Perceived Organizational Support: Why Caring About Employees Counts

OP07CH02_Eisenberger ARjats.
cls August 30, 2019 14:30
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior
Perceived Organizational
Support: Why Caring About
Employees Counts
Access provided by State University of New York - Stony Brook on 09/12/19. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2020.7. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Robert Eisenberger,1,2 Linda Rhoades Shanock,3

and Xueqi Wen1
1
Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, University of Houston,
Houston, Texas 77204, USA; email: reisenberger2@uh.edu, Xueqiwen77@hotmail.com
2
Department of Management, C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston,
Houston, Texas 77204, USA
3
Department of Psychological Science, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of North
Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina 28223, USA; email: lshanock@uncc.edu
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2020. Keywords

7:2.1–2.24
perceived organizational support, social exchange theory, leadership,
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior is online at fairness, employee well-being, socioemotional benefits
orgpsych.annualreviews.org
Abstract
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-
044917 According to organizational support theory (OST), employees develop a
Copyright © 2020 by Annual Reviews. general perception concerning the extent to which their work organization
All rights reserved values their contribution and cares about their well-being (perceived orga-
nizational support, or POS). We explain OST and review empirical POS
findings relevant to OST’s main propositions, including new findings that
suggest changes to OST. Major antecedents of POS include fairness, sup-
port from leaders, and human resource practices and work conditions, espe-
cially to the extent that employees perceive these as the discretionary choices
of organizations. Among more recent findings, the average level of POS has
modestly increased over the past three decades in the United States. Further-
more, POS appears to have stronger positive outcomes in Eastern cultures
than Western cultures. Some additional promising recent areas of research
on POS include trickle-down effects, POS of groups, and POS as relevant
to creativity and innovation, positive emotional outcomes, and well-being.
2.1
Review in Advance first posted on
September 10, 2019. (Changes may
still occur before final publication.)
OP07CH02_Eisenberger ARjats.cls August 30, 2019 14:30
INTRODUCTION
Perceived organizational support (POS) refers to employees’ perceptions that the organization
values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al. 1986). POS was
conceived three decades ago when the first author and his graduate students were discussing how
research on employees’ commitment to the organization failed to take into account the organiza-
tion’s commitment to them. We reasoned that POS might contribute to employees’ commitment
to the organization and to other positive employee attitudes and behaviors.
Research on POS has been widespread because of its clear antecedents and major consequences,
including favorable employee attitudes, performance, and well-being. Since the initial work on
POS in the 1980s, research has gathered momentum with more than 1,200 studies conducted to
date. The present selective qualitative review is designed to introduce readers to the theory under-
lying POS [organizational support theory (OST)], fundamental POS findings, and notable find-
ings too few in number to be included in the most recent POS meta-analysis (Kurtessis et al. 2017).
We first discuss the basics of OST, followed by our review of contemporary research as guided by
the model in Figure 1. With each topic, we include practical implications and future research di-
rections. Because OST was developed three decades ago to explain employee-organizational rela-
tionships and was developed in an individualistic culture, we also examine the changing workplace
as relevant to POS and provide a consideration of research on cultural values as relevant to POS.
OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT THEORY

The work organization is, of course, a nonliving entity with no personality or motives of its own.
However, Levinson (1965) argued that humans personify powerful entities such as the work or-
ganization. According to Levinson, the following features of the organization contribute to such
personification: The organization has (a) responsibility for the actions of its agents, (b) continu-
ity provided by organizational culture and norms, and (c) considerable power exerted, through
its agents, over individual employees. OST (Eisenberger et al. 1986) posits employees view the
organization as a living being, having purpose and intention. Thus, employees form POS as a
Discretionary Orientation toward the

treatment organization and work
(e.g., commitment,
Fairness engagement, trust)
(+) (+)
(+)
Perceived Behavioral outcomes
HR practices and (+) (+)
organizational (e.g., performance, citizenship
work conditions (–)
support behaviors, withdrawal behaviors)
(+) (+)
(+)
Leadership Employee well-being
(e.g., reduced stress, strain,
Perception of leader as
enhanced positive affect)
organizational agent
Gratitude, anger
Felt obligation
Fulfillment of socio-emotional needs
Performance-reward expectancies
Figure 1
Theoretical model of antecedents (orange), outcomes (blue), and mechanisms (green) involved in organizational support theory. Figure
adapted from Baran et al. 2012. Reprinted with permission from SpringerNature.
2.2 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

meaningful explanation for past perceived favorable or unfavorable treatment from the organiza-
tion and to help predict future treatment. As an outcome of personification, POS meets employees’
socioemotional needs (e.g., approval, affiliation, esteem, and emotional support) and indicates the
potential benefits of exhibiting greater efforts on the organization’s behalf.
As Figure 1 shows, major antecedents of POS are organizational fairness, support from leaders,
and human resource practices and work conditions (Kurtessis et al. 2017, Rhoades & Eisenberger
2002). OST invokes both social exchange theory and self-enhancement processes to explain how
these antecedents contribute to favorable attitude and behaviors directed toward the organization.
Concerning social exchange, POS should elicit the norm of reciprocity, leading to greater efforts
on behalf of the organization because of perceived indebtedness or felt obligation and expected
reward. Recent research suggests gratitude and other positive emotions resulting from POS may
also contribute to enhanced employee performance based on social exchange processes (Ford et al.
2018). Self-enhancement processes involve POS’ fulfillment of employees’ socioemotional needs:

High POS may fulfill needs for approval, esteem, emotional support, affiliation, etc., resulting in
employee identification with the organization. Employees who identify with the organization may,
in turn, develop similar values to the organization, resulting in affective organizational commit-
ment (Meyer et al. 2006).
According to OST, a major determinant of POS concerns whether employees attribute per-
ceived favorable treatment to the voluntary choice of the organization or to external factors that
forced the favorable treatment (Eisenberger et al. 1997). For example, a new policy of sharing
profits would be likely to be considered by employees to be a voluntary act by the organization
and therefore to produce an increase in POS. In contrast, an increase in wages mandated by a
change in government regulation should have little effect on POS because an extraneous factor
forced the favorable treatment.
Turning now to outcomes of POS, POS leads to behaviors that are specified in employees’
stated job responsibilities (in-role performance) and even more so in activities that go beyond
standard performance and contribute to the organization’s welfare (extrarole behavior) (Kurtessis
et al. 2017, Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002). POS also reduces behaviors harmful to the organiza-
tion (counterproductive work behaviors) (Kurtessis et al. 2017, Shanock & Eisenberger 2006). For
example, the first article on POS (Eisenberger et al. 1986) found teachers’ absenteeism was lower
among those with high POS, especially if they strongly endorsed the norm of reciprocity as ap-
plied to the workplace. POS is also related to increased employee well-being, including overall job
satisfaction and work-family balance (Kurtessis et al. 2017). POS directly reduces stress or mod-
erates the relationship between stressors and strain. As an example, an early study found nurses
exposed to AIDS patients (as part of their jobs) experienced less negative affect at work if their
POS was high (George et al. 1993). We now consider in more detail the relationships of POS with
its major antecedents and consequences including the processes that mediate these relationships
and moderators that influence their strength.
We developed 36 statements to assess POS and administered the items to employees of vary-
ing vocations. Logically, the two halves of the definition of POS, “valuing contributions” and
“caring about well-being,” are separate issues. However, we found employees form a holistic view
of perceived support from the organization incorporating both aspects of the definition of POS.
Responses to every one of the 36 statements were highly predictive of each other. Table 1 pro-
vides 10 items from the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al. 1986)
for researchers and practitioners to use in their research or practice. The table contains highly
loading items from the original 36-item scale that capture both halves of the POS definition. All
10 items are exclusively positively worded to avoid such problems as reduced internal consistency
and multiple factors structures (e.g., Barnette 2000).
www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.3

Table 1 Recommended Survey of Perceived Organizational Support items for use in research or practice
Item Factor loadinga
1. The organization values my contribution to its well-being. 0.71
2. The organization strongly considers my goals and values. 0.74
3. Help is available from the organization when I have a problem. 0.74
4. The organization really cares about my well-being. 0.83
5. The organization wishes to give me the best possible job for which I am qualified. 0.67
6. The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work. 0.82
7. The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 0.76
8. The organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part. 0.66
9. The organization is willing to extend itself to help me perform my job to the best of my ability. 0.80
10. The organization cares about my opinions. 0.82

a
Factor loadings are from Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) original scale development and validation article.
CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL

SUPPORT WITH ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES
In a previous review, Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) noted the widespread use of bivariate cross-
sectional procedures involving the same source to assess POS and its hypothesized antecedents
and consequences. These designs often leave substantial doubt concerning the direction of the
relationship between POS and the presumptive antecedent or consequence. Empirical methods
by most studies on POS have since advanced by providing one or more of the following: (a) co-
variates that may account for the association, (b) temporal separation of POS with hypothesized
antecedents or consequences, (c) mediational designs that may include tests of alterative models,
(d) panel designs that examine the temporal change in the outcome variable and (e) experimental
or quasi-experimental designs in which different groups of employees are assigned supportive-
versus-control treatments. Most of the studies we examine are theory-derived and incorporate
procedures a, b, and c, providing a moderate improvement over the state of the literature reported
on in the 2002 review. Furthermore, many studies of consequences of POS now report outcomes
from sources distinct from POS, and the same is true for a more limited number of studies of
antecedents of POS (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002). With regard to the direction of causality
between POS and hypothesized antecedents or consequences, some studies are beginning to pro-
vide relatively strong evidence of direction of causality. For example, panel studies report that POS
is positively related to changes in affective commitment (Rhoades et al. 2001) and performance
(Chen et al. 2009). Also, experimental or quasi-experimental studies found that the favorableness
of support reported in written communications influenced students’ POS (Caesens et al. 2017) and
that supervisor support training reduced abusive supervision and increased supervisor supportive
behavior (Gonzalez-Morales et al. 2018). We recommend investigators enhance their contribu-
tions to the POS literature by continuing to use research designs that lessen same source bias and
by providing evidence concerning the casual direction theory suggests.
ANTECEDENTS OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

Fairness and Perceived Organizational Support
Fairness is a commonly studied antecedent of POS. Justice researchers often divide fairness into
three types: distributive, procedural, and interactional (e.g., Colquitt 2001). Distributive justice
involves the fairness of resource distributions. Procedural justice concerns the fairness of the

decision-making process that decides the distributions of resources (Colquitt 2001). Interactional
justice is often divided into two subtypes: informational justice, which refers to employees’
accessibility to information regarding organizational procedures, and interpersonal justice, which
refers to the dignity and respect with which individuals are treated during decision processes
(Colquitt 2001).
Of the justice types, procedural justice has been found to be particularly relevant for POS
(Kurtessis et al. 2017, Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002). These meta-analytic findings are not sur-
prising because organizations are generally perceived to have considerable control over the pro-
cedures involved in resource distributions (including rewards and human resource benefits), so
judgments of fairness regarding procedures can greatly influence perceptions of organizational
support. In the most recent POS meta-analysis, procedural justice has the strongest fairness asso-
ciation with POS, followed by distributive justice and interactional justice, respectively (Kurtessis
et al. 2017).
The evidence supporting a strong relationship between procedural justice and POS suggests
procedural justice is a good candidate for convincing employees of the organization’s positive view
of them. Features of procedural justice such as transparency and consistency in decision making,
impartiality, and employee input into the decision-making process readily influence procedural
fairness judgments and therefore could be used to promote POS. Because anticipation of POS
begins to form early in the job application process, strategies that promote perceptions of proce-
dural justice could be used to increase POS among new employees (Zheng et al. 2016). Research
also suggests employees may distinguish between justice from different sources, which may have
different levels of influence on POS. For example, Karriker & Williams (2009) examined the mul-
tifoci model of justice (i.e., justice perceptions from either the organization or supervisors) and
found organization-referenced procedural and distributive justice were more closely associated
with POS than agent-referenced procedural and distributive justice.
The relationship of organizational justice with POS has also been investigated in nontradi-
tional work relationships. Contingent employees working for two organizations simultaneously
(a staffing agency and a client organization) have two sources of perceived justice, which might
influence their POS regarding each source. Consistent with this view, procedural justice of the
staffing agency was found to be associated with POS related to the staffing agency, and procedural
justice of the client organization was found to be positively associated with POS for the client
agency (Liden et al. 2003). This finding suggests associations between justice and POS could
play important roles in the maintenance of contingent employees’ relationships with both staffing
agencies and client organizations. Thus, in the case of contingent workers, OST could be extended
to consider the fact that contingent workers have relationships with both a client organization and
a staffing agency and that the antecedents of OST, in addition to justice, could be tested to see if
they hold similarly as predictors of POS for contingent workers.
Leader Support and Perceived Organizational Support

Kurtessis et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis reported various forms of supportive leadership perceptions,
such as leader-member exchange (LMX), perceived supervisor support, and transformational
leadership, were positively related to POS. Transformational leadership, which includes con-
veying caring and concern for employees, was more closely related to POS than transactional
leadership, which is more focused on dispensation of rewards in exchange for high performance.
These findings are consistent with OST. An important postulate of OST is that favorable
treatment contributes to POS to the extent that an organizational unit providing favorable
treatment is perceived to embody the organization. An organizational unit can be a person

(such as a coworker, supervisor, upper manager, or CEO) or a more-encompassing organi-

zational unit (i.e., a workgroup, team, or division): Employees may view all these units as
embodying the organization to some degree. OST contends employees often view supervisors as
embodying the organization because they act as agents of the organization, having the respon-
sibility of directing and evaluating subordinates’ performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002).
Therefore, employees attribute favorable treatment received from supervisors to their work
organization.
Some studies have directly assessed employees’ perceptions of organizational embodiment.
Consistent with OST, the relationships of LMX and transformational leadership with POS were
greater for employees who perceived their supervisors to have high organizational embodiment
(Eisenberger et al. 2001, Stinglhamber et al. 2015). Interestingly, supervisors who employees rate
as embodying the organization have been found to make more favorable comments to subordi-
nates about the organization; this favorable treatment from such supervisors was more strongly
linked to high subordinate POS (Eisenberger et al. 2010). As salient faces of the organization,
supervisors may enhance POS by giving or sharing credit with the organization for the favorable
treatment of subordinates. Thus, organizations could train supervisors and managers to give pub-
lic credit to the organization, as well as themselves, for favorable treatment of employees to build
employee POS.
Trickle-Down Effects of Supporting Leaders

Supervisors may repay the organization for favorable treatment through their own more sup-
portive leadership (Masterson 2001). Such downward reciprocation behaviors have been called
trickle-down effects (Masterson 2001) (Figure 2). As evidence of the trickle-down effect in POS,
several studies have reported supervisors who perceived support from the organization, or their
manager passed on supportive treatment to subordinates. Shanock & Eisenberger (2006) found
supervisors’ POS was positively related to subordinates’ perceived support from their supervisor
which, in turn, was related to the subordinates’ POS. Another study found that the relationship of
LMX with employee satisfaction and performance was greater for supervisors who experienced
high POS (Erdogan & Enders 2007). Similarly, the relationship between LMX and POS for a
supervisor and subordinate was greater when that supervisor had a good relationship with their
own boss (Tangirala et al. 2007; see, however, Sluss et al. 2008). Also, supervisors who believed
Treatment Recipient Consequences
Favorable treatment from High perceived

Managers
upper managers and organization organizational support
Favorable treatment from High perceived supervisor support and

Subordinates
supervisors high perceived organizational support
Favorable treatment from

Customers Customer satisfaction and loyalty
subordinates or employees
Figure 2
Trickle-down effects of perceived organizational support. Figure adapted from Eisenberger & Stinglhamber
(2011). Reprinted by with permission of the American Psychological Association.

the organization treated them fairly (an antecedent of POS) treated their subordinates more
supportively (Tepper & Taylor 2003).
The findings discussed above support the OST assertion that favorable treatment of super-
visors or managers enhances their treatment of subordinates, with positive consequences for the
subordinates’ POS (trickle-down effect). One recent study directly assessed mechanisms through
which the supervisor’s own POS trickles down to result in favorable consequences for subordi-
nates (Frear et al. 2018). The two mechanisms examined included (a) supervisors’ felt obligation
to reciprocate to the organization’s supportive treatment and (b) supervisors’ belief that supportive
treatment of subordinates is what the organization expects and desires., The findings of the study
suggest leaders’ belief that their organization prefers supportive treatment, resulting from lead-
ers own POS, contributes more to subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor support than does felt
obligation. This important finding, based on concurrent measurement of the constructs, warrants
replication with repeated measurements to assess the causal directions among the constructs. Sim-
ilarly, as Eisenberger & Stinglhamber (2011) suggest, positive treatment by supervisors may signal
to subordinates that the organization expects similar positive treatment of customers or internal
clients and coworkers.
Next steps in research on the trickle-down effect could also include investigating what an-
tecedents might be most strongly associated with supervisors’ POS. That is, how can the orga-
nization effectively communicate support to supervisors to create high levels of their own POS
that may trickle down to subordinates? Applying OST, supervisors, as with their subordinates,
desire fair treatment from their managers, as well as favorable human resource practices and work
conditions. As an extension of OST, decision latitude when it comes to budget and personnel de-
cisions, resources that help subordinates better carry out their jobs, and training geared toward
the development of leadership skills may be antecedents of leaders’ POS.
Abusive Supervision and Perceived Organizational Support

Another recent trend in POS research as relevant to leadership involves abusive supervision. In
three samples of employees, abusive supervision was associated with reduced POS, particularly
when the supervisor strongly embodied the organization (Shoss et al. 2013). However, the nega-
tive relationship between POS and abusive supervision was substantially less than the size of the
relationship commonly found between POS and supportive supervision (Kurtessis et al. 2017).
Perhaps, more than in the case of positive treatment, employees abused by supervisors ascribe
the treatment to the personal characteristics of the supervisor rather than to the organization. Al-
ternatively, the use of extremely negative wording of abusive supervision surveys may produce a
range restriction which hides the true relationship.
Human Resource Practices and Work Conditions and Perceived

Organizational Support
Many favorable human resource practices and work conditions communicating the organization’s
positive regard for employees should be substantially related to POS (Shore & Shore 1995). The
most recent POS meta-analysis reported significant associations between POS and the perceived
favorableness of a variety of human resource practices including developmental opportunities
and family supportive organizational practices as well as job conditions including job enrichment
conditions, role stressors, and benefit use (Kurtessis et al. 2017). Kurtessis et al. found the hu-
man resource practice of providing developmental opportunities was found to be most strongly
related to POS (corrected r = 0.57). Because developmental training opportunities are viewed

by most employees as highly discretionary practices on the part of the organization, their im-
plementation may contribute substantially to POS (Eisenberger et al. 1997, Wayne et al. 1997).
Developmental opportunities attract and retain employees not only by increasing POS but also
by furthering professional goals. Perhaps because their benefits were restricted to use by a lim-
ited portion of employees, weaker relationships with POS were found for flexible work sched-
ule (r = 0.21) and family supportive practices (r = 0.26). A practical implication of these find-
ings is that managers can implement creative and strategic human resource practices such as
offering personalized developmental opportunities or family supportive practices that will po-
sition their organizations as supportive of employees. Also, future research examining how and
why certain human resource practices aid development of POS in new employees would be
useful.
In addition to human resource practices, work role characteristics including job enrichment
conditions and role stressors have been studied in relation to POS. Specific work conditions such
as autonomy and participation in decision making convey the organization’s trust in employees
to make wise decisions (Eisenberger et al. 1999). Accordingly, the Kurtessis et al. (2017) meta-
analysis found job enrichment conditions, autonomy, and participation in decision making were
substantially correlated with POS (Kurtessis et al. 2017). In contrast, three role stressors—role
ambiguity, concerning the absence of clarity of role expectations; role conflict, concerning the
conflict among multiple role expectations; and work overload, concerning the job responsibility
that exceeds what one can handle in a given time—showed weak negative correlations with POS
(e.g., Panaccio & Vandenberghe 2009, Stamper & Johlke 2003). Notably, Eisenberger et al. (1997)
reported that employees attributed stress and pressure much more to the nature of the job than to
the intent of their organization. Although stress and pressure do not appear to be a strong source
of POS, research reviewed in Baran et al. (2012) and Kurtessis et al. (2017) suggests POS may
serve to reduce the outcomes of stress and pressure on employee burnout and other well-being
outcomes. POS also sometimes buffers the relationships of stress and pressure with attitudinal
and behavioral responses (e.g., job satisfaction, intent to remain, and role-based performance (e.g.,
Stamper & Johlke 2003, Wallace et al. 2009). We discuss these relationships in more detail in the
section on POS and employee well-being.
Benefits specific to an individual’s needs should elicit stronger POS as they symbolize the orga-
nizations’ concern for individual employees’ well-being (Eisenberger et al. 1986, Gouldner 1960).
Utilization of benefits, instead of their mere availability, indicates the benefits better meet individ-
ual needs and should be more strongly associated with POS (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber 2011).
Yet, Kurtessis et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis revealed only a weak relationship between benefit use
and POS (corrected r = 0.08), which should be judged cautiously because few studies reporting
this relationship were available. Future research could examine conditions under which benefit
use relates more or less strongly to POS. For example, benefits widely used but of a minimal ben-
efit to employees (e.g., health insurance that is widely used but that has high deductibles or copay
amounts) may contribute little to POS.
A related issue to benefit use is the importance of benefit value. Employees vary in their
situations and needs, thus should differ in their perceptions of benefit value and importance
(Weathington & Tetrick 2000). Lambert (2000) found a positive association between employees’
perceived usefulness of benefits and POS. She argued that to the extent such benefits as work-life
practices became commonplace in organizations, employees would no longer view them as a sign
of the organizations’ positive regard. Rather, they tend to consider the benefits more as a basic
right than a privilege, which may contribute little to build perceptions of support. When organi-
zations offer generous benefits, repeated communication of their value in comparison with what
other organizations offer may help stave of adaptation to the benefits.

CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

Mechanisms Linking Perceived Organizational Support to Outcomes
OST attributes a variety of outcomes of POS to social-exchange processes and the fulfillment of
socioemotional needs (Eisenberger et al. 1986, Kurtessis et al. 2017). Figure 1 lists these mecha-
nisms horizontally and encloses them in dashed lines.
Social exchange processes. According to OST, POS is a valued resource, the receipt of which
employees are obliged to reciprocate because of the reciprocity norm. The theory holds that
meeting one’s obligations for generous treatment helps maintain one’s self-image as a worthwhile
member of society who repays debts, avoids the disrepute that follows norm violations, and en-
courages future generous treatment (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber 2011, p. 31). Two studies found
that perceived indebtedness mediated the relationship between POS and outcomes. Eisenberger
et al.’s (2001) study of postal employees found indebtedness mediated the relationships of POS
and affective commitment, extrarole performance, and in-role performance. Caesens et al. (2016)
reported change in indebtedness mediated the relationship between POS and proactive behavior
directed toward the organization (e.g., making suggestions to improve organizational efficiency,
improving organizational effectiveness). Also consistent with the view that the norm of reciprocity
plays an important role in the consequences of POS, Eisenberger et al. (2001) found employees’
dispositional tendency to accept the reciprocity norm had a positive relationship with perceived
indebtedness to the organization. OST also holds that POS creates an increased expectation that
high effort on behalf of the organization will be rewarded. Consistent with this view, Eisenberger
et al. (1990) found a positive association between POS and performance-reward expectancies with
a sample of manufacturing employees and their managers.
Positive emotion may be another important social exchange mechanism linking POS to em-
ployee performance and well-being. Lawler’s (Lawler & Thye 1999, Lawler 2001) affect theory
of social exchange maintains social exchanges with positive outcomes produce global feelings of
affective uplift that individuals are motivated to reinstate. The theory holds that individuals are
motivated to understand the causes of positive feelings in order to reinstate them. Favorable treat-
ment attributed to a concern with the recipient’s welfare would lead to the emotion of gratitude
(Weiner 1985). In the case of POS, the organization’s perceived positive valuation of the employee,
in terms of both the employees’ well-being and respect for the employee’s contributions, should
produce gratitude. Accordingly, gratitude was found to mediate the relationship between sales
employees’ POS and performance beyond any influence of perceived indebtedness (Eisenberger
et al. 2018).
In contrast, low POS signifies an organization’s perceived lack of concern with an employee’s
welfare and its failure to meet its exchange responsibilities, which has been found to lead to anger
in the workplace (Ford et al. 2018). Accordingly, anger has been found to mediate the relationship
between low POS and increased turnover intentions, absences, and accidents on the job (O’Neill
et al. 2009). Anger also mediated the relationship of low POS with the well-being outcomes of
increased alcohol consumption and other high-risk health behavior (O’Neill et al. 2009).
The findings on POS and gratitude and anger suggest that OST should be updated, as in
Figure 1, to incorporate emotion as a mechanism connecting POS and job-related outcomes.
Organizations wishing to enhance gratitude and reduce anger in employees may use basic con-
cepts from OST. OST posits that favorable treatment, attributed to organizational discretion,
leads to POS (e.g., Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002). Thus, if employees believe favorable treatment
and human resource policies are under the discretionary control of the organization, they would
be much more likely to attribute such treatment to the organization, with resulting POS and

feelings of gratitude for the favorable treatment. Providing diverse favorable job conditions and
human-resource policies and pointing out the voluntary aspects of favorable treatment and the
involuntary aspects of unfavorable treatment should enhance POS and result in more favorable
emotions. Also, supervisors may be trained to treat subordinates more favorably by helping them
to understand the situational pressures that produce supervisor abusive behavior and teaching
them supportive ways to address employee errors. Such training increased supportive supervision
and reduced abuse (Gonzalez-Morales et al. 2018) and may also help reduce negative emotions
such as anger experienced by employees.
Self-enhancement processes. POS should help fulfill socioemotional needs including approval,
affiliation, esteem, and emotional support, leading, in turn, to enhanced organizational identifi-
cation, employee well-being, and affective organizational commitment. For example, POS would
indicate to employees that the organization views them as superior performers and takes pride in
their accomplishments, which should fulfill the need for esteem. POS would also convey that the
organization considers employees to be valued members and takes pride in their association with
the organization, which should fulfill the need for affiliation. POS would convey a sympathetic
understanding of stressful situations at work and indicate a willingness to aid employees in such
situations, which should fulfill the need for emotional support. Finally, POS would convey to em-
ployees that their behaviors are successfully meeting organizational norms and standards, which
should fulfill their need for social approval (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber 2011).
The Kurtessis et al. (2017) meta-analysis found that organizational identification partially me-
diated the relationships of POS with affective commitment, in-role performance, and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. For example, Marique et al. (2013) found organizational identification
partially mediated the relationship between POS and affective commitment for postal employees.
On the basis of OST, we would also expect that employees with strong socioemotional needs would
find POS especially rewarding. Thus, employees with high socioemotional needs should display a
stronger relationship between POS and performance outcomes. Accordingly, Armeli et al. (1998)
found that the relationships of POS with speeding citations and driving-under-the-influence ar-
rests were greater for police patrol officers with high needs of esteem, affiliation, emotional sup-
port, and social approval.
To date, empirical work examining the various mechanisms responsible for the relationship be-
tween POS and outcomes such as perceived indebtedness and organizational identification have
typically been studied in isolation. More studies should attempt to investigate multiple mecha-
nisms to assess their relative strengths. We now examine the benefits of POS for employees and
their organization.
Perceived Organizational Support and Employees’ Orientation Toward

the Organization and Work
We first consider the relationship between POS and employees’ positive psychological states di-
rected toward the organization such as organizational commitment, work engagement, trust, and
cynicism. These outcomes result from the social exchange and self-enhancement mediating pro-
cesses previously discussed.
Organizational commitment. POS has been consistently found to be the strongest antecedent
of affective organizational commitment (Meyer et al. 2002, Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002).
According to OST, affective organizational commitment occurs when POS meets socioemotional
needs of employees and results in increased organizational identification to the organization.

Identification, in turn, leads to affective commitment through the development of shared values
between employees and the organization (Meyer et al. 2006). Rhoades et al. (2001) found with
two samples of employees that POS was positively related to temporal changes in affective
commitment. In addition to affective commitment, POS was also strongly related to normative
commitment in the Kurtessis et al. meta-analysis. Normative commitment was originally defined
as the obligation to remain with the organization, but the normative commitment construct
has become similar in recent years to the social exchange construct of perceived indebtedness
(Kurtessis et al. 2017), including activities that aid the organization in addition to retention of
organizational membership (Meyer et al. 1993).
Continuance commitment is the third type of organizational commitment and refers to feel-
ings of having to stay with the organization (Meyer & Allen 1991). Although not many studies to
date have examined POS and continuance commitment, Shore & Wayne (1993) found POS was
positively correlated with affective commitment but not continuance commitment. This finding
makes sense given continuance commitment involves the perception of entrapment in the organi-
zation by such factors as a romantic partner’s unmovable job or the lack of new job opportunities.
POS, in contrast, involving positive valuation by the organization, should not be related to such
entrapment (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber 2011). Research on commitment profiles (naturally oc-
curring clusters of characteristics in a population) is consistent with these findings. Meyer et al.
(2015) investigated profiles of affective commitment, normative commitment, and continuance
commitment among employees and found that employees with high POS were more likely to
have a profile characterized by high levels of affective commitment and normative commitment
than a profile characterized by high levels of continuance commitment. In other words, employees
who felt supported by the organization were more likely to have a combination of high levels of
affective commitment and normative commitment.
POS-organizational commitment relationships have also been studied in work agency arrange-
ments in which agencies hire out employees to an organization temporarily. Studies suggest POS
from staffing agencies are associated with contingent employees’ commitment to the staffing agen-
cies, whereas POS from client organizations was associated with their commitment to the client
organizations (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow 2006, Coyle-Shapiro et al. 2006, Liden et al. 2003).
Furthermore, Connelly et al. (2007) found the client organization’s POS was positively related to
contracted employees’ affective commitment and continuance commitment to both the staffing
agency and the client organization, indicating employees would attribute the favorable treatment
from the client organization not only to the client organization, but also to the staffing agency. As
such, the effects of POS from one organization may spill over, contributing to the development of
a commitment to the other organization. The degree of spillover may be influenced by organiza-
tional embodiment, the extent to which employees consider the staffing agency and client agency
as much the same entity (Eisenberger et al. 2010).
Work engagement. Work engagement has become a popular topic in business settings as well as
in academia in recent years. Work engagement, as defined by Bakker et al. (2008), is a positive, ful-
filling, motivational state comprised of vigor, dedication, and absorption. POS could contribute to
each of these motivational components. Through the self-enhancement processes discussed pre-
viously, POS may enhance employees’ self-efficacy and encourage the use of higher-level skills,
producing greater intrinsic interest in work (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber 2011). Moreover, POS
communicates the organization’s valuation of employees’ efforts and meets their needs for esteem
and approval, which could also promote employees’ intrinsic interest and thus their work en-
gagement (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber 2011). Only a few studies have examined the relationship
between POS and work engagement. Saks (2006) found POS was positively related to both job

engagement (i.e., engagement with one’s work-related role) and organization engagement (i.e.,
engagement with one’s role as a member of the organization), whereas Kinnunen et al. (2008)
found POS was positively related to the major aspects of work engagement (vigor, dedication,
and absorption). Future research could examine the potential self-enhancement mechanisms in-
volved in the relationship between POS and engagement, such as enhanced self-efficacy or intrin-
sic motivation. Given that organizations often assess and monitor engagement and are interested
in enhancing employee engagement in their firms, the link between POS and engagement gives
organizations insight into using support as a malleable lever for enhancing engagement.
Trust and cynicism. Trust is a key component of social exchange and thus may help explain how
supported employees develop a positive orientation toward the organization. According to OST,
POS should enhance employees’ trust in the organization and/or management because trust in-
dicates the organization will not take advantage of employee vulnerabilities (Eisenberger et al.
1990, Shore & Shore 1995). In agreement with this view, meta-analytic findings indicate a posi-
tive relationship between POS and trust (Chiaburu et al. 2013). Whitener (2001) found trust in
management partially mediated the relationship between POS and affective commitment. Chen
et al. (2005) reported trust in the organization mediated the relationships of POS with affective
commitment, in-role performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. A related construct
to trust is organizational cynicism, which involves a negative appraisal of the motives and values
of one’s work organization (Bedeian 2007). Meta-analytic findings showed a negative association
between POS and organizational cynicism (Chiaburu et al. 2013). Low POS apparently creates
cynicism perhaps because it lessens the trust in the organization required to build a solid social
exchange relationship.
PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND BEHAVIORAL

OUTCOMES
Perceived Organizational Support and Performance, Citizenship Behaviors,
Withdrawal Behaviors, and Counterproductive Work Behaviors
POS is related to a wide range of employee behavioral outcomes. For example, the first study on
POS by Eisenberger et al. (1986) found POS was related to low absenteeism, especially for em-
ployees with a strong exchange ideology. POS was found to be positively associated with changes
in in-role performance (Chen et al. 2009). Wayne et al. (1997) reported POS was positively re-
lated to organizational citizenship behaviors and negatively related to intentions to quit. Armeli
et al. (1998) found a positive relationship between POS and patrol officers’ work performance (i.e.,
driving-under-the-influence arrests and speeding citations).
More generally, the Kurtessis et al. (2017) meta-analysis found that POS was positively re-
lated to in-role performance, organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward the organiza-
tion and toward individuals, and was negatively related to withdrawal behaviors (e.g., absenteeism
and turnover intentions) and to counterproductive work behaviors directed toward the organiza-
tion and toward individuals. Such results are expected given OST’s assertion that POS would lead
to both a felt obligation to help the organization reach its goals and also would enhance the expec-
tation that performance will be rewarded. The meta-analysis also found POS was more strongly
related to organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward the organization than to organi-
zational citizenship behavior directed toward individuals. This finding is consistent with OST in
that POS should result in a felt obligation to help the organization reach its goals, whereas tar-
geting individuals for help aids the organization less directly and less clearly. This notion is also

consistent with the multifoci model of social exchange in dyadic relationships according to which
employees should reciprocate POS more to the organization than to its agents (Cropanzano &
Mitchell 2005).
Creativity and Innovation

Employee creativity (the generation of novel and useful ideas) plays a pivotal role in organiza-
tional effectiveness (Amabile 1988, 1996). POS has been positively related to the constructiveness
of new ideas for organization improvement (Eisenberger et al. 1990), idea promotion behaviors
(Khazanchi & Masterson 2011), and general measures of creativity (Yu & Frenkel 2013, Zhang
et al. 2016). According to OST, POS may enhance creativity through increased employee orga-
nizational identification, feelings of obligation, and expectations of future reward (Eisenberger

& Stinglhamber 2011). Yu & Frenkel (2013) examined these three mechanisms simultaneously,
finding organizational identification and reward expectancy were more potent mediators for the
POS-creativity link than felt obligation, whereas the association between POS and task perfor-
mance was primarily explained by felt obligation. However, reward expectancy in this study was
measured in the form of general expectancy of career success rather than expectation of rewards
from the organization in exchange for creative performance, which would be more consistent with
OST. Future research might examine the role of expectations of rewards specifically for creative
performance in the POS-creativity relationship.
Additionally, acting creatively could be risky and stressful as it might challenge the status quo,
conflict with other employees’ interests and goals, and result in failure (Dewett 2006, Janssen
2004). By conveying to employees the organization’s willingness to provide work-related and
socioemotional support, POS might make risky creative behavior less worrisome (Khazanchi &
Masterson 2011). Accordingly, employees and supervisors with high POS were found to be more
trusting than those with low POS, and this trust was related to increased risky behavior helpful to
the organization (Neves & Eisenberger 2014).
Safety-Related Behaviors
As Baran et al. (2012) suggest, POS is likely an important part of the overall workplace expe-
rience that influences safety at work. OST argues that POS conveys a concern for employees’
well-being, which includes keeping them safe from workplace hazards. Therefore, POS, if held
widely by employees, might contribute to a general safety climate that could foster safety-related
behaviors. Evidence from empirical studies supports this view (e.g., DeJoy et al. 2004, Wallace
et al. 2006). For example, DeJoy et al. (2004) found a positive association between POS and safety
climate. Wallace et al. (2006) found that organizational support aggregated at the group level led
to an enhanced safety climate that, in turn, was associated with fewer accidents. Also, POS was
positively related to safety communication; employees with high POS were more likely to speak
up about safety problems (e.g., Hofmann & Morgeson 1999). Such communication, Hofmann &
Morgeson argued, would result in greater commitment to safety behavior and reduced accidents.
Thus, increasing POS may provide a useful way of enhancing safety climate.
Acceptance and Utilization of Technology

Many employees resist new information technology because software and other technologies ap-
pear difficult to learn. Research suggests employees’ resistance to new information technology
is both widespread and costly (Venkatesh et al. 2008). POS might promote acceptance of new
technologies by relieving the stress associated with fear of failure (Baran et al. 2012). For instance,

Magni & Pennarola (2008) found POS was positively related to the perceived ease and usefulness
of adopting newly introduced technology, which, in turn, affected employees’ intention to use the
technology. Also, when employees believe they are valued and respected by the organization, they
might be more intrinsically motivated to look for ways to perform better, including the adoption
of new technology (Mitchell et al. 2012). As such, POS was found to be positively related to the
acceptance and enjoyment of information technology via increased intrinsic motivation (Mitchell
et al. 2012). These findings are Consistent with OST, findings suggest POS helps reduce stress,
which then could lead to a host of positive outcomes including acceptance of new technology.
More generally, the role of POS in increasing intrinsic interest is a very promising new direction
of research.
Customer Service
As the service market becomes more competitive, there has been an increased interest in exploring
factors influencing service quality and customer satisfaction (Bowen & Schneider 1995). Service
employees receiving favorable treatment from the organization might respond by treating cus-
tomers better (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber 2011, Masterson 2001). Accordingly, several studies
found positive relationships between POS and customers’ perception of service quality (e.g., Bell
& Menguc 2002, Susskind et al. 2003).
POS may also influence service employees’ emotional performances required for their jobs
that do not reflect their true emotions (e.g., feigning interest in customers) (Grandey 2003). Such
“emotional labor” is often described as containing two types of emotional performances: surface
acting and deep acting. Surface acting refers to inauthentic emotional displays, whereas deep act-
ing refers to attempts to self-impose appropriate emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey 1993). Deep
acting has been more closely related to service quality and employee well-being than surface acting
(Grandey 2003, Morris & Feldman 1996). In a recent study of POS and emotional labor, Kumar
Mishra (2014) found POS was positively related to deep acting and negatively related to surface
acting; the relationship between POS and deep acting was mediated by organizational identifi-
cation. Perhaps POS meets service employees’ socioemotional needs and motivates them to do
a more effective job for their organization by treating customers better through strategies such
as deep acting. Alternatively, perhaps POS cues employees when the organization expects them
to treat customers supportively. Further research is needed to understand how and when POS
translates into improved customer service.
PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND EMPLOYEE

WELL-BEING
Direct Effects of Perceived Organizational Support on Well-Being and Strain
Baran et al. (2012) noted that the work organization plays a central role in many people’s
lives and is an important source of socioemotional need fulfillment. According to OST, POS
enhances perceptions of approval, affiliation, and competence (Eisenberger et al. 1986, Rhoades
& Eisenberger 2002). OST also holds that POS reduces strain to the extent that a supportive
work organization provides the instrumental or informational support needed to do one’s job
(Baran et al. 2012, George et al. 1993). Accordingly, meta-analyses and a qualitative review
of the literature on POS have found positive relationships between POS and employee well-
being (i.e., employee well-being variables such as job satisfaction and positive mood, improved
health, and reduced strains such as emotional exhaustion and burnout) (Baran et al. 2012,
Kurtessis et al. 2017, Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002). Research in POS and employee well-being
has been largely cross-sectional and involves self-reported well-being measures. A useful direction
for future research would be to conduct longitudinal studies of relationships between POS and
reduced strains and improved physical and mental health to demonstrate potential long-term
benefits of POS and to provide stronger evidence for the direction of causality. Also, the use
of physiological measures of health in addition to self-reported measures would provide more
rigorous evidence of the positive benefits of POS for employee health.
Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support Between Work

Stressors and Strain
Work stressors refer to conditions of the work environment (e.g., task stressors, physical stressors,
role stressors, social stressors) that may lead to negative consequences for employees (Sonnentag
& Frese 2003, Sonnentag & Fritz 2015). The negative consequences of such stressors are often re-
ferred to as “strain,” which include affective, physical or behavioral reactions to stress (Sonnentag
& Frese 2003). POS, through its socioemotional need-fulfilling function, may change the strength
of the relationship between stressors and strains. Baran et al.’s (2012) qualitative review of the POS
literature summarized the numerous research studies on such buffering effects of POS (e.g., Byrne
& Hochwarter 2008, George et al. 1993, Ilies et al. 2010, Jawahar et al. 2007, Stamper & Johlke
2003). For example, Jawahar et al. (2007) found POS buffered the relationship between role con-
flict and emotional exhaustion. Similarly, George et al. (1993) found POS buffered the relationship
between nurses’ extent of exposure to AIDS patients and their negative mood. George et al. noted
POS might have helped reduce anxiety associated with working with AIDS patients. Through
the self-enhancement processes discussed earlier, POS may also have boosted nurses’ self-efficacy
in dealing with such patients. Employees with high POS would also have had confidence that
their organization would provide them with the information needed to protect themselves against
infection.
The findings reviewed above suggest POS may be useful in reducing the emotional or cogni-
tive burden felt by employees when jobs are stressful or distressing. In some cases, organizations
might be able to target reducing the actual stressors for employees. In cases where stressors are
an inherent part of the job, perceiving support from the organization can help buffer employees
from experiencing negative outcomes for their well-being.
Although numerous studies have shown buffering effects of POS on the relationship between
stressors and strains, at least one study has shown a three-way interaction between POS and differ-
ent types of stressors (i.e., work interfering with family conflict and family interfering with work
conflict) (Casper et al. 2002). Other studies show a simple negative relationship between POS and
strain. More research is needed to understand the conditions under which buffering occurs (Baran
et al. 2012). Baran et al. suggest it may be harder for POS to serve as a buffer if stressors are im-
mediate and acute or are very specific to one’s job (support from a leader or coworkers might be
a better buffer in that case). It may also be challenging for POS to serve as a buffer if employees
of an organization are widely geographically distributed, as their interactions with the organiza-
tion and its agents would be more diffuse and perhaps less salient. Future research can aid our
understanding of the nuances of such moderating effects. Specifically, what ways of supporting
employees would be more effective when employees are geographically distributed? How can the
organization best provide guidance or decision-making autonomy to supervisors so that they can
help buffer stress when stressors are immediate and specific to their subordinates’ jobs?
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
We consider here three recent trends in the workplace environment having basic implications
for OST. First, the downsizing of organizations has led to an emphasis by management on
collaboration among members of groups or teams to make up for the leaner workforce. Second,
increased use of layoffs and elimination of pensions, together with increased use of temporary
employees, have led to challenges to employee loyalty to the organization. Third, organizations
are now often operating in a global business environment. However, OST was developed in
an individualistic culture, before most of the internationalization of organizational psychology.
Thus, it is important to consider how cultural values may moderate POS relationships.
Perceived Organizational Support of Groups

Recent research has begun to examine the effects of group-level and organization-level percep-
tions of organizational support, beyond the individual-level POS considered in almost all POS re-
search. Wang et al. (2011) found increased benevolence and reduced authoritativeness in commu-
nications from CEOs was related to organization-wide positive attitudes of managers, including
POS. Similarly, Berson et al. (2008) found CEO benevolent values were positively associated with
organization-wide POS which, in turn, was positively related to employee satisfaction. Wallace
et al. (2006) found shared perceptions of POS by group members were positively related to safety
climate, which, in turn, was associated with reduced accidents. González-Romá et al. (2009) found
that group-wide perceptions of support were positively associated with team performance. These
findings suggest that coaching leaders to communicate a positive valuation of the contributions of
their workforce as a whole and groups within it may broadly enhance favorable employee attitudes,
performance, and well-being.
Perceived Organizational Support and Changing Jobs

Most US employees today have a less stable relationship with their work organization than in the
past. Tenure, especially in the private sector, has been decreasing during the past several decades
(Farber 2005). Although the percentage of employees reporting their job security has decreased
only modestly, from 34% to 29% during the period from 1989 to 2016, it is unfortunate that such
a small portion of the overall workforce (29%) feel their job is secure. With wages stagnant and
medical costs high in the United States, employees may be fearful about losing their current job.
Thus, it is not surprising the percentage of employees who report job security is an important
issue has increased from 55 to 74% (Smith et al. 2018).
Despite these statistics, there has yet to be a major change in the overall work arrangements
for a substantial majority of US employees. Regardless of hype concerning a supposed shift to
a “gig” economy of contractors and freelancers, the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD 2018) reports from 1980 to 2015 only small increases of temporary
employees (from 9.2 to 11.3%) and part-time employees (from 13.2 to 16.8%) across the 34 eco-
nomically developed nations in the OECD. A few major employers, such as Uber and FedEx, have
many part-time employees or independent contractors, but the substantial majority of jobs remain
long-term and full-time. Thus, social exchange relationships involving long-term, full-time jobs,
and POS specifically, are still relevant in work organizations.
Some in academia and the media have argued economic disadvantages of the majority of em-
ployees, compared to top management over the past few years (Mischel et al. 2015), have led to
the replacement of employees’ social exchange relationships with short-term economic relation-
ships. They argue that employees no longer expect their socio-economic needs to be met or their
efforts on behalf of the organization to be rewarded (e.g., Clarke & Patrickson 2008). In contrast,
one might argue some factors of the changing workplace might motivate managers to be more
supportive of employees than in the past. Recently, there seems to be widespread agreement that
income disparity and economic uncertainty are national US problems, resulting in moral suasion

on business to treat employees more favorably. For example, business classes and textbooks in-
creasingly emphasize the moral ethic of treating employees well (Robbins & Judge 2018). Also,
companies often compete for the prestige and recruitment advantages of awards for being recog-
nized as excellent places to work (https://www.greatplacetowork.com/about).
If social exchange relationships between employees and work organizations have been replaced
with short-term, economic relationships, POS should have decreased over the past three decades.
In a meta-analysis of 317 studies (Eisenberger et al. 2019), we found over the past quarter century,
US employees’ average level of POS increased from near neutral (0.53 on a scale from 0 to 1)
to slightly positive (0.61), a change of approximately 15%. Thus, our meta-analysis showed the
mean level of POS, although increasing, was relatively low: Most employees are lukewarm in their
views regarding their support from the organization. In contrast, we found the relationships of
(a) perceived fairness with POS and (b) POS with extrarole performance remained high through-
out this period. The modest average level of POS for most employees indicates there is plenty
of room for improvement. The strong relationship of fairness (and other antecedents) with POS
indicates that organizations can ready enhance their exchange relationship with employees by
favorable treatment
Although the findings discussed above show support for the notion that employee-organization
relationships and OST are still relevant, they open additional questions. More research is needed
regarding whether the increasing average level of POS over the past quarter century is due to
overall better employee treatment or because employees expect less and therefore perceive greater
support when treated favorably. There are some indications favorable treatment may be on the
rise. For example, as unmarried cohabitation has increased in the United States, so have benefits to
unmarried partners. Also, opportunities for flexible working hours or work-from-home arrange-
ments have increased (Matos et al. 2017). In the coming years, POS could become even more
important in the changing workplace as a way to signal to employees the organization provides
developmental training and assignments that promote professional development.
Perceived Organizational Support Across Cultures

POS and its underlying OST conceptualization were formulated within a Western cultural con-
text. Most nations in the West are inclined toward horizontal individualism (HI). According to
Triandis (1995), this combination of cultural values fosters independence, competition, and low
obedience to authority (Triandis 1995). In contrast, most Asian nations and Western nations with
a Catholic religious tradition are inclined toward a combination of collectivism and high power-
distance, the latter involving an acceptance of traditional power relationships in society. The re-
sultant vertical collectivistic (VC) values involve an enhanced tendency to unquestionably accept
leaders’ dictates and a concern with favorable group outcomes over those of the individual (Singelis
et al. 1995). An implication for OST is that in VC nations, POS may be very important because it
signals the employee’s identification of in-group membership and approval (Kurtessis et al. 2017).
Thus, POS might be more strongly associated with positive attitudes and behaviors directed to-
ward the organization in VC nations than in HI nations. Consistent with this view, a meta-analysis
found that the relationship between POS and extrarole performance was greater in collectivistic
nations than individualistic nations (corrected correlations: 0.39 versus 0.23; Chiaburu et al. 2015).
Moreover, another meta-analysis with additional studies found that VC nations, as opposed
to HI nations, had stronger relationships with organizational citizenship behavior, organizational
identification, affective commitment, and job satisfaction (Rockstuhl et al. 2015). The difference
between VC and HI nations in the POS-organizational citizenship behavior relationship was
dramatic (r = 0.60 versus 0.23). POS and OST may have been developed within the context of

Table 2 Summary of practical implications

Category Practical implications
Fairness and Procedural and distributive fairness are strongly linked to POS.
perceived Transparency and consistency of, and input into, the decision-making process could be used to promote
organizational POS.
support (POS) Because anticipation of POS begins to form early among new employees, strategies that promote per-
ceptions of procedural justice early in employment are advisable.
Leader support and As salient representatives of the organization, supervisors may enhance POS by sharing credit with the
POS organization for the favorable treatment of subordinates. Thus, organizations could train supervisors
and managers to give public credit to the organization, as well as themselves, for favorable treatment of
employees.
When leaders with high POS treat subordinates more favorably they, in turn, display greater POS. There-
fore, organizations should promote leaders’ POS.

Human resource Developmental opportunities that further professional goals may be very effective in increasing the
practices and work POS of many employees. Thus, managers can implement creative and strategic human resource
conditions and practices to position their organizations as supportive of employees, such as offering personalized
POS developmental opportunities.
It appears that for favorable treatment by the organization to have much influence on POS, the
treatment must be viewed by employees as involving the free choice of the organization. Pointing out
the voluntary aspects of favorable treatment and the involuntary aspects of unfavorable treatment
should enhance POS.
When organizations offer generous benefits, repeated communication of their value in comparison with
what other organizations offer may help stave off adaptation to the benefits.
POS and employees’ Employees who feel supported by the organization are likely to have a combination of high levels of
orientation toward affective and normative commitment.
the organization In contingent workers, POS from the client organization may be associated with outcomes for the staffing
and work organization, and vice versa.
POS has been found to be positively related to employee intrinsic interest and engagement in their work.
POS and behavioral POS is associated with increased extrarole behaviors that help the organization meet its objectives with
outcomes reduced behaviors harmful to the organization. POS can be used by organizations as a tool for enhancing
various employee outcomes because it is a valued resource that employees are obliged to reciprocate
because of the reciprocity norm and because POS creates an increased expectation that high effort on
behalf of the organization will be rewarded.
POS has been found to reduce risky creative behavior but increase safe creative behavior.
Employees with high POS are more likely to speak up about safety problems.
POS promotes acceptance of new technologies perhaps by relieving the stress associated with fear of
failure and by increasing intrinsic motivation to look for ways to perform better.
POS and employee POS has been found to be associated with increased job satisfaction and reduced stress. Thus, POS may
well-being be useful in reducing the emotional or cognitive burden felt by employees when jobs are stressful or
distressing.
POS and groups Coaching leaders to better communicate how much they value the contributions of their workgroup has
the promise of enhancing employee workgroup POS.
Leaders may be trained to treat subordinates more favorably by helping them understand the situational
pressures that produce supervisor abusive behavior and teaching them supportive ways to address em-
ployee errors.
POS and evolving Some have suggested POS may be declining because organizations treat employees more poorly than in
jobs the past. However, POS has actually increased in the United States over the past 30 years.
POS across cultures POS and organizational support theory may have been developed within the context of Western culture,
but the influence of POS on outcomes appears even stronger among collectivistic nations.

Western culture, but the influence of POS is apparently even stronger among collectivistic nations.
Future research directly assessing mechanisms, such as organizational identification, responsible
for these stronger effects in VC nations would help extend OST to include cross-cultural
outcomes.
With regard to the antecedents of POS across cultures, Baran et al. (2012) noted the many pos-
sible avenues for future cross-cultural research. Future research could examine how employees of
different cultures may vary in their interpretation of attempts by their organization to demon-
strate support. Methods of support ripe for investigation include group versus individual rewards,
various forms of treatment by supervisors such as respect, and public versus private recognition
programs. Public recognition or individual rewards might be less welcomed in collectivistic cul-
tures where recognition of team successes is promoted.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. POS represents a unified perception by employees concerning the extent to which the or-
ganization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. POS is enhanced
by such favorable treatments of employees as fairness, support from leaders, and human
resource practices, more so when these are perceived to be the discretionary choice of
organizations.
2. Research shows various kinds of fairness are related to POS. Procedural justice is the
type of justice most strongly related to POS, perhaps because employees view procedural
justice as the type of justice under the greatest control by the organization. Procedural
justice principles, such as employee input and transparency, used during the selection
process and continuing into adaption to the new job, may help organizations develop
high POS among its employees.
3. A large amount of research indicates transformational and other forms of supportive
leadership relate positively to POS to the extent that leaders are perceived as sharing
the views and characteristics of the organization, i.e., organizational embodiment). Also,
recent research on trickle-down effects indicate that when supervisors feel supported by
their work organization, they are more likely to treat subordinates supportively, leading
to a cascade of POS. Providing resources, decision latitude, and other forms of support
to supervisors provide ways to enhance the POS of the supervisors and convey POS to
subordinates.
4. Research has established substantial relationships of POS with diverse attitudinal (e.g.,
engagement, commitment), behavioral (e.g., performance, turnover) and well-being
(e.g., positive mood, reduced strain) employee outcomes. Some additional promising
recent areas of research on POS include trickle-down effects, POS of groups, and POS
as relevant to creativity and innovation, positive emotional outcomes, and well-being.
5. POS relates to a wide variety of positive outcomes through social exchange (e.g., norm of
reciprocity and gratitude) and self-enhancement (e.g., organizational identification and
affective commitment).
6. Temporal meta-analytic and cross-cultural findings indicate POS and OST are as rele-
vant today as they were at their inception some three decades ago. POS has increased
slightly in the United States over the past 25 years, and the relationships of (a) fairness
with POS and (b) POS with performance remain strong. Cross-cultural meta-analyses

indicate POS has reliable outcomes in Western cultures and even stronger outcomes in
Eastern cultures. The central concept of POS seems to have universal appeal to employ-
ees beyond the vicissitudes of time and place.
7. A summary of practical implications from our review of organizational support theory
and POS empirical findings is presented in Table 2.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 10:123–67
Amabile TM. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview
Armeli S, Eisenberger R, Fasolo P, Lynch P. 1998. Perceived organizational support and police performance:
the moderating influence of socioemotional needs. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:288–97
Ashforth BE, Humphrey RH. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of identity. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 18:88–115
Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Taris TW. 2008. Work engagement: an emerging concept in occupa-
tional health psychology. Work Stress. 22:187–200
Baran B, Shanock LR, Miller L. 2012. Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century
world of work. J. Bus. Psychol. 27:123–47
Barnette JJ. 2000. Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: If you
feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educ. Psychol. Meas.
60:361–70
Bedeian AG. 2007. Even if the tower is “ivory,” it isn’t “white:” understanding the consequences of faculty
cynicism. Acad. Manag. Learn Edu. 6:9–32
Bell SJ, Menguc B. 2002. The employee-organization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and
superior service quality. J. Retailing. 78:131–46
Berson Y, Oreg S, Dvir T. 2008. CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. J. Organ. Behav.
29:615–33
Bowen DE, Schneider B. 1995. Winning the Service Game. Boston, MA: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press
Byrne ZS, Hochwarter WA. 2008. Perceived organizational support and performance: relationships across
levels of organizational cynicism. J. Manag. Psychol. 23:54–72
Caesens G, Marique G, Hanin D, Stinglhamber F. 2016. The relationship between perceived organizational
support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25:398–
411
Caesens G, Stinglhamber F, Demoulin S, De Wilde M. 2017. Perceived organizational support and employees’
well-being: the mediating role of organizational dehumanization. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 26:527–40
Casper W, Martin J, Buffardi L, Erdwins C. 2002. Work-family conflict, perceived organizational support,
and organizational commitment among employed mothers. J. Occup. Health. Psychol. 7:99–108
Chen Z, Eisenberger R, Johnson KM, Sucharski IL, Aselage J. 2009. Perceived organizational support and
extra-role performance: Which leads to which? J. Soc. Psychol. 149:119–24
Chen ZX, Aryee S, Lee C. 2005. Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support. J. Vocat. Behav.
66:457–70
Chiaburu DS, Chakrabarty S, Wang J, Li N. 2015. Organizational support and citizenship behaviors: a com-
parative cross-cultural meta-analysis. Manag. Int. Rev. 55:707–36

Chiaburu DS, Peng AC, Oh IS, Banks GC, Lomeli LC. 2013. Antecedents and consequences of employee
organizational cynicism: a meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 83:181–97
Clarke M, Patrickson M. 2008. The new covenant of employability. Employee Relat. 30:121–41
Colquitt JA. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl.
Psychol. 86:386–400
Connelly CE, Gallagher DG, Gilley KM. 2007. Organizational and client commitment among contracted
employees: a replication and extension with temporary workers. J. Vocat. Behav. 70:326–35
Coyle-Shapiro JA, Morrow PC. 2006. Organizational and client commitment among contracted employees.
J. Vocat. Behav. 68:416–31
Coyle-Shapiro JA, Morrow PC, Kessler I. 2006. Serving two organizations: exploring the employment rela-
tionship of contracted employees. Hum. Resour. Manag. 45:561–83
Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 31:874–900
DeJoy DM, Schaffer BS, Wilson MG, Vandenberg RJ, Butts MM. 2004. Creating safer workplaces: assessing
the determinants and role of safety climate. J. Saf. Res. 35:81–90

Dewett T. 2006. Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. J. Creative Behav. 40:27–45
Eisenberger R, Armeli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch PD, Rhoades L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational
support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:42–51
Eisenberger R, Cummings J, Armeli S, Lynch P. 1997. Perceived organizational support, discretionary treat-
ment, and job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:812–20
Eisenberger R, Fasolo P, Davis-LaMastro V. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,
commitment, and innovation. J. Appl. Psychol. 75:51–59
Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, Sowa D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol.
71:500–7
Eisenberger R, Karagonlar G, Stinglhamber F, Neves P, Becker TE, et al. 2010. Leader–member exchange
and affective organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
J. Appl. Psychol. 95:1085–103
Eisenberger R, Rhoades L, Cameron J. 1999. Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-
determination and intrinsic motivation? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77:1026–40
Eisenberger R, Rockstuhl T, Shoss MK, Wen X, Dulebohn J. 2019. Is the employee-organization relationship
dying or thriving? J. Appl. Psychol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000390. In press
Eisenberger R, Stinglhamber F. 2011. Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic and Productive
Employees. Washington, DC: APA
Eisenberger R, Zheng D, Yu J, Zhang J, Joo M-K, et al. 2018. Employee reciprocation of favorable treatment: the
missing role of gratitude. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago
Erdogan B, Enders J. 2007. Support from the top: supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator
of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:321–30
Farber HS. 2005. Short(er) shrift: the decline in worker-firm attachment in the United States. In Laid Off,
Laid Low: Political and Economic Consequences of Employment Insecurity, ed. K Newman, pp. 10–37. New
York Columbia Univ. Press
Ford MT, Wang Y, Jin J, Eisenberger R. 2018. Chronic and episodic anger and gratitude toward the organi-
zation: relationships with organizational and supervisor supportiveness and extrarole behavior. J. Occup.
Health Psychol. 23:175–87
Frear KA, Donsbach J, Theilgard N, Shanock LR. 2018. Supported supervisors are more supportive, but why?
A multilevel study of mechanisms and outcomes. J. Bus. Psychol. 33:55–69
George JM, Reed TF, Ballard KA, Colin J, Fielding J. 1993. Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-
related distress: effects of organizational and social support. Acad. Manag. J. 36:157–71
Gonzalez-Morales MG, Kernan MC, Becker TE, Eisenberger R. 2018. Defeating abusive supervision: training
supervisors to support subordinates. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23:151–62
González-Romá V, Fortes-Ferreira L, Peiro JM. 2009. Team climate, climate strength and team performance.
A longitudinal study. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82:511–36
Gouldner AW. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25:161–78

Grandey AA. 2003. When “the show must go on”: surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional
exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Acad. Manag. J. 46:86–96
Hofmann DA, Morgeson FP. 1999. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of perceived organi-
zational support and leader–member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:286–96
Ilies R, Dimotakis N, De Pater IE. 2010. Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: impli-
cations for well-being. Pers. Psychol. 63:407–36
Janssen O. 2004. How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. J. Organ. Behav.
25:201–15
Jawahar I, Stone T, Kisamore J. 2007. Role conflict and burnout: the direct and moderating effects of political
skill and perceived organizational support on burnout dimensions. Int. J. Stress. Manag. 14:142–59
Karriker JH, Williams ML. 2009. Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: a mediated
multifoci model. J. Manag. 35:112–35
Khazanchi S, Masterson SS. 2011. Who and what is fair matters: a multi-foci social exchange model of cre-
ativity. J. Organ. Behav. 32:86–106

Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Mäkikangas A. 2008. Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish man-
agers: the role of perceived organizational support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 13:114–27
Kumar Mishra S. 2014. Linking perceived organizational support to emotional labor. Pers. Rev. 43:845–60
Kurtessis JN, Eisenberger R, Ford MT, Buffardi LC, Stewart KA, Adis CS. 2017. Perceived organizational
support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J. Manag. 43:1854–84
Lambert SJ. 2000. Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior.
Acad. Manag. J. 43:801–15
Lawler EJ. 2001. An affect theory of social exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 107:321–52
Lawler EJ, Thye SR. 1999. Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:217–44
Levinson H. 1965. Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization. Adm. Sci. Q. 9:370–90
Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML, Sparrowe RT. 2003. The dual commitments of contingent workers: an
examination of contingents’ commitment to the agency and the organization. J. Organ. Behav. 24:609–25
Magni M, Pennarola F. 2008. Intra-organizational relationships and technology acceptance. Int. J. Inform.
Manag. 28:517–23
Marique G, Stinglhamber F, Desmette D, Caesens G, De Zanet F. 2013. The relationship between perceived
organizational support and affective commitment: a social identity perspective. Group Organ. Manag.
38:68–100
Masterson SS. 2001. A trickle-down model of organizational justice: relating employees’ and customers’ per-
ceptions of and reactions to fairness. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:594–604
Matos K, Galinsky E, Bond JT. 2017. 2016 National Study of Employers. Alexandria, VA: Soc. Hum.
Resour. Manag. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/
Documents/National%20Study%20of%20Employers.pdf
Meyer JP, Allen NJ. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour.
Manag. Rev. 1:61–89
Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA. 1993. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a
three-component conceptualization. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:538–51
Meyer JP, Becker TE, Van Dick R. 2006. Social identities and commitments at work: toward an integrative
model. J. Organ. Behav. 27:665–83
Meyer JP, Morin AJ, Vandenberghe C. 2015. Dual commitment to organization and supervisor: a person-
centered approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 88:56–72
Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovitch L, Topolnytsky L. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commit-
ment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav.
61:20–52
Mischel L, Gould E, Bivens J. 2015. Wage stagnation in nine charts. Economic Policy Institute, Jan. 6.
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
Mitchell JI, Gagné M, Beaudry A, Dyer L. 2012. The role of perceived organizational support, distributive
justice and motivation in reactions to new information technology. Comput. Human. Behav. 28:729–38

Morris JA, Feldman DC. 1996. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 21:986–1010
Neves P, Eisenberger R. 2014. Perceived organizational support and risk taking. J. Manag. Psychol. 29:187–205
O’Neill OA, Vandenberg RJ, DeJoy DM, Wilson M. 2009. Exploring relationships among anger, perceived
organizational support, and workplace outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 14:318–33
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2018. Part-Time Employment Rate (In-
dicator). Paris: OECD
Panaccio A, Vandenberghe C. 2009. Perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and psy-
chological well-being: a longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 75:224–36
Rhoades L, Eisenberger R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol.
87:698–714
Rhoades L, Eisenberger R, Armeli S. 2001. Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of
perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:825–36

Robbins SP, Judge T. 2018. Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Harlow, UK: Pearson Educ.
Rockstuhl T, Ang S, Shore L, Mesdashinia S. 2015. POS and culture: a meta-analysis of correlates across 43 coun-
tries. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver
Saks AM. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 21:600–19
Shanock LR, Eisenberger R. 2006. When supervisors feel supported: relationships with subordinates’ per-
ceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:689–95
Shore LM, Shore TH. 1995. Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In Organizational
Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace, ed. RS Cropanzano, KM Kacmar,
pp. 149–64. Westport, CT: Quorum
Shore LM, Wayne SJ. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment and
continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:774–80
Shoss MK, Eisenberger R, Restubog SD, Zagenczyk TJ. 2013. Blaming the organization for abusive supervi-
sion: the roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. J. Appl.
Psychol. 98:158–68
Singelis TM, Triandis HC, Bhawuk DPS, Gelfand MJ. 1995. Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individu-
alism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross. Cult. Res. 29:240–75
Sluss DM, Klimchak M, Holmes JJ. 2008. Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational
exchange and organizational identification. J. Vocat. Behav. 73:457–64
Smith TW, Davern M, Freese J, Hout M. 2018. General Social Surveys, 1972–2016. Chicago: NORC, Univ.
Chicago. http://gss.norc.org/get-the-data/spss
Stamper C, Johlke M. 2003. The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between
boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes. J. Manag. 29:569–88
Sonnentag S, Frese M. 2003. Stress in organizations. In Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, ed. WC Borman, DR Ilgen, RJ Klimoski, pp. 453–91. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Sonnentag S, Fritz C. 2015. Recovery from job stress: the stressor-detachment model as an integrative frame-
work. J. Organ. Behav. 36:72–103
Stinglhamber F, Marique G, Caesens G, Hanin D, De Zanet F. 2015. The influence of transformational lead-
ership on followers’ affective commitment: the role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s
organizational embodiment. Career Dev. Int. 20:583–603
Susskind AM, Kacmar KM, Borchgrevink CP. 2003. Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer
service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:179–87
Tangirala S, Green SG, Ramanujam R. 2007. In the shadow of the boss’s boss: effects of supervisors’ upward
exchange relationships on employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:309–20
Tepper BJ, Taylor EC. 2003. Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural justice percep-
tions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Acad. Manag. J. 46:97–105
Triandis HC. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Maruping LM, Bala H. 2008. Predicting different conceptualizations of system use:
the competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Q.
32:483–502

Wallace JC, Edwards BD, Arnold T, Frazier ML, Finch DM. 2009. Work stressors, role-based performance,
and the moderating influence of organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:254–62
Wallace JC, Popp E, Mondore S. 2006. Safety climate as a mediator between foundation climates and occu-
pational accidents: a group-level investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:681–88
Wang H, Tsui AS, Xin KR. 2011. CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees’
attitudes. Leadersh. Q. 22:92–105
Wayne SJ, Shore LM, Liden RC. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: a
social exchange perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 40:82–111
Weathington BL, Tetrick LE. 2000. Compensation or right: an analysis of employee “fringe” benefit percep-
tion. Employ. Responsib. Rights J. 12:141–62
Weiner B. 1985. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychol. Rev. 92:548–73
Whitener EM. 2001. Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-
level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. J. Manag. 27:515–35

Yu C, Frenkel SJ. 2013. Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived organizational support
theory: Which mechanisms are more important? J. Organ. Behav. 34:1165–81
Zhang L, Bu Q, Wee S. 2016. Effect of perceived organizational support on employee creativity: moderating
role of job stressors. Int. J. Stress Manag. 23:400–17
Zheng D, Wu H, Eisenberger R, Shore LM, Tetrick LE, Buffardi LC. 2016. Newcomer leader–member ex-
change: the contribution of anticipated organizational support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 89:834–55


Perceived Organizational Support: Why Caring About Employees Counts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perceived Organizational Support: Why Caring About Employees Counts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perceived Organizational Support: Why Caring About Employees Counts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OP07CH02_Eisenberger ARjats.

cls August 30, 2019 14:30

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Robert Eisenberger,1,2 Linda Rhoades Shanock,3

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2020. Keywords

OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT THEORY

Discretionary Orientation toward the

2.2 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

2018). Self-enhancement processes involve POS’ fulfillment of employees’ socioemotional needs:

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.3

10. The organization cares about my opinions. 0.82

CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL

ANTECEDENTS OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

2.4 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

Leader Support and Perceived Organizational Support

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.5

(such as a coworker, supervisor, upper manager, or CEO) or a more-encompassing organi-

Trickle-Down Effects of Supporting Leaders

Treatment Recipient Consequences

Favorable treatment from High perceived

Favorable treatment from High perceived supervisor support and

Favorable treatment from

2.6 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

Abusive Supervision and Perceived Organizational Support

Human Resource Practices and Work Conditions and Perceived

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.7

2.8 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.9

Perceived Organizational Support and Employees’ Orientation Toward

2.10 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.11

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND BEHAVIORAL

2.12 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

Creativity and Innovation

nizational identification, feelings of obligation, and expectations of future reward (Eisenberger

Acceptance and Utilization of Technology

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.13

PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND EMPLOYEE

Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support Between Work

Perceived Organizational Support of Groups

Perceived Organizational Support and Changing Jobs

2.16 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

Perceived Organizational Support Across Cultures

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.17

Table 2 Summary of practical implications

fore, organizations should promote leaders’ POS.

2.18 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.19

might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

2.20 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

the determinants and role of safety climate. J. Saf. Res. 35:81–90

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.21

ativity. J. Organ. Behav. 32:86–106

2.22 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen

perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:825–36

www.annualreviews.org • Perceived Organizational Support 2.23

level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. J. Manag. 27:515–35

2.24 Eisenberger • Shanock • Wen