POS) and job performance (JP).
Perceived organization support (POS) and creativity (CR).
Perceived organization support (POS) and Organization citizenship behaviour
(OCB).
3.3 PERCIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT (POS) AND COUNTER
PRODUCTIVE WORKBEHAVIOR (CWB):
Organizational support employees who perceive that their organization does not meet the
anticipated obligations would be less satisfied with their job may produce counterproductive
work behaviour.
Counterproductive work behaviour refers to deliberate behaviour that acts against the
organization interest .such behaviour which effects both the organization and their employees
.there is no doubt CWB disobey organization norms and delay the overall Organizational
goal. CWB relationship with organization climate part of an active psychological process that
helps employees recognize what behaviours are projected and rewarded (Armstrong, 2003;
Zohar & Luria, 2005.previous research predict various factors that predict counterproductive
workplace behaviour. these includes individual differences such as employees personal
abilities and traits and work stressors such as difficult work conditions ,harsh supervision
,role ambiguity (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006) .dissatisfied employees are more likely to
20. 20
involved in theft behaviours(Kolas et al., 2007).Leader –member exchange (LMX). Important
aspect of employee’s workplace perceptions is known as “perceived leader –member
exchange).which relates to the quality of relationship between leaders and group members.
High quality LMX indicates high levels of relationship between leader and members which
includes interaction with leader, trust, respect, support and rewards from the organization
While low quality LMX points the low level of dealings. Formal relationships, trust ,limited
support and few rewards (Bauer & Green, 1996).LMX effects employee motivation in
different areas of the organizational functioning sense of empowerment ,emotional support
and cooperative interactions as well as respect, loyalty and obligation(Tziner, Fein, & Oren,
2012).Past research has indicated that high LMX related to positive citizen ship
behaviour.(e.g., Chernyak-Hai&Tziner, 2012) .while low LMX related to counterproductive
work behaviour.LMX reflects exchange relationship among employees and their
supervisors(Settoon et al., 1996) and one of the basic elements in the workplace social
exchange network (Cole, Schaninger, & Harris, 2007).The social exchange theory (SET)
framework counterproductive work behaviour may be understood within the framework of
social exchange theory (SET).
We hypothesized that perceived organizational support has negative effect on
counterproductive behaviour.Our Hypothesis is disagreed by the preceding mentioned
citation.
H1:Perceived organizational support has negative relationship with
counterproductivebehaviour.
3.4. PERCEIVED ORGANIZATION SUPPORT (POS)AND JOB
PERFORMANCE(JP):
21. 21
Perceived Organization Support(POS) does always positively relatewith performance or job
satisfaction. Perceived Organization Support maybe does have undesirableresult on most
employees ‘performance. The way workers are treated by the organization is likely to have a
vitalresult on employee attitudes and behaviours; Organizational support theory (OST) agrees
three procedures under the association between POS and its significances.First based on the
worker behaviour and job performance. Operative who observe organizational support feel
grateful to reciprocate toward the organization Second POS help satisfy Socioeconomically
desires such as needs for esteem, approval and leading to organizational membership and
improve employee well being(Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002).Perceived organizational
support help to determine organizations willingness efforts made on its behalf (Rhoades and
Eisenberger 2002).employee getting favourable action from their organization and its agent
respond with high commitment and Job performance and effort.
We also find that job performance has significant relationship with perceived organization
support hence we do have support for our hypothesis regarding the relationship of job
performance and perceived organizational support (POS).
H2: perceived organizational support is positively related with Job
performance.
3.5. PERCEIVED ORGANIZATION SUPPORT (POS) AND CREATIVITY:
22. 22
Perceived organizational support the level to which employee perceives that organization
encourages their ideas and respect give them rewards and be aware of employees who
demonstrate creativity. Employees are creative when they perceive that creativity support and
appreciated by the organization (scot & Bruce, 1994).In the organization literature many
experimental studied have been directly related to several organizational climate such
organizational desirable outcome includes as creativity and innovation (Amiable, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Many studies have suggested variety of different
characteristics. Most important factor included is organizational encouragement organization
encourages creativity and innovation supporting new ideas and setting reward system and
recognize employee’s creativity. The relevant literature has pointed the important role
between organization and employees attitude (Oldham and Cummings, 1996; Amiable, et al.,
1996). Organization encourages risk taking ideas generation provide freedom and sovereignty
to employees and positively related with innovation and creativity. Organizational climate
has significant effect on the creativity, performance of an individual. Such as team
cooperation, leadership support, organizational encouragement freedom and autonomy that
influence of employee creativity. (Cummings, Oldham, 1997).
Organization polices& practices can enhance creative behaviours of an employees by
influencing employee attitude and behaviour .when organization wants to enlarge their level
of innovation they should identify the value of their employees as generator of creative ideas.
Organization discourage employee risk taking is always a serious barrier to innovation
because employees are de-motivated by the fear of failure when organization didn’t support
new ideas. Employees with high exchange belief systems showed stronger relationship of
POS with felt responsibility to the organization (Eiesenberger et al., 2001).
23. 23
We also find thatcreativity has significant relationship with perceived organizational support.
(Cummings, Oldham, 1997).hence we do have support for our hypothesis regarding the
relationship of creativity and perceived organizational support.
H3: perceived organizationalsupport is positivelyrelated withcreativity.
3.6. PERCEIVED ORGANIZATION SUPPORT (POS) AND ORGANIZATION
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR (OCB):
Theoreticalinvestigationproves that OCB correlates with enhancements in organizational
performance (Organ et al, 2005 Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1997). In a review of inquiry,
Organ et al (2005) found that some OCB dimensions (i.e., helping and consciousness)
connected more strongly with performance than other dimensions.
According to the past study perceived organization support and organization citizenship
behaviour is positively related with each other.iforganization valued their employees and
supports them they will reciprocate towards organizational goal as well. And they highly
loyal with the organization. Findings by kamdaret al.2006 recognized that employees
reporting advanced POS had stronger social attachment to the organization, which then run to
enlarged OCB. In dissimilarity , Settoon, Bennett, and Linden (1999) failed to correlate POS
with OCB. However, Morrison, 1994 claimed that Settoonet ineffective to measure OCB
directed at the organization. According to another study POS Guesses OCB directed at the
organization (OCBO) but not directed at peers (OCBI).
Social exchange (Blau ,1964) recommends that positive observations about the service
relationship would lead to valuable work behaviours through the procedure of compulsory
reciprocation. Specifically, we suggestthat workers will observeenhancement in both types of
performance as suitable way to respondfor socialgifts granted by the organization.
24. 24
We also find that organization citizenship behaviour has important relationship with
perceived organization support; hence we do have support for our hypothesis regarding the
relationship of organization citizenship behaviour and organization support.
H4: Perceived organization support is positively related with organization
citizenship behaviour.
3.7 THEORETICALFRAMEWORK:
Figure 1:The relationship of perceived organizational support on counter productive work
behaviour, job performance, creativity and organization citizenship behaviour.
Perceived organization
support (POS)
Counter
productive work
Behaviour.
Job Performance.
Creativity.
Organization
citizenship behaviour.
26. 26
4.1 SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION:
This research has been conducted on a cross–sectional research design. The research data was
collected from different sectors of Islamabad. Such as telecom sector and banks. The
questionnaire was filled by diverse job level employees and mostly by middle managers,
lower manager in the organization.
4.2 DESIGN OF THE STUDY:
Current study has cross-sectional design as data is gathered in two and a half week duration at
single time. Involvement in the survey was deliberate and strict confidentiality of the data,
scope and purpose of the study was provided to the respondents. 250 surveys were given out
in different banks, of which 200 were recovered which were sufficient to analyse and
appraise the collecteddata; statistical package for the social science (SPSS) software package
was used. The sample contained respondents ranging from top management to first line
managers from different departments of the banking sector. Educational qualifications ranged
from bachelors 32% and masters above degree 67%. Male were 62% and female were 38%.
The respondents mean age was 28.1.
4.3 VARIABLES:
4.3.1 INDEPENDENTVARIABLES:
Perceived organizational support (POS) is an independent variable in our research.
4.3.2. DEPENDENT VARIABLES:
Counter productive work behaviour (CWB), Creativity (Cr), job performance (Jp)&
Organization citizenship behaviour (OCB).is dependent variable of this study.
27. 27
4.4. MEASURES:
4.4.1 PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONALSUPPORT (POS):
We evaluate perceived organizational support with the 8 item scale developed by
Eiesenbergeret al., (1986).The sample items of includes.
My organization cares about my opinions.
May organization cares about my well being.
My organization considers my goals and values.
Respondents were asked (1=strongly disagree, to 7= strongly agree) to point out how much
their organization support them. The reliability of POS is found is .86 which is acceptable
range.
4.4.2 JOB PERFORMANCE (JP):
Job performance was calculated by 7 point liker scale contain of 7 items and was recognized
by “William and Anderson” (1991). The sample items of include.
Adequately complete assigned duties.
Performs tasks that are expected of him/her.
Full fills responsibilities specified in job description
It was starting from 1=Never to 7=Daily. Reliability of Job performance is.86 which is
satisfactory.
28. 28
4.4.3 COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR(CWB):
CWB Was calculated by 7 point liker scale containing of 9 items and was established by
“Bennett and Robinson” (2000). The sample items of include.
Damaged property belonging to my employer.
Said or did something to purposely hurt someone at work.
Deliberately bent or broke a rule.
It was starting from 1=never to 7= Always. CWB Reliability is .88 which is satisfactory.
4.4.4 CREATIVITY:
Creativity was measured by 7- point liker scale containing of 3 items and was established by
Oldham and Cummings, (1996) the sample items of include.
How ORIGINAL and PATICAL is this person’s work? Original and practical work
refers to developing ideas, methods, or products that are both totally unique and
especially useful to the organization.
How Adaptive and practical is this person’s work.
How CREATIVE is this person’s work.
It was starting from 1= not at all to 7= extremely. Creativity Reliability is .84 which is
acceptable.
29. 29
4.4.5 ORGANIZATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR:
OCB was calculated by 7 –point licker Scale containing of 14 items and was established by
“William and Anderson” (1991). The sample items of include.
Helps others who have been absent.
Helps others who have heavy workloads.
Take time to listen to co-workers problems and worries.
It was starting from 1= never to 7= Always. Reliability is .88which is acceptable.
31. 31
5.1 HYPOTHESIS:
Hypothesis 1: perceived organizational support (POS) is negatively related with
counterproductive behaviour (CWB).
Hypothesis 2: perceived organizational support (POS) is positively related with Job
performance (JP).
Hypothesis 3: perceived organizational support (POS) is positively related with creativity
(CR).
Hypothesis 4: perceived organizational support (POS) is positively related with
organization citizenship behaviour (OCB).
5.2 CONTROLVARIABLES:
We used one-way ANOVAanalysisstudy to confirm for the influence of the demographics
on dependant variables .ORG ,Present Experience, Total experience, Designation, are
measured as control variables in our research .these control manners contain direct impact on
the independent variables(IV) which is perceived organizational support(pos) and these are
being studied in contradiction of dependant variables (DV) that are counterproductive
behaviour(CWB), job performance (JP), organization citizenship behaviour( OCB) &
Creativity . When one-way ANOVA analysis isrun the ORG, PresentExperience,
Totalexperience, Designationare being directly limited as continuous variables.
32. 32
ONE WAY ANOVA ANALYSIS:
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups .652 2 .326 .226 .798
Within Groups 283.939 197 1.441
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 1.249 2 .625 .319 .727
Within Groups 385.245 197 1.956
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 2.083 2 1.041 .831 .437
Within Groups 246.809 197 1.253
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 4.675 2 2.338 1.378 .254
Within Groups 334.149 197 1.696
Total 338.824 199
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups 19.921 7 2.846 2.064 .049
Within Groups 264.669 192 1.378
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 41.617 7 5.945 3.310 .002
Within Groups 344.877 192 1.796
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 12.485 7 1.784 1.448 .188
Within Groups 236.407 192 1.231
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 13.724 7 1.961 1.158 .329
Within Groups 325.100 192 1.693
Total 338.824 199
33. 33
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups 2.204 1 2.204 1.545 .215
Within Groups 282.386 198 1.426
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 3.449 1 3.449 1.783 .183
Within Groups 383.045 198 1.935
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 4.841 1 4.841 3.927 .049
Within Groups 244.051 198 1.233
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups .640 1 .640 .375 .541
Within Groups 338.184 198 1.708
Total 338.824 199
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups 37.597 20 1.880 1.362 .147
Within Groups 246.993 179 1.380
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 46.832 20 2.342 1.234 .231
Within Groups 339.662 179 1.898
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 51.870 20 2.593 2.356 .002
Within Groups 197.022 179 1.101
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 40.637 20 2.032 1.220 .243
Within Groups 298.188 179 1.666
Total 338.824 199
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups 6.531 5 1.306 .911 .475
Within Groups 278.060 194 1.433
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 10.868 5 2.174 1.123 .350
Within Groups 375.626 194 1.936
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 15.135 5 3.027 2.512 .031
Within Groups 233.757 194 1.205
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 10.347 5 2.069 1.222 .300
Within Groups 328.478 194 1.693
Total 338.824 199
34. 34
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups .667 3 .222 .154 .927
Within Groups 283.923 196 1.449
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 1.509 3 .503 .256 .857
Within Groups 384.985 196 1.964
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 13.218 3 4.406 3.664 .013
Within Groups 235.674 196 1.202
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 19.719 3 6.573 4.037 .008
Within Groups 319.106 196 1.628
Total 338.824 199
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups 6.472 5 1.294 .903 .480
Within Groups 278.119 194 1.434
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 11.135 5 2.227 1.151 .335
Within Groups 375.359 194 1.935
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 15.265 5 3.053 2.535 .030
Within Groups 233.627 194 1.204
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 10.375 5 2.075 1.226 .299
Within Groups 328.449 194 1.693
Total 338.824 199
Sum of
Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups 46.667 22 2.121 1.578 .056
Within Groups 237.924 177 1.344
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 36.410 22 1.655 .837 .677
Within Groups 350.085 177 1.978
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 11.571 22 .526 .392 .994
Within Groups 237.321 177 1.341
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 45.240 22 2.056 1.240 .220
Within Groups 293.584 177 1.659
Total 338.824 199
35. 35
Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
CWB Between Groups 29.165 18 1.620 1.148 .310
Within Groups 255.425 181 1.411
Total 284.590 199
JP Between Groups 48.658 18 2.703 1.448 .114
Within Groups 337.836 181 1.866
Total 386.494 199
OCB Between Groups 40.608 18 2.256 1.960 .014
Within Groups 208.284 181 1.151
Total 248.892 199
CR Between Groups 52.055 18 2.892 1.825 .025
Within Groups 286.770 181 1.584
Total 338.824 199
36. 36
5.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
In our study we recognized the Mean and standard deviations as forperceived organizational
support (POS): mean = 5.01And SD = 1.19 for, Job performance (JP): mean = 5.27 and (SD)
=1.39, forCounterproductivebehaviour (CWB): mean =2.39, and SD =1.19 ForOrganizational
citizenship behaviour: mean =4.84 And SD=1.12, for creativity: mean =5.08, And Standard
deviation =1.30.
5.4 CORRELATION ANALYSIS:
To determine and know the connection between the variables and the association of the
variables with the demographics bivariate correlation is nearly useful on the data of the
present research. The table 2 shows the value of correlation thatisestablished. Values of
correlation is significant at the value of 0.01 are measure to b significant at p <.5 (2- tailed).
The studyof the correlation table shows that POS is negatively related with CWB. (r=-
.44,P>0.01), and positively related with Creativity(r=0.14,P>0.01),Job performance
(r=0.52, P>0.01), Organization citizenship behaviour. (r=0.50,P>0.01).from the result we can
see that organization citizenship behaviour(CWB),Job performance (JP),Creativity (CR) have
significant impact on perceived organization support (POS).
38. 38
5.6 REGRESSION:
We finalized stepwise linear regression inspection through SPSS.in the first step we added
the control and dependent variables and in step two weadded independent variables to
perceive the influence of independent variable on dependent variable. The outcomes are
given below.
5.6.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT
(POS) AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR (CWB):
In the first step we arrived dependent variable which is counterproductive behaviour and we
have control the variables that are organization and present experience .in second step we
have occupied independent variable which is POS.
Table 5a: regression analysis for the primary outcome of perceived organizational
support(POS) and counterproductive behaviour (CWB).
Predictor’s β R2
ΔR2
Step1:
Control 0.02
Step 2:
POS -0.12 0.04 0.02
39. 39
NOTE: N=250; control variables arePresent experience and organization. P*<0.05,
**p<.01, ***p<0.001
From the above table the regression analysis results explain that perceived organization
support consumes insignificant relationship with counterproductive behaviour. (β=-0.12,
R2 =0.04and ΔR2 = -0.02 at p>non significant.
Thus the relationship between perceived organization and counterproductive behaviour is non
significant relation among them.
5.6.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT
(POS) AND JOB PERFORMANCE (JP):
In the first step we arrived dependent variable which is Job performance. And we have
control the variables that are organization .in second step we have occupied independent
variable which is POS.
Table5b: regression analysis for the primary outcome of perceived
organizational support and job performance (jp).
Predictor’s β R2
ΔR2
Step1:
Controls 0.00*
Step 2:
POS 0.25 0.06* 0.06*
40. 40
NOTE: N=250, control variables are: organization. P*<0.05, **p<.01 ,***p<0.001
From the above table the regression analysis results explain that perceived organization
support consumes significant relationship with job performance. JP(β=0.25,R2 =0.06 and
ΔR2 = 0.06 and p>significant in its place of 6% change in dependent variable that is job
performance due to independent variable perceived organizational support. According these
results are associate our hypothesis 2. The results show statistically that perceived
organizational support is an important forecaster of job performance service area of Pakistan.
5.6.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT
(POS) AND CREATIVITY (CR):
In the first step we arrived dependent variable which is creativity (CR) and we have control
the variables that are designation and total experience.In second step we have occupied
independent variable which is POS.
Table 5c: Regressionanalysis for the primary outcome of pos and creativity)
Predictor’s β R2
ΔR2
Step1:
Controls 0.06**
Step 2:
POS 0.15 0.09** 0.03**
41. 41
NOTE: N=250; control variables are: Total experience designation. P*<0.05, **p<.01,
***p<0.001
From the above table the regression analysis results explain that perceived organization
support consumes significant relationship with creativity. CR (β=0.15, R2 =0.06 and ΔR2
=0.03 at P >0.01 in its place of 3% change in dependent variable that is creativity due to
independent variable perceived organizational support. According these results are associate
our hypothesis 3. The results show statistically that perceived organizational support is an
important forecaster of creativity service in the service subdivision of Pakistan.
5.6.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT
(POS) AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIPBEHAVIOUR (OCB):
In the first step we arrived dependent variable which is OCB and we have control the
variables that are totalexperience. In second step we have occupied independent variable
which is perceived organizational support (POS).
42. 42
Table5d: Regression analysis for the primary outcome of perceived organizational support
(POS) andOrganization citizenship behaviour (OCB)
𝑷𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔 𝜷 𝑹𝟐 ΔR2
Step1:
Controls 0.07**
Step 2:
POS 0.15 0.09** 0.02**
NOTE: N=250; control variables are: Total experience. P*<0.05, **p<.01, ***p<0.001
From the above table the regression analysis results explain that perceived organization
support consumes significant relationship with organization citizenship behaviour (OCB)
(β=0.15, R2 =0.09 and ΔR2 =0.02 at P > significant in its place of 2% variance in dependent
variable that is OCB due to independent variable perceived organizational support. According
these results are associate our hypothesis 1. The results show statistically that perceived
organizational support is an important forecaster of organizational citizenship behaviour In
the service segment of Pakistan.
44. 44
6.1. DISCUSSION:
After we have a tendency to correct the effect sizes of antecedent–pos connections for
examining and menstruation mistake, we have a tendency to utilized way examination to
evaluate the relative commitments to POS by the primary sorts of hierarchical treatment.
Most associations have spectacular carefulness and management regarding the decency of
ways that influence reward distributions. As indicated by organizational support theory, such
facilitative activities got to create a big commitment to workers' appraisal of the association's
kind or pernicious introduction to them.
Favourable treatment got from supervisors should additionally create a significant
contribution to POS, however maybe not as strong an impact as truthful treatment. As a result
of supervisors work as agents of the organization, their favourable treatment of workers
should help POS. . The recognizable proof of supervisors with the organization ought to be
diminished to the extent that their informal standing in the organization is low or their
perspectives and activities are looked as if it would be individual.
Many rewards and great or favourablejob conditions could usually be attributed to
externalpressures on the organization instead of to optional alternative. Examples embrace
written agreement commitments regarding pay and work rules, government wellbeing and
safety rules, and social groupstandards whose infringement would bring unfavourable
promotion. Of the 3 paramount organizational determinants of POS, rewards and positive or
favourable job conditions square measure expected to possess the weakest result. Such
treatment should help and contribute to POS just to the extent that it's seemed to represent the
organization’s deliberate, purposeful activities. The fairness of strategies that confirm the
number and dispersion of organizational resources should be a very vital determinant of POS.
Most organizations have appreciable discretion and management regarding the fairness of
45. 45
strategiesthat have an effect on reward allocations. In step with structure support theory, such
optional activities should build a serious commitmentto employees’ evaluation of the
organization’s compassionate or malevolent orientation toward them.
6.2.LIMITATION:
Our research project ,although fulfils the research requirements but it does have some
limitation as well .the first and foremost drawback can said to be the availability of time and
resources. We had to conduct the research in a very limited time and the only data collection
source was the use of a questionnaire. The research was conducted on a limited geographical
area i.e. a few employees from Islamabad, Rawalpindi. The major industries from which the
respondents were selected were banking, telecommunication sector .in the Pakistani context it
is concept that results from education sector are not consistent. That is why we may say that it
has been a limitation for this current research.
Another problem that was faced during the research was that the respondents were reluctant
to cooperate in getting the questionnaire filled because of the length of the scale. Most scale
consisted of ten to twelve items which, to the respondents,were very lengthy. This could have
caused a careless response an in time now it is very difficult to sphere a lot of time in filling
up the questionnaire. Some scale items were formulated using difficult vocabulary which
restricts the respondents from answering those items, it is because although English is an
official language in Pakistan but most employees do not have a vast knowledge in
vocabulary. This might also have caused confusion in the answers.
We used a single source i.e. the questionnaire and cross-sectional study which might not be
very effective .for this reason it can be suggested that the researchers may use different tools
and methodology to confirm or to reject the researchers may use different tools and
methodology to confirm or to reject this research with a more accurate one.
46. 46
6.3. FUTURE IMPLICATIONS:
This research was intended to study the effect of perceived organizational support and job
outcomes. Highly committed workforce always led the organization towards success.
Organizations should always try to retain its workforce by giving facilitative working
environment and by supporting them.
Future research could investigate more discrete dimensions of organizational support in order
to achieve a finer understanding of the relationships between POS and job out comes such as
creativity, job performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, counterproductive
behaviour . POS is usually consider as a uni dimensional construct in the literature
(Eisenberger Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa,(2004). however osca ,urine, Gonzales,
camino, Martinez-perez(2005).Recently developed a 3 dimensional scale of pos including
supervisory support, and colleague support, training and acknowledgement, and rewards.
Future research may focus on this three dimensional perceived organizational support scale
and provide fruitful results.
47. 47
6.4 CONCLUSION:
The purpose of the current research was to examine the relationship and effects of perceived
organizational support on various job outcomes .the variables that were considered in this
research were perceived organizational support as the independent variable whereas job
performance ,creativity, organization citizenship behaviour, counterproductive work
behaviour as dependant variable.
We found out positive relationship of perceived organizational support with creativity , job
performance, organization citizenship behaviour and negative relationship with
counterproductive work behaviour we demonstrated in the results that low organizational
support generate more counterproductive behaviour in a work place.
