xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001917305
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071119s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002037
Riggle, Robert J.
The impact of organizational climate variables of perceived organizational support, workplace isolation, and ethical climate on salesperson psychological and behavioral work outcomes
h [electronic resource] /
by Robert J. Riggle.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this dissertation is to build and test a model that integrates the marketing, management, and psychological literature with respect to organizational climate variables and their direct and indirect impact on salesperson psychological and behavioral outcomes, as well as one that answers the overarching research question of how organizational climate variables impact salesperson psychological and behavioral work outcomes. Data were collected during the time period from April 2006 until May 2006. Three hundred survey invitations were sent via e-mail to salespeople at three organizations. The participating organizations included a privately owned publishing firm located in the southeastern United States, a large privately owned Internet recruiting firm located in the upper Midwest, and a publicly traded worldwide financial information reporting firm. In total, 251 responses were gathered yielding an overall response rate for the study of 83.6%. Generally, the results from this analysis confirm the research questions that climate variables such as perceived organizational support, ethical climate, and trust do positively impact salesperson psychological and behavioral outcomes. Managerial implications and directions for future research are also offered.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 167 pages.
Advisor: Paul J. Solomon, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
The Impact of Organizational Climate Va riables of Perceived Organizational Support, Workplace Isolation, and Ethica l Climate on Salesperson Psychological and Behavioral Work Outcomes by Robert J. Riggle A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement s for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Marketing University of South Florida Major Professor: Paul J. Solomon, Ph.D. James S. Hensel, Ph.D. Andrew Artis, Ph.D. Yancy Edwards, Ph.D. Loyd Pettegrew, Ph.D. Date of Approval: July 9, 2007 Keywords: Inside Sales, Business-to-B usiness, POS, Job Performance, Organizational Commitment Copyright 2007, Robert J. Riggle
i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................iv LIST OF FI GURES...............................................................................................v ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................vi CHAPTER 1 Â– In troductio n...................................................................................1 Contribution of the Res earch.....................................................................4 Summary of Remain ing Chapt ers..............................................................5 CHAPTER 2 Â– Literature Review and Hypothesis De velopment..........................8 History of Organizati onal Clim ate..............................................................8 Definition of Organiza tional Clim ate.........................................................12 Formation of Organiza tional Clim ate.......................................................17 Measurement of Climat e..........................................................................18 Hypothesis De velopm ent......................................................................... 21 Development of the Ethica l Climate C onstruct..............................22 Development of the POS Constr uct..............................................25 Meta-Analytic Literature Re view............. ................ ............. ...........33 Antecedents of Perceived Organi zational Support... ...........34 Consequences of POS..... .................. .................. ...............36 Method.............. ............... ................ ............. ......................39 Database Development............. .................. .............39 Inclusion Criteria and Coding Pr ocess......... .............40 Analysis and Results...... ............... .............. .............. ..........42 Descriptive Statistics. .................. ................ .............42 Homogeneity Analysis.... ............... .............. .............42 Meta-Analytic Results...... .................. .................. ................43 Discussion of Meta-Analytic Results. ............ .............. ........45 Antecedents of POS....... ............... ................ ...........45 Consequences of POS.............. .................. .............46 POS Hypothesis Development............... ............... ............. ...........48 Development of the Organiza tional Trust C onstruct......................52 Development of the Workpl ace Isolation Construct.......................54 Development of the Role Stressor C onstruc ts..............................56 Development of the Job Sa tisfaction C onstruct............................57
ii Development of the Organizati onal Commitment Construct.........58 Summary.................................................................................................60 CHAPTER 3 Methodol ogy................................................................................61 Introduction to Chapt er............................................................................61 Analytic Pr ocedure ...................................................................................67 Research Setting .....................................................................................69 Partici pants ...................................................................................70 Instrument ation .............................................................................71 Ethical Cl imate...................................................................71 Perceived Organizati onal Sup port......................................72 Trust...................................................................................72 Workplace Is olatio n............................................................73 Job Satisf action ..................................................................73 Organizational Commitm ent...............................................74 Turnover In tention..............................................................74 Self-Rated Perf ormanc e.....................................................74 Research Pr ocedures ...................................................................75 Descriptive and Reli ability Anal ysis....................................75 Correlation Analysi s...........................................................75 Iteration 1: Meas urement Model ....................................................77 Iteration 2: Initial St ructural M odel 1 ..............................................78 Summary.................................................................................................79 CHAPTER 4 Â– RESULT S...................................................................................80 Hypothesis Te sting..................................................................................80 Stage 1 Â– Evaluation of Model Fit.................................................80 Stage 2a Â–Hy potheses..................................................................82 Hypothesis 1.......................................................................82 Hypothesis 2.......................................................................83 Hypothesis 3.......................................................................83 Hypothesis 4.......................................................................83 Hypothesis 5.......................................................................84 Hypothesis 6.......................................................................84 Hypothesis 7.......................................................................84 Hypothesis 8.......................................................................85 Hypothesis 9.......................................................................85 Hypothesis 10.....................................................................85 Hypothesis 11.....................................................................86 Hypothesis 12.....................................................................86 Hypothesis 13.....................................................................86 Hypothesis 14.....................................................................87 Hypothesis 15.....................................................................87 Hypothesis 16 and 17 .........................................................87 Hypothesis 18.....................................................................88
iii Hypothesis 19.....................................................................88 Hypothesis 20.....................................................................88 Hypothesis 21.....................................................................89 Summary.................................................................................................89 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE R ESEARCH ........................................................................................90 Organizational Climate Influence on Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes................................................................................................91 Perceived Organizati onal Sup port.................................................91 Ethical Cl imate..............................................................................95 Workplace Is olatio n.......................................................................96 Post-hoc A nalysis ....................................................................................98 Limitations of the Stud y............................................................................99 Suggestions for Futu re Resear ch..........................................................101 REFERENC ES.................................................................................................105 APPENDIX A M easures .................................................................................122 Role Stre ss............................................................................................123 Ethical Clim ate.......................................................................................125 Perceived Organizatio nal Suppor t.........................................................127 Trust....................................................................................................... 129 Workplace Isol ation ...............................................................................130 Job Satisfac tion..................................................................................... 131 Organizational Commitment ..................................................................132 Turnover Int ention ..................................................................................133 Self-Rated Perf ormance ........................................................................134 Dissertation Survey ................................................................................135 APPENDIX B TABLES ...................................................................................150 ABOUT THE AUTH OR...........................................................................E nd Page
iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 POS Meta A nalytic Find ings............................................................. 151 Table 2.1 Overview of Study Hypot heses......................................................... 152 Table 3.1 Response Rate s by Organiza tion.....................................................153 Table 4.1 Reliabilit y Analys is............................................................................154 Table 5.1 Correlati on Matrix.............................................................................155 Table 6.1 Perceived Organizati onal Support (POS).........................................156 Table 6.2 Ethica l Climat e..................................................................................156 Table 6.3 Workplac e Isolatio n..........................................................................157 Table 6.4 Tr ust.................................................................................................158 Table 6.5 Role Ambiguity.................................................................................159 Table 6.6 Role Conflict.....................................................................................159 Table 6.7 Organizatio nal Commitm ent.............................................................159 Table 6.8 Job Sa tisfacti on................................................................................159 Table 6.9 Tu rnover...........................................................................................160 Table 6.10 Self-Rated Performanc e.................................................................160 Table 7.1 Measurement Model St andardized Factor Loadings........................161 Table 8.1 Model Itera tion Compar ison..............................................................163 Table 9.1 Standardized Pa ths and t-va lues...................................................... 165 Table 10.1 Post Hoc A nalysis Resu lts..............................................................167
v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Concept ual M odel..................................................................................7 Figure 2 Path Model...........................................................................................60
vi THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE VARIABLES OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, WOR KPLACE ISOLATION, AND ETHICAL CLIMATE ON SALESPERSON PSYCHOL OGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL WORK OUTCOMES Robert J. Riggle ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation is to bu ild and test a model that integrates the marketing, management, and psycholog ical literature with respect to organizational climate variables and their direct and indirect impact on salesperson psychological and behavioral out comes, as well as one that answers the overarching research question of how organizational climat e variables impact salesperson psychological an d behavioral work outcomes. Data were collected during the time period from April 2006 until May 2006. Three hundred survey invitations were s ent via e-mail to salespeople at three organizations. The participating or ganizations included a privately owned publishing firm located in the southeastern United States, a la rge privately owned Internet recruiting firm located in the upper Midwest, and a publicly traded worldwide financial information reporting fi rm. In total, 251 responses were gathered yielding an overall response rate for the study of 83.6%. Generally, the results from this an alysis confirm the research questions that climate variables such as perceived organizational suppor t, ethical climate, and trust do positively impact sales person psychological and behavioral
vii outcomes. Managerial implications and directions for future research are also offered.
1 CHAPTER 1 Â– INTRODUCTION As many of todayÂ’s businesses conti nue to struggle to survive or remain profitable, it becomes im portant for managers to bet ter understand the factors that influence employees and important em ployee-oriented work outcomes. The growing significance placed on under standing employees and their behavior within the organization has produced a great deal of interest in investigating employee perceptions of c limate within the organization In our society, we spend quite a bit of time in organizations These organizations can be schools, corporations, religious institutions, etc. Since much of our time is spent in these organizations, the environment surrounding t he individual has im portant costs for him/her personally and professionally. The growing significance placed on understanding sales employeesÂ’ behavior within the organization has produc ed a great deal of interest in investigating their perceptions of clim ate within the organiza tion. Salespeople are a vital part of our work environment. They are responsib le for creating the revenues needed for firms to remain profit able and survive. In many instances, salespeople are also the face of the organization to the customer. A recent article by Artis and Harris (2007) highli ghts the importance of salespeople within the business landscape. Artis and Harris noted that sales related occupations
2 comprise approximately 10.5% (or approximat ely 15.25 million) of all jobs held in the United States. Of t hese sales oriented jobs, appr oximately 54% are retail, 6.3% are service providers, 12.7% are manufacturing/w holesale representatives, and 15.7% are in a supervisory capacity of some kind. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that by 2012 there will be an increase in the number sales related jobs to somewhere in t he neighborhood of 17.2 million. Given the current state of affairs (salespeople gaini ng more responsibility for building strong customer relationships) and t he projected increase in t he number of sales related jobs in the near future, firms need to create more supportive working environments for sales and non-sales employ ees. To date, little research has been conducted on organizati onal climate and its impact on salespeopleÂ’s psychological and behavioral outcomes. Salespeople are considered boundary spanners or front line employees in that they typically spend more time in the field dealing with customers. This geographic and psychol ogical separation from the organization can create a much differ ent work environment for salespeople as compared to non-boundary personnel (Riggl e, Edmondson, & Hanson, 2007). Over the past decade, Fortune Magazin e has published an annual article on the 100 best companies to work fo r. These companies are supposedly spending large amounts of resources to cr eate a positive environment for their employees. Firms offer many varying ty pes of tangible and intangible items to their workers in order to achieve some s ense of positive attitude toward/about the organization. These tangible and intangi ble items that are received can be seen
3 as creating different facets of the culture of the or ganization. These facets include supportive climate, et hical climate, social climat e, and trusting climate. In order to create a supportive climate, com panies provide things such as profit sharing, tuition reimbursement, flexti me for mothers of young children, and receiving personal communication from the CEO. For ethica l climate, firms provide compensation for community vol unteer work, create a Â“greenÂ” office space, allow salespeople to oversee condi tions in the firmÂ’s overseas factories, and provide an ombudsperson to help resolve conflicts within the workplace. In creating a social culture, companies hav e flattened their organizational chart so all salespeople have access to upper management and pr omote monthly celebrations for birthdays and company successes (Levering and Moskowitz, 2007). Finally, companies creating trus ting climates have created transparent policies, made all salespeople stakeholde rs in the organization, and allowed workers to participate in religious/cultural ac tivities during the work day. It should be duly noted that these tangible and int angible items companies give to and allow of their workers cost time money, and non-renewable resources. Therefore, it is critical that we under stand whether these clim ate variables indeed create enough positive salespeople psych ological and behavioral outcomes to warrant their continuance. The idea of organizational climate in tegrates at least three types of concepts. They include (1) environ mental concepts, such as size and arrangement of the firm, wh ich are peripheral to the person, (2) individual
4 concepts, such as attitudes the worker brings with him to the firm, and (3) outcome concepts including such things as satisfaction, performance, and commitment to the firm, which are det ermined by the interaction between the environmental and individual concepts. The importanc e of investigating the interaction of organizational and individual variables is that it provides much needed direction for identifying and conc eptualizing environmental variables relevant to the climate. Organizational climate variables such as supportiveness, participation, feelings of trust, and per formance can provide useful insight for refining work environments (James and James, 1989). Contribution of the Research The purpose of this dissertation is to bu ild and test a model that integrates marketing, management, and psychologic al literatures with respect to organizational climate variables and their direct and indirect impact on salesperson psychological and behavioral outcomes. The overall objective of this research is to investigate how a sa lespersonÂ’s perception of that climate of the organization (being supportive, social, trusting, and ethical) impacts important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The research proposed for this dissertation has both theoretical and practical impor tance. Theoretically, the research proposed in this dissertation will assist in taking a critical first step to help shed light on how social exchange relations hips (e.g., professional and personal relationships between individuals within t he organization) and the perception of
5 organizational climate influence salesp eople's attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, research aspires to provide em pirical evidence that these important climate variables drive salesperso n outcomes such as performance, commitment, and satisfaction. This research will help identify how salespeople are influenced by support from the organization and pr ovide suggestions for managi ng those perceptions of support. The specific research questions for this study are identified below. Research Question 1: How much do the organizational climate variables ethical climate, perceived organizational support, workplace isolation, and trust in fluence salesperson psychological and behavioral outcomes? Research Question 2: What are the interrelationships among these organizational climate and outcome variables? Summary of Remaining Chapters As previously indicated, this dissert ation proposes a model that examines the impact of organizational climate variables on salesperson attitudes and behaviors (See Figure 1). The model mo ves beyond the current understanding of organizational climate and proposes an exam ination of the interrelationships of potential organizational clim ate variables (Ethical Climate (EC), Perceived
6 Organizational Support (POS ), Workplace Isolation (W I), and Trust). This is followed by an investigation into the di rect and indirect influence these potential climate variables have on important attit udinal and behavioral variables such as performance, job satisfaction, role st ressors, and organizational commitment. This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 presents a brief introduction of the background, resear ch questions, and importance of the dissertation. Chapter 2 pres ents a literature review of the organizational climate, perceived organizational support, ethical cl imate, and trust literature. Chapter 3 presents the research hypot hesis testing methodology fo llowed by an outline of the proposed sample, statistical method to be employed, and the measures to be used to collect the data from the samp le. The results and discussion are encompassed in Chapters 4 and 5 along wit h implications and directions for future research.
7 Figure 1 Conceptual Model Ethical Climate POS Workpl Isolation Trust in Super Organization Climate Perceptions Role Stressors Role Ambig Role Conflict Perform. Org. Commit. Job Satisf. Turnover Intentions Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes
8 CHAPTER 2 Â– LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT This chapter is segmented into two main portions. The first portion contains a brief synopsis of the deve lopment and use of organizational climate followed by a literature review of the proposed organizational climate variables including perceived organizational support, workplace isolation, organizational trust, and ethical climate. The sec ond portion contains a study proposal stemming from issues ident ified from both the literat ure review and current literature gaps in sales force research. History of Organizational Climate Organizational climate theory has been described as Â“one of the most important, but least understood conceptsÂ” (Hellriegel and Slocum, 1974, p. 255). In the 1930Â’s, it was recommended that in order to better understand behavior, one must look at it as it was related to the environment in which the behavior took place. This suggestion seemed very logical to researchers and thus began the investigation into environmental research. The notion of organizational climate has commonly been attributed to the Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939). In their study of aggressive behavior in juvenile males, Lewin, et al. (1939) coined the term Â“social climateÂ” to connote the
9 environment that was created in diverse treat ment groups in their study. In this study, the researchers were largely inte rested in investigating leader behaviors across the experimental groups and ident ifying the influence that those leader behaviors had on the relational exchanges within that group, specifically focusing on the aggressive behavior of boys. Du ring their study, Lewin, et al. (1939) found three methods of leader behavior Â– au thoritarian, democ ratic, and laissezfaire. The researchers assigned each leader beha vior to a specific group where they then found that as the boys were mo ved from group to group, authoritarian behaviors created aggressive or apathetic so cial climates while democratic and laissez-faire leader behaviors attenuated ag gressive social climates and created leaders who were more revered by the bo ys. This research provided the first empirical link between the behavior of a leader and the organiza tional climate. Later, the notion of climate was inve stigated and made clearer by Litwin and Stringer (1968) and Stringer (2002). Us ing Lewin, et al.'s (1939) work, as well as the social needs concepts of aroused social motives (Atkinson, 1964; McClelland, 1987), Litwin and Stringer fash ioned a simulated business situation using three different manuf acturing firms. These simulated organizations had similar make up except for the leadership qualities of the company presidents. Litwin and Stringer identified a rela tionship between leader behavior and the organizational climate perce ived by the workers, as well as a relationship between the organizationÂ’s climate and t he performance of the employees in
10 terms of overall business performance. These findings highlighted two essential elements in our understanding of climate. First, climate impacts employee attitudes and motivation which, in tu rn, has a direct impact on business performance (Stringer, 2002). Secondly, they reported that the realities of the firmÂ’s climate are only underst ood as they are perceived by the members of the organization, and thus, we must allow thes e organizational members to utilize the firmÂ’s climate to filter p henomena to those employees (L itwin & Stringer, 1968). Since these studies, the concept of climate has seen its share of controversy. Throughout the l960s and 1970s issues such as the focus of the convenience and its relationships with other variables were notable. In the first case, researchers argued that the focus on individual levels of analysis for an organizational construct was theoretically inappropriate and invalid. The point was made that if organizational climat e was conceptualized and measured from an individual level, then it would be no different than the concept job satisfaction (James & Jones, 1974). This point prom pted many research studies to assess the relationship between climate and sati sfaction. The general consensus was that climate was significantly different fr om satisfaction and tha t, in many cases, there was no relationship between the variables (Lafollette & Sims, 1975; Schneider & Snyder, 1975). This left t he door open for researchers to use the individual level of analysis for as sessing organizational climate. Since its inception, the organizati onal climate concept has often been confused with organizational culture as well. According to Stringer (2002),
11 organizational culture and organizational climate are two very different constructs. Similar to climate, the c oncept of culture has no consensus on its definition. One can define culture as Â“shared basic assumptionsÂ” (Schein, 1992, p.12), or prevailing ideals (Deal & Kennedy 1982) that carry on over time despite fluctuations in organization personnel. Meyerson (1991) suggested that one reason culture is so difficult to define is because it is, in essence, the code word for the contextual side of organizational existence. D enison (1996) went further to describe the similarities and differenc es between organizational climate and culture. His distinctio n between these concepts boiled down to the following. Climate refers to a situation and its link to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of organizational members. Thus, it is te mporal, subjective, and often subject to direct manipulation by people with power and influence. Culture, in contrast, refers to an evolved context (within whic h a situation may be imbedded). Thus, it is rooted in history, collectively held, and sufficiently complex to resist attempts at direct manipulation (p. 644). An added distinction between culture and climate can be seen in their theoretical directions. Climate is root ed in the person-envir onment fit theories from Lewin (1951) whereby behavior is a product of both the person and the environment (e.g., the person is external to the environment) while culture (a social construction of events) assumes that the employee c annot be divided from the environment. Some researchers go further to claim that climate is a subcomponent of organizati onal culture (Schein, 1992; Stringer, 2002). Given
12 the constant debate on these two constructs this dissertation takes the stance to rely upon the Denison (1996) conceptua lization of organiza tional climate. Despite the ongoing debate surrounding organizational climate, the construct continues to play a promi nent role in organizational research (Rousseau, 1988). Several definitions have been offered by various authors as discussed below. More than ten meta-analytic and cont ent analytic reviews of the literature have bee n published on organizational climate since 1960 highlighting its matu rity in organizational research (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; James & Jones, 1974; Jones & Jones, 1979; Joyce & Slocum, 1984; Pa yne & Pugh, 1976; Rousseau, 1988; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Definition of Organizational Climate One of the earliest defin itions of organizational climate was proposed by Forehand and Von Gilmer (1964). They viewed organizational climate to be comprised of qualities that discriminat e one firm from another, that endure over time, and help to control actions of employees within the organization. Subsequent research from Tagiuri, Litwin, and Barnes (1968) build upon Forehand and Von Gilmer by adding the notion that climate should be described as the set of qualities that encompass t he organization of inquiry. Beyond this, several researchers have proposed other defin itions that place more weight on the environment, including things su ch as guidelines, actions, and the
13 atmospherics (Argyris, 1958; Schein, 1992) while another group insists that leader and manager behavior are most impo rtant (Fleishman, 1953; McGregor, 1960; Meyer, 1968). Moreover, another group of researchers focus on measurable outcomes (Forehand, 1968). Below is a brief listing of the differing definitions of organizational clim ate as shown by (Grant, 2002). Organizational climate is made up of perceived organizational properties intervening between or ganizational characteristics and behavior (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969). Organizational climate is a set of attitudes and expectations describing the organizationÂ’s stat ic characteristics and behavioroutcome and outcome-outcome c ontingencies (Campbell, et al., 1970). Individual perceptions of thei r organization are affected by characteristics of the organization and the individual (Schneider & Hall, 1972). Psychologically meaningful cogni tive representations of the situation perceptions (James & Jones, 1974).
14 Perceptions or interpretations of meaning which help individuals make sense of the world and know how to behave (Schneider & Snyder, 1975). IndividualsÂ’ cognitive representati ons of proximal environments... expressed in terms of psychological meaning and significance to the individual, an attribute of the individual, which is learned, historical and resistant to change (James & Sells, 1981). An assessed molar perception or an inference researchers make based on more particular perceptions (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). (Â‘Organizational ClimateÂ’) A generic term from a broad class of organizational, rather than psychol ogical, variables that describe the context for individualÂ’s actions (Glick, 1985). Organizational Climate is a conc ept reflecting the content and strength of the prevalent val ues, norms, attitudes, behaviors and feelings of the people in an or ganization (McNabb & Sepic, 1995).
15 As can be seen above, researchers a ttempt to permit the definition of organizational climate be ta ken out of the context of inquiry. While it is complicated to propose an all purpose definition, it is possible to draw up the boundaries of the concept by ascribing to it ce rtain characteristics. Tagiuri, et al. (1968) identified several aspects of climate that help to clarify the domain of the concept. "Climate is a molar, synthetic concept (like personality). Climate is a particular configurat ion of situational variables. Its component elements may vary however, while the climate may remain the same. It is the meaning of an enduring situational c onfiguration. Climate has continuity, but not as lasting as culture. Climate is determined importantly by characteristics, conduct, attitudes, expectations of other persons, and by sociological and cultural realities.
16 Climate is phenomenologically external to the actor who may, however, feel that he cont ributes to its nature. Climate is phenomenologically dist inct from the task for both observer and actor. It is in the actorÂ’s or observer Â’s head, though not necessarily in a conscious form, but it is based on char acteristics of external reality. It is capable of being shared (as consensus) by several people in the situation, and it is interpret ed in terms of shared meanings (with some individual variation around a consensus). It cannot be a common delusion since it must be veridically based on external reality. It may or may not be capable of de scription in words, although it may be capable of specification in terms of response. It has potential behavioral consequences.
17 It is an indirect determinant of behavior in that it acts upon attitudes, expectations, and states of arousal which are direct determinants of behaviorÂ” (Tagiuri, et al., 1968, pgs. 24-25). Formation of Organizational Climate The notion of organizational clim ate has been thought to have many dimensions to its makeup. These varying dimensions have been cause for much of the debate surrounding the concept. In the early 1970Â’s, researchers proposed four main dimensions to organi zational climate. These dimensions include autonomy, structure of the job, reward orientat ion of the employee, and the consideration, warmth, and support offe red by the organization (Campbell, et al., 1970). Autonomy, as described by the researchers, was said to be the freedom of the person to be his/her own boss and keep extensive decisionmaking power for himself/herself. The st ructure of the job refers to how the objectives and methods within the job are created and communicated to the worker by his/her superiors. Reward orientation suggests how motivated the worker is to perform his/her job, while consideration, warmth, and support, refers to the support, stimulation, and overall re lationship quality perceived from oneÂ’s organization (Campbell, et al., 1970). A meta-analysis of organ izational climate by Koys and DeCotiis (1991) found that climate is a perception and not an assessment of their job satisfaction. T hey further asserted that climate is the internal atmosphere of the organization. In their analysis of the organizational
18 climate literature, Koys and DeCotiis ( 1991) identified approx imately 80 separate features. Through a reduction procedur e, Koys and DeCotiis condensed the features from 80 to 45, and ultimately identified eight super-ordinate climate dimensions: 1) autonomy, 2) cohesion, 3) trust, 4) pressu re, 5) support, 6) recognition, 7) fairness, and 8) innovat ion. Koys and DeCotiis (1991) finally concluded that organizational climate should be assessed at an individual level, and that each workerÂ’s observation can be expected to differ across the eight global categories. Measurement of Climate In step with the formation of organiza tional climate is its measurement. Researchers have suggested at least th ree different approaches for measuring climate (James & Jones, 1974). T hese approaches include a multiple measurement organizational attribute approach, a perceptual measurement organizational approach, and a perceptual measurement individual approach (Jackson-Malik, 2005). The first approach is a Multiple Meas urement of Organizational Attributes (MMOA) approach which asserts that organi zational climate is measurable as a set of attributes or pro perties about the organizati on -organizational climate includes a set of firm attributes. The MMOA presumes organizations have specific climate attributes that are signifi cantly different from climate attributes within other organizations. These a ttributes are typically based on the
19 organization rather than employee perceptions as other approaches may suggest. The MMOA approach also assumes that the firmÂ’s climate cannot be affected by fluctuations in employee behaviors such as turnover (Forehand & Von Gilmer, 1964). Moreover, these res earchers suggested that a firmÂ’s culture characteristics hold over time and in fluence employee behavior. While this approach has been used in the literature, it is rather narrow in its assertion that employees do not contribute to the c limate. The other two measurement approaches take into account the vital ro le of the employee in the formation of climate. The second measurement approach is the Perceptual Measurement Organizational Attribute approach (PMOA) The PMOA views organizational climate as a set of perceptual variabl es which combine the organizationÂ’s attributes, as well as the perceptions of its agents. The third approach for measuring organi zational climate is the Perceptual Measurement of Individual Attribut es (PMIA) approach, which views organizational climate as perceptual and as an individual attribute (perceived by individuals Â—-the individualÂ’s attribute). This approach considers the individual and assesses what is psychologically important to him/her and how he/she perceives the work environment (James & Jones, 1974). This popular approach has seen the most acceptance within the organizational research field. In Schneider and SnyderÂ’s (1975) study, organizational c limate was found to be completely shaped by the percepti ons of the workers. Schneider and
20 Snyder went further to a ssert that organizational clim ate was exclusively reliant on employee perceptions and t hat the organization, as its own entity, does not have a climate. Research has shown that the construct of clim ate refers to the employeeÂ’s observation of the psycholog ical influence of the work environment on his or her sense of well being (James & James, 1989). Moos (1974) identified three dimensions of work environments that relate to organizational climate. The first dimension includes a relationship aspect, consisting of the basis and magnitude of interpersonal relationships within the organization. Here, employees are obs erved as supporting and helping each other. The second dimension, personal development, cultivates personal growth and self enhancement. Finally, in the th ird dimension, system maintenance and change, employees see the environment as being orderly, clear in expectations, stable, and responsive to change. Jones and JonesÂ’ (1979) meta-analytic review of the climate literature found 17 factors that are said to be in the workplace. These factors include stress, autonomy, organiza tional trust, support, wo rk group collaboration, friendliness, and warmth. Other res earchers have described climate factors (such as trust, support, fairness, wa rmth, autonomy, feedback, cohesion, pressure, and innovation) that det ermine how an environment influences behavior and are guided toward achievement of organizational goals (Koys & DeCotiis, 1991; Rousseau & Tijoriwa la, 1998; Zammuto & Krakower, 1991).
21 Given what has been identified within t he organizational c limate literature, little research has focused on sales-re lated employees. Singh (1998; Singh, Verbeke, & Rhoads, 1996) recognized that sales employees are different from other employees in that they perceive high er levels of stress and responsibility in their job, thus, thei r resulting attitudes and behavio rs may be different than other workers. Moreover, these concepts of support, trust, ethics, and isolation have seen relatively little empirical findi ngs compared to marketing and sales employees. The proposed study for this di ssertation will take into account these issues. As noted by James and Jones (1974) several studies have identified these specific issues (support, trust, ethics, and isolation [social relationships]), yet none have operationalized these concepts relative to organizational culture. Therefore, the following study proposal seeks to answer these calls. Hypothesis Development The following section presents rati onale for the proposed study. Along with the rationale, several hy potheses are proposed. The rationale in this section builds hypotheses in sections rather than one at a time. To reduce redundancy, the rationale for multiple hypotheses is presented at one time rather than individually. Some hypotheses presented in this section have been previously tested in the literature (in some case s many times). Again, to reduce redundancy, the discussion on these hypotheses is abbreviated.
22 Development of the Ethi cal Climate Construct The notion of ethical climate has re ceived increased attention recently within the sales force liter ature (Jaramillo, Mulki, & Solomon, 2006; Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander, 2006). Ethical climat e is defined as the salespersonÂ’s perception of the prevai ling ethical standards that are reflected in the organizationÂ’s practices, procedures, norms and values (Babin, Boles, & Robin, 2000; Mulki, et al., 2006; Schwepker, Ferrell & Ingram, 1997). Sales force researchers have been particularly concerne d with the effects of ethical climate on issues such as turnover and perform ance (e.g., Jaramillo, et al., 2006; Schwepker, 2001; Valentine & Barnett, 200 3), yet no research has investigated whether ethical climate influences POS. A firmÂ’s ethical climate directs the ethical values and behaviors expected from its employees. Ju st as salespeople may make meaningful appraisals concerni ng other support elements such as autonomy and justice, they also make meaningful appraisals of the work environment on ethical grounds. Percepti ons of support from the organization are also obtained from meaningful apprai sals of the work environment. One example of these appraisals could be when an employee looks to the organization for direction on specific j ob tasks. In certain instances, the organization could direct the salesperson to a new account wo rth more money in commissions and valuable to the firm for l ong-term profits. The organization explains how to handle this client in retu rn for maximized sales. This exchange could have support undertones in that the employee may be receiving this client
23 because of a previous job well done (e.g., reciprocative POS). In the same instance, the directives from the organi zation regarding the new client could have ethical ramifications as the client may be critical to long-term profitability and any ethical fumble could spell trouble down t he road. Given that these assessments are distinctly different fr om other assessments of s upport, ethical climate may be another antecedent of POS. Hypothesis 1: Ethical climate wil l have a moderate positive impact on POS. Role theory states that as employees received inconsistent commands or requests from their managers, they tended to become dissatisfied and their performance decreased (Kahn, Wolf, Qui nn, Snock, & Rosenthal, 1964; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Additionally, as employees perceive their job duties as unclear, similar consequences may be experienced. Within the sales and marketing literature, researchers have c onceded that these variables are very important for salespeople as they often face conflicting expectations from their numerous bosses (customers, sales manager s, etc.). Research has indicated that organizational climate variables ma y influence perceptions of role stress (Singh, 1998). Trevinio, Butterfie ld, and McCabe (2001) suggest that as employees perceive there to be a pos itive ethical climate within their organization, a reduction in role stress may occur as role expectations are
24 becoming more clear. Recent research has investigated and found evidence of a negative relationship between ethical climat e and role stress (Jaramillo, et al., 2006; Schwepker, et al., 1997). Hypothesis 2: Ethical climate will have a strong negative impact on role ambiguity. Hypothesis 3: Ethical climate will have a moderate negative impact on role conflict. Recent research has also indicated that salespeople develop positive attitudes toward their organization when it expressly outlines standards to help understand ethical and unethi cal behavior (Valentine & Barnett, 2003). These attitudes can be manifested in import ant outcomes such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Organi zational commitment refers to the salespersonÂ’s attachment to the organiza tion (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) while job satisfaction refers to how much he/she likes their job (Spector, 1997). Jaramillo, et al. (2006) suggest two factor s that may explain the relationship between ethical climate and job attitudes. The first fact or suggests that ethical climate may help keep the salespers on from engaging in unethical behaviors such as deceptive selling and/or coercive tactics. The second factor suggests that ethical climate may help develop lo ng-term relationships with customers
25 since salespeople may be happier in their jobs due to reduced role stress (Mulki, et al., 2006). An ethical climate can help to produce positive attitudes and behaviors for salespeople. For example, traditional wisdom suggests that the more ethical a company is, the more thei r clients will stay with them rather than risking a relationship with a competing fi rm. Following this logic, the more an organization is ethical, and, thus, the mo re clients they have that stay for the long-term, the more opportunity ther e will be for salespeople to make commissions. Therefore, ethical clim ate should have a direct impact on commitment to the organization, as we ll as satisfaction in their job. Hypothesis 4: Ethical Climate will have a moderate positive impact on organizational commitment. Hypothesis 5: Ethical Climate will have a moderate positive impact on job satisfaction. Development of the POS Construct The POS construct was developed in 1986 by Robert Eisenberger and his colleagues to explain how employees view their employing organizationÂ’s commitment to them and how those support mechanisms gained from the organizationÂ’s commitment to the em ployee influences employee commitment back to the organization. The theoretical basis used for conceptualizing this
26 construct was Social Exchange Theory (SET ). The notions of economic social exchanges (Blau, 1964) and the norm of re ciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) have both been used by organizational researchers to describe the motivational basis behind employee behaviors and the formati on of positive employee attitudes (e.g., Etzioni, 1961; Levinson, 1965; March & Simon, 1958). SET has been and is one of the most influential conceptual paradigms in organizational behavior research to date (Cro panzano & Mitchell, 2005). Social Exchange Theory has been cla ssified under the "motivational theory" category because of its ability to explain interpersonal behaviors. According to Jex (2002), motivational t heories are concerned with the question of why people do what they do. Three prim ary reasons exist regarding the need to study motivation of individuals. Firs t, motivation is the key to understanding many types of behavior within organization s. Being able to understand these behaviors may help researchers, in turn, to understand other im portant behaviors such as job performance and turnover. Second, understanding these workplace behaviors may increase the ability to predict future behaviors. For instance, say an organizationÂ’s sales managers know t he motivation underlying a particular performance domain for their salespeople. By understanding these motivational factors, the sales manager can more a ccurately predict future performance outcomes that can be very important for selection, training, or promotional issues. Third, understanding the mo tives behind certain behavior can enable managers to harness and/or influence it.
27 Motivational theories are segmented into four distinct categories, based on their focus. These categories incl ude (1) need-based theories, (2) job-based theories, (3) cognitive process theorie s, and (4) behavior approaches. SET is categorized into the cognitive process theories category that focuses on human thought processes for under standing employee motivation. The cognitive processes category is home to equity theory (Homans, 1958), expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), goal-setting theory (Austin & Vancouver, 1996), and control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Powers, 1973). Equity theory (Homans, 1958) proposes that humans tend to view social interaction as being similar to a economic transaction whereby one party give s something of value in return for something of value (e.g., one person gives money to a restaurant in exchange for a meal; an employer gives an employee a paycheck in return for performing some work task). Based on this not ion, SET was developed to explain how people assess the value of some exchange in order to adjust what is given back for what was received. One of the basic assumptions of equity theory is that employees bring a certain number of "inputs" such as academic credentials, experience, etc. These inputs are then tr aded for some psychological contract. This contract stipulates that certai n outputs or outcomes are expected and is rewarded or reciprocated with resources, compensation, and commitment from the organization. From this point, va lue assessments begin and are made during each reciprocation situation in order for both parties to adjust the value for the future exchange. Several mechanisms may be used to adjust or restore equity in
28 social exchanges. These mechanisms c an include 1) an employee increasing outcomes such as performance or commitment; 2) reducing inputs or decreasing the level of effort devoted to a particular task; 3) changing the perception of value of certain outcomes or adjusting cogniti ve assessments of value; 4) changing the standard comparison by choosing different people to compare the input to output ratio; and 5) leaving the job to find one t hat provides a more favorable ratio of inputs and outputs. As far back as 1920, researchers have been using facets of SET to bring together disciplines such as psychology (e.g., Gouldner, 1960; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), sociology (e.g., Blau, 1964) and anthr opology (Firth, 1967; Sahlins, 1972). Most recently, within the m anagement literature, the co nceptual underpinnings of SET have been used by researchers to understand workplace behavior (Shore, Tetrick, & Barksdale, 1999). Within t he organization, the SET model specifies that certain workplace reciprocations l ead to interpersonal connectedness (e.g., employee to employee or employee to or ganization) leading to social exchange relationships (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). From the organization-employee perspecti ve of social exchange, these relationships evolve over time as the employer Â“takes care of employeesÂ”, thereby eliciting important reciprocat ive outcomes such as organizational commitment and increased work behaviors. Social Exchange Theory is defined as Â“a social psychological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges
29 between partiesÂ” and has been mostly used to clarify why individuals communicate commitment to the or ganization (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Scholl, 1981) and engage in contextual performance behaviors (e.g., performance that is outside that of the job de scription) (Organ, 1988). Social Exchange Theory posits that a ll human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis follow ed by the comparison of alternative actions. For example, when an individual perceives the benefits of the relationship as outweighing the perceiv ed costs, then the theory asserts that the individual will remain in the relations hip. Early conceptua lizations of Social Exchange Theory stem from Go uldner's (1960) norm of reci procity. The norm of reciprocity argues that people will return benefits given to them in a relationship as a "payback" for those benefits received. Blau (1964) further stipulated that the basis of any exchange relationship coul d be characterized as either being based on social or economic principles. Soci al principles expr ess that social relationships are grounded in Â”trusting gesture s of goodwillÂ” that is reciprocated at some future point. Al ternatively, economic princi ples suggest that economic relationships are grounded in the exchange of valuable resources which will also be exchanged or Â“reciprocatedÂ” at some future point. Social exchange has been conceptua lized two ways in the management and organizational literature. The first conceptualization characterizes social exchange as a global exchange relati onship between employees and the
30 organization. This characterization focu ses on the employeeÂ’s belief that the organization values his/her efforts and contributions to the organization and cares about their personal well being (E isenberger, et al., 1986). This is consistent with Eisenberger, et al.Â’s (1986) conceptualization of global exchange which is termed perceived organizational support. The second conceptualization of social exchange focuses more on t he dyadic relationship between employee and supervisor. From this perspective, the employee perceives his/her direct supervisor or manager cares about their we ll being and values their contribution back to the organization. This conc eptualization can be termed perceived supervisor support which is also consis tent with Eisenberger, et al.Â’s (1986) proposition. Social exchange theorists and or ganizational/supervisory support researchers have identified that the em ployeeÂ’s perception of high levels of support could create felt obligation to repay the organization. Specifically, empirical research has found POS to be positively related to performance of conventional job responsibilities, citizenship behavior, and commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro 1990; Eisenberger, et al., 1986; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Other empirical research on social exchange has revealed that the more support the employee perceives from his/her supervisor, the more he/she becomes obligated to the supervisor and behaves in a manner that is above and beyond what is required in the psychological contract.
31 According to the organizational su pport paradigm (Eisenberger, et al., 1986), the development of POS is enc ouraged by employees' propensity to assign the organization human-like qualit ies (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). To review, POS is defined as the employeeÂ’s global beliefs concer ning the extent to which the organization values his/her contributions and cares about his/her wellbeing (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). Employees' global bel iefs are developed as a result of the organization providing suppor t mechanisms that include, but are not limited to, providing a fair organizati onal culture, incr easing monetary and nonmonetary compensation such as verbal praise and training, and increased decision-making power or autonomy. Addi tionally, research has indicated that organizational rewards and favorable j ob conditions contribute more to the development of POS if the employee belie ves that these rewards and outcomes are because the organization wants to provi de them rather than having to provide them contractually or legally (Eisenber ger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997; Eisenberger, et al., 1986; Shore, Barksdale, & Sh ore, 1995). As employees develop POS, research has indicated that they begin to reciprocate back to the organization (Eisenberger, et al., 1997). During this process, many favorable outcomes may occur that include, but are not limited to, increased job satisfaction and heightened affect, increased organizational commitment, increased task and contextual performanc e, and reduced turnover intentions. The notion of POS origi nated in the psychology literature and has seen prolific investigation within bot h psychology and organizational management
32 disciplines. From its inception, POS has been used to investigate how employees view their organizationÂ’s commitment back to them through the provision of support mechanisms such as resources and pay (Riggle, et al., 2007). Within the psychology literature much research has investigated the different commitment mechani sms stemming from empl oyee POS. Constructs that have seen abundant research are ov erall organizational commitment as well as affective, normative, and continuance co mmitment. This is somewhat logical in that the main assumption regarding POS refers to commitment from the organization for commitment back to t he organization. Additionally, other variables such as job satisfaction, or ganizational citizenship behavior, and role stress have also been studied with POS in p sychological literatur e. Similarly, management and organizational behavior lit erature has somewhat mirrored the psychological literature in its research on POS. Quite a bit of literature in this field has also concentrated on organiza tional commitment issues, as well as important outcomes such as j ob satisfaction and role stress. The primary difference in these two groups of literatur e seems to be the focus on outcomes from POS. The management literature typically focuses on important business outcomes such as ta sk performance and turnover, while the psychological literature is somewhat less focused in this area. The next section highlights a meta-analytic review of the POS literature. The review was performed by Riggle, Edmondson, and Orti nau (2005) in order to identify the antecedents and consequences of POS. This analysis is an important step in
33 synthesizing the vast POS literature and identifying viable future research directions. Meta-Analytic Literature Review As previously mentioned, the concept of POS was initially developed to explain the development of empl oyee commitment to an organization (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). Their findings suggest that employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which t he organization values their contributions and cares about their well being. The reciprocal exchange relationships that stem from an employeeÂ’s POS serve as the basis for many of the hypot hesized relationships investigated in the literature. Initially intr oduced by (Eisenberger, et al., 1986), the concept of Â“perceived organizational supportÂ” was us ed in an effort to better understand social exchanges between the in dividual and the organization. The global beliefs that employees develop serve as the trigger for the inferences concerning their organizations commitment to them In turn, this inference of the organizationÂ’s perce ived commitment to its employees contributes to the employ ees' reciprocated commitment back to the organization. For example, perceptions of high levels of POS create empl oyee feelings of obligation toward the organization as well as reciprocating the employers' commitment by engaging in behaviors that support organizational goals (Eisenberger, et al., 1986).
34 Antecedents of Perceived Organizational Support The review of the lit erature on POS yielded six viable antecedent constructs. These constructs include monetary compensation, distributive justice, procedural justice, role ambigui ty, role conflict, and job autonomy. Each of the constructs is briefly visited below. The construct of compensation was not iced in only a few articles with POS. Compensation refers to the or ganizationÂ’s positive evaluations of the employeeÂ’s work effort or accomplishment s, resulting in some type of monetary gain (e.g., salary and/or bonus) for the employee (Witt, 1992). Traditional wisdom suggests that compensation is t he main motivating factor for many employees (Ryals & Rogers, 2005). Giv en this school of thought, compensation should play a large role in interpreting whether the organization values employee effort and cares about their well being. The notion of justice ha s been moderately investigat ed in conjunction with POS. Justice refers to the organizati onÂ’s honest impartial treatment of its employees free from prejudice or favoriti sm (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Ryan, 1993). Two sub-constructs of justice have been identified in the literature. The first is distributive justice referring to perceived fairness in the organizationÂ’s policies and practices of in terpersonal treatment that employees receive from the organization (Colqu itt, et al., 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The second is procedural justice wh ich is defined as the consistency or
35 fairness of the organizationÂ’s procedures and processes used to determine the distribution of employee treatment outcomes (Colqu itt, et al., 2001). The perception of fairness within the organization is critical to developing notions of support. It is necessary for employ ees to identify equality throughout the organization if the organization hopes to create the perception of support. Role stressors, factors that induce an employeeÂ’s inability to cope with work environmental demands, have been in vestigated as antecedents of POS in past research. Role stressors primarily include role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity refers to the employeeÂ’ s perception of uncertainty about what tasks are involved in carrying out his or her job and occurs when the behavioral expectations for a role are not clear (K ahn, et al., 1964). Role conflict, on the other hand, is defined as the disconfirma tion of an employeeÂ’s expectations and values in performing his/her work dut ies and those work duty expectations or values projected by the organization, resulting in the employee perceiving incompatibility between expected sets of behaviors (Katz & Kahn, 1978). These stressors limit an employeeÂ’s ability to cope with work demands and have an impact on POS (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The final antecedent construct identified in this meta-analysis is the autonomy construct. Hackman and Oldham (1976) depict autonomy as "the degree to which the job provides s ubstantial freedom independence, and discretion to the employee in schedul ing the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it outÂ” (p. 162). The importance of autonomy
36 can be seen in many marketing jobs, es pecially sales. As many sales job descriptions are somewhat vague, the empl oyeeÂ’s ability to control his/her job is critical to their success. Autonomy is al so important to the perception of support from the organization. Employees who perceive t hey have the freedom and discretion to perform their job functions as they see fit, will trust that the organization believes in their abilities and values their efforts. Consequences of POS A review of the POS literature also yielded six viable consequence constructs. These constructs include trust, organization al commitment, job satisfaction, job performance (task and contex tual), and intention to leave. Each of these constructs is briefly discussed below. The first consequence construct identif ied through the literature review was trust. Trust re fers to the mutual willingness of bot h the employee and the organization to be open to the actions of one another irrespective of being able to monitor or control the other partyÂ’s actions (Mayer, Davis, & Shoorman, 1995). These social exchanges (e.g., the organi zation's willingness to let the employee alone to do their job without monitori ng or control) lay the foundation for employees to trust the organization. The next construct identified was organizational commitment. Organizational commitment refers to the magnit ude of the employeeÂ’s identification and involvem ent with an organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers,
37 1982; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulia n, 1974). Theoretically, organizational commitment is divided into three subgroups that include affective, normative, and continuance commitment. Affective commitm ent is the most widely reported subconstruct of commitment reported in the liter ature. Porter, et al. (1974) proposed an affective-based interpretation of em ployees' organizational commitment that suggests an employee commits to t he organization because he/she identifies and is emotionally involved with the firm. While other definitions have been suggested, Porter, et al.Â’s (1974) interpreta tion is the most widely used variation. Perceived organizational support is an im portant driver of organizational commitment. Social exchanges between the organization and the employee in the form of support can help to create commitment back to the organization. Job satisfaction is another construct identified as a consequence of POS. Job satisfaction is characterized as the employee's overall affective attitude or feelings toward their job. The more pos itive feelings the employee has about the job, the more their job satisfaction (Witt, 1991). Eisenberger, et al. (1986) suggest that job satisfaction is a cons equence of organizational support in that when the organization is perceived to be pr oviding support for the employee, the greater the employeeÂ’s s ubsequent job satisfaction. Research on job performance separates the construct into two specific categories: task and contextual (Conway 1999; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Organ, 1997). Task performance refers to core job responsibil ities having direct consequences of ability and experience (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).
38 Contextual performance, on the other hand, consists of behaviors such as volunteering for activities beyond the formal job requirem ents, persistence, assistance to others, following rules and procedures, and defending the organizational objectives (Borman & Mo towidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997). Perceived organizational support suggests that t he exchange relationships built between employees and organizations are similar to those developed between individuals. Through exchange relationships, the empl oyee and the organization reciprocate by providing needed resources to each other (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). From the employeeÂ’s perspective, the necessity to fulfill his/her socio-emotional needs is attributable to a sense of reward and well being (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). In turn, the organizationÂ’s needs are for perfo rmance related to job outcomes. The perception of organizational support by the employee can be viewed as a proxy for the fulfillment of these socio-emotional needs, thus stimulatin g an obligation to repay the organization. The repayment comes in the form of job performance output (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). The final construct identified in the liter ature review is intention to leave. Intention to leave the organization refe rs to an employeeÂ’s personal mental decision of no longer wishing to be employ ed with their current organization (Lee & Mowday, 1987). Through SET, the reciproc ity norm indicates that people tend to feel obligated to help those who help them. POS is inve rsely associated with employeesÂ’ feelings of wanting to discont inue their employment with their current organization (e.g., intention to leave). Eisenberger, et al. (1990) argue that one
39 way the employee can repay the organizati on is through cont inued employment. Those employees who feel that the organiza tion is supportive of their efforts will feel more obligated and committed to repay the organization (Angle & Perry, 1981; Porter, et al., 1974). In turn, employees who do not feel that the organization is very supporti ve of their efforts are le ss committed and more likely to seek employment elsewhere (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). Method Database development A multi-sampling stra tegy was undertaken to ensure the representativeness and comp rehensiveness of the final database used in the current POS meta-analytic lit erature review. First, a search was performed of PsycINFO, ABI/Inform, Disse rtation Abstracts, and Education Full Text databases for published articles and conference proceedings prior to July 2005 using the keywords Â“perceived organiza tional supportÂ” and/or Â“POSÂ” in its title, abstract, and/or full text. Using t he Web of ScienceÂ’s citation index, a search was also performed for all articles that referred to Eisenberger, et al.Â’s original 1986 POS scale development arti cle. The next step was to examine the references of the articles identified from the above searches, as well as the references from Rhoades and EisenbergerÂ’s (2002) literature review article for additional studies. In an e ffort to address the traditi onal Â“file drawerÂ” problem associated with any type of meta-analytic literature (Rosenthal 1995), a request
40 was posted on the ELMAR and MKT-PhD listse rvs, as well as contacting both authors of the Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) article to obtain unpublished research dealing with POS, including unp ublished doctoral and masters theses. Inclusion criteria and coding process Inclusion of studies in the current meta-analysis is based on four criteria. First, in keeping with the procedures reported in by Rhoades and Eisenberger ( 2002), this meta-analysis only included studies that used survey methodology. Se cond, only studies that reported the rfamily of effects (e.g., product-moment correlation coe fficients [r] or its variants (Rosenthal, 1994) or at least the nece ssary information needed to derive this correlation were included in the analysi s. Third, antecedents and consequences were only considered if there were at least five studies measuring the same construct. Given the current studyÂ’s resear ch objectives, only studies that used Eisenberger, et al.'s (1986) original POS scale or so me variation of it were included in the final analysis. Upon completion of the multi-sampling and selection processes, a total of 412 co rrelations were obtained from 138 published and unpublished studies, doctoral dissert ations, and masterÂ’s theses. Development of the final database fo llowed the procedures outlined in other reported meta-analyses in the liter ature (e.g., Brown & Peterson, 1993; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). A c oding form was developed to capture measurement characterist ics of POS, its antecedents and consequences, samples sizes, the r-family of effect size indicators (e.g., product-moment
41 correlations) and those indicators t hat could be converted to correlation coefficients (e.g., StudentÂ‘s-t, chi squar e, F-ratios with a specified degree of freedom, and p values [see Lipsey & Wils on, 2001; Rosenthal, 1994]) from each study. After capturing the necessary effect size information from each study, each effect size was corrected for attenuat ion bias by dividing the correlation coefficient by the product of the squar e root of the reliabilities POS and a selected antecedent or consequence (Hunt er & Schmidt, 1990). If a study did not include one or both of the required reliabilities for a relevant construct (or pair of constructs), then the wei ghted mean reliability(s) for t hat particular construct(s) across all the studies was used in correcting the reliability (Geyskens, Steenkamp, & Kumar, 1998). If a study had multiple scales examining the same construct, the correlations were averaged in order to prevent the violation of the independent sampling assumption. Then, a ll the reliability-corrected correlations were transformed into FisherÂ’s z-coe fficients using Lipsey and Wilson (2001) recommended r-to-z transformation procedure. To allocate greater weight to those estimates that were more prec ise, the z-coefficients were averaged and weighted by an estimate of the inverse of their variance (N-3) (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) then converted back into correlation coefficients. To check for coding quality, two ex pert researchers coded the studies independently. Using the procedures recommended by Perreault and Leigh (1989), an interjudge reliability index was calculated for each of the measurement
42 and demographic characterist ics. The reliability estimates ranged between .94 and 1.0, strongly indicating that the c onsistency of the coding process was adequate and coding errors were minimi zed (see Perreault & Leigh, 1989, p. 147). Analyses and Results Descriptive statistics. There were a total of 163 independent studies from which correlations for the final analysis we re derived. Industry types for the 150 non-student independent studies are as follows: 61 corporate/manufacturing firms, 50 service-oriented firms (17 heal th care, 16 education, 17 government), and 39 mixed industries. The reported relia bility for the perceived organizational support scale ranged from .6 to .98, with the average reliability index weighted by sample size being .88. Homogeneity analysis. Prior to conducting any of the meta-analyses, it was necessary to assess the homogeneity of the data using the Q statistic for each of the 18 constructs included in this study. A study is deemed homogeneous if the variance of the distributi on of effect sizes is no greater than that expected from sampling error alone. However a study is heterogeneous if the effect sizes are larger than what one would expect from sampling errors meaning that there are diffe rences among the effect sizes from some other source (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Each c onstruct, except Â“employee burnoutÂ”, had
43 a Q statistic (distributed as a 2 with k Â– 1 degrees of freedom) for the uncorrected correlation that was highly si gnificant (ranging from 124.0 to 2048.9) implying that the studies are not homogeneous. A random-effects model was employed for every construct, except "employee burnout", which utilized a fixedeffects model. The use of a random-effe cts model assumes that the "variability beyond subject-level sampling error is r andom" (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 117); therefore, the populati on of effect sizes varies by subject level sampling as well as other variability sources (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Meta-Analytic Results Meta-analyses were conducted on six antecedent and six consequence constructs. Table 1.1 (see Appendix B) displays the results of the metaanalyses, including the number of independent studies (k), number of respondents in sample (N), average weighted correlation corrected for attenuation (r), the standard error, the range of correct ed weighted average correlation, Q statistic for each correct ed average correlation, and the estimated fail-safe N statistic (also known as availabi lity bias) for each construct. Sixteen of the antecedents and consequences yielded a significant correlation corrected for attenuation. There were seven antec edents and nine consequences that had a corrected correlation significantly different from zero. Using CohenÂ’s (1977) rule of thumb for interpreting e ffect size magnitude, a weak (small) effect size is a corrected correlation that is less than or equal to 0.10; a moderate (medium)
44 effect size is a corrected correlation that is greater than 0. 10 but less than 0.40; and a strong (large) effect size is a corre cted correlation that is greater than or equal to 0.40 (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Among the antecedents, the POS procedural justice relationship has been the most frequently examined relationshi p (20 studies). Substantially less attention has been paid to the asso ciation between POS job autonomy (six studies). Of the antecedents, distributive justice (r = .68, p < .05), procedural justice (r = .72, p < .05) and job autonomy (r = .56, p < .05) exhibited strong positive relationships with POS, while t here was a moderate positive relationship between POS and monetary reward compensat ion (r = .20, p < .01). The metaanalysis also revealed a strong inverse relationship between POS and job role ambiguity (r = -.46, p < .05), as well as moderate inverse relationships between POS and job role conflict (r = -.24, p < .001). Among the consequences, organizational commitment (r = .71, p < .05), trust (r = .68, p < .05), and job satisfaction (r = .61, p < .05) exhibited strong positive relationships with POS. The re sults also revealed moderate positive relationships between POS and task (r = .18, p < .01) and contextual (r = .27, p < .05) performances. There was a str ong inverse relationship between POS and intention to leave (r = -.49, p < .05).
45 Discussion of Meta-Analytic Results Various forms of social exchange hav e been investigated in both the general marketing and services marketing liter ature in recent years, yet little work has examined POS and its impact on employ ee-oriented issues. This study extends prior attemp ts to summarize the extant perceived organizational support literature by employing a considerabl y larger number of effect sizes and investigating more potential relationships with POS. Specifically, previous attempts to consolidate research findi ngs in the perceived organizational support literature include Rhoades and EisenbergerÂ’s (2002) quantit ative review of the literature which offers preliminar y evidence of the impact of POS on organizational and employee outcomes. Apart from the broader scope, which also has a considerably larger database, this study examines the impact of a larger set of sample and measurement c haracteristics including how education, organizational tenure, and industry type impact theoretical relationships with POS. The multivariate results from this meta-analytic assessment provide insight into the bivariate relationships that in volve perceived organizational support. These results will help to document the liter ature in this vast research stream. Antecedents of POS. Overall, the multivariate analyses reveal that POS is impacted by many organizati onal and employee-oriented issues such as justice and job stressors. In particular, organiza tional compensation (operationalized as monetary rewards for this study) was found to positively impact employee
46 perceptions of organizational support. Em ployees may interpret or perceive an organizationÂ’s pay policy as a proxy fo r how committed the organization is to them. When an organization co mpensates an employeeÂ’s effort with monetary rewards, the employee may perceiv e the organization to be supportive. Organizational fairness was also found to have a considerable impact on POS. Employees perceive that an organiza tion is supportive when they perceive that there is consistency in the way t he organization applies its established rules, policies, and practices in the equal treatment of each employee. These impressions of consistency and equality creat e impressions of impartiality in the eyes of the employees. Job stressors, role ambiguity and role conflict also play an important role in employee percept ions of organizational support. Finally, antecedent results also reveal that job autonomy also plays an important role in employee percept ions of support. Job autonomy has a moderately strong relationship with POS. The more employees perceive they have control over the way they complete the duties and tasks in the job, the more they perceive that the organization is supportive. Organizations wanting to maximize support perceptions might consi der relinquishing control over some job duties and tasks and allow the employee some leeway in how the job is accomplished. Consequences of POS. Results from these mult ivariate analyses also show that POS has a profound impact on a number of im portant employee-
47 oriented job outcomes. Tr ust in the organization was shown to be positively influenced by the employeeÂ’s perception of organizational support. The more the employee views the organization to be suppo rtive of their efforts and value their contribution, the more trust an em ployee will have in the organization. Other results from this st udy revealed that POS also positively influences an employeeÂ’s commitment to the organizati on. This study found that increased levels of POS will lead to stronger feelings of commitment toward the organization. This finding intuits well and follows Social Exchange TheoryÂ’s proposition that employees will be as co mmitted to the firm as they feel the organization is committed to them. It has been suggested that the more pos itive feelings the employee has about the job, the higher their job satisf action perceptions wil l be (Witt, 1991). Job satisfaction was shown to be posit ively influenced by the employeeÂ’s perception of organi zational support. To recap, job performance was separat ed into two areas for this study: task and contextual performance. Ta sk and contextual performance were both positively influenced by an employeeÂ’s perception that the organization was supportive of their efforts. This findi ng is important since firms continually struggle to develop new methods of improving the performance of their employees. Depending on the job, t he employeeÂ’s performance can either directly or indirectly impact the over all firm performance dictating many firm oriented consequences. Firms that em phasize increased job performance may
48 well benefit from knowing that the s upport mechanisms they provide to their employees directly influence the em ployeeÂ’s task and contextual job performance. A final critical finding of this re view was that of POSÂ’s influence on an employeeÂ’s intention to leave the organiza tion. The results from this analysis coincide with the theoret ical notion that POS does reduce an employeeÂ’s intention to leave the organization. Fi rms that are concer ned with minimizing turnover may be able provide additional su pport to their employees. Increased support may help to reduce the turnover intentions and could possibly boost organizational commitment. POS Hypothesis Development As the previous meta-analytic review of POS illustrate s, the notion of organizational support has seen much investigation within psychological and management/organizational behavior literature. As many of todayÂ’s businesses continually strive to create efficiencies in order to remain profitable and survive, it is important for managers to understand how support mechanisms differentially influence salespeopleÂ’s behavioral outco mes such as performance and job satisfaction (Brown & Peterson, 1993). This growing ne ed to understand these support mechanisms and how they are per ceived by the employee has created much interest from researcher s who investigat ed exchanges and the
49 relationships created between employees and their organization (Rousseau, 1990; Wayne, Shore & Linden, 1997). The nature of salesperson workplac e support and its relationships with important outcome variables remains of great interest to both managers and researchers (Johlke, 2005). Exchange t heorists have produced a huge base of literature that suggests employees signi ficantly rely on exchange relationships with the organization (Eisenberger, et al., 1986) The vast majority of studies that have looked at POS and its impac t on its antecedents and consequences typically stop short of developing struct ural models and prim arily analyze simple correlations to gain insight into this area. Organizations that value their empl oyees and care about their well being are more likely to provide those em ployees with explicit expectations and instructions regarding how the job shoul d be performed. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that salespeople who have hi gher levels of POS will experience lower levels of role stress. Hypothesis 6: POS will have a strong negative impact on role ambiguity. Hypothesis 7: POS will have a strong negative impact on role conflict.
50 Research in non sales-oriented literat ure has proposed that POS also has an important influence on performance (Sta mper & Johlke, 2003). In fact, as shown in the meta-analytic literature re view, POS and performance are related at approximately .20 correlation. The probl em with this correlation is that the studies used in the meta-analysis include ve ry few sales samples. Therefore, it is imperative that research investigates this relationship further before the literature can conclude that, in fact, POS does influence performance. Social exchange theorists have propos ed that the more an employee perceives support from the organization, the more they will behave in a manner that is consistent to carrying out the organizationÂ’s goals and objectives (Wayne, et al., 1997). Further, research has also shown that the more an employee perceives their supervisor is supportive of them, t he more that employee will perform well (Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2003). Unfortunately, little research has investigated these influences on salesperson performance. Hypothesis 8: POS will have a moderate positive impact on performance. POS may also influence perceptions of isolation from the organization. The perception of support from the organization can indicate several things. At a minimum, POS conveys that the organization values the salespersonÂ’s efforts and cares about his/her well being (Eisenber ger, et al., 1986). Additionally, the
51 organization can "tack on" additional anci llary benefits for the salesperson such as additional resources to perform their job more efficiently, increased control over how the job is done, as well as prov iding a fair and equitable organizational climate. When a salesperson perceives these resources as being a positive influence on his/her job, then he/she s hould develop an increased sense of commitment for the organization. Moreov er, the reciprocati on frequency from the organization may also influence the perc eption of support. For example, the more the firm keeps in contact with the salesperson, the more the salesperson should perceive that the organization appr eciates their contributions. This frequent contact with the salesperson shoul d minimize their psychological and social separation from the organization which should reduce feelings of isolation. Hypothesis 9: POS will have a st rong negative impact on workplace isolation. Trust in the organization has also been suggested to be related to POS and refers to the mutual willingness of both the employee and organization to be open (vulnerable) to the actions of one another irrespective of being able to monitor or control the other partyÂ’s actions (Mayer, et al., 1995; Riggle, et al., 2005). This vulnerability comes from the uncertainty regarding the other partyÂ’s intentions to honor the agreement and act appropriately. Blau (1964) noted that the establishment of re lational exchanges between the organization and the
52 employee involves making resource inve stments in the othe r party connoting a commitment by that party to fulfill some agreement such as a job contract. In order to equalize the balance of excha nge, salespeople will feel obligated to reciprocate the good deeds or resour ces obtained form the organization by increasing their performance and ov erall commitment to reaching the organizationÂ’s goals and objectives. The reciprocation aspect of POS and social exchange may reinforce and stabilize tr ust which can increase important behavioral outcomes. Hypothesis 10: POS will have a st rong positive impact on trust in the organization. Development of the Organi zational Trust Construct The notion of trust has been conceptua lized as the extent to which a salesperson has confidence in the organiza tion's reliability and integrity. This definition is based on the c onceptualization of trust found in the relationship marketing literature, which stresse s the importance of trust between organizations (e.g., Moorman, Zaltm an, & Deshpande, 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). There have been various conceptualiz ations of trust in the literature (Brashear, Boles, Brooks, & Bellanger, 2003) Podsakoff, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) noted the lack of a "clear consens us" as to the most appropriate conceptualization or measuremen t. Previous one-dimensional
53 conceptualizations include trust as reliability (Garbari no & Johnson, 1999), competence (Cook & Wall, 1980), benevol ence (Anderson & Weitz, 1989), and integrity or honesty (Jap, 1999). Other multi-dimens ional approaches include trust as behaviors (Smith & Barclay, 1997) as well as conceptualization using benevolence and credibility (Ganesan, 1994). Within the sales literature, several researchers have used the marketing and management approaches that define trust as the degree of conf idence that the salespers on has in his/her manager being both benevolent and honest. In this conc eptualization, trust is like a buyerseller relationship whereby exchanges are made by each party (sales manager gives direction, advice, praise, and resources in exchange for effort, performance, and commitment) (Rich, 1997). Within the sales managersalesperson relational dyad, trust may act as a countervailing force that helps to create positive feelings toward the organi zation as well as positive feelings toward their job. Flaherty and Pappas ( 2000) identified that as salespeople trust their organization, they also feel more sa tisfied, feel safer in their job which promotes commitment, and can indulge in proactive workplace behaviors. Hypothesis 11: Trust in the organization will have a moderate positive impact on job satisfaction. Hypothesis 12: Trust in the organi zation will have a strong positive impact on organizational commitment.
54 Development of the Workpl ace Isolation Construct Workplace isolation is a psychological construct that describes employeesÂ’ perceptions of isolation from the organization and t heir co-workers (Marshall, Michaels, & Mulki, 2007). These isolat ion perceptions are suggested to form when there is an absence of support from the organization as well as a lack of social and emotional interaction within the team (Marshall, et al., 2007). When employees work remotely from the firm, t here is the potential to lose contact and camaraderie with the agents of the organi zation resulting in feelings of disconnection and isolation (Mulki, 2004; Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001). Salespeople generally fit this employee de scription as it pertains to workplace isolation. Salespeop le are boundary spanning employees (Singh, 1998) meaning they operate on the fri nge of the organization. Th eir job responsibilities are to reconcile both their company's and their customers' needs and expectations (Babin & Boles, 1998). The fringe of the organization can mean many things including being physically, emotionally, and/or socially separated from the organization (Mulki, 2004). Res earch has indicated that salespeople have less opportunity for informal/imprompt u meetings with their co-workers and supervisors which can further t heir perception of isolation. Physical separation is probably seen mo st frequently with salespeople in that the salesperson typically meets the customer at their place of business at their convenience. Being physically separ ated may cause salespeople to feel
55 Â‘left-outÂ’ and increase their job stress. Li kewise, emotional and social isolation may also promote feelings of isolati on, even when the salesperson is not physically separated from the organization For example, te lemarketing sales people have been known to work from a c entralized location with sales managers and co-workers, yet some feel isolated due to the amount of time they spend with their customers compared non-salespe ople, who interact with each other (Moncrief, 1986). Some firms have tried to alleviate t hese feelings of isolation among their salespeople by communicating with them more frequently through e-mail and voice mail. Unfortunately, research has shown that these types of communiqu lack the richness and social presence that fa ce-to-face contact provides (Andres, 2002; Gainey, Hill & Kelley, 1999; Mulki, 2004). Hypothesis 13: Workplace isolatio n will have a moderate negative impact on trust in the organization. Hypothesis 14: Workplace isolat ion will have a moderate negative impact on job satisfaction. Hypothesis 15: Workplace isolat ion will have a strong negative association on organizational commitment.
56 Development of the Role Stressor Constructs Role stress is an important variable when investigating salespeople and their attitudes and behaviors toward the or ganization (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985). Role stress variables that have been investigated in the literature include both role ambiguity and role conflic t (Rizzo, et al., 1970) Role ambiguity is defined as a salespersonÂ’s confusi on regarding his/her j ob responsibilities (Rizzo, et al., 1970). Churchill, Fo rd, Walker, Johnston, and Tanner (2000) observed that salespeople wh o experienced role ambiguity typically felt uncertain about how to act in a certain situation because they did not exactly know what the sales manager expected from them. Research has also found (see Ford, Walker, & Churchill, 1975) that salespeople are genera lly uncertain about what their sales managers expect in most sit uations. Additionally, other research proposes that more control over the salesperson will lessen the perception of ambiguity about his/her j ob (Kohli, 1985; Walker, Ford & Churchill, 1975). Moreover, research has pr oposed that closely supervi sed salespeople are more aware of their supervisorÂ’s expectations and demands and tend to exhibit lower levels of role ambiguity (Churchill, et al., 2000). Role conflict, on the other hand, is defined as the disconfirmation of a salespersonÂ’s expectations and values in performing his/her work duties and those work duty expectations or values projected by the organization. This results in the employee perceiving inco mpatibility between expected sets of behaviors (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role conflict typically occurs when the
57 salesperson receives incompatible or conflicting requests from his/her sales manager regarding what to do in a certain situation. Jo hlke (2005) suggests that organizations that value their employees' contributions and care about their well being are more inclined to provide exp licit instructions and expectations regarding their job. These explicit inst ructions should reduce the resulting role stress as well as increase effort and ti me spent working on job related tasks. Hypothesis 16: Role ambiguity will have a weak negative impact on performance. Hypothesis 17: Role ambiguity will have a moderate negative impact on job satisfaction. Hypothesis 18: Role conflict will have a strong negative impact on job satisfaction. Hypothesis 19: Role conflict will have a strong negative impact on organizational commitment. Development of the Job Satisfaction Construct Salesperson job satisfaction is on e of the most widely considered variables within the sales force literat ure (Brown & Peterson, 1993). A classic
58 definition of job satisfacti on is provided by Locke (1976), who defined it as "a pleasurable or positive emot ional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences" (p. 1300). Much of the in terest in this construct over the years has been due to its highly important rela tionship with a number of significant outcome variables such as organiza tional commitment, performance, and turnover (Brown and Peterson 1993). The inte rest in sales force satisfaction is said to reflect the increasingly hum anistic orientation of modern management (Bagozzi 1980). In a meta-analytic re view of the antecedent and consequence variables of job satisfaction, Brown and Peterson (1993) posit that salesperson role perceptions have typically been found to be an important structural determinant of job performance and satisfac tion, while other research has found it to lead to lower turnover in the sales force (Futrell & Parasuraman, 1984). Hypothesis 20: Job satisfaction will have a strong negative impact on turnover. Development of the Organiza tional Commitment Construct Organizational commitment is defined as employeesÂ’ identification with the firm and its goals and objectives (Mowday, Steer s, & Porter, 1979). In general, salespeople who are committed to the firm will reciprocat e important outputs back to the firm such as increased task and contextual performance (Organ, 1997) as well as feel more satisfied in their job (Spector, 1997). Consistent with
59 exchange theory (Gouldner, 1960 ), committed employees will exert extra effort on behalf of the company in order to ac hieve its goals and objectives (Mulki, et al., 2006). Literature has identified a link between organizational commitment and job performance (Boshoff & Mels, 1995; Karatepe & Tekinkus, 2006). In these studies, employees who were more committed to their organization performed at a higher level than employ ees who were not as committed. Therefore, commitment to the organiza tion should impact job performance. Hypothesis 21: Organizational co mmitment will have a moderate positive impact on performance. Table 2.1 presents an overview of each of the previously discussed hypotheses for this study. Figure 2 hi ghlights the paths us ed for developing the hypotheses in this section. The fi gure outlines both the interrelationships between the variables (Research Question 2) and the general tendencies of how organizational climate variables (POS, Et hical Climate, Work place Isolation, and Trust) drive salesperso n attitudes and behaviors.
60 Figure 2. Path Model Summary This section laid the framework suggesting that organizational climate significantly influences salesperson a ttitudes and behaviors. A rationale was provided for the use of each of the vari ables in the model and hypotheses were proposed. The next sect ion will outline the methodology used to collect and analyze the data. Sample and measurem ent information is also provided. EC POS WI TRU RA RC PERF TUR JS OC
61 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction to Chapter This chapter describes the methodol ogy used to test a model that investigates the impact of perceived or ganizational support, ethical climate, and workplace isolation on salesperson work outcomes. First, t he research setting and sample characteristics are descri bed. Second, an explanation of the measures used to collect dat a is presented. Third, t he research procedures and data analysis is provided. Finally, a su mmary of the methodology is offered. The research methodology described in this study follows the Churchill and Iacobucci research design approach (Churchill & Iacobucci, 2004). The Churchill and Iacobucci paradigm is an updated version of ChurchillÂ’s (1976) prescription for research in the social sciences. This paradigm has been widely used within business and organizational research and has served as the Â“gold standardÂ” for research in marketing. Th is section is outlined in the following manner. First, a description of the re search commences with the benefits of using a cross-sectional analysis, follo wed by identifying the type of data collection technique and instrument to be used. Second, the potential sample characteristics are discussed along with a description of the pr etest. Third, an
62 overview of the chosen data collect ion technique is presented along with guidelines for data processing and analysis. The research to be performed in this st udy is cross-sectional in nature. A cross-sectional research design is a onetime study involving a data collection effort at a single period in time. The benefit of a cross-sectional design is that it provides a snapshot of variables at one point in time and is deemed to be representative of some known sample (Churchill & Iacobucci, 2004). The research fits the criteria of analyzing a one-time data collection effort to analyze the influence of POS on salesperson job per formance. Ideally, if time were not a factor, a longitudinal research design wo uld be most appropriate for this study, however, this is not the case. In tandem this research employs a structured and undisguised data collection in strument for collecting dat a from this one shot effort. Structure re fers to the degree of standardiza tion that is imposed within the questionnaire. For example, highly stru ctured questionnaires solicit respondents to choose a response from a predetermi ned bank of responses (e.g., please mark the response from 1 to 7 that best fits you). Disguise, on the other hand, refers to how much the respondent know s about the purpose of the study. In highly undisguised questionnaires, such as the one in this study, the purpose of the research is obvious to the respondent. Structured and undisguised questionnaires are the most common data collection instruments used in marketing research (Parasuraman, Grew al, & Krishnan, 2004). Several benefits are associated with structured and undisgui sed questionnaires. First, it is
63 relatively easy to compare responses bet ween respondents. This is a critical factor for using several types of data co llection techniques (especially structural modeling which is discussed later). Se cond, these types of questionnaires are relatively easy to administer and tabulate since each respondent receives and has the opportunity to answer the same questions. Third, structured and undisguised questionnaires increase the lik elihood of having high reliabilities, which is also crucial for both the anal ysis and generalizability of the results. The sample used in this study consists of inside business-to-business salespeople across the United States in multiple industries and firms. The sample is drawn from three companies that were willing to participate in return for reports and presentations regardi ng the findings of the study. In order to be confident in the conclusi ons that are to be drawn from this research, it is important to assess bot h reliability and validity from the data collected (Hair, Bush & Ortinau, 2003) As constructs are inherently unobservable, attempting to measure abstrac t objects (Hair, et al., 2003) requires a researcher to perform a number of procedures. Among these procedures is the assessment of reliabili ty and validity. Reliability and validity are related concepts. Reliability, while it is necessary for validity, it is no t, by itself, sufficient (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). If a measure is re liable, it does not necessarily mean it is valid. For instance, a measure c an be deemed reliable, yet it may lack discriminant, convergent, or face validity. However, the reciprocal of that statement does not hold true. If a measure was dete rmined to be valid, then it
64 would also be deemed reliable. This may be primarily due to reliability being mostly a technical issue while validity is more of a philosophy (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Reliability is achieved when a measure is stable over a variety of conditions whereby the same resu lts can be obtained (Nunnally, 1978). Reliability is important for many reasons First, measures that can be repeated and stay stable over a variety of conditi ons allow for predict ability. Another reason why reliability is important is that it allows for measures to show small changes in relationships between construc ts (Nunnally, 1978). By having reliable measures, smaller differences can be detec ted, thus helping to determine true relationships between variables. Reliability is typically measured using CronbachÂ’s Alpha, which is a measure of in ternal consistency. The normal value that is accepted to decide whether a meas ure is reliable is 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). In the context of the proposed model, re liability is assessed by calculating CronbachÂ’s Alpha for each construct or variable and determining whether the items corresponding to each construct or variable are internally consistent (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). In this study, CronbachÂ’s Alpha estimate is calculated (Churchill, 1979; Nunnally, 1978) and, based on the CronbachÂ’s Alpha estimate, the measure is deemed reliable if the esti mate is above the cutoff of 0.70 (Traub, 1998). Another important aspect of the pretest is to asse ss validity. Generally, there are two main types of validity that researchers ar e concerned with: construct validity and content validity (K erlinger & Lee, 2000). Construct validity
65 is the degree to which inferences can legitimately be made from the operationalizations of measur es from a study to the t heoretical constructs on which those operationalizations were bas ed (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). The major question underlying construct validity is wh ether the substance of the measure is representative of the overa ll content of the concept bei ng measured. Construct validity includes several subtypes of validity including discriminant and convergent validity. Discriminant validity is the degree to which the operationalization is not similar to other operationalizations that it theoretically should be not be similar to. Convergent validity is the degree to which the operationalization is similar to (converges on) other operationalizations that it theoretically should be similar to (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Content validity is the extent to wh ich a test measures an intended content area or defined body of knowledge that is determined by expert judges from the domain used in the measures (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Content validity primarily depends on how meticulously the scale development process is followed (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). In the context of the proposed study validity would be assessed by using confirmatory factor analysis via struct ural equations modeling (SEM) (Bollen, 1989). This method of validity assessment will help to indicate convergent and discriminant validity. For assessing conver gent validity, a researcher should look for high factor loadings (0.80 and above) for items that are supposed to measure the construct of interest. Another measure of convergent validity using
66 confirmatory factor analysis is that of the average variance explained (AVE). Fornell and Larker (1981) propose that measures should have an AVE above 0.50 to be seen as havi ng convergent validity. In order to test discriminant valid ity using factor analysis in SEM, a researcher would look at the factor loadings for multiple constructs. All indicators of each of the constructs are correlat ed against each of the latent factors (constructs). Ideally, if each construct we re to have high loadings from only its indicators and low loadings from indicato rs from other constructs, it would be determined to have convergent validity. Discriminant validity is assessed if the items corresponding to a construct only load high on that constructÂ’s latent factor and low on all other constructsÂ’ latent fa ctors. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) also propose using average variance explained to assess discriminant validity. Using this technique, a measure is deemed to have discriminant valid ity if the average variance explained estimate is greater than the squared correlation of all the factors. In this study, both convergent and discriminant validity of the measures is assessed (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). To test for convergent and discriminant validity, the meas ures are subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Analyzing the line itemÂ’s factor loadings on each of the latent factors assesses convergent validit y. The decision criteria is to have high loadings from only those line items t hat correspond to a particular factor while having low loadings on factors that do not correspond to the items. Once it
67 is determined that the items load properly on each of th e factors, the measures can be deemed appropriate for use in the study. The data collection procedure first begins with a selection of the sample as described above. The respondent will receive the following items: a letter from the researcher via e-mail, an e-mail letter from their sales manager describing the survey and asking for their hel p for participation, and a hyperlink to an online questionnaire. The letter from the researc her explains the study, ensures confidentiality, and asks for t he respondentÂ’s help in completing the survey. Two weeks after the initial ma iling, a follow-up e-mail will be sent to remind the respondents to complete and submit the questionnaire. Analytic Procedure As previously alluded to, the data analyt ic technique used in this study is Structural Equation Model ing. A structural equation model is deemed appropriate for a number of reasons. First, SEM allows the researcher to analyze multiple dependence relationships at one time. Second, it is also useful when a dependent variable also serves as an independent variable for another dependent variable. Third, it allows the re searcher to use or incorporate latent variables into the analysis. The propos ed model for this study incorporates attributes of having multiple dependent va riables that need to be estimated at the same time; variables that serve as both independent and dependent variables at the same time. It also incorporates la tent variables into the analysis of which
68 manifest variables must be used to estima te the value of the latent variable. Finally, the SEM procedure is robust to deviati ons in normality. In other words, it will work even when the dat a is skewed or peaked. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) identify that SEM has a number of stages. Estimating an SEM model is a multi-stage process. First, the researcher should conduct a path diagram linking the relationships between both endogenous and exogenous variables (Hair, et al., 1998). Next, the researcher should specify the measurem ent model determining the number of indicators and accounting for the reliability of the measures. Next, the correlation matrix that was previously calculated should be input and then the model can be identified. Once identified, the model must be a ssessed for path estimates and goodness of fit. Goodness of fit indices have been dev eloped to let the researcher know whether the model is a good predictor (Hair, et al., 1998). Indices such as Root Mean Square Error of Appr oximation, Comparative Fit Index, and Normed Fit Index are used for assessing the m odel. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Ste iger & Lind, 1980) is a measure of the discrepancy per degree of freedom for t he model. Normed Fit Inde x (NFI) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) is an incremental fit statistic that is defined in terms of the minimal values of the respective fit fu nction (Gerbing & Anderson, 1992). NFI essentially standardizes the chi-square statistic where zero is Â“no fitÂ” and one is Â“perfect fitÂ”. It is primarily used to compare a restricted model to a full model. Similarly, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) measures the improvement in non-centrality.
69 Decision criteria for these statistics yiel d that a model is close fit if RMSEA is 0.08 or below, CFI is 0.90 or above, and NFI is 0.90 or above (Byrne, 1998). If the model is deemed to be well fit, interpretation can begin. Research Setting The effect of perceived organizati onal support, ethi cal climate, and workplace isolation is an important i ssue to study across many occupational settings (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). D ue to the nature of sales jobs, the lack of research on these constructs in a sales context, and the influence of salespeopleÂ’s activities on overall i ndividual and organizational performance, a sales setting is appropriate for studying the relationships described in Figure 2. To test the research hypotheses, a web based survey was administered, via email contact, to sales employees of th ree (two privatel y owned, one publicly owned) sales organizations. Data were collected during the time period from April 2006 until May 2006. Three hundred survey invitations were s ent via e-mail to salespeople at three organizations. The participating or ganizations included a privately owned publishing firm (Organization 1) located in the southeastern United States, a large privately owned Internet recruiting firm (Organization 2) located in the upper Midwest, and a publicly traded worldwide financial information reporting firm (Organization 3). The first wave of dat a collection occurred in early April 2006 across all companies and yielded 187 indivi dual responses. Two weeks later,
70 the second wave of invitations was e-maile d to only those in the sample who had not already responded. The second wave yielded an additional 49 responses. The third and final wave occurred four w eeks after the first wave and yielded the final 15 responses. In total, 251 respons es were gathered yi elding an overall response rate for the study of 83.6%. Table 3.1 reveals the breakdown from each firm across the three waves of data collection. Since the response rate for the sample was so high (83.6%), no te st for non-response bias was performed Participants Sample demographics of the 251 re sponses (58.2% male and 40.2% female) yielded the age response most frequently reported as 18-25 (104 responses) followed by 26-35 (92 re sponses). The respondents are well educated with nearly 150 reporting they held a degree from a four-year college or university. The overwhelming majority (64.5%) of the respondents is single and reports a yearly income range of $50,000 to $59,000. It is important to note that the sample size, while relatively small, is sufficient enough to conduct the analysis for th is study. Generally, the rule of thumb for sample size in SEM is the number of paths to be estimated in the model times ten. In the case of this dissertation, there are 21 paths to be estimated which, according to the rule of thumb, should require 210 responses to perform the analysis. One ot her important point to make about the sample size for this study relates to the power of t he results. While some studies achieve
71 sample sizes into the thousands for SEM, the smaller number of responses in the sample that show an effect speaks volumes over those larger samples. In effect, the smaller the sample that shows an e ffect, the greater t he generalizability of those effects. Instrumentation This section presents an overview of t he scales used in this study. All scales were taken from extant literat ure. Appendix A presents the items contained in each scale. Appendix B incl udes the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the constructs used in this study. Table 7.1 indicates the standardized item loadings of the measurement model. Ethical Climate The Ethical Climate measure that is us ed in this study consists of seven Likert-type items based on SchwepkerÂ’s ( 2001). The instrument measures the domain of ethical climate by using questions from areas such as: 1) the existence of a written code of ethics, 2) the co mmunication of ethical expectations to employees, 3) a commitment from m anagement to ethical values, and 4) perceptions about the enforce ment of ethical codes. Recent studies (e.g., Jaramillo, et al., 2006; Mulki, et al., 2006; Weeks, Roberts, Chonko, & Jones, 2004) have reported acceptable reliabilities for this scale. A seven point Likertresponse format from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) is employed.
72 Perceived Organizational Support Perceived Organizational Support (P OS) is a construct developed by Eisenberger, et al. (1986) that assesses an employee Â’s perception that the organization values their efforts and care s about their well being. The original scale consisted of 36 items measuring t he domain. A recent study by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) identif ied that a shorter versio n of the POS scale was acceptable if the original scale was t oo long. Subsequently, the eight-item POS scale was derived from the original 36-it em scale by using the items with the highest factor loadings based on a confirmato ry factor analysis. The eight-item POS scale has demonstrated acceptable reliability in previous studies ( = .89 and .90, respectively) (Hutchison & Garstk a, 1996; Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999) and is measured using a seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Trust The trust construct to be used in th is study consists of seven items reflecting its dimensions as identified by Gabarro and Athos (1978). Studies (Mulki, et al. 2006; Robinson, 1996) us ing this measure have found acceptable reliabilities ( = .82, .87, and = .87, respectively). The original version of the scale utilizes the Â“employerÂ” as a referenc e point for the responses. This study, however, uses the supervisor reference as social exchange theory suggests that supervisors are considered agents of t he organization and are closer to the
73 salesperson (Eisenberger, et al., 1986). The response format for this construct will consist of a seven-point Likert-ty pe scale with descriptors of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. Workplace Isolation The workplace isolation scale that is used for this study incorporates ten Likert-type items that m easure both dimensions of the domain. Appropriate reliabilities have been reported for this scale (Marshall, et al., 2007). The response format for the measure utilizes a 1 to 7 rating format (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). Job Satisfaction The job satisfaction construct to be used in this study was taken from Jaramillo, et al. (2006) which was an adapted version of SpectorÂ’s (1985) satisfaction measure. The scale utilizes three Likert-t ype items to represent the construct domain. Jaramillo, et al. (2006) found acceptable reliability ( = .92) for the scale, consistent with prior research The response format for this scale incorporates a one to seven agreement rating (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree).
74 Organizational Commitment The organizational commitment measure to be used in this study comes from Speier and VenkateshÂ’s (2002) scale This measure was adapted from OÂ’Reilly and Chatman (1986). Three Likert-type items are used to represent the commitment domain. Previous researc hers have found acceptable reliabilities ( = .75; = .83, respectively). The res ponse format for this measure uses a sevenpoint True/False rating (1 = Very False to 7 = Very True). Turnover Intention The turnover intention measure adopt ed for this study was taken from Brashear, et al. (2003) which is an adaptatio n of Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, and McMurrian (1997). Four Like rt-type items are used to measure the domain. Research (Brashear, et al., 2003; Nete meyer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996) has shown acceptable reliabilities for this scale ( = .91; .92, respectively). The response format for this measure incl udes a seven-point, strongly disagreestrongly agree option (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree). Self-Rated Performance This study utilizes a subjective performance measure obtained from Piercy, Cravens, and Lane (2001) that asse sses a salespersonÂ’s self-rated task performance. Eight items are used to a ssess the salespersonÂ’ s performance. A seven-point Likert-type scale 1 (Strongl y Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) is
75 employed. Previous studies have report ed acceptable reliability estimates (e.g., Mulki, 2004, = .74; Piercy, et al., 2001, = .79). Research Procedures Descriptive and Reliability Analysis Results of the reliability analysis are s hown in Table 4.1. Overall, the variables exhibited acceptable reliabiliti es above the necessary .70 threshold established by Nunnally (1978). It should be noted that some skewness and possible range restriction may exist within the variables. This should not pose a problem for structural equati ons modeling since it is re latively robust to nonnormal data. An analysis of the correlati ons between the variables indicates that the variables are related as previously thought. Correlation Analysis The next step in the analysis process was to investigate the correlations among the variables. First, a correlation matrix was produced (see Table 5.1) through the Statistical Package for the Soci al Sciences (SPSS). The correlation matrix revealed some interesting associati ons between the variable s. First, on its face, the correlation matrix confirms m any of the hypothetical relationships proposed from Chapter Two. While the hypotheses cannot be tested using purely a correlation matrix, the correlation matrix does suggest that the findings should be favorable. Table 5.1 again pres ents the Cronbach Alpha (e.g., internal
76 consistency) calculations along the diago nal. The correlation matrix also indicates some inconsistencies in the workplace isolation variable. These inconsistencies may be probl ematic for the analysis. During the correlation analysis, it was necessary to analyze the inter-item correlations within each constructÂ’s sca le (Nunnally, 1978). Analyzing the interitem correlation matrices for each construc tÂ’s scale allows for identifying possible redundant items that can be e liminated from t he analysis. The LISREL program performs a function similar to this in the measurement model The measurement model analysis provides estimates of the factor loadings that can be used to identify items that can be eliminated from the analysis because of redundancy or poor fit. While analyzing the inter-item co rrelation matrices for each constructÂ’s scale is important, no action (removing item s from the analysis) will be taken prior to running the measurement model. The analysis of each constructÂ’s in ter-item correlation matrix revealed some interesting findings. Ideally, in order for a constructÂ’s scale to be considered acceptable for analysis, the in ter-item correlations must be between .39 and .65 (Nunnally, 1978). The inter-ite m correlation matrix for POS reported three correlations below .39 and one above 65, which may indicate items to be dropped from further analysis. Again, no items were dropped before consulting the measurement model. The ethi cal climate construct reported two questionable correlations. Workplace isolation showed 23 questionable correlations, seven for trust, one fo r role conflict, one for organizational
77 commitment, three for job satisfaction, five for turnover, and ten for performance. On their face, these ques tionable correlations may se em troubling; however, the measurement model will help to make the final decision on the variables to be dropped. Iteration 1: Measurement Model A measurement model was used to a ssess the measurement properties of the variables used in this study. T he measurement model explains how the variables are operationalized relative to the items used to measure that variable (Hair, et al., 1998). Results from the measurement model indi cate that the chisquare ( 2) is significant ( 2 = 1877, df = 810; p < 0.0001), the hypothesis of close fit cannot be rejected at = .05, RMSEA = .073 (CI = .068 to .077) (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Results suggest that the measurement model adequately fits the data (Diamantopoul os & Siguaw, 2000). Table 7.1 indicates the final results of t he factor loadings and tvalues. All factor loadings were significant using a .05 al pha (probability of having a Type I error; Type I error is the probability of reje cting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true). Although all factor loadings were significant, several loadings on the full measurement model were bel ow the acceptable range of .60 as prescribed by Hu and Bentler (1999). Ther efore, it was decid ed to eliminate items with loadings below .60. Ten item s were identified as loading below .60 and were dropped from the analysis. These items included three from POS, five
78 from Workplace Isolation, and two from Et hical Climate. Dr opping items from the analysis helps improve the fit of th e measurement model as well as the specification of the structur al model. Once the items were eliminated, the model was reanalyzed. Table 7.1 highlights the factor loadings of the reduced model. Iteration 2: Initial Structural Model 1 The model parameters of the structural model were estimated using LISREL 8.72. The covariance matrix was used to estimate the parameters of the model as prescribed by Hair, et al. ( 1998). The model fit was evaluated using a number of statistics incl uding chi-square, RMSEA, NF I, and CFI. The chi-square analysis assesses the overall observed fit of the model relative to an expected fit value. The second iteration of the m odel indicated much better measurement model fit over the previous model (see T able 8.1 for statistics) This iteration showed a very large decrease in ChiSquare (1877.21 vs. 784. 88), a nearly two percent decrease in RMSEA (which tight ened the 90% confidence interval), and a substantial increase in NFI and CFI. Si nce there was an impr ovement over the previous analysis, it was decided to move forward and begin analyzing the structural model fit. The fit for the second iteration was moderately acceptable. The chi-square and RMSEA estimates were reduced and the NFI and CFI estimates were increased, all in the appr opriate direction. Although the model fit was better with the condensed number of item s, it was necessary to analyze the modification indices to determine if there were any other paths that should
79 logically be specified to further improv e the model. Several important issues were highlighted in the modification indice s. Two paths were added to the model to improve the fit. These paths were fr om Role Ambiguity to POS and from Role Conflict to POS. As the model previous ly specified, paths were proposed to go from POS to Role Ambiguity and POS to Role Conflict as predicted by Johlke (2005). These paths were deleted and the new paths were added through several steps. The final model iteration fit is discussed in the results section. Summary This section outlined the methodol ogy used to collect and analyze the study data. Three hundred surveys were in itially sent to salespeople in three companies. Two hundred fifty one surve ys were completed and returned for a 83.6% response rate. The data was subject ed to structural analysis to test the measurement properties and estimate t he path coefficients. The following section outlines the results from the analysis.
80 CHAPTER 4 Â– RESULTS Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis testing was conducted in a two-stage process. The first stage evaluates the fit of the model using the fit statistics bolded in Table 7.1. The second stage of hypothesis testing includes an evaluation of the path coefficients and their respective signs for the hypotheses (Ping, 1996). Stage 1 Â– Evaluation of Model Fit The results from the final model indica ted better fit over the two previous iterations. Table 8.1 illustrates the fi t compared to both previous iterations. Goodness of fit tests help determine whet her the model being tested should be accepted or rejected. Ther e are two categories of fit indices used to evaluate structural models: absolut e and incremental. Absolute fit indices evaluate how well a model fits the data. Examples of absolute fit indices are the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardized Root-Mean-Square Resi dual (SRMR). Several authors propose decision criteria for these vari ables. For instance, Hu and Bentler (1999) propose that RMSEA values less than or equal to .05 are Â“close approximate fitÂ”, while values betw een .05 and .10 are Â“r easonably approximate
81 fitÂ”. RMSEA values above .10 are cons idered poor fit. Additionally, SRMR values below .10 are cons idered adequate. SRMR is the standardized difference between the observed covariance and predicted covariance. This measure tends to be smaller as sample size in creases and as the number of parameters in the model increases. The GFI statis tic has proven to be more problematic. Recent simulation studies have shown t hat GFI and Adjusted GFI do not perform well (Hu & Bentler, 1999). It was concluded that this statistic is too sensitive to sample size and, therefore, could produc e many Type I errors and should not be considered when assessing model fit. As shown in the current model, the absolute fit measures of RMSEA and SRMR are well within the acceptable limits for reasonably approximate fit (RMSEA = .052, CI = .045 .058; SRMR = .072). On the other hand, incremental fit indice s assess the improvement in fit over a baseline or null model. Examples of in cremental fit indices are the Normed Fit Index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Similar to the absolute fit measures, Hu and Bentler propose cutoffs for NFI, TLI, and CFI. TLI is an unbiased estimator of a qua ntity that includes the parsimony ratio and is the only widely used index relati vely independent of sample size. Traditionally, these indexes have been used with a cutoff in which values larger than .90 are considered good fitting models. Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest that these values should be increased to .95 to avoid increasing probabilities of Type I error. As noted in Tabl e 8.1, the current modelÂ’s NFI, TLI, and CFI are almost all above the acceptable levels (NFI = 94; TLI = .97; CFI = .97). Taking both
82 absolute and incremental fit measures for this model into account, it is determined that the model has accept able fit. The hypotheses can now be tested using the beta coeffi cients from the analysis. Stage 2a Â–Hypotheses The hypothesis testing process took each of the standar dized path (SP) coefficients and their corresponding t-st atistics and compared them to the hypotheses from Chapter 2. For eac h hypothesis, the standardized path is compared to (Cohen, 1977) effect size inte rpretation to determine whether full or partial support is warranted. The decis ion criteria for supporting, partially supporting, or not supporting a hypothesis is as follows. To gain full support, a hypothesis must have a SP in the hypot hesized direction and magnitude. Hypotheses will be partially supported if the SP has a magnitude greater than or less than the hypothesized magnitude. Hypot heses will not be supported if the SP direction is opposite of the hypothesized direction or the t-value is too low. Hypothesis 1 To test the hypothesis ethical climate will have a moderate positive impact on POS, it was necessary to look at the path coefficients from the analysis. Structural equations modeling results i ndicate that the pat h between ethical climate and POS is strongly positive (SP = .45; t = 6. 34, p < .001) (Cohen, 1977), in line with the hypothesis. This finding in dicates that the mo re the salesperson
83 perceives the climate to be ethical, t he higher his/her over all perceptions of support. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 states that ethical clim ate will have a strong negative impact on role ambiguity. Analysis of the pat h coefficient between ethical climate and role ambiguity is in the hypothesized direct ion (SP = -.31; t = -4.01, p < .001) and is significant; however the magnitude of the finding is less than the hypothesized magnitude. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is parti ally supported. This finding indicates that as salespeople perceive the climat e to be ethical, their resulting role ambiguity will reduce. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 states that ethical climate will have a moderate negative impact on role conflict. Results partially support the hypothesis (the magnitude of the path coefficient is less than the hy pothesized magnitude) (SP = -.07; t = 4.57, p < .001) thus indicating that as a salesperson perceives the climate to be ethical, their resulting role conflict will reduced. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 states that ethical climate will have a moderate positive impact on organizational commitment. The results from the analysis support this
84 claim (SP = .35; t = 5.31, p < .001). Therefore, the mo re ethical the salespeople perceive the climate to be, the more t hey will be committed to the organization. Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5 suggests that ethical climate will have a moderate positive impact on job satisfaction. The results from the model analysis revealed that ethical climate does have a moderate pos itive impact on job satisfaction (SP = .34; t = 5.47, p < .001). T herefore, the more ethical the climate is perceived by the salespeople, the more they will be satisfied in their jobs. Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6 suggests that POS wil l have a strong negative impact on role ambiguity. The analysis result s demonstrate that POS does in fact, negatively impact role ambiguity (SP = -.40; t = -4.22, p < .001) Therefore, as salespeople perceive the organization to be supportive, their resulting role ambiguity is reduced. Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 7 proposes that POS wil l have a strong negative impact on role conflict. SEM analysis results re veal that the path between POS and role conflict is negative (SP = -.12; t = -6.01, p < .001), but t he magnitude of the effect size is lower than expected. Cons equently, as salespeople perceive the
85 organization to be supportive, their result ing conflict in their job is reduced. Hypothesis 7 is partially supported. Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 implies that POS will hav e a moderate positive impact on performance. Unfortunately, the analysis reveals that there is no significant path between PS and job performanc e (SP = -.08; t = -.63, p = .529). Therefore, Hypothesis 8 is not supported. Suggestions as to why this result occurred are discussed in the next chapter. Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis 9 suggests that POS will have a strong negative impact on workplace isolation. The results reveal that POS actually increases workplace isolation. The path coefficient between POS and workplace isol ation is positive and significant (SP = .07; t = 6.30, p < .001) indicating that while salespeople perceive the organization to be supportive, they may feel more psychologically isolated. This result is counter to what was expected; therefore, Hypothesis 9 is not supported. Suggestions for this findi ng can be found in the next chapter. Hypothesis 10 Hypothesis 10 proposes that POS wil l have a strong negative impact on trust in the organization. SEM analysis reveals that PO S does positively impact
86 trust (SP = .49; t = 5.82, p < .001) which supports Hypot hesis 10. Therefore, as salespeople perceive their organization to be supportive, their perception of trust increases. Hypothesis 11 Hypothesis 11 indicates t hat trust in the organiza tion will have a moderate positive impact on job satisfaction. Anal ysis reveals that trust has no impact on job satisfaction (SP = .15; t = 1.86, p = .0635). Therefore, Hypothesis 11 is not supported. Hypothesis 12 Hypothesis 12 suggested that trust in the organization will have a strong positive impact on organizational commitm ent. Again, analysis revealed that trust has no significant impact on organiza tional commitment (SP = .02; t = .39, p = .6967). Thus, Hypothes is 12 was not supported. Hypothesis 13 Hypothesis 13 offers that workplace is olation will negatively impact trust in the organization. The analysis revealed t hat workplace isolation does not have any significant impact on trus t contrary to the hypothesis (SP = .38; t = .61, p = .5422). Therefore, no support is found for Hypothesis 13.
87 Hypothesis 14 Hypothesis 14 set forth that workpl ace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on job satisfaction. In th is case, it was found that workplace isolation has a str ong negative impact on job satisfaction. The results revealed that the path between workplace isolation and job satisfaction was -11.06 (t = 4.79, p < .001) which is partially consis tent with the hypothesis (the magnitude of the SP was much higher than expected). This variable was transformed in the analysis stage because of skewness, which could be providing the high coefficient. Therefore, it was concl uded that Hypothesis 14 was only partially supported. Hypothesis 15 Hypothesis 15 indicates that workpl ace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on organizational commi tment. The analysis revealed that workplace isolation does have a strong negative impact on organizational commitment which is partially consistent with the proposition (SP = -7.55; t = 4.32, p < .001). Ther efore, Hypothesis 15 was partially supported. Hypotheses 16 and 17 Hypothesis 16 and 17 suggest that role ambiguity will negatively impact performance and job satisfaction, respecti vely. Similar to Hypothesis 13, no support is found for either of these hypot heses. Analysis revealed that there is
88 no significant impact on performance from ro le ambiguity (SP = .05; t = .64, p = .5225). Additionally, role ambiguity does not have any significant impact on job satisfaction (SP = -.01; t = .00). A discussion of possi ble explanations for these findings can be found in Chapter 5 Hypothesis 18 Hypothesis 18 proposes that role c onflict will have a strong negative impact on job satisfaction. Analysis rev eals that role conflict does have a strong negative impact on job satisfaction (SP = -8. 18; t = -6.75, p < .001) in support of the hypothesis and implies that as sa lespeopleÂ’s conflict within their job increases, their resulting job satisfaction decreases. Hypothesis 19 Hypothesis 19 indicates that role conflict will have a strong negative impact on organizational commitment. Simila r to the previous analysis, support was found for this hypothesis (SP = -6.66; t = -7.03, p < .001). Analysis revealed that as role conflict increases, a sa lespersonÂ’s overall commitment to the organization decreases. Hypothesis 20 Hypothesis 20 suggests that job sa tisfaction will have a strong negative impact on turnover. The structural analys is reveals that job satisfaction does
89 negatively impact turnover intentions (SP = -1.05; t = -16.05, p < .001). As salespeopleÂ’s job satisfaction increases, th eir resulting intentions to leave the organization decrease in support of Hypothesis 20. Hypothesis 21 Finally, Hypothesis 21 proposes that organizational commitment will have a moderate positive impact on per formance. In partial s upport of this hypothesis, analysis revealed that organizational commitment does positively impact job performance (SP = .44; t = 3. 95, p < .001). T herefore, as salespeopleÂ’s overall organizational commitment increases, their resulting job performance will increase. Each hypothesis path, t-val ue, and support can be seen in Table 9.1 below. Summary This section presented the results from the structural analysis and tested the hypotheses in the study Generally, the hypotheses were supported with a few exceptions. The following section presents a discussion of these results followed by limitations and dire ctions for future research.
90 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The purpose of this dissertation wa s to build and test a model that integrates the marketing, management, and psychological literature with respect to organizational climate variables and their direct and indirect impact on salesperson psychological and behaviora l outcomes. All are directed at answering the overarching research ques tion of how organizational climate variables impact salespeople's psychological and behavioral work outcomes. An important contribution of this research is to provide empirical evidence that these important climate variables drive sale sperson outcomes such as performance, commitment, and satisfaction. Generally, the results from the analysis confirm the research questions that climate vari ables such as perceived organizational support, ethical climate, and trust do positively impact those outcomes. This chapter is divided into three se ctions. The first section discusses the driving effects of these climate variabl es on salesperson outcomes. The second section discusses the limitat ions of the study. Finally directions for future research are given.
91 Organizational Climate Influence on P sychological and Behavioral Outcomes Perceived Organizational Support The POS construct was the major focu s of this research in that little previous investigation as to how POS influenced salespeople has been completed. Given this lack of knowledge, four of the research questions in this study revolve around POS and its differ ential impact on work outcomes. Research Question Two asked whether organizational support positively impacts salesperson performance. Unfortunately, our analysis revealed no significant path from POS to performance which is co ntrary to the research question. The results from Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) suggest that there is a relationship between POS and performance. Several ex planations may exist as to why POS does not impact the performance of salespeopl e. First, it may be that there are too many other variables at play that better explain and predict performance. In recent years, sales force performance has been impacted by variables such as self esteem and job stress (Barksdale, Bellenger, Boles, &Brashear, 2003), emotional intelligence (Sams, 2005), and job satisfaction (Johlke, 2005). Second, the measurement of POS is fo r that of the gener al employee and not necessarily for marketing or sales empl oyees. As discussed earlier, salespeople are different from traditi onal employees in that th ey are boundary spanners and must answer to multiple bosses. The POS measure may need to be redeveloped for salespeople to better reflect their attitudes and behaviors.
92 With regard to research Question Four which questioned whether POS reduced role stressors, the analysis reveal ed that POS did negat ively impact role ambiguity and role conflict consistent with the hypotheses in support of this research question. While this finding is expected, some unique implications may be drawn for managers. First, as previous ly discussed, role stressors such as role ambiguity and role conflict can caus e many problems for salespeople. As indicated by Babakus, Cravens, Johnst on & Moncrief (1996), role stress has received considerable attention in academic research (Dubinsky & Mattson, 1979; Ford, et al., 1975; Johnston, Para suraman, Futrell, & Black, 1990; Michaels, Day, & Joachimsthaler, 1987). T he two main aspects of role stress are role ambiguity and role conflict. T hese variables have been found to have noteworthy impact on important psycholog ical outcomes and behaviors such as job satisfaction and performance, respec tively (Brown & Peterson, 1993; Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Role ambiguity has been defined as the condition where a salesperson does not have clear direction regarding the ex pectations of his or her role in the job or the organization. On the other hand, role ambiguity has been defined as the condition where a salesperson feels that she/he does not have enough information to perform the job adequately (Rizzo, et al., 1970). It has been suggested in the literature t hat the notion of POS might reduce role conflict and ambiguity (Johnston, Parasuraman, & Futr ell, 1989). The findi ngs of this study are consistent with these expectations.
93 Sales managers may want to consider these findings when attempting to combat the effects of role stress on psychological and behavioral outcomes. Increasing salesperson perceptions of support from both the organization and its agents may help to reduce those stressors. Some ways that may help increase notions of support could be to communica te to those salespeople that the organization cares about their well being an d values their contributions back to the organization. Communicati ng that the organization values the salespersonÂ’s contributions may come in the form of recognition for sales volume or participation in activities toward the goal s and objectives of the organization. Furthermore, organizations may find it fruitfu l to institute policies and programs to show its appreciation to the salespeople. Ideas such as flexible scheduling, cross-training, sincere "thank-yousÂ”, and special events may go a long way to providing the feeling of support to the salesperson from the organization. Perceived organizational support was also hypothesized to positively impact the amount of trust t he salesperson has in the organization in reference to Research Question Two. According to the analysis, POS does indeed positively drive a salespersonÂ’s trust in the organization. The only previous evidence of a relationship between POS and trust can be seen in a 2002 meta-analysis by Rhoades and Eisenberger and in an updated meta-analysis presented earlier in this dissertation. The most recent evidence suggests that the correlation between POS and trust is .68, indicating a strong relationship between the variables and borders on conceptual redundancy. The results from the structural
94 model presented in Chapter 4 indicate that POS actually drives trust, demonstrating a highly significant path c oefficient of .49 (t = 5.82). Several implications for practice can be drawn fr om this finding. First, Flaherty and Pappas (2000) suggested that trust plays a big role in salesperson psychological and behavioral outcomes. Their study reve aled that salespeople who trust their managers and their organization are more sa tisfied in their job and are more committed to the organization. While this study did not uncover the same results, sales managers should consider these implications when dealing with their subordinates. Sales managers may want to try to increase trust by providing clear evidence that they care about the salespersonÂ’s well being. They should strive to create an environment of open communication and sincere feedback to express their appreciation of the job done. Unfortunately, the results from the analysis did not support the hypothesis that POS would reduce feelings of work place isolation from Research Question Five. Contrary to the hypothesis, the results from the analysis concluded that POS slightly increased workplace isolati on. It was noted during the analysis that the workplace isolation construct was unsta ble. Out of the ten items used to measure workplace isolation, five had to be excluded from the analysis due to low factor loadings. It was also noted t hat the responses to these items were skewed which might have caused more problems including this finding.
95 Ethical Climate The concept of ethical climate is anot her important organi zational climate variable that was used in this study. Research Question One asked whether ethical climate positively impacted sales person perceptions of organizational support. In support of Research Questi on One, ethical climate proved to be a very important driver of salesperson perceptions of thei r job stress and their support from the organization. Ethical climate is represented by perceptions influencing the perceived rightness or wrongness present in a marketing environment (Babin, Boles, & Robin, 2000; Ferrell, Weaver, Taylor & James, 1978). Creating a climate that promotes ethical conduct can help a firm clarify its standards of ethical behavior to sale speople (Schwepker, et al., 1997). Research has found that employees des ire consistency between their ethical value system and the ethica l climate within the firm (Dubinsky & Ingram, 1984). Importantly, it has been noted that sales people want policies and codes of ethics so that limitations of ethical behavior are known (Dubinsky, Jolson, Michaels, Kotabe, & Lim, 1992) and clear distinctions are made as to what the organization expects from its sales force. The cu rrent study found that ethical climate significantly reduced role stressors such as conflict and ambiguity. When these stressors are reduced by the ethical clim ate perceptions, salespeople might not feel pressured to cut corners to make the sale. When salespeople feel stressed about what to do in their job and how to ac t/react to certain situations, they may feel compelled to do something not quite ethical to sell one customer. However,
96 when these policies, procedures, and standa rds of ethical behavior are prevalent, as in this case, salespeople know what is expected and, thus, may not feel the same pressure to perform at any cost than may otherwise occur. Ethical climate was also linked positi vely to POS in that the more a salesperson perceives the organizationÂ’s clim ate to be ethical, the more they feel supported by the organization. From a practical perspective, this finding may suggest that organizations that are under pressure to adopt more stringent ethical guidelines may accomplish two goals at the same time. It seems that by defining ethical bound aries, organizations may be meeting their salespeople's expectations about ethics. In turn, they may achieve higher support perceptions and possibly important behavioral and psychological outcomes that were not tested for in this study. This finding may also suggest that when deciding to develop ethical guidelines, firms need to expand beyond focusing solely on ethical standards and include facets for in creasing employeesÂ’ recognition of the firmÂ’s concern/support for thei r salespeopleÂ’s well being. Workplace Isolation The workplace isolation construct describes employeesÂ’ perceptions of isolation from the organiza tion and their co-workers (Mulki, 2004). It has been proposed that when employees work from af ar or are isolated within the office that can cause them to lose cont act with co-workers, many negative consequences may occur. Recent re search has proposed that workplace
97 isolation can have many negative c onsequences on psychological and behavioral outcomes of salespeople. These consequences can have an adverse influence on the organizationsÂ’ goals and objec tives. Indeed, workplace isolation does negatively impact outcomes such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The results from this anal ysis concluded that workplace isolation has a very strong negative impact on job sa tisfaction (b = -11.06; t = -4.79) and organizational commitment (b = -7.55; t = -4.32). These findings suggest that psychological isolation is something fo r sales managers to constantly monitor from their salespeople. Workplace is olation can be a result of physical, emotional, or social separation from coll eagues. While these types of separation are prevalent for outside salespeople, in side salespeople can also experience these feelings. Sales managers for in side business-to-business salespeople may want to consider a couple of alter natives to help minimize feelings of separation among their sales forc e. One way to alleviate feelings of isolation is to constantly communicate with the sale speople. Face-to-face communication has been shown to reduce the feelings of separation (Andres, 2002; Mulki, 2004) and help bring the salesperson back into t he social fold. Communication that includes appreciative notions may also help to increase perceptions of support from the organization impacting a myri ad of other important consequences. Another method of reducing feelings of separation is to have organizational sponsored mixers and get-togethers. Info rmal activities of this type could encourage salespeople social ize together and get to know others within the
98 organization. To reduce physical isolation, firms may consider the layout of the office to determine whether all possible so cial networks are utilized. Salespeople might be able to tap into synergistic rhythms during work thereby reducing isolation, increasing perceptions of support, and increasing overall performance levels. Post Hoc Analysis Several demographic variables were gathered in the data collection process. A post hoc analysis revealed a few interesting findings. The most surprising result was the impact that co-worker interaction had on turnover intentions. A simple regression anal ysis revealed that the more contact a salesperson has with his/her co-workers, the more he/she will intend to leave the organization. This finding might highlight the competitive natur e of the sales job as being too much for some salespeople. Additional research needs to be performed to understand this finding. Another interesting finding from the post hoc analysis was the prevalent influence of education. A salespersonÂ’s level of education seems to attenuate several perceptions about the organization and job. For example, educa tion reduces POS, organizati onal commitment, and job satisfaction. With resp ect to POS and organizational commitment, it may be that the more educated a salesperson tends to be, the more options they have and thus they donÂ’t feel as committed. Additionally, the type of support these individuals perceive may not be the ty pe of support more educated salespeople
99 need. The decrease in job satisfacti on for more educated salespeople is somewhat more vexing. One explanation for this finding could be that more educated people may feel that sales jobs ar e beneath their abilities. This is a farreaching assumption so future research needs to delve deeper into this finding. The last important finding was with the tenure variable. Tenure had mixed effects with these psychological and behav ioral outcomes. First, tenure reduced POS and role conflict. It may be that the longer a salesperson has been with their firm, the less suppor t they need which could explain the POS finding. Another explanation is that the support they are receiv ing is not meeting their needs as a senior salesperson in that firm. Second, tenure increases role ambiguity. As salespeople stay longer at a firm, the more responsibility they may take on, either in their job or external to their job. This finding may speak to the dyadic conceptualization of performanc e being both task and contextual (see Chapter 2). Future research needs to in vestigate these findings further. Table 10.1 outlines the remaining resu lts from the post hoc analysis. Limitations of the Study Several limitations to this study ex ist. First, there might have been some problems in this study regarding how cert ain constructs were measured. The most suspect variable, workplace isolation, was very unstable in both the measurement model and the structural m odel analysis. It was noted that the construct, initially measured by ten item s, had low factor loadings during the
100 confirmatory factor analysis or measuremen t model stage of analysis. In fact, five of the ten items showed poor factor loadings (less than .50) which could impact the fit of the model. Upon ridding the model of t he poorly fitting items, the construct showed better fit, yet still had loadings lower than those of other constructs. Additionally, responses were generally skewed across each of the items for workplace isolation necessita ting a square root transformation before further analysis. Finally, after reduci ng both the number of items and performing the normalizing transformation on this vari able, several associated hypotheses were not supported. A second limitation of this study is its generalizability to the population. The sample used in this study consisted of inside business-to-business salespeople across three firms in thr ee different industries. Even though the sample covers a somewhat broad range, the generalizability of the study results could be questioned. Moreov er, virtually no outside sa lespeople were used in this study. All respondents in the sa mple were inside business-to-business salespeople creating questions as to the generalizability. At best, the results from the study could apply to insi de salespeople focusing on business-tobusiness accounts. A third limitation of the study is it s cross-sectional design. While the results generally supported the hypothesized model, there could be alternative explanations for these results. A longi tudinal research design might shed light on these potential problems.
101 Suggestions for Future Research Several future research directions have been identified from this study. First, it has been recently suggested that salesperson self-reported performance ratings are not highly correlated with sales managers' ratings of performance (Jaramillo, Carrillat, & Locander, 2005). One drawback to studies (like this dissertation) is access to dyadic or sales manager rating data. In this vein, future research may find it useful to investi gate just how POS impacts objective and subjective performance ratings from both salespeople and sales managers. Researchers may find that there is a direct impact from POS to performance when measured from a supervisory perspecti ve rather than from the self-reported method as in this study. Second, as alluded to earlier in this chapter, the POS scale was developed and has primarily been used with non-sales employees. Future researchers may consider developing a new scale of POS for sales employees that better reflects the nature and res ponsibilities of the job, with emphasis placed on identifying specific things sales managers and organizations do to create support perceptions. In developi ng this new POS scale, qualitative data will need to be collected from salespeopl e and sales managers. This data can then be used to first develop a new defin ition of POS directly related to salespeople. As it stands, POS is l oosely defined as the employeeÂ’s perception that the organization cares about hi s/her well being and values his/her contributions to the organization's goal s and objectives (Eisenberger, et al.,
102 1986). Without biasing the future qualit ative findings, a new definition of POS may look something like the following: Salesperson Perceived Organizational Support The organization provides the nece ssary resources for salespeople to make the sale, provides adeq uate compensation for contribution to organizationÂ’s goals and objectives, provides incentives for a job well done, allows salespeople to decide how to perform their job duties, trusts the judgment of salespeople, and treats all salespeople fairly. Third, future research studies may want to examine other antecedents to POS. The meta-analytic literature revi ew presented in Chapter 2 portrayed the current knowledge of PO S antecedents. While this was a first step in understanding the POS construct, more work needs to be done to investigate other variables. For example, POS has been proposed to be an antecedent to organizational commitment. However, other research findings suggest that POS may be an outcome of commitmen t (Karatepe & Tekinkus, 2006). Fourth, future research may also c onsider investigating other potential outcomes of POS. The meta-analytic lit erature review ident ified several viable psychological and behavioral outcomes. Yet, there are still many avenues to be investigated.
103 Fifth, in tandem with the previous suggestion, future research should consider testing the norm of reciprocity pr ior to looking at the POS-organizational commitment link. The norm of reciprocity, to review, is the basis for social exchange theory whereby individuals reci procate or exchange valued resources and is considered the starting mechanism for the social exchange relationship (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). Future research should include this construct to provide a full understanding of t he employee-organization exchange. Sixth, future researchers may cons ider investigati ng whether POS and other organizational climate variables have a significant bottom-line impact on firm performance. Investi gating these bottom-line infl uences will help businesses decide whether to allocate scarce re sources toward developing positive organizational climate. Moreover, res earch may find that certain types of individuals are more susceptible to t hese organizational climate variables and thus will be more motivated than other ty pes of employees. The implication of this would be a fundamental change in recruitment and selection for sales employees. Recent marketing and sales literature has seen a vast increase in the emphasis on ethics. Future researcher s may consider focusing their efforts on just how an ethical climate is created. Moreover, research should analyze how customers perceive ethics al ong the relationship lifecycle. Seventh, given the pr oblems encountered with t he workplace isolation construct, future researchers should consider redesigning the scale. This construct has much potential for hel ping to create knowledge within the
104 marketing and sales literature. In its cu rrent state, however, it is unable to overcome its psychometric problems. Therefore, a new workplace isolation measure should be developed which incl udes both physical and psychological isolation factors. Finally, since this study focused only on direct path relationships, future research should focus on assessing more mediating and moderating relationships. Mediating and moder ating relationships between the organizational climate variables a nd psychological and behavioral outcomes could help shed light on exactly how these relationships vary.
105 REFERENCES Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of c ontinuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing Science 8(4) 310-323. Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equ ation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3) 411-423. Andres, H. P. (2002). A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams. Team Performance Management, 8(1-2) 39-48. Angle, H. L. & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical asse ssment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1) 1-14. Argyris, C. (1958). Some problems in c onceptualizing organizati onal climate: A case study of a bank. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(4) 501-520. Artis, A. B. & Harris, E. G. (2007) Self-Directed learning and sales force performance: An int egrated framework. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(1) 9. Aselage, J. & Eisenberger, R. (20 03). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5) 491-509. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Company. Austin, J. T. & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). G oal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3) 338-375. Babakus, E., Cravens, D. W., Johnston, M. & Moncrief, W. C. (1996). Examining the role of organizational variables in the salesperson job satisfaction model. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16(3) 33.
106 Babin, B. J. & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service environment: A model and test of potential di fferences between men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2) 77. Babin, B. J., Boles, J. S. & Robin, D. P. (2000). Repres enting the perceived ethical work climate am ong marketing employees. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3) 345-358. Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Performance and sati sfaction in an industrial sales force: An examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. Journal of Marketing, 44(2) 65. Barksdale, H. C., Bellenger, D. N., Boles, J. S., & Brashear, T. G. (2003). The impact of realistic job previews and per ceptions of training on sales force performance and continuance commi tment: A longitudinal test. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23(2) 125-138. Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3) 588606. Bearden, W. O. & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measurers for marketi ng and consumer behavior research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. Borman, W. C. & Motowid lo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual perfo rmance. In N. Schmidt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boshoff, C. & Mels, G. (1995). A causal model to evaluate the relationships among supervision, role stress, or ganizational commitment, and internal service quality. European Journal of Marketing, 29(2) 23-42. Brashear, T., Boles, J. S., Brooks, C., & Bellenger, D. N. ( 2003). Trust building processes and outcomes in sales manger-salesperson relationships: An empirical test and comparison. Journal of the Acade my of Marketing Science, 31(2) 189-200.
107 Brown, S. P. & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Metaanalysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(February) 63-77. Byrne, B. M (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisr el, Pre-Lis, and Simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawle r, E. E. & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Carver, C. S. & Sc heier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York, NY: Springer. Churchill, G. (1976). Marketing research: Methodological foundations. Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden Press. ----(1979). A paradigm for the developmen t of better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February) 64-73. Churchill, G., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W. & Walker, O. C. (1985). The determinants of salesperson per formance: A meta analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(May) 103-118. Churchill, G., Ford, N. M., Walker, O. C., Johnston, M. W., & Tanner, J. F. (2000). Sales force management. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Churchill, G. & Iacobucci, D. (2004). Marketing research: Methodological foundations. Boston, MA: Thompson Learning. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H. & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the mille nnium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3) 425. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishi ng contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1) 313.
108 Cook, J. & Wall, T. (1980). New work atti tude measures of tr ust, organizational commitment, and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(2) 39-52. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R. & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2) 164-209. Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6) 874-900. Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Cor porate cultures : The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addision. Denison, D. R. (1996). What Is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's poi nt of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3) 619-654. Diamantopoulos, A. & Si guaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing Lisrel: A guide for the uninitiated. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dubinsky, A. J. & Ingram, T. N. (1984). Correlates of salespeople's ethical conflict: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(4) 343-353. Dubinsky, A. J., Jolson, M. A., Michaels, R. E., Kotabe, M., & Lim, C. U. (1992). Ethical perceptions of field sale s personnel: An empirical assessment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 12(Fall) 9-21. Dubinsky, A. J. & Matts on, B. E. (1979). Consequences of role conflict and ambiguity experienced by retail salespeople. Journal of Retailing, 55 7086. Eisenberger, R., Cummings J., Armeli, S., & Lync h, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionar y treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5) 812-820. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Da vis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(February) 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Huntingt on, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 500-507.
109 Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of co mplex organizations: On power, involvement, and their correlates. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe. Ferrell, O. C., Weaver, K. M. Taylor, J. W., & Jones, R. M. (1978). Ethical beliefs of marketing managers. Journal of Marketing, 42(3) 69-73. Firth, R. (1967). Themes in economic anthropology. London, UK: Tavistock. Flaherty, K. E. & Pappas, J. M. (2000). T he role of trust in salesperson-sales manager relationships. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20(4) 271-278. Fleishman, E. A. (1953) Leadership climate, human relations training, and supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 6(2) 205Â–222. Ford, N. M., Walker, O. C. & Churchill, G. (1975). Expect ation-specific measures of the intersender conflict and role ambiguity experienced by industrial salesmen. Journal of Business Research, 3(2) 95-112. Forehand, G. A. (1968). On the interacti on of persons and organizations. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept Boston, MA: Harvard University. Forehand, G. A. & Von Gilmer, H. (1964). En vironmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62(6) 361-382. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating stru ctural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1) 39-50. Friedlander, F. & Margulies, N. (1969). Mu ltiple effects of organizational climate and individual value systems upon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 22 171-183. Futrell, C. M. & Parasuraman, A. ( 1984). The relationship of satisfaction and performance to sales force turnover. Journal of Marketing, 48(4) 33-40. Gabarro, J. J. & At hos, A. G. (1978). Interpersonal relations and communications. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Gainey, T. W., Hill, J. A ., & Kelley, D. E. (1999). Telecommuting's impact on corporate culture and individual work ers: Examining the effect of employee isolation. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64(4) 4-10.
110 Ganesan, S. (1994). Determi nants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2) 1-19. Garbarino, E. & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different ro les of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2) 70-87. Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices for stru ctural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21(2) 132-160. ----(1988). An updated paradigm for sca le development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2) 186-192. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Ku mar, N. (1998). G eneralizations about trust in marketing channel rela tionships using meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15(3) 223-248. Glick, W. (1985). Conceptualizing and meas uring organization and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10 610-616. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). T he norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25 165-167. Grant, W. S. (2002). Organizational climate and commi tment: A case study of an urban nonprofit organization. Old Dominion University. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior an d human performance, 16 250-279. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tat ham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hair, J., Bush, R., & Ortinau, D. (2003). Marketing research: Within a changing information environment. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J. W. (1974). Organization al climate: Measures, research, and contingencies. Academy of Manageme nt Journal, 17(2) 255-280.
111 Homans, G. C. (1958). Soci al behavior as exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 63(6) 597-606. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit Indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conv entional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equatio n Modeling, 6(1) 1-55. Hunter, J. E. & Sc hmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Hutchison, S. & Garstka, M. L. (1 996). Sources of perceived organizational support: Goal setting and feedback. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(15) 1351-1366. Jackson-Malik, P. J. (2005). Organizational climate and hospital nurses' job satisfaction, burnout, and intent to leave. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S. (1985) A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 36 16-78. James, L. R. &. Jones, A. P (1974). Organizational climat e: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81 1096-1112. James, L. R. & Sells, S. B. (1981) Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. James, L. A. & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Exploration into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5) 739-751. Jap, S. (1999). Pie-expansion efforts: Collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4) 461-475. Jaramillo, F., Carrillat, F. A., & Locander, W. B. (2005). Star ting to solve the method puzzle in salesperson self-report evaluations. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23(4) 369.
112 Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Solomon, P. (2006). The role of ethical climate on salesperson's role stress, job atti tudes, turnover intention, and job performance. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 27(3) 272-282. Jex, S. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons, Inc. Johlke, M. C. (2005). Boundary spanner pos, role stressors, and job outcomes. Peoria, IL: Bradley University. Johnston, M. W., Parasuram an, A., & Futrell, C. M. (1989). Extending a model of salesperson role perceptions and wo rk-related attitudes: Impact of job tenure. Journal of Business Research, 18(4) 269-290. Johnston, M. W., Parasuram an, A., Futrell, C. M., & Black, W. C. (1990). A longitudinal assessment of the impact of selected organizational influences on salespeople's organi zational commitment during early employment. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3) 333-344. Jones, A. P. & Jones, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and ag gregated work environment perception. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23 201-250. Joyce, W. F. & Slocum, J. W. (1984). Collectiv e climate: Agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climates in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4) 721. Kahn, R. L., Wolf, D. M., Qu inn, R. P., Snock, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley. Karatepe, O. M. & Tekinkus, M. (2006). The effects of work-family conflict, Emotional exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of frontline employees. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24(2/3) 173193. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Kerlinger, F. & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. London, UK: Thompson Learning.
113 Kohli, A. K. (1985). Some unexplored s upervisory behaviors and their influence on salesperson's role clarity, specif ic self-esteem, job satisfaction, and motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4) 424-433. Koys, D. J. & DeCotiis, T. A. (1991) Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human Relations, 44(3) 265-285. Lafollette, W. R. & Sims, H. P. ( 1975). Is satisfaction redundant with organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13 257-278. Lazarus, R. S. & Fo lkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer. Lee, T. W. & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Vo luntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday's model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4) 721-743. Levering, R. & Moskowitz, M. (2007). In good company. Fortune, 155(1) 94-116. Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocati on: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4) 370-390. Lewin, K. (1951). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In D. Cartwright, (Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science New York, NY: Harper and Row. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. & White, R. K. (1939). Patte rns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created 'social climates'," Journal of Social Psychology, 10 271-299. Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001), Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Litwin, G. H. & Stringer, R. A. (1968), Motivation and organizational climate. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
114 Lynch, P., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior-versus-superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 467-483. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1 996). Power analysis and determination of sample size fo r covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2) 130-149. March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Marshall, G. W., Michaels, C. E., & Mulk i, J. P. (2007). Wo rkplace isolation: Exploring the construct and its measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 24(3) 195-223. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An in tegration model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3) 709. McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. McNabb, D. E. & Sepic, E. T. (19 95). Culture, climat e, and total quality management: Measuring readiness for change. Public Productivity and Management Review, 18(4), 369-385. Meyer, H. H. (1968). Achievem ent motivation and industrial climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin, (Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston, MA: Harvard University. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D ., Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 152-156. Meyerson, D. (1991). Acknowledging and un covering ambiguities. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, & C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Michaels, R. E., Day, R. L., & Joachims thaler, E. A. (1987). Role stress among industrial buyers: An integrative model. Journal of Marketing, 51(2) 28-45. Moncrief, W. C. (1986). Selling activi ty and sales position taxonomies for industrial sales forces. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3) 261-270.
115 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market resear ch: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3) 314-328. Moos, R. H. (1974). Evaluating treatment environments: A social ecological approach. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Press. Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-tru st theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(July) 20-38. Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4) 475-480. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Port er, L. W. (1979). Th e measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14 223-247. Mulki, J. P. (2004). Impact of workplac e isolation on organizational commitment of salespeople. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida. Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and supervisory trust on salesperson's jo b attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of Personal Selli ng and Sales Management, 26(1) 19-26. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & Mc Murrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61(3) 85. Netemeyer, R. G., Bole s, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of workÂ–family conflicts and workÂ–family conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 400-410. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. O'Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Or ganizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3) 492-499.
116 Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizati onal citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2) 85-97. ----(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Krishnan, R. (2004). Marketing research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Payne, R. L. & Pugh, D. S. (1976). Organizational struct ure and climate. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. Pedhazur, E. J. & Schm elkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Perreault, W. D. & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2) 135-148. Piercy, N. F., Cravens, D. W., & Lane, N. (2001). Sale s manager behavior control strategy and its consequences: The impact of gender differences. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23(3) 221-236. Ping, R. A. (1996). Latent variable regression: A technique for estimating interaction and quadratic coefficients. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31 95-120. Pinsonneault, A. & Bo isvert, M. (2001). The impacts of telecommuting on organizations and individuals: A review of the literature. Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Podsakoff, P. M., Moorman, R. H., & Fe tter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on follower s trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Leadership Quarterly, 1(3) 351-363. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & B oulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job sa tisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(October) 603609. Powers, W. T. (1973). F eedback: Beyond behaviorism. Science, 179 351-356.
117 Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (20 02). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4) 698-714. Rich, G. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4) 319-328. Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D., & Ortinau, D. (2005). A meta analytic review of perceived organizational support. Unpublished work. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2007). A meta analysis of the relationship between perceived or ganizational support and front line employee job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research (Under Review) Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. L. (1970), Role conflict and role ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (2) 150-162. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and br each of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 574-599. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametr ic measures of effect size In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis. New York, NY: Russel Stage Foundation. ----(1995). Writing meta -analytical reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2) 183192. Rousseau, D. M. (1988). The construction of climate in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (E ds.), International psychology. New York, NY: Wiley. ----(1990). New hire perceptions of thei r own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(5) 389. Rousseau, D. M. & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives and measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 679-695.
118 Ryals, L. J. & Rogers, B. (2005). Sales compensation plans One size does not fit all. Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 13 (4) 354-362. Ryan, A. (1993). Justice Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Transaction. Sams, D. (2005). An empirical examination of job stress and management of emotionally-based behavior (Electr onic Resource): Frontline social service personnel perspective Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of South Florida. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B. & Hall, D. T. (1972). Toward specifyi ng the concept of work climate: A study of roman catholic diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 447-455. Schneider, B. & Reichers, A. E. (1983) On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36(1) 19-39. Schneider, B. & Snyder, R. A. (1975) Some relationships between job satisfaction and organization climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3) 285-410. Scholl, R. W. (1981). Diffe rentiating organizational comm itment from expectancy as a motivating force. The Academy of Management Review, 6(4) 589599. Schwepker, C. H. (2001). Ethical climat e's relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention in the sales force. Journal of Business Research, 54(1) 39-52. Schwepker, C. H., Ferrell, O. C., & Ingram T. N. (1997). The in fluence of ethical climate and ethical conflict on role stress in the sales force. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2) 99-108. Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., & Barksdale, K. (1999). Transactional and relational exchange relationships. Paper present ed at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organiza tional Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
119 Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995) Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6) 1593-1615. Shore, L. M. & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commit ment and employee behavior Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5) 774-780. Singh, J. (1998). Striki ng a balance in boundary-spanning positions: An investigation of some unc onventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job out comes of salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62(3) 69. Singh, J., Verbeke, W., & Rhoads, G. K. (1996). Do organiza tional practices matter in role stress processes? A st udy of direct and moderating effects for marketing-oriented boundary spanners. Journal of Marketing, 60(3) 69. Smith, J. B. & Barclay, D. W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(1) 3-21. Spector, P. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13 693-713. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Speier, C. & Venkatesh, V. (2002). The hidden minefield s in the adoption of sales force automation technologies. Journal of Marketing, 66(3) 98-111. Stamper, C. L. & Johlke, M. C. (2003) The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship betwe en boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes. Journal of Management, 29(4) 569-588. Steiger, J. H. & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically bas ed tests for the number of common factors. Presented at the A nnual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Stringer, R. A. (2002). Leadership and organizational climate Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
120 Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgr evink, C. P. (2003). Customer service providers' attitudes relating to cust omer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1) 179-187. Tagiuri, R., Litwin, G. H ., & Barnes, L. B. (1968). Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept Boston, MA: Harvard University. Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups London, UK: Wiley and Sons. Traub, R. E. (1998). Reliability for the social sciences: Theory and applications Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Trivino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McC abe, D. L. (2001). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employ ee attitudes and behaviors. In J. Dienhart, D. Moberg, & R. Duska, (Eds.), Research in ethical issues in organizations Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. Valentine, S. & Barnett, T. (2003). Et hics code awareness, perceived ethical values, and organizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23(4) 359-367. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation New York, NY: Wiley. Walker, O. C., Ford, N. M. & Churchill, G. (1975). Organi zational determinants of the industrial salesman's ro le conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Marketing, 39(2) 32-39. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Linden, R. C. (1997). Percei ved organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1) 82. Weeks, W. A., Roberts, J. Chonko, L. B., & Jones, E. (2004). Organizational readiness for change, individual f ear of change, and sales manager performance: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24(1) 7. Witt, L. A. (1991). Equal-opportuni ty perceptions and job-attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(3) 431-433.
121 ----(1992). Exchange ideology as a m oderator of the re lationships between importance of participation in dec ision making and job attitudes. Human Relations, 45(1) 73. Zammuto, R. F. & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies in organizational culture. Resear ch in Organizational Change and Development, 5 83-111.
122 APPENDIX A MEASURES
Appendix A (Continued) 123 Role Stress Both role conflict and role ambiguit y are important intervening variables that influence the impact of differing or ganizational practices on individual and organizational outcomes (Beardon & Neteme yer, 1999). The role conflict and role ambiguity scales that are used in this research encompass 20 questions regarding salespeopleÂ’s perceptions about t heir job. Previous research using these scales have reported acc eptable reliabilities for both role conflict and role ambiguity ( = .82 and .81), respectively (Riz zo, et al.,1970). Each of these items is measured using a seven-point, Like rt-type scale from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true) as prescribed by Rizzo, et al. (1970). Role Conflict I have to do things that should be done differently. I work on unnecessary things. I perform work that suits my values. I have enough time to complete my work. I receive assignments that are within my training and capability. I have just the right amount of work to do. I am able to act the same regar dless of the gr oup I am with. I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently. I work under incompatible policies and guidelines.
Appendix A (Continued) 124 I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. I receive incompatible requests from two or more people. I do things that are apt to be acce pted by one person and not accepted by others. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true). Role Ambiguity I feel certain how I is evaluat ed for a raise or promotion. I am told how well I am doing my job. I feel certain about how much authority I have. I know what my responsibilities are. I have to Â“feel my wayÂ” in performing my duties. I know exactly what is expected of me. Explanation is clear of what has to be done. I have to work under vague directives or orders. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert -type scale from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true).
Appendix A (Continued) 125 Ethical Climate The ethical climate measure that is us ed in this study consists of seven Likert-type items based on SchwepkerÂ’s ( 2001). The instrument measures the domain of ethical climate by using questions from areas such as: 1) the existence of a written code of ethics, 2) the co mmunication of ethical expectations to employees, 3) a commitment from m anagement to ethical values, and 4) perceptions about the enforceme nt of ethical codes. Rec ent studies (e.g., Mulki, et al., 2006; Jaramillo, et al., 2006; Weeks, et al., 2004) have reported acceptable reliabilities for this scale. A seven point Likert-response format from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongl y Agree) is employed. My company has a formal, written code of ethics. My company strictly enforces a code of ethics. My company has policies with regards to ethical behavior. My company strictly enforces policies regarding ethical behavior. Top management in my company has let it be known in no uncertain terms that unethical behaviors will not be tolerated. If a salesperson in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results in primarily personal gain (rather than corporate gain), she or he is promptly reprimanded.
Appendix A (Continued) 126 If a salesperson in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results in primarily corpor ate gain (rather than personal gain), she or he is promptly reprimanded. Scale point descriptors: Seven-point Like rt-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 127 Perceived Organizational Support Perceived Organizational Support (P OS) is a construct developed by Eisenberger, et al. (1986) that assesses an employee Â’s perception that the organization values their efforts and care s about their well being. The original scale consisted of 36 items measuring t he domain. A recent study by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) identif ied that a shorter versio n of the POS scale was acceptable if the original scale was t oo long. Subsequently the 8-item POS scale was derived from the original 36-it em scale by using the items with the highest factor loadings based on a c onfirmatory factor analysis. The eight-item POS scale has dem onstrated acceptable reliability in previous studies ( = .89; .90, respectively ) (Lynch, et al., 1999; Hutchinson & Garstka, 1996) and is measured using a se ven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Instructions: Listed below and on t he next several pages are statements that represent possible opi nions that YOU may have about working at _____. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by filling in the circle on your answer sheet that best represents your point of view about ____. The organization values my contribution to its well being. The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R)
Appendix A (Continued) 128 The organization would ignore an y complaint from me. (R) The organization really cares about my well being. Even if I did the best job possible, t he organization would fail to notice. (R) The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. The organization shows very little concern for me. (R) The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 129 Trust The trust construct to be used in th is study consists of seven items reflecting its dimensions as identifi ed by Gabarro and Athos (1978). Studies (Robinson, 1996; Mulki, et al., 2006) usi ng this measure have found acceptable reliabilities ( = .82 and .87; = .87, respectively). T he original version of the scale utilizes the "employer" as a referenc e point for the responses. This study, however, will break out employer into both the supervisor and organization facets in order to isolate the differential effect on salesperson outcomes. The response format for this construct will consist of a seven point Likert type scale with descriptors of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. I believe my organization has high integrity. I can expect my organization to treat me in a consistent and predictable fashion. My organization is not always honest and truthful. (R) In general, I believe my organizationÂ’s motives and intentions are good. I donÂ’t think my organizati on treats me fairly. (R) My organization is open and upfront with me. IÂ’m not sure I fully trust my employer. (R) Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 130 Workplace Isolation The workplace isolation scale that is used for this study incorporates ten Likert-type items that m easure both dimensions of the domain. Appropriate reliabilities have been reported for this scale (Marshall, et al., 2007). The response format for the measure utilizes a 1 to 7 rating format (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). I am well integrated with the department/company where I work. I am kept in the loop regarding company social events/functions. I am part of the company network. Upper management knows about my achievements. My supervisor communicates my achievements to upper management. I have friends available to me at work. I have one or more co-workers available who I talk to about day-to-day problems at work. I have co-workers available whom I can depend on when I have a problem. I have enough people available at work wit h whom I can talk about my job. I have people around me at work. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 131 Job Satisfaction The job satisfaction construct to be used in this study was taken from Jaramillo, et al., (2006) which was an adapted version of SpectorÂ’s (1985) satisfaction measure. The scale utilizes three Likert-t ype items to represent the construct domain. Jaramillo, et al ., (2006) found acceptable reliability ( = .92) for the scale, consistent with prior resear ch. The response format for this scale incorporates a one to seven agreement ratings (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). In general, I donÂ’t like my job. (R) All in all, I am satisfied with my job. In general, I like working here. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 132 Organizational Commitment The organizational commitment measure to be used in this study comes from Speier and VenkateshÂ’s (2002) scale This measure was adapted from OÂ’Reilly and Chatman (1986). Three Likert-type items are used to represent the commitment domain. Previous researc hers have found acceptable reliabilities ( = .75; = .83, respectively). The respons e format for this measure uses a 7 point True/False items (1 = Very False to 7 = Very True). I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. I feel a sense of Â“ownershipÂ” for this organization rather than just being an employee. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 133 Turnover Intention The turnover intention measure adopt ed for this study was taken from Brashear, et al., (2003) which is an adaptation of Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996). Four Like rt-type items are used to measure the domain. Research (Netemeyer, et al., 1996; Brashear et al., 2003) has shown acceptable reliabilities for this scale ( = .91; .92, respectively). The response format for this measure includes a seven-point, strongly disagree-strongly agree options (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree). I often think about quitting my present job. I intend to quit my job. During the next 12 months, I intend to search for an alternative role (another job, full-time student, etc.) to my present job. I have searched for a new job. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 134 Self-Rated Performance This study will utilize a subjective performance meas ure obtained from Piercy, Cravens, and Lane (2001) that asse sses a salespersonÂ’s self-rated task performance. Eight items are used to assess the salespersonÂ’s performance. A seven point Likert-type scale 1 (Strongl y Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) is employed. Previous studies have report ed acceptable reliability estimates (e.g., Mulki, 2004, = .74; Piercy, Cravens, & Lane, 2001, = .79). Self-Rated Performance Building effective relati onships with customers. Making effective presentations to customers. Keeping expenses at acceptable levels. Achieving sales targets and other business objectives. Understanding our products and services. Providing feedback to management. Understanding customer needs and work processes. Contributing to my sales unitÂ’s revenues. Scale Point Descriptors: Seven-Point, Likert-type Scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix A (Continued) 135 Dissertation Survey Dear Respondent, My name is Robert J. Riggle. I am a Ph.D. Candidate in Marketing at the University of South Florida. I am curr ently working on my dissertation and really need your help. My research is focused on the relationshi p salespeople have with their employer. The success of this important research depends on you. Your participation is critical as one of the people randomly sampled for this study. The information you give will not be identified with you and your identity will remain completely anonymous! Your opinions and responses will only be used when grouped with those of other salespeople par ticipating in the survey. I was a salesperson like you for severa l years and know you have limited leisure time and probably do not like filling out ques tionnaires. But, this is a pioneering study to understand the important links between sales force support and how you view your job. The questionnaire is easy to fill out and will take only a few minutes to complete. Your honest respons es are very important to the success of this study. After answering all the questions in the survey, please click the "submit survey" button located at the end of the questionnaire.
Appendix A (Continued) 136 You have my personal guarantee that I am not trying to sell you something. If you have any doubts, concerns, or questions about this survey, please call me at (813) 974-6239 or my major professor, Dr. Paul J. Solomon, at (813) 974-5995. Thank you in advance for your partici pation in this groundbreaking study. Sincerely, Robert J. Riggle, University of South Florida
Appendix A (Continued) 137 1) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that you may or may not have about working for your current em ployer. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by clicking the answer that best represents your point of view. Remember, this is just asking for your opinion. T here is no right or wrong answer. Strongly Disagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Slightly Agree AgreeStrongly Agree My employer values my contribution to the company's well being. My employer really cares about my well being. My employer fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. My employer takes pride in my accomplishments at work. My employer would ignore any complaint from me. Even if I did the best job possible, my employer would fail to notice. My employer cares about my general satisfaction at work. My employer shows very little concern for me.
Appendix A (Continued) 138 2) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that you may or may not have about working for your current em ployer. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by clicking the answer that best represents your point of view. Remember, this is just asking for your opinion. T here is no right or wrong answer. Strongly Disagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Slightly Agree AgreeStrongly Agree My company has a formal, written code of ethics. My company strictly enforces a code of ethics. My company has policies with regards to ethical behavior. Top management in my company has let it be known, in no uncertain terms, that unethical behaviors will not be tolerated. If a salesperson in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results in primarily personal gain (rather than corporate gain), he/she will be promptly reprimanded. If a salesperson in my company is
Appendix A (Continued) 139 discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results in primarily corporate gain (rather than personal gain), he/she will be promptly reprimanded. I am well integrated with the department/company where I work. I am kept in the loop regarding company social events/functions. 3) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that you may or may not have about working for your current em ployer. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by clicking the answer that best represents your point of view. Remember, this is just asking for your opinion. T here is no right or wrong answer. Strongly Disagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Slightly Agree AgreeStrongly Agree I am part of the company network. Upper management knows about my achievements. My sales manager communicates my achievements to upper
Appendix A (Continued) 140 management. I have friends available to me at work. I have one or more co-workers available who I talk to about day-today problems at work. I have co-workers available whom I can depend on when I have a problem. I have enough people available at work with whom I can talk about my j ob. I have people around me at work. 4) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that your sales manager may or may not have about how well you do your job. Using a "well below average" to "well above av erage" rating scale, please select the response that best represents your opini on of how your sales manager would rate your performance.
Appendix A (Continued) 141 "My Sales Manager would rate my performance on....." Well below average 2 3 4 5 6 Well above average Sales commissions earned. Exceeding sales objectives/targets. Generating new customer sales. Generating current customer sales. Overall, compared to a typical sales person in my firm, my sales manager would rate my performance as... 5) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that you may or may not have about working for your current sales manager. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by clicking the answer that best represents your point of view. Remember, this is just asking for your opinion. T here is no right or wrong answer. Strongly Disagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Slightly Agree AgreeStrongly Agree I believe my sales manager has high integrity. I can expect my sales manager to treat me in a consistent and predictable fashion. My sales manager is not always honest and truthful. In general, I believe my sales manager's motives and intentions are good.
Appendix A (Continued) 142 I don't think my sales manager treats me fairly. My sales manager is open and upfront with me. I'm not sure I fully trust my sales manager. My sales manager values my contribution to the company's well being. My sales manager really cares about my well being. My sales manager cares about my general satisfaction at work. My sales manager takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 6) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that you may or may not have about your curre nt job. Using an agree/disagree scale, please select the one response that bes t expresses your point of view. Remember, this is just asking for your opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. Strongly Disagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Slightly Agree AgreeStrongly Agree I receive incompatible requests from two or more people.
Appendix A (Continued) 143 I receive an assignment without the manpower to complete it. I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it. Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my job. I know exactly what is expected of me. I know how my performance is going to be evaluated. I am proud to tell others that I am a part of this organization. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. I feel a sense of ownership for this organization rather than just being an employee. 7) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that you may or may not have about your curre nt job. Using a st rongly disagree to strongly agree scale, please select the one response that best expresses the
Appendix A (Continued) 144 extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Remember, this is just asking for your opinion. T here are no right or wrong answers. Strongly Disagree DisagreeSlightly Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Slightly Agree AgreeStrongly Agree In general, I don't like my job. All in all, I am satisfied with my j ob. In general, I like working here. I often think about quitting my present job. I intend to quit my present job. During the next 12 months, I intend to search for an alternative role (another job, fulltime student, etc.) to my present job. I have recently searched for a new job. 8) Instructions: Listed below are statem ents that represent possible opinions that you may or may not have about how well y ou do your job. Us ing a "well below average" to "well above average" rating sca le, please select the response that best represents your opini on of your performance.
Appendix A (Continued) 145 "I would rate my performance on....." Well below average 23 4 5 6 Well above average Sales commissions earned Exceeding sales objectives/targets. Generating new customer sales. Generating current customer sales. Overall, compared to a typical salesperson in my firm, I rate my performance..... 9) How many miles do you typically work from your employer's office? ________________________ _____________________ _______________ 10) Approximately how many hours do you work per week? Under 10 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 Over 70 11) Approximately how many people work in your office? Less than 10 10-50 51-100 101-250 251-500 501-1000 More than 1000 12) How long have you worked for your current employer? Less than 1 year 1 3 years 4 6 years 7 9 years 10 12 years
Appendix A (Continued) 146 13 15 years More than 15 years 13) Given a typical work week, please cl ick the approximate percentage of time you spend at your firm's office. Under 10% 11% to 19% 20% to 29% 30% to 39% 40% to 49% 50% to 59% 60% to 69% 70% to 79% 80% to 89% Over 90% 14) Given a typical work week, please cl ick the approximate percentage of time are you in contact with your Supervisor? Under 10% 11% to 19% 20% to 29% 30% to 39% 40% to 49% 50% to 59% 60% to 69% 70% to 79% 80% to 89% Over 90% 15) Given a typical work week, please cl ick the approximate percentage of time are you in contact with your Work Colleagues? Under 10% 11% to 19% 20% to 29% 30% to 39% 40% to 49% 50% to 59% 60% to 69% 70% to 79% 80% to 89% Over 90%
Appendix A (Continued) 147 16) Given a typical work week, please cl ick the approximate percentage of time are you in contact with your Customers? Under 10% 11% to 19% 20% to 29% 30% to 39% 40% to 49% 50% to 59% 60% to 69% 70% to 79% 80% to 89% Over 90% 17) On average, how often do you work from your employer's offices? Daily Weekly Monthly less than once a month Never 18) In what industry does your company operate? Advertising/Public Relations Biotechnology / Biomedical Computers Construction C onsumer Products/Retail/Wholesale Consulting Education Energy Entertainment Finance/Banking Food & Apparel Government-Federal/State/Local Insurance Industrial Tech Manufacturing Medical/Healthcare Military Non-Profit Publishing
Appendix A (Continued) 148 Travel/Hospitality Telecommunications Transportation Utilities Not currently employed Student Training 19) Approximately how many peopl e are employed by your company? Less than 10 10-50 51-100 101-250 251-500 501-1,000 More than 1,000 20) What is your gender? Male Female 21) What is your age? Under 18 18 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 Over 65 22) What is the highest level of education you have attained to date? High school graduate or less Attending/attended college 1 3 years Graduated from 4 year college Postgraduate study or degree
Appendix A (Continued) 149 23) Approximately what is your household's total comb ined income for the year, before taxes? Under $25,000 $25,000 $29,999 $30,000 $39,999 $40,000 $49,999 $50,000 $59,999 $60,000 $74,999 $75,000 $99,999 $100,000 $124,999 $125,000 $149,999 $150,000 $174,999 $175,000 $199,999 $200,000 or more 24) What is your current marital status? Single Married Divorced or Separated Widowed Thank you again for your time and effort in completing this survey!! You will now be directed to the University of So uth Florida Department of Marketing homepage.
150 APPENDIX B TABLES
Appendix B (Continued) 151 Table 1.1.POS Meta Analytic Findings CONSTRUCT ka Nb rc SE Range of rQ ANTECEDENTS Compensation 78144.20**.08 .05 to .34246.5 Distributive Justice 84856.68*.09 .57 to .76175.9 Procedural Justice 207723.72*.13 .58 to .822048.9 Role Ambiguity 94778-.46*.12 -.63 to -.25500.6 Role Conflict 84161-.24***.10 -.41 to -.05441.0 Autonomy 68105.56*.07 .45 to .65163.7 CONSEQUENCES Trust 83091.68*.09 .42 to .75124.0 Affective Commitment 7122478.71*.03 .68 to .741525.3 Job Satisfaction 5026322.61*.03 .56 to .651320.8 Task Performance 265120.18**.03 -.29 to .64131.3 Contextual Performance 3515838.27*.02 .24 to .31184.8 Intentions to Leave the Organization 289844-.49*.04 -.56 to -.42551.9 p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 a = number of articles showing correlation with POS b = summated sample size for all studies c = meta analytic correlation
Appendix B (Continued) 152 Table 2.1. Overview of Study Hypotheses H1 Ethical climate will have a moderate positive impact on POS. H2 Ethical climate will have a strong negative impact on role ambiguity. H3 Ethical climate will have a moderate negative impact on role conflict. H4 Ethical climate will have a moderate positive impact on organizational commitment. H5 Ethical climate will have a m oderate positive impact on job satisfaction. H6 POS will have a strong negativ e impact on role ambiguity. H7 POS will have a strong negative impact on role conflict. H8 POS will have a moderate positive impact on performance. H9 POS will have a strong negative impact on workplace isolation. H10 POS will have a strong pos itive impact on trust in the organization. H11 Trust in the organization will have a moderate positive impact on job satisfaction. H12 Trust in the organization wil l have a strong positive impact on organizational commitment. H13 Workplace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on trust in the organization. H14 Workplace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on job satisfaction. H15 Workplace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on organizational commitment. H16 Role ambiguity will hav e a weak negative impact on performance. H17 Role ambiguity will hav e a moderate negative impact on job satisfaction. H18 Role conflict will have a strong negative impact on job satisfaction. H19 Role conflict will have a strong negative impact on organizational commitment. H20 Job satisfaction will have a strong negative impact on turnover. H21 Organizational commitment will have a moderate positive impact on performance.
Appendix B (Continued) 153 Table 3.1. Response Rates by Organization Organization Wave Invitations Completed Responses Response Rate by Wave Wave 1 April 4, 2006 13057 43.8% Wave 2 Â– April 18, 2006 7333 45.2% 1 Wave 3 Â– May 2, 2006 4022 55.0% Wave 1 April 4, 2006 140120 85.7% Wave 2 Â– April 18, 2006 209 45.0% 2 Wave 3 Â– May 2, 2006 110 00.0% Wave 1 April 4, 2006 307 23.3% Wave 2 Â– April 18, 2006 233 13.0% 3 Wave 3 Â– May 2, 2006 200 00.0%
Appendix B (Continued) 154 Table 4.1. Reliability Analysis Variable Mean 95% CI Min 95% CI Max Cronbach's Alpha Number of Items POS 5.385.045.37.892 8 Ethical Climate 5.514.976.05.859 6 Workplace Isolation 2.111.592.78 .837 10 Performance 4.724.604.90.932 5 Trust 5.745.426.04.910 7 Role Ambiguity 3.132.943.24.773 3 Role Conflict 5. 795.765.85.837 3 Job Satisfaction 5.684.386.98.920 3 Organizational Commitment 5.464.166.76 .831 3 Turnover 2.631.034.23.904 4
Appendix B (Continued) 155 Table 5.1. Correlation Matrix POS .89 Ethical Climate .345(**) .85 Workplace Isolation .543(**) .290(**) .83 Trust .462(**) .330(**) .358(**) .90 Role Ambiguity -.536(**) -.421(**) -.375(**) -.457(**) .77 Role Conflict -.647(**) -.384(**) -.583(**) -.360(**) .525(**) .83 Organizational Commitment .665(**) .358(**) .468(**) .404(**) -.388(**) -.588(**) .83 Job Satisfaction .638(**) .340(**) .360(**) .407(**) -.371(**) -.462(**) .781(**) .92 Turnover -.560(**) -.305(**) -.262(**) -.320(**) .294(**) .341(**) -.612(**) -.765(**) .90 Performance .215(**) .111 .327(**) .198(**) -.095 -.246(**) .350(**) .311(**) -.304(**) .93 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Appendix B (Continued) 156 Table 6.1. Perceived Or ganizational Support (POS) POS1 POS2 POS3 POS4 POS5 POS6 POS7 POS8 POS1 1 POS2 .644(**) 1 POS3 .407(**) .360(**) 1 POS4 .653(**) .618(**) .331(**) 1 POS5 .395(**) .480(**) .429(**) .398(**) 1 POS6 .498(**) .444(**) .450(**) .450(**) .450(**) 1 POS7 .576(**) .730(**) .328(**) .595(**) .496(**) .457(**) 1 POS8 .585(**) .653(**) .526(**) .514(**) .581(**) .553(**) .662(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 6.2. Ethical Climate EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC1 1 EC2 .437(**) 1 EC3 .646(**) .558(**) 1 EC4 .450(**) .628(**) .601(**) 1 EC5 .345(**) .608(**) .364(**) .534(**) 1 EC6 .338(**) .591(**) .409(**) .521(**) .649(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Appendix B (Continued) 157 Table 6.3. Workplace Isolation WI1 WI2 WI3 WI4 WI5 WI6 WI7 WI8 WI9 WI10 WI1 1 WI2 .429(**) 1 WI3 .391(**) .369(**) 1 WI4 .376(**) .458(**) .498(**) 1 WI5 .309(**) .325(**) .331(**) .707(**) 1 WI6 .353(**) .388(**) .345(**) .264(**) .196(**) 1 WI7 .257(**) .243(**) .248(**) .117 .048 .616(**) 1 WI8 .274(**) .305(**) .408(**) .240(**) .141(*) .612(**) .562(**) 1 WI9 .449(**) .433(**) .448(**) .295(**) .213(**) .604(**) .523(**) .539(**) 1 WI10 .292(**) .426(**) .218(**) .248(**) .158(*) .393(**) .275(**) .294(**) .528(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Appendix B (Continued) 158 Table 6.4. Trust TRUST1 TRUST2 TRUST3 TRUST4 TRUST5 TRUST6 TRUST7 TRUST1 1 TRUST2 .606(**) 1 TRUST3 .645(**) .502(**) 1 TRUST4 .749(**) .570(**) .603(**) 1 TRUST5 .579(**) .508(**) .525(**) .563(**) 1 TRUST6 .707(**) .660(**) .557(**) .663(**) .580(**) 1 TRUST7 .672(**) .562(**) .655(**) .633(**) .590(**) .682(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Appendix B (Continued) 159 Table 6.5. Role Ambiguity RA1 RA2 RA3 RA1 1 RA2 .481(**) 1 RA3 .513(**) .592(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 6.6. Role Conflict RC1 RC2 RC3 RC1 1 RC2 .650(**) 1 RC3 .588(**) .683(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 6.7. Organizational Commitment OC1 OC2 OC3 OC1 1 OC2 .813(**) 1 OC3 .580(**) .598(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 6.8. Job Satisfaction JS1 JS2 JS3 JS1 1 JS2 .820(**) 1 JS3 .836(**) .807(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Appendix B (Continued) 160 Table 6.9. Turnover TURN1 TURN2 TURN3 TURN4 TURN1 1 TURN2 .787(**) 1 TURN3 .738(**) .721(**) 1 TURN4 .719(**) .650(**) .668(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 6.10. Self-Rated Performance PERF1 PERF2 PERF3 PERF4 PERF5 PERF1 1 PERF2 .776(**) 1 PERF3 .721(**) .694(**) 1 PERF4 .749(**) .750(**) .661(**) 1 PERF5 .767(**) .801(**) .735(**) .756(**) 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Appendix B (Continued) 161 Table 7.1. Measurement Model Standardized Factor Loadings Construct and Scale Item Standardized Factor Loadings t-valuesa Ethical Climate EC2 0.84 15.51 EC4 0.76 13.58 EC5 0.70 11.98 EC6 0.70 12.05 Perceived Organizational Support POS1 0.75 POS2 0.83 13.52 POS4 0.73 11.79 POS7 0.81 13.26 POS8 0.79 12.84 Workplace Isolation WI1 0.57 WI2 0.62 7.69 WI3 0.60 7.54 WI6 0.69 8.32 WI8 0.63 7.81 WI9 0.78 8.92 Supervisory Trust TRUST1 0.86 TRUST2 0.73 13.47 TRUST3 0.73 13.53 TRUST4 0.82 16.32 TRUST5 0.71 12.91 TRUST6 0.83 16.41 TRUST7 0.81 15.91 Role Ambiguity RA1 0.64 RA2 0.74 8.94 RA3 0.81 9.25 Role Conflict RC1 0.76 RC2 0.86 13.24 RC3 0.78 12.20 Organizational Commitment OC1 0.87
Appendix B (Continued) 162 Table 7.1 (Continued) OC2 0.90 19.43 OC3 0.70 12.84 Job Satisfaction JS1 0.91 JS2 0.92 24.11 JS3 0.88 21.53 Turnover Turn1 0.93 Turn2 0.86 20.46 Turn3 0.81 17.82 Turn4 0.77 16.06 Self Rated Performance PERF1 0.88 PERF2 0.89 20.45 PERF3 0.80 16.53 PERF4 0.84 18.26 PERF5 0.89 20.46 a = all t-values are significant at the p < .001 level.
Appendix B (Continued) 163 Table 8.1. Model Iteration Comparison Goodness of Fit Statistics Iteration 1 All Items Iteration 2 Items Deleted Iteration 3 Paths Added Degrees of Freedom 810 456 454 Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square 1821.38 (p = 0.0) 813.45 (p = 0.0) 789.16 (p = 0.0) Normal Theory Weighted Least Squares ChiSquare 1877.21 (P = 0.0) 784.88 (p = 0.0) 759.80 (p = 0.0) Estimated Non-Centrality Para meter (NCP) 1067.21 328.88 305.80 90% Confidence Interval for NCP 944. 79 ; 1197.31 255.15 ; 410.48 233.77 ; 385.70 Minimum Fit Function Value 7.29 3.25 3.16 Population Discrepancy Functi on Value 4.27 1.32 1.22 90% Confidence Interval for F0 3.78 ; 4.79 1.02 ; 1.64 0.94 ; 1.54 Root Mean Square Erro r of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.073 0.054 0.052 90% Confidence Interval for RMSEA 0.068 ; 0.077 0.047 ; 0.060 0.045 ; 0.058 P-Value for Test of Close Fit (RMSEA < .05) 0.00 0.017 0.031 Expected Cross-Validation I ndex (ECVI) 8.25 3.72 3.63 90% Confidence Interval for ECVI 7. 76 ; 8.77 3.42 ; 4.04 3.34 ; 3.95 ECVI for Saturated Model 7.22 4.22 4.22 ECVI for Independence Model 78.75 51.44 51.44 Chi-Square for Independenc e Model with 496 Degrees of Freedom 19602.42 12795.30 12795.30 Independence AIC 19686.42 12859.30 12859.30
Appendix B (Continued) 164 Table 8.1 (Continued) Model AIC 2063.21 928.88 907.80 Saturated AIC 1806.00 1056.00 1056.00 Independence CAIC 19876.49 13004.12 13004.12 Model CAIC 2484.08 1254.72 1242.68 Saturated CAIC 5892.48 3445.44 3445.44 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.91 0.94 0.94 Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.94 0.97 0.97 Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) 0.85 0.86 0.86 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.95 0.97 0.97 Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.95 0.97 0.97 Relative Fit Index (RFI) 0.90 0.93 0.93 Critical N (CN) 125.44 163.64 167.96 Root Mean Square Residua l (RMR) 0.18 0.16 0.14 Standardized RMR 0.090 0.080 0.072 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.74 0.84 0.84 Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) 0.71 0.81 0.82 Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) 0.66 0.72 0.72
Appendix B (Continued) 165 Table 9.1. Standardized Paths and t-values Model Hypothesis Sign SP (t) Supporta 1 Ethical climate will hav e a moderate positive impact on POS. + 0.45 6.34*** PS 2 Ethical climate will have a strong negative impact on role ambiguity. -0.31 -4.01*** PS 3 Ethical climate will have a moderate negative impact on role conflict. -0.07 -4.57*** PS 4 Ethical climate will hav e a moderate positive impact on organizational commitment. + 0.35 5.31*** S 5 Ethical climate will hav e a moderate positive impact on job satisfaction. + 0.34 5.47*** S 6 POS will have a strong negative impact on role ambiguity. -0.40 -4.22*** S 7 POS will have a strong negative impact on role conflict. -0.12 -6.01*** PS 8 POS will have a moder ate positive impact on performance. + -0.08 -0.63 NS 9 POS will have a strong negative impact on workplace isolation. 0.07 6.30*** NS 10 POS will have a strong positive impact on trust in the organization. + 0.49 5.82*** S 11 Trust in the organiza tion will have a moderate positive impact on job satisfaction. + 0.15 1.86 NS 12 Trust in the organization will have a strong positive impact on organizational commitment. + 0.02 0.39 NS 13 Workplace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on trust in the organization. 0.38 0.61 NS
Appendix B (Continued) 166 Table 9.1 (Continued) 14 Workplace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on job satisfaction. -11.06 -4.79*** S 15 Workplace isolation will have a moderate negative impact on organizational commitment. -7.55 -4.32*** S 16 Role ambiguity will have a weak negative impact on performance. 0.05 0.64 NS 17 Role ambiguity will have a moderate negative impact on job satisfaction. -0.01 -0.00 NS 18 Role conflict will have a strong negative impact on job satisfaction. -8.18 -6.75*** S 19 Role conflict will have a strong negative impact on organizational commitment. -6.66 -7.03*** S 20 Job satisfaction will have a strong negative impact on turnover. -1.05 -16.05*** S 21 Organizational commitment will have a moderate positive impa ct on performance. + 0.44 3.95*** PS p .05; ** p .01; *** p .001 a Â– S = supported; PS = Partially Supported; NS = Not Supported
Appendix B (Continued) 167 Table 10.1. Post Hoc Analysis Results Independent Variable Adjusted R2 Standardized Regression Beta t p Perceived Organizational Support Tenure .024 -.167 -2.667 .008 Education .022 -.161 -2.579 .010 Trust in the Organization Contact with Supervisor .038 .194 3.102 .002 Role Ambiguity Tenure .052 .236 3.823 .000 Role Conflict Tenure .027 -.175 -2.800 .006 Organizational Commitment Education .022 -.160 -2.550 .011 Income .017 .146 2.313 .022 Job Satisfaction Education .021 -.158 -2.528 .012 Performance Contact with Customers .038 .204 3.255 .001 Income .119 .350 5.836 .000 Turnover Contact with Coworkers .022 .161 2.561 .011
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Robert J. Riggle is currently an assi stant professor of marketing at Northern Illinois University. He ear ned his BachelorÂ’s degree in Public Administration and Masters of Business Ad ministration from Henderson State University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. During his undergraduate career, Robert was able to complete an internship in the White House Office of Presidential Inquiries under the directi on of Jamie Sue Williams. While in the Ph.D. Program at Sout h Florida, Robert presented papers at several conferences including the Am erican Marketing Association and the Society for Marketing Advances. Rober t was named a fellow to the American Marketing Association Sheth Doctoral C onsortium as well as the Society for Marketing Advances Doctoral Consortium Robert resides in Sycamore, Illinois with his wife, Edith, and son, Jack.