Perceived organizational support.

Abstract

25E mployers would naturally prefer to have employees carry out their job responsibilities earnestly. Employers who take the human capital view believe that the great majority of employees have the potential to contribute to the organization's success and that the organization should help employees realize their potential. Employers who take the marginal capital position hold that most employees are, at best, a limited, short-term benefit to the organizationlosers who should be replaced as soon as convenient by such means as efficiencies or the hiring of others who are willing to the do the same job for less pay. But even employers taking the marginal capital view prefer a dedicated workforce, although not one deserving of more than the minimal needed resources to keep voluntary turnover at a level low enough to prevent costly disruptions in normal organizational functions.Employees, in contrast, are generally concerned with the organization's value for them. Employees believe they are recipients of enduring evaluations by the organization that influence how they are treated. As we discuss, employees' perceptions of positive valuation of the organization are welcomed because they fulfill socioemotional needs (e.g., approval, esteem, affiliation, emotional support), indicate the organization's readiness to provide future resources to help

Teachers’ Emotional Labour and Burnout: Does Perceived Organizational Support Matter?

“…Perceived organizational support (POS) generally refers to the belief that employees form concerning the degree to which the organization in which they work for fulfils their socio-emotional needs, values their contributions and its readiness to reward the same, and cares about their wellbeing (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986;Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). POS is thought to develop over time through multiple interactions between employees and their employers and to reflect the degree to which employees perceive that their work organization is committed to them (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).…”

“…Hence, since POS engenders one's sense of commitment to care about the organization's welfare based on the reciprocity norm (e.g. Eisenberger et al, 1986), it may affect the decision-making of teachers' emotional regulation strategies. Whereas actual supportive interactions are objective in nature, the perception of being supported relies on the sensitivity of the individual involved, which is subjective in terms of quality (Doeglas et al, 1996).…”

“…Whereas actual supportive interactions are objective in nature, the perception of being supported relies on the sensitivity of the individual involved, which is subjective in terms of quality (Doeglas et al, 1996). Eisenberger et al (1986) point out that POS would be impacted upon by different parts of employee's treatment by the organization and would, in turn, determine the employee's interpretation of organizational intentions behind such treatment. According to Eisenberger et al, it means that there would be a kind of agreement in the extent of support that the employee would expect of the organization in an array of circumstances, such as the organization's possible reactions to the employee's future illnesses, mistakes, and superior performance, and the organization's wish to pay a reasonable salary and make the employee's job worthwhile and appealing.…”

“…Perceived organization was measured with the short, 16-item version of the original 36-item version of Eisenberger et al's (1986) Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS). The SPOS was designed to assess the degree to which individuals believe that their organization cares about their well-being.…”

Socio-emotional support in French hospitals: Effects on French nurses' and nurse aides' affective commitment

“…Secondly, how can an individual employee identify her or himself to important stakeholders in the organization if the organization does not allow emotional expression? And, how can an employee be affectively committed (by a sense of belonging, pride and loyalty) to her or his organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990) if the organization/the employer does not care about her or his well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson & Sowa, 1986), and more precisely, one's emotional well-being, in case, the HRM policy and practices in the organization are based on the "separation model" (Kirshmeyer, 1995)?…”