Organizational and Supervisory Support in Relation To Employee Turnover Intentions
Organizational and Supervisory Support in Relation To Employee Turnover Intentions
Organizational and Supervisory Support in Relation To Employee Turnover Intentions
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
27,5 Organizational and supervisory
support in relation to employee
turnover intentions
518
Ipek Kalemci Tuzun
Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey, and
Received January 2011
Revised August 2011 R. Arzu Kalemci
October 2011
December 2011
Cankaya University, Ankara, Turkey
December 2011
Accepted December 2011
Abstract
Purpose – The present paper aims to examine the relationship between perceived organizational
support (POS), perceived supervisory support (PSS) and turnover intentions. The paper also aims to
investigate whether employee’s individual cultural values regarding collectivism and individualism
moderate the relationship between POS and turnover intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained utilizing survey from a sample of 304
full-time employed adults working in insurance companies in Turkey. Employees completed regular
survey that contained measures of the constructs of interest of this study.
Findings – Results revealed that employees who perceive high levels of PSS but report low levels of
POS will also report high levels of turnover intentions compared to employees who perceive low PSS
and low POS.
Practical implications – For increasing POS to be successful, managers must strive to find out the
way to increase their social support, and then tailor support accordingly. Managers may benefit from
considering cultural values during the support process. Furthermore organizations may develop
different support policies for employees.
Originality/value – The study’s findings add to the growing body of research concluding that
supervisor-related perceptions and attitudes can shape organization-related perceptions and attitudes.
Keywords Individualism, Collectivism, Perceived organizational support,
Perceived supervisory support, Turnover intentions, Turkey, Individual development, Perception,
Employees turnover
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Many researchers have attempted to answer the question of what fosters employee
turnover by investigating possible antecedents of it. This pervasive interest comes
mainly from recognition that turnover can be very costly, and that understanding and
managing it better can provide considerable benefits. Prior research provides
consistent support for intent to leave as the strongest predictor of actual turnover (Tett
and Meyer, 1993). Intention to leave is considered a conscious and deliberate desire to
leave the organization within the near future, and is regarded as the last part of a
Journal of Managerial Psychology sequence in the withdrawal cognition process (Mobley et al., 1978). A meta-analysis by
Vol. 27 No. 5, 2012
pp. 518-534 Steel and Ovalle (1984) demonstrated that intent to leave is a better predictor of actual
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
turnover behavior than affective variables, such as overall job satisfaction and
DOI 10.1108/02683941211235418 satisfaction with the work itself. That is why better understanding of the causes of
turnover intentions and how to control them will likely remain a crucial concern into Employee
the future. turnover
Social exchange theory has gained prominence as a framework of understanding
the employee-organization relationship and is arguably one of the most influential intentions
frameworks for understanding exchange behavior in organizations (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005). Although there are number of contributors to the theoretical foundation
of the social exchange literature, Blau (1964) and Gouldner (1960) have been 519
particularly influential in providing the key tenets that have been applied to studies in
the employee-organization literature (Shore et al., 2009). The application of social
exchange theory to the employee-organization relationship has focused on the
relationship an individual develops with his/her manager (Liden et al., 1997), the
organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986) or both (Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne et al.,
1997). Greater social exchange is associated with stronger employee contributions in
the form of higher commitment, lower intentions to quit, and better performance (Shore
et al., 2009).
Based on social exchange perspective Eisenberger et al. (1986) developed the theory
of perceived organizational support (POS) to understand employee-employer exchange
relationships. POS refers to an individual’s perception concerning the extent that an
organization values his or her contributions and cares about his or her wellbeing. Thus,
employees tend to seek a balance in their exchange relationships with their
organizations by having their attitudes and behaviors based on their employer’s
commitment to them as individuals. Related empirical research has shown that high
levels of POS to be associated with a host of positive work outcomes including
increased affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Rhoades et al., 2001), reduced
absenteeism and turnover intentions (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1990;
Wayne et al., 1997). Moreover, social exchange theory posits that workers can develop
a relationship between both the organization and the supervisor (Settoon et al., 1996).
Evidence suggests that employees do engage in enduring exchanges with both the
organization as a whole, and their immediate supervisor (Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne
et al., 1997). Just as employees form global perceptions concerning their valuation by
the organization, they also develop a general view concerning the degree to which
supervisors value their contributions and their wellbeing. Kottke and Sharafinski
(1988) state that perceived supervisory support (PSS) refers to employee views
concerning the extent to which supervisor value employees’ contributions, and care
about their wellbeing. This indicates that, if employees perceive their supervisors as
representatives of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Levinson, 1965), they may
develop exchange relationships with them that are distinct from those they
experienced with their organization. Research from organizational support literature
indicates that when supervisors are supportive of subordinates, this treatment
produces a felt obligation of subordinates to help supervisors reach their goals
(Eisenberger et al., 2002; Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe, 2003). Recently, researchers
have focused significant attention on the concept of POS as a key predictor of turnover
intentions (e.g. Allen et al., 2003; Maertz et al., 2007; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002)
Nevertheless, studies strongly indicate that the immediate manager play an important
role in employee turnover decisions (Maertz et al., 2003; Maertz et al., 2007; Payne and
Huffman, 2005).
JMP Moreover, cultural variables can play a role in an employee’s work-related attitudes
27,5 and behavior (Hofstede, 1984). Recent publications highlight the significance of
individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 2001) in cultural and psychological studies
(Earley and Gibson, 1998). Evidence suggests that cultural variables like individualism
and collectivism are implicated in a wide range of work outcomes, which may also
play an explanatory role in relation to other work behaviors. While
520 individualism-collectivism constructs have been used at a societal level to describe
cultural differences, it has been argued that people from individualistic and collectivist
cultures may hold individualist and collectivist values. The constructs are often used
by management scholars to measure attitudes and values at the individual-level
analysis, and capture individuals’ preferences for either collectivism or individualism
(Earley and Gibson, 1998; Triandis, 1995). Consistent with these suggestions, in this
study we treated individualism and collectivism as a variable that differentiate
individuals.
In the light of the above explanation, the primary purpose of this present study is to
further increase our knowledge and understanding of POS and PSS in the context of
employee turnover intentions by examining the potential associations of employee’s
cultural values.
Results
The means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas and inter-correlations of the final
version of the scales measures are provided in Table I.
In order to test hypotheses, regression analysis was undertaken. As noted by
Rosopa and Stone-Romeo (2008) inferences regarding the relations detected in a
Study variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
Discussion
The present study examined the relationship between POS, PSS, turnover intentions
and individual cultural values. Findings of this study addressed PSS moderates the
negative relationship between POS and turnover intentions. Although much of the
subsequent research has focused on attitudinal (e.g. satisfaction) and tangible (e.g. pay)
inducements to stay, a growing body of work recognizes that relational inducements
such as support from the organization and from a supervisor can also play an
important role in such decisions (e.g. Allen et al., 2003). Our findings add to the
growing body of research concluding that supervisor-related perceptions and attitudes
can foster organization-related perceptions and attitudes (Wayne et al., 1997; Maertz
et al., 2007). Consistent with Maertz et al. (2007), we discovered that when the
supervisor provides high support, POS becomes a less important predictor of turnover
intentions and POS becomes significantly more important when support from the
supervisor is relatively absent. The implication for turnover research is that future
studies should always consider the potential of employee’s relationship with their
supervisors to impact on turnover intentions.
b t
527
Figure 1.
Moderating role of PSS on
the relationship between
POS and turnover
intentions
In the present study, we revisit the question of whether individual cultural values
influence employee turnover intentions. Based on the premise, we predict that
individualistic values will foster individuals when evaluating the support gathering
from organization, thereby shaping their turnover intentions. It should be discussed
that according to study results, in particular, we did not found any support that POS
negative association on employee’s turnover intentions is higher in individualists. We
considered that POS might be more influential on turnover intentions because they are
oriented more toward self interest, reaching their own goals; looking out for
him/herself and considering the attainment of his/her own personal goals of primary
importance (Triandis, 1995). It should be also noted that the present individual level
study was conducted in a single country, namely Turkey. Turkey is located in the
middle of the Middle East, between Europe and Central Asia. Its strong secular identity
and its membership in NATO link it to Western Europe. Turkey can be best
characterized as in transition from a rural to increasingly urbanized, industrialized and
egalitarian one (Wasti, 2003). According to Hofstede (1984) Turkish culture has been
described as being high on collectivism (value of 37 over 100 under individualism
verses collectivism index) and power distance for Turkey. According to Schwartz
(1992) in culture value dimensions in a survey of 34 cultures, Turkey ranked above the
average in values of conservatism (12th), hierarchy (5th) egalitarian commitment (13th)
and harmony (5th). A more recent and extensive study on Turkish culture was
conducted as a part of the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004). Findings of the GLOBE
study revealed that two predominant characteristics of Turkey to be in group
collectivism and power distance among 62 cultures. Above findings indicate that
Turkish people were collectivist, but there has been a change toward individualism in
recent years since Turkey has been living through a transition period between Eastern
and Western attitudes, values, and lifestyles. Therefore, although Turkish culture
JMP protects its collectivistic nature, individualism is a concern for Turkish society. While,
27,5 tendency toward individualism is stimulated by the separation of big families,
immigration from rural areas to cities and economic conditions and increased
industrialization of Turkey, current study cannot provide any support for this
condition. The current study investigated the notion that emphasizing individual
differences in cultural values are likely to have important implications for employees
528 work related attitudes. It should be also noted that this study was located within a
broader collectivistic context. This transition obviously has some reflections in
organizational settings.
Main result of this study is PSS moderates the relationship between POS and
turnover intentions. It means POS and PSS interaction qualifies the main relation of
turnover intensions that is why the other predictor variables are not statistically
significant. While Turkish culture still holds its collectivist nature, employees might
commit to organizations primarily because of their ties with managers, owners, and
co-workers and far less because of the job itself or the particular compensation scheme
(individualistic incentives).
Implications
The findings of this study hold crucial implications for practitioners concerned that
POS and PSS are potentially quite valuable as a part of turnover management.
Organizations must pay attention to foster PSS in order to reduce turnover intentions.
For increasing POS to be successful, managers must strive to find out the way to
increase their social support, and then tailor support accordingly. On the other hand,
supervisors acting supportive and promoting themselves as such seems to be
generally good for reducing turnover intentions. Supervisors would be well advised
to act primarily upon supporting aspects (i.e. regularly ask employees how they can
help them to their job, and show personal consideration) of the job in order to build
constructive relationships with employees. Indeed, such action will ultimately
increase the likelihood that employees stay with their organization. However,
increasing PSS could have potentially mixed implications as well. Because of the
relatively frequent interactions between most employees and their supervisors, the
supervisors become the primary focus and the potential shaper of employees support
perceptions. As seen by our results, a supportive supervisor may be able to cover for
the shortcomings of organizational policies. But, on the other hand, management
should provide relative support to supervisors to attach the organizations. For
employees, attachment to a supervisor only means attachment to the organization as
long as the employees see the supervisor as somewhat attached to the company (see
Maertz et al., 2007).
529
Limitations and directions for future research
There are several limitations of this study that should be addressed in future research.
Any generalization from the findings of this study should be done with caution
because of the limitations imposed by the nature of the sampled subjects and country.
Our sampled country, Turkey, has been characterized as a relatively collectivist
country, and it is important to note that the comparison of individualists and
collectivists made in this study was located within a broader collectivistic context.
Thus, the range of collectivism versus individualism among Turkish employees may
be only a small portion of the full continuum of the dimension that can be found when
surveying from more countries. A similar study in an individualistic culture may
demonstrate some differences. We believe it is important for scholars to understand the
mediating psychological processes by which these differences are created, in order to
better understand what interventions organizations can use to effectively manage
diverse workforces. Moreover, current studies individualism/collectivism measure
may be problematic. As noted previously by Stone et al. (2008) there are numerous
measures of individualism collectivism cultural values (Triandis et al., 1995; Dorfman
and Howell, 1988; Ramamoorthy and Flood, 2004; Wagner, 1995,) the construct validity
of these measures has not always been assessed therefore existing measures may not
be appropriate to define the construct. That is why; more research is needed to assess
the degree to which these measures are reliable and valid.
Future research should extend our efforts by considering specific areas of turnover
management with other causal variables, additional populations, and additional
methods of measuring cultural orientation to increase our understanding of the link
between organizational-specific (organization and supervisor-based) variables and
employee behavior both at the cultural and the individual level. In addition,
multi-method probes that include surveys, personal interviews, direct observation, and
experiments are needed to provide further validation of the link between cultural
values and individual employee behavior. Future research needs to address this issue
by comparing individualists and collectivists within and across individualist and
collectivist cultures. Future research should also examine how other cultural attributes
may associate with employee’s job attitudes. The approach developed in this paper
may also be a useful theoretical lens for understanding how other cultural values
(e.g. uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, or power distance) shape
individuals reactions to their work environment. As stated before because of the
changing nature of Turkish society, more research is needed about the fluctuating
individualistic and collectivistic characteristic of Turkish culture. Finally, in this
study, we focus on predicting employee turnover intentions. However, a useful
extension of this research could be examining actual turnover and how cultural
orientation influences on actual turnover rates.
JMP Note
27,5 1. Current study did not found any statistical support for the dimensions of I/C orientation for
moderation analyses. Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for the remaining 13 I/C
items in order to analyze I/C orientation with their dimensions. Several alternative models
were tested (one factor model, two factor competitiveness and solitary work preferences with
supremacy of individual goals and model, two factor competitiveness and self reliance with
530 supremacy of individual goals and solitary work preferences model, four factor model). The
confirmatory factor results of the test indicate that common methods bias is unlikely to be
present, with the goodness of fit indices for four factor model indicating x2 ¼ 123; 59;
df ¼ 59; RMSEA ¼ 0:06; GFI ¼ 0:94; AGFI ¼ 0:91 when comparing other models. After
that, it has been tested whether multi-collinearity problem exist in our study or not. That is,
when the correlation POS and the IC dimensions are high, then the interaction term
essentially captures the linear effects of the variables used in forming the interaction terms
(Cortina, 1993). However, the correlation between POS and competitiveness (0.05 p , 0.05),
correlation between POS and solitary work preferences (0.06 p , 0.05), correlation between
POS and supremacy of individual goals (0.09 p , 0.05) were both closer to zero and non
significant suggesting that multi-collinearity is not an issue of this study.
References
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organizational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1983), “Organizational commitment: individual and organizational
influences”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 123-46.
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Lynch, P. (1998), “Perceived organizational support
and police performance: the moderating influence of socio-emotional needs”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 288-97.
Badger, F. and Werret, J. (2005), “Room for improvement? Reporting response rates and
recruitment in nursing research in the past decade”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 51
No. 5, pp. 502-10.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N.J. (1991), “The parochial dinosaur: the organizational science in a
global context”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 262-90.
Chen, Z.X., Tsui, A.S. and Farh, J.L. (2002), “Loyalty to supervisor vs organizational commitment:
relationships to employee performance in China”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 339-56.
Cohen, A. and Avrahami, A. (2006), “The relationship between individualism, collectivism, the
perception of justice, demographic characteristics and organizational citizenship
behavior”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 889-901.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “Interaction, nonlinearity and multicolinearity: implications for multiple
regression”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 915-22.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A. and Toth, P. (1997), “The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes and stress”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-80.
Dawley, D., Houghton, J.D. and Bucklew, N.S. (2010), “Perceived organizational support and Employee
turnover intention: the mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit”, The Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 150 No. 3, pp. 238-57. turnover
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications intentions
for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-28.
Dorfman, P.W. and Howell, J.P. (1988), “Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited”, Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3, 531
pp. 127-50.
Earley, P.C. and Gibson, C.B. (1998), “Taking stock in our progress on individualism –
collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 265-304.
Eder, P. and Eisenberger, R. (2008), “Perceived organizational support: reducing the negative
influence of coworker withdrawal behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 55-68.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 51-9.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational
support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002),
“Perceived supervisory support: contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-73.
Fuller, J.B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L. and Relyea, C. (2006), “Perceived organizational
support and perceived external prestige (PEP): predicting organizational attachment for
university faculty, staff and administrators”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 146
No. 3, pp. 327-47.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. and Welbourne, T. (1991), “Compensation strategies in a global context”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-78.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hill, C.A. (1987), “Affiliation motivation: people who need people but in different ways”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 1008-18.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javiclan, M., Dorfman, P.F. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Corsage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kottke, J.L. and Sharafinski, C.E. (1988), “Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational
support”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 1075-9.
Levinson, H. (1965), “Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 370-90.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997), “Leader member exchange theory: the past
and potential for the future”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 47-119.
JMP Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N. and Foley, S. (2006), “Linking employees’ justice perceptions to
organizational commitment and intention to leave: the mediating role of perceived
27,5 organizational support”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79
No. 1, pp. 101-20.
Maertz, C.P., Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (2003), “A turnover model for the Mexican
maquiladoras”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 111-5.
532 Maertz, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., Campell, N.S. and Allen, D.G. (2007), “The effects of perceived
organizational support ad perceived supervisory support on employee turnover”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1059-75.
Marcus, H.R. and Kitiyama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion
and motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53.
Martin, H.J. (1984), “A revised measure of approval motivation and its relationship to social
desirability”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 508-19.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-48.
Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O. and Hollinsworth, A.T. (1978), “An evaluation of precursors of
hospital employee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 408-14.
Orpen, C. (1982), “The effect of social support on the reactions to role ambiguity and conflict: a
study among white and black clerks in South Africa”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 375-84.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), “Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumption and meta analysis”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
Payne, S.C. and Huffman, A.H. (2005), “A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring
on organizational commitment and turnover”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 158-68.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Carroll, S.J. (1998), “Individualism/collectivism orientations and reactions
toward alternative human resource management practices”, Human Relations, Vol. 51
No. 5, pp. 571-88.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P.C. (2002), “Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: a test of
the main and moderating effects of individualism and collectivism orientations”, Human
Relations, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 1071-96.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P.C. (2004), “Individualism/collectivism, perceived task
interdependence and teamwork attitudes among Irish blue collar employees: a test of
main and moderating effects”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 347-66.
Ramamoorthy, N., Gupta, A., Sardessai, R.M. and Flood, P.C. (2005), “Individualism /collectivism
and attitudes towards human resource systems: a comparative study of American, Irish,
and Indian MBA students”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16
No. 5, pp. 852-69.
Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. and Birjulin, A. (1999), “Organizational politics
and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance and
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 2, Employee
pp. 159-74.
turnover
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714. intentions
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment of the organization:
the contribution to perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-36. 533
Rosopa, P.J. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (2008), “Problems with detecting assumed mediation using
the hierarchical multiple regression strategy”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 294-310.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries”, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-65.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), “Social exchange in organizations: perceived
organizational support, leader member exchange and employee reciprocity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 219-27.
Shanock, L.R. and Eisenberger, R. (2006), “When supervisors feel supported: relationship with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 689-95.
Shore, L.M. and Shore, T.H. (1995), “Perceived organizational support and organizational
justice”, in Cropanzano, R.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice and
Support: Managing the Social Climate of Workplace, Quorum, Westport, CT, pp. 149-64.
Shore, L.M. and Tetrick, L.E. (1991), “A construct validity study of the survey of perceived
organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 637-43.
Shore, L.M., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Chen, X.P. and Tetrick, L.E. (2009), “Social exchange in work
settings: content, process, and mixed models”, Management and Organization Review,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 289-302.
Spence, J.T. (1985), “Achievement American style: the rewards and costs of individualism”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 1285-95.
Steel, R.P. and Ovalle, N.K. (1984), “A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship
between behavioral intentions and employee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 673-86.
Stinglhamber, F. and Vandenberghe, C. (2003), “Organizations and supervisors as sources of
support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 251-70.
Stone, D.L. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (2008), The Influence of Culture on Human Resource
Management Processes and Practices, Psychology Press and Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hove.
Stone, D.L., Isenhour, L. and Lukaszewski, K.M. (2008), “A model of influence of cultural values
on job application intentions and behaviors”, in Stone, D.L. and Stone-Romeo, E.F. (Eds),
The Influence of Culture on Human Resource Management Processes and Practices,
Psychology Press and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, pp. 25-53.
Stone-Romeo, E.F. and Stone, D.L. (2002), “Cross cultural differences in responses to feedback”,
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 21, pp. 275-81.
Tate, U., Whatley, A. and Clugston, M. (1997), “Sources and outcomes of job tension: a three
nation study”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-8.
JMP Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), “Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’
procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Academy of
27,5 Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 97-105.
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 259-93.
534 Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO.
Triandis, H.C. (2001), “Individualism-collectivism and personality”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 69
No. 6, pp. 907-24.
Triandis, H.C., Chan, D.K.S., Bhawuk, D.P.S., Iwao, S. and Sinha, J.P.B. (1995), “Multimethod
probes of aliocentrism and idiocentrism”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 461-80.
Wagner, J.A. (1995), “Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-72.
Wasti, S.A. (2003), “Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the influence of cultural
values”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 303-21.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.