Literature Review

Perceived organisational support (POS) is a philosophy leveraged on the belief that the perceptions of employees have towards the degree at which managers or an organisation places on their contributions and efforts as well as cares and values their wellbeing impacts on their performance and commitment (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). The theory assumes that the attitudes of the workforce towards the organisational culture and employment relations significantly impact on their productivity and performance. Employees perceptions of the magnitude at which an organisation values their efforts and their wellbeing affect substantially their motivation and ability to perform their duties (Girorgi, Dubin, & Perez, 2016). Krishnan and Mary (2012) and Ahmad and Yekta (2010) indicate that the POS theory was coined following a realisation that just like managers are concerned with the commitment of employees to an organisation, employees are equally concerned with the commitment of the organisation to them. This creates a mutualistic relationship between the workforce and the organisations. Therefore, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) posit that an organisation that is committed to the needs and concerns of the workforce is likely to record high rates of employee motivation and committeemen translating into high organisational performance.

Colakoglu, Culha, and Atay (2010) posit that keeping employees and maintaining high commitment and motivation leverages an organisation’s competitive edge and success. To achieve organisational excellence; satisfied, committed and loyal employees are mandatory. But, how can that be accomplished? The POS theory was postulated to leverage organisational productivity and performance through meeting the employee’s needs and wellbeing. According to Krishnan and Mary (2012) and Stephen and Louis (2016), organisations are a central source of socio-emotional and tangible resources for employees. The socio-emotional resources include but not limited to care and respect while the tangible benefits encompass compensation and remuneration rates and other associated privileges and benefits. Girorgi, Dubin, and Perez (2016) referred to the perceptions as the employee welfare which is an “umbrella concept.” It is composed of various facilities, benefits, and services offered by companies to employees with the aim of fostering their professional growth and working conditions. The welfare measures are both subjective and objective where the former refers to socio-emotional resources while the latter to the tangible benefits. Reynolds and Helfers (2018) on POS found that the magnitude of support provided departments of police significantly impacted on the police performance. Similarly, Nayir (2012) founded out that support and incentive provided by school administration correlated with teacher’s commitment and performance.

The organisational support theory (OST) posit that employees always form a general perception towards the level at which an organisation cares for their wellbeing and values their contribution (Worley, Fuqua, & Hellman, 2016; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Therefore, an organisation can use employees’ sensitivities to meet their socioemotional needs as well as assess the impacts of existing benefits on work commitment and performance (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). A study by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) that reviewed seventy studies on the general beliefs of employees towards an organisational commitment to their wellbeing and efforts; the results vindicated a strong correlation between the organisation’s commitment and employees’ satisfaction and performance.

Perceived Organizational Support Theory

Kurtessis et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis study which found out that OST effectively predicted POS antecedents such as working conditions, human resource practices, employee– organisation relations, and leadership. OST also effectively predicted POS consequences such as employee wellbeing and performance as well as the workforce orientation towards work and the organisation. Kurtessis et al. (2015) study indicated that supervisor support, co-worker support, and team support significantly impacted POS at p=0.60, ρ = 0.47, and ρ = 0.34 respectively. Abusive supervision negatively correlated with POS at ρ = –0.34 while coherent leadership positively correlated with POS at ρ = 0.46. Transformational leadership strongly related with POS at p=0.56 while transactional leadership at p=0.21. In addition, leader-member exchange characterised by respect and mutual trust significantly connected to POS at ρ = 0.53. The quality of employee-organisation relationship strongly correlated with POS where value congruence score was ρ = 0.50, contract fulfilment at ρ =0.42, and psychological contracts at = –0.67.

Regarding the Flamboyant Hotel and Resorts case study, the company is faced with management, supervisor, and co-worker support issues that significantly translate to low employee motivation, satisfaction, and commitment in helping it meet its objective. Sailli, the hotel’s director notes how the owners and management’s constantly conflicting directives to the employees stress them thus hampering their ability to work. Basing on the Kurtessis et al. (2015) studies on managers commitment to employees, the constant conflicts between the management of the company and the Chinese-Mauritius owners paint a bad perception about the company. Lack of congruence and coordination between the management and owners stress the employees hence hotel’s director acknowledged the dire need for an alternative philosophy to enhance amble employment relations. The management and the owners ought to make a consensus on how the company must be run and instil trust between each other and strengthen their coordination. The hotel also lacks coordination between the supervisors as depicted by the chef and procurement officers among other cases where the staff keep accusing each other over job dissatisfaction and stress. A perceived organisation support theory would help the director and human resource manager devise essential strategies to help the company prosper.

Two years ago, I worked under supervisor whom I cannot attribute have been the worst but considerably failed to inspire confidence nor motivate me. As a new entrant at the company, I was ardent and excited the opportunity of working at the company with full of ideas I believed would greatly help the company. After induction, I was eager to know what to expect from my supervisor, so I asked a colleague how he perceived him. He noted that the supervisor was not that bad, but he was quite a sadist. I did not want to believe that, but it had already imprinted a relatively lousy picture of the supervisor. In my first month, we worked along well providing me with as much support as I needed; however, things changed from the second month. As I begun to make proposes and arguments in departmental meetings, he would dismiss anything I presented that he did not think it was important. The problem was that the dismissals were not constructive but somewhat sarcastic. I started to feel like I was trespassing not liked, talkative and imagining that he probably began to perceive me as a threat to his job.

Organizational Support Theory

At one time I approached him in his office with a proposal for improving employee engagement and discussion by holding small unit meeting rather than the general departmental meeting. I had realised in that during the departmental meetings; most employees were always afraid to air out their issues due to intimidation and fear of victimisation. Because most did not want to lose their jobs, they would murmur and never bring the problems to light hence continued to suffer in silence. If the department held separate meetings, the employees would have an opportunity to openly discusses their issues. Before I had finished explaining myself, he dismissed me asking if I had enough job or not. I was so frustrated not only because of that day but many other occasions he had sarcastically dismissed. Most employees used to say that they are just at the company for the time being, but once they get an alternative job opportunity, they would seize it with no regrets.

The perceived organisational support is defined by how the employers, supervisors influence the employees’ obligation and commitment to the organisation achieve and surpass its objectives. Worley, Fuqua, and Hellman (2016) state that when employees feel highly regarded by an organisation, it enhances their affiliation, esteem and approval. The POS theory is drawn from a social exchange and enhancement approach that focuses on the views of the employees towards an employer’s commitment to them. The social exchange approach implores and equally forces organisations to adjust their structures, cultures, incentives and commitment to employees’ wellness (Ahmad & Yekta, 2010; Kirkland, 2017). From my personal story, the supervisor failed to provide a coherent platform where I could explore my thinking, confidence and commitment. Employees to do feel affiliated with the department nor the supervisor, the only motivation is the wages they will receive at the end of the day. Given an alternative, it is clear they would exit the company. Their discontent affects their performance and that of the company.

Basing on the POS theory, it is clear that the lack of organisational support significantly impacts on the loyalty, commitment and performance of employees. In referee to my case and the case study, the support of the management, supervisors and co-workers is central to enhancing employee motivation and employment relations. Organisations should conduct regular surveys to assess the employees’ perceptions of the company, managers and supervisors’ commitment to their wellbeing, needs and efforts. The polls should also provide an opportunity for the employees to propose changes of which the organisation can take into consideration. The organisation can also organise retreat programs where employees through various non-departmental groups can discuss pertinent issues to their working environment. Also, the organisation should put in place strategies to foster open and transparent debates especially in cases where there are fears of victimisation. Reported and investigated supervisors for employee victimisation and intimidation should be replaced with transformational ones that would motivate and inspire confidence among the employees.

References

Ahmad, Z. A., & Yekta, Z. A. (2010). The relationship between perceived organisational support, leadership behaviour, and job satisfaction: An empirical study in Iran. Intangible Capital, 6(2), 162-184.

Colakoglu, U., Culha, O., & Atay, H. (2010). The effects of perceived organisational support on employees’ affective outcomes: evidence from the hotel industry. Tourism and hospitality management, 16(2), 125-150.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3), 500-507.

Giorgi, G., Dubin, D., & Perez, J. F. (2016). Perceived organisational support for enhancing welfare at work: a regression tree model. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1770-1779.

Kirkland, J. E. (2017). The roles of perceived organisational support and anticipated change in organisational support in predicting employee affective commitment and well-being (Doctoral dissertation). Houston, TX: University of Houston.

Krishnan, J., & Mary, V. S. (2012). Perceived organisational support–an overview on its antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4), 2-3.

Ksi??ek, D., Ro?enek, P., & Warmuz, S. (2016). The impact of perceived organisational support on trust. A case study of a state university. World Scientific News, 48, 108-118.

Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organisational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organisational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884.

Nayir, F. (2012). The relationship between perceived organisational support and teacher’s organisational commitment. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 12(48), 98 – 116.

Reynolds, P. D., & Helfers, R. C. (2018). Job characteristics and perceived organisational support among police officers. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 19(1), 46–59.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organisational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698-714.

Stephen, J., & Louis, A. M. (2016). The effect of perceived organisational support and motivating language of leaders on job performance, satisfaction and commitment of employees (Doctoral dissertation). Negeri Perak, Malaysia: University Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Worley, J. A., Fuqua, D. R., & Hellman, C. M. (2009). The survey of perceived organisational support: Which measure should we use? SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 112-11