The effects of perceived organizational support and social comparison on work attitudes

  • Received June 22, 2017;
    Accepted October 12, 2017;
    Published January 17, 2018
  • Author(s)
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.16(1).2018.02
  • Article Info
    Volume 16 2018, Issue #1, pp. 12-21
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    5 articles
  • 2131 Views
  • 318 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

This study is based on the results of a survey research conducted by JobStreet Indonesia on its members, which has surprisingly found that more than 70% of employees lack clarity on the goals of their career. Drawing from the social exchange theory, employees tend to show positive work attitudes when they perceive that their organization paid attention to them. The objective of this study is to assess how significant the influence of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) is on career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Besides organizational perspective, as stated by the social comparison theory, the way individuals perform both upward and downward comparisons could be expected to affect career satisfaction. Also, this research uses career commitment as a moderator variable that can strengthen or weaken the influence among variables, which is the employee’s commitment towards their organization and competitiveness within their respective work group. The research has found some interesting results. It was shown that there is no significant relationship between POS and career satisfaction, career satisfaction and turnover intention, organizational support and turnover intention, and both upward and downward social comparison and turnover intention. The moderating effects of career commitment were not proven. In comparison, all of the moderating effects of a competitive work group were proven together with the relationship between upward social comparison and turnover intention.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Conceptual model
    • Tables 1. Inner model evaluation