Citation Context

...(Eisenberger et al., 1986). Furthermore, employees tend to perceive support or the lack thereof, as a function of how they are treated by individuals representing the organization (e.g., supervisors; =-=Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006-=-). This theory describes the employee–employer relationship as a social 102 Journal of Career Development 39(1) 102sat PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016jcd.sagepub.comDownloaded fromsexcha...

Citation Context

...vey comprising of five sections was used (see Appendix for list of finalsscale items) (Becker 1992; Johlke and Dunhan 2000; Maltz 2000; Miller, Allen, Casey,sand, Johnson 2000; Schaufeli et al. 2002; =-=Shanock and Eisenberger 2006-=-).sAll itemsswere measured using a 7-point Likert-scale, ranging from ‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘7 =sstrongly agree’. Two stages of pre-testing were implemented to resolve any fundamentalsproblems in...

Citation Context

...ch showed supervisor support can buffer the hazardous effect of work stress on feelings of emotional exhaustion [5]. Supervisor support is a positive correlation with engagement [6], worker wellbeing =-=[7, 8]-=-, job satisfaction [9], fewer physical and psychological symptom [10, 11], reduce the level of tension, impact of stressorssand dissatisfaction in the workplace and other forms of psychological and ph...

Citation Context

..., it is suggested that employees perceive that the organisation has ansoptimistic or pessimistic orientation towards them, because of the human characteristicssemployees associate with organisations (=-=Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006-=-).sTo explain, theshuman characteristics associated with organisations can be attributed to the organisation’sspower over employees, as well as the policies and procedures that are developed to prescr...

Citation Context

...mmitment, work effort, OCBs and unit performance, and negatively related tosturnover intention (e.g., Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2012; Eisenberger et al., 2002; Kuvaas &sDysvik, 2010; Maurer & Lippstreu, 2006; =-=Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006-=-).sInterestingly, research has shown that perceived supervisor support may have asstronger influence on employee outcomes compared to perceived organizational support.sFor example, Kuvaas and Dysvik (...

Citation Context

...ss the expected consequences of casualsattributions on responses to supervisor support.sSupervisor SupportsThe role of supervisor support has been of particular interest to researcherss(Likert, 1961; =-=Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006-=-; Stogdill, 1974). Notably, The Ohio StatesLeadership Studies identified Consideration and Initiating Structure as two positive formssof leadership that provide different types of support to subordina...

Citation Context

...uilds the hypothesised model in our study. Theoretical framework and development of hypotheses Perceived supervisor support The concept of PSS comes from organisational support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa 1986; Shore and Shore 1995; Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli and Lynch 1997; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski and Rhoades 2002). Kottke and Sharafinski (1988) define PSS as employees shaping global perceptions concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their well-being (cf. Rasheed, Khan and Ramzan 2013, p. 184). Shanock and Eisenberger (2006, p. 690) note that in line with organisational support theory, Masterson’s (2001) investigation of social exchange in organisations focuses on the obligation of employees to pay back positive treatment received from the organisation. Masterson suggested that, in the case of service employees, their receipt of positive behaviour by their supervisors would have a trickle-down effect on their management of customers (Shanock and Eisenberger 2006, p. 690). They state that PSS should produce a desire to help supervisors reach their goals (Eisenberger et al. 2002; Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe 2003...