The Influence of Perceived Organisational Support on Organisational Commitment: An Empirical Study (2014)

IntroductionWork is defined by organizational theorists as an exchange process that employees put their effort and commitment and get physical and emotional benefits which the organization offers them. This exchange relationship between the employer and the employee emphasizes the result that organizations achieve favorable and desirable outcomes by treating them generously (Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965). For employees, the organization serves as an important source of socio-emotional resources, such as respect and caring, and tangible benefits, such as wages and medical benefits. When organizations recognize their employees, they would help them to meet their needs for approval, esteem, and affiliation (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa, 1986). Positive valuation by the organization also provides an indication that increased effort will be noted and rewarded. Perceived Organizational Support (POS) holds that in order to meet socioemotional needs and to assess the benefits of increased work effort, employees form a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. Such perceived organizational support would increase employees' felt obligation to help the orga n iz at i o n r e a ch it s o b je ct iv e s , the ir commitment to the organization, and their expectation that improved performance would be rewarded (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa, 1986; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Shore and Shore, 1995). Employees who perceive the organization as caring for their well-being are, therefore, assumed to be more likely to reciprocate not only in engaging in various forms of pro-social behavior directed toward the organization, but also by developing a stronger sense of organizational commitment.Objective of the StudyThe purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between perceived organizational support and employee commitment to the organization.Review of LiteratureOrganizational support theory supposes that to meet socioemotional needs and to determine the organization's readiness to reward increased work effort, employees develop beliefs concerning to the extent which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being ( Orpen, 19 94). Eisenberger, Hunt ington, Hutchinson, and Sowa, (1986) called this belief a s P erc ei v ed O rg an i za ti o n al S u p p o r t . Perceived organizational support develops by meeting employees' socioemotional needs and showing readiness to reward employees' extra efforts and to give help that would be needed by employees to do their jobs better (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa, 1986). Perceived organizational support draws on the social exchange theory developed by Blau (1964) to explain employee-organization relationships. According to the theory, each party has perceptions and expectations regarding the behavior of the other party, but these expectations and perceptions are related with the timing or the specifics of what each party must render. If both parties benefitted from the exchange, neither will know whether the expectations of the other have been fully met. Thus, social exchanges involve reciprocity (Tansky and Cohen, 2001). Based on the above arguments, perceived organizational support encompasses the employees' perception about their organizations' concern with their well-being and their contributions. Perceived organizational support covers the degree to which employees feel that the organization is willing to fairly compensate them with the exchange of their efforts, help them when they need make their work interesting and stimulating, and provide them with adequate working conditions (Aube, Rousseau and Morin, 2007). POS has been hypothesized to influence employees' general reactions to their job, including job satisfaction (Cakar and Yýldýz, 2009), job involvement (George and Brief, 1992) organizational commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo and Lamastro-Davis, 1990) and intention to leave ( G u z z o , N o o n a n , a n d E l r o n , 1 9 9 4 ) . …