Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence

• Published date: 01 May 2016
• Author: Robert Eisenberger,Kyoung Yong Kim,Kibok Baik
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2081
• Date: 01 May 2016

Perceived organizational support and affective

organizational commitment: Moderating influence

of perceived organizational competence

KYOUNG YONG KIM

1

, ROBERT EISENBERGER

2

*AND KIBOK BAIK

3

1

Department of Management, College of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

2

Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

3

College of Business Administration, Kookmin University, Seoul, Korea

Summary Perceived organizational support (POS), involving employees’perception that the organization values their

contributions and cares about their well-being, has been found to be the work experience most strongly linked

to their emotional bond to the organization (affective organizational commitment, or AC). We suggest that

employees’perception concerning the organization’s ability to achieve its goals and objectives (perceived or-

ganizational competence, or POC) may enhance this relationship by more effectively fulfilling socio-

emotional needs. We conducted three studies with employees in the United States and South Korea to assess

the interactive relationship between POS and POC and their distinctive antecedents. Our hierarchical linear

modeling and ordinary least squared regression results showed that POC strengthened the relationship be-

tween POS and AC and that this association carried over to extra-role performance. Further, leader initiating

structure contributed more to POC than to POS, whereas leader consideration contributed more to POS than

to POC. These findings suggest POC plays an important role in moderating the relationship between POS and

AC. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: perceived organizational support; organizational commitment; organizational competence;

leadership behaviors; job performance

Consider two new fourth-grade teachers employed in different schools who receive substantial praise and recogni-

tion from school administrators for the fine job they are doing. Based on past theory and empirical findings, we

might expect that the teachers would be likely to develop the perception that their respective schools highly value

their contributions and care about their well-being (perceived organizational support, or POS; Eisenberger, Hunting-

ton, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Moreover, POS would likely enhance each teacher’s emotional bond to his or her

school (i.e., affective organizational commitment, or AC; Meyer & Allen, 1991). However, what if one of the

schools was much less competent and effective than the other in fulfilling its goals and objectives? Say School A

was run professionally and efficiently. By contrast, in School B, student schedules were usually incomplete at the

start of each term. Textbooks and supplies often arrived late and sometimes not at all. The antiquated telephone sys-

tem often malfunctioned. Computerized data were periodically lost because of the inexperienced support staff, and

on and on. Other factors being equal, would POS lead to equivalent levels of AC for the two teachers? Or wo uld the

teachers’differing perceptions of organizational competence influence the POS–AC relationship?

AC has been considered a basic determinant of employees’dedication and loyalty (Meyer & Allen, 1991;

Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Accordingly, literature reviews report that AC is related to increased conventional

and extra-role performance, lessened absenteeism and turnover, and increased well-being (Meyer & Maltin, 2010;

Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Riketta, 2002). Because of the important outcomes of AC for

organizations and employees, attention has increased to AC’s antecedents. Meta-analyses report that work

*Correspondence to: Robert Eisenberger, Department of Psychology, University of Houston, 126 Heyne Building, Houston, Texas 77204, U.S.A.

E-mail: reisenberger2@uh.edu

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 31 January 2015

Revised 30 November 2015, Accepted 06 December 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 558–583 (2016)

Published online 10 January 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2081

Special Issue Article

experiences are the main drivers of AC, with POS showing the strongest relationship with AC (Meyer et al., 2002).

According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960), employees

act on the basis of the norm of reciprocity to seek balance between the favorableness of their orientation toward

the organization and the organization’s orientation toward them. Thus, the high regard and caring conveyed by

POS should help fulfill socio-emotional needs and be repaid, in part, by AC.

Yet, the value of POS to employees, and therefore its contribution to AC, may be influenced by employee percep-

tions regarding the competence of the organization in meeting its goals and objectives. Perceived competence has

been considered important by both social perception and trust researchers. Competence is a primary dimension of

social perception, including perceptions regarding individuals, groups and organizations (Aaker, Garbinsky, &

Vohs, 2012; Aaker, Vohs, & Mogilner, 2010; Cuddy et al., 2009; Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012; Yzerbyt, Kervyn,

& Judd, 2008). Judging individuals and collectives to be competent makes them valued targets for strengthened so-

cial relationships (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011). Such perceived competence or ability has also been considered

a component of trustworthiness (Mayer & Davis, 1999). An important aspect of the trustworthiness of the organiza-

tion is its ability to carry out intended actions (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

Perceived organizational competence (POC) may enhance the value of POS to employees for several reasons.

POS from organizations viewed as highly competent may be taken by employees as a more accurate indication of

their accomplishments and thus more effectively meet their need for esteem (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch,

1998; Blau, 1964; Hill, 1987). Also, employees may also prefer to identify more with a highly competent organiza-

tion, helping to meet their need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Further, highly competent organizations may

be more effective in preventing and ameliorating stressful situations such as work overload and role conflict. There-

fore, POC may strengthen the relationship between POS and AC.

The present research examines differential antecedents of POC and POS as well as the moderating influence of

POC on the relationship of POS with AC and the outcomes of AC (Figure 1). Because leaders act as agents of

the organization in relating to followers (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Levinson, 1965), supervisors’treatment of em-

ployees should influence POC and POS. Two dimensions of leadership behavior, initiating structure and consider-

ation (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004), may be differentially related to POC and POS. Leader initiating structure

concerns clear specification of followers’roles and thus reflects the ability of the organization (POC) more than

POS. In contrast, considerate leaders are empathetic (Fleishman & Salter, 1963) and thus better able to meet the

socio-emotional needs of followers (Judge et al., 2004). Such fulfillment of socio-emotional needs would be more

indicative of POS to employees than of POC.

Our findings have important implications for organizational support theory and the development of AC. First,

from the social exchange perspective on which organizational support theory is partly based (Kurtessis et al., in

press), high POC may increase the value to employees of POS by more effectively meeting socio-emotional needs

Figure 1. Conceptual model

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETENCE 559

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 558–583 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job