Final project of my mba

Chapter 1

Introduction

and

Background

1

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

2

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

3

“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

4

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

5

organizational support (POS) 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. RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

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)?

6

Chapter 2

Literature

Review and

Background

7

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

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

8

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.

(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

9

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

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

10

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 WORK BEHAVIOUR (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

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

11

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

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:

12

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.

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

13

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

(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

14

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

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

15

exchange theory describes the intended substitute of profit that takes place among two

indivuals or groups.(Lester,Mnglino .Korsgaar ,2007 ).

Chapter 3

Theoretical

Framework and

16

Hypothesis

Development

3.1. ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT THEORY:

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

17

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

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 WORK BEHAVIOR (CWB):

18

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 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

19

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

counterproductive behaviour.

3.4. PERCEIVED ORGANIZATION SUPPORT (POS) AND JOB

PERFORMANCE (JP):

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.

20

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:

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

21

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).

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 organizational support is positively related with creativity.

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

22

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.

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 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

23

Perceived organization support (POS)

Counter productive work Behaviour.

Job Performance.

Figure 1:The relationship of perceived organizational support on counter productive work

behaviour, job performance, creativity and organization citizenship behaviour.

Chapter 4

Methodology And

24

Creativity.

Organization citizenship behaviour.

Sampling

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

25

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 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:

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.

4.4. MEASURES:

4.4.1 PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT (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):

26

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.

4.4.3 COUNTER PRODUCTIVE 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.

27

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.

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.

28

Chapter 5

Results and

Analysis

29

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 CONTROL VARIABLES:

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) &

30

Creativity . When one-way ANOVA analysis isrun the ORG, PresentExperience,

Totalexperience, Designationare being directly limited as continuous variables.

ONE WAY ANOVA ANALYSIS:

Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.

CWB Between Groups .652 2 .326 .226 .798Within Groups 283.939 197 1.441Total 284.590 199

JP Between Groups 1.249 2 .625 .319 .727Within Groups 385.245 197 1.956Total 386.494 199

OCB Between Groups 2.083 2 1.041 .831 .437Within Groups 246.809 197 1.253Total 248.892 199

CR Between Groups 4.675 2 2.338 1.378 .254Within Groups 334.149 197 1.696Total 338.824 199


CWB Between Groups 19.921 7 2.846 2.064 .049Within Groups 264.669 192 1.378Total 284.590 199

JP Between Groups 41.617 7 5.945 3.310 .002Within Groups 344.877 192 1.796Total 386.494 199

OCB Between Groups 12.485 7 1.784 1.448 .188Within Groups 236.407 192 1.231Total 248.892 199

CR Between Groups 13.724 7 1.961 1.158 .329

Within Groups 325.100 192 1.693

31

Total 338.824 199





CR Between Groups .640 1 .640 .375 .541

Within Groups 338.184 198 1.708Total 338.824 199







32


CWB Between Groups 6.531 5 1.306 .911 .475Within Groups 278.060 194 1.433Total 284.590 199






CWB Between Groups .667 3 .222 .154 .927Within Groups 283.923 196 1.449Total 284.590 199

JP Between Groups 1.509 3 .503 .256 .857Within Groups 384.985 196 1.964Total 386.494 199





CWB Between Groups 6.472 5 1.294 .903 .480Within Groups 278.119 194 1.434Total 284.590 199





33



JP Between Groups 36.410 22 1.655 .837 .677Within Groups 350.085 177 1.978Total 386.494 199

OCB Between Groups 11.571 22 .526 .392 .994Within Groups 237.321 177 1.341Total 248.892 199



34

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.






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).

35

5.5 CORRELATION TABLE:

MeanSD

ORG GENDER AGE DEPT DESIG SPECIAL PEXP TEXP CWB JP OCB CR POS

ORG4.54 2.29

GENDER.62 .49

.06

AGE28.16 4.33

.05 .19(**)

DEPT3.51 1.33

-.02 .21(**) .19(**)

DESIG2.26 .80

.12 .27(**) .59(**) .26(**)

SPECIAL3.50 1.33

-.04 .21(**) .19(**) .99(**) .25(**)

PEXP2.87 2.49

.08 .06 .56(**) .07 .38(**) .07

TEXP4.54 3.35

.10 .21(**) .82(**) .21(**) .58(**) .20(**) .73(**)

CWB2.39 1.19

-.04 -.09 .01 -.01 -.01 -.01 .14 .06

JP

5.271.39

-.05 .09 .012 .07 .05 .06 -.06 .04-.44(**

)

OCB

4.84 1.12.03 .14(*) .19(**) .10 .23(**) .09 .04 .21(**)

-.22(**

).52(**)

CR

5.08 1.30.03 .04 .24(**) .13 .22(**) .13 .16(*) .22(**)

-.24(**

).37(**) .50(**)

POS5.01 1.19

-.01 .07 -.02 -.13 -.02 -.14 -.10 -.02 -.13 .24(**) .15(*) .14(*)

36

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

37

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.


(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).


Step1:

Controls 0.00*

38

Step 2:

POS 0.25 0.06* 0.06*

NOTE: N=250, control variables are: organization. P*<0.05, **p<.01 ,***p<0.001


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.


(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: Regression analysis for the primary outcome of pos and creativity)


Step1:

Controls 0.06**

Step 2:

39

POS 0.15 0.09** 0.03**

NOTE: N=250; control variables are: Total experience designation. P*<0.05, **p<.01,

***p<0.001


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.


(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).

40

Table5d: Regression analysis for the primary outcome of perceived organizational support

(POS) andOrganization citizenship behaviour (OCB)

Predictors β R 2ΔR2

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


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.

41

Chapter

Discussion &

Conclusion

42

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

43

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.

44

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.

45

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.

46

47

CONFLICT, W.-F. (2001). "Family friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-based allocations." Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice 2: 145.

48

Recruiting & HR

Final project of my mba