An Unpublished Research Article by Elif Karagoz , Doctorate student in Bahcesehir University (Istanbul, Turkey).
https://www.linkedin.com/in/elif-karagoz-aa088b234
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of Perceived Organizational Prestige on Employee Engagement, while also investigating Perceived Organizational Support as a possible mediator in the proposed relationship.
Design/Methodology/Approach – Perceived Organizational Prestige, Employee Engagement, and Perceived Organizational Support were assessed in a quantitative, cause and effect study by collecting data through an online questionnaire which was applied to a sample of 175 participants. Convenience sampling was utilized, and data through the online survey was collected from 5 different cities of Turkey; Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Bolu, and Kastamonu. Reliability and validity analyses of scales along with frequency, correlation, factor, regression, and t-test analyses of the collected responses were applied using SPSS to evaluate the total data.
Findings – All of the three proposed relationships between perceived organizational prestige and employee engagement, perceived organizational prestige and perceived organizational support, and, perceived organizational support and employee engagement were found to be statistically significant. Moreover, all of these relationships were found to be positively associated. Perceived organizational support was also found to have a mediating effect on the relationship between perceived organizational prestige and employee engagement. The findings of this study have been found consistent with past literature.
Practical Implications – Implications regarding the enhancement of perceived organizational prestige such as employee satisfaction and human resources strategies to state clear career pathways from orientation to parting ways, along with efforts towards creating a positive working environment for an increased perceived organizational support have been discussed. These implications might be important for reaching or maintaining efficient levels of employee engagement.
Key Words – Perceived Organizational Prestige, Employee Engagement, Perceived Organizational Support.
Paper Type – Research paper.
INTRODUCTION
Employee Engagement is one of the most focused topics in human resources and management due to its direct effects on employee satisfaction and performance (Harter et al., 2002; Bin, 2015). Associations between employee engagement and topics such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions have been broadly studied in social sciences (Ferrer, 2005; Saks, 2006; Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Abraham, 2012; Brunetto et al., 2012; Mathumbu & Dodd, 2013; Shuck et al., 2014; Bin, 2015; Sahu et al., 2017;2018). Any one of these associations is crucial to understand for businesses to plan and implement viable goals and strategies for many reasons from constructing a strong organizational image to achieving desired performance levels from employees, which is why extended and continuous research on employee engagement is important for social sciences. This research will study employee engagement from two perspectives: perceived organizational prestige, and perceived organizational support.
Perceived Organizational Prestige of companies is considered to be directly linked towards important concepts of the modern workplace such as organizational identification, job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, affective well-being at work, turnover intentions, and attracting new talent into the company (March & Simon, 1958; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006; Kamasak, 2011; Van Hoye & Saks, 2011). In this regard, studying the effects of employees’ notions about the prestige of their respective organizations may be important to invest in human resources and management strategies that would support the perception of prestige.
Perceived Organizational Support is becoming more and more important in the modern workplace, getting more focus not only from researchers but also from employees and managers with concepts such as positive workplace, supporting workplace, workplace well-being, and of course, individual well-being becomes more and more popular and acknowledged. Perceived Organizational Support is a variable directly linked with the social exchange and social identity theories (Sluss et al. 2008; Kurtessis et al., 2017) which as a result may have important implications for the quality of organizational life and routines of employees as well possible employee experiences such as self-enhancement, affective commitment, and organizational identification; all of which are important for sustainable human resources and management efforts. Perceived organizational support of employees may also be a factor enhancing the corporate image of outsiders. This in turn may translate into not only being an attractive place to work for high-skilled individuals, but also for creating the potential for willing financial investors, if that would be something fitting company goals.
Becoming a preferred employer brand or company for talented professionals is the desired state for most modern businesses. In this regard, understanding concepts such as employee engagement, perceived organizational prestige, and perceived organizational support is important; since these concepts are expected to associate positively and complement each other for a holistic strategy or outcome of being a preferred organization.
Perception and image in today’s interacting global world may be more significant than ever for businesses. Positive perceptions, creating and maintaining a positive image for companies may be essential for their sustainability and survival for today’s and the near future’s business climate. Understanding the effects of perceptions on employee engagement in this sense, which in turn will create more value towards positive perceptions about a company; may these perceptions or images be about being preferred by talented professionals or current and potential consumers, may be essential. Image is everything (Gioia et al., 2014), and efforts towards creating and maintaining a preferred, well-respected, and desired image should be significant for any business of the modern, interacting, digital era.
This is a quantitative, causal research with the purpose of analyzing the associations between perceived organisational prestige, perceived organisational support, and emloyee engagement. Hypotheses were created based on a literature review of the conceptual frameworks of the three variables. A questionnaire was prepared after researching and evaluating the variables’ accurate measurements to collect data and assess the validity of the hypotheses. Numerical data was obtained through an online survey which was then analyzed and evaluated statistically and discussed regarding practical implication possibilities, along with comparisons regarding past literature.
Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958; 1961; 1974; Blau, 1964; 1968; 1986; Cook, Rice & Emerson, 1987; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; 2008; Cook et al., 2013) is a framework featuring social interactions as a trade between communicating parties (such as employees and managers) where benefit maximization -which regards to rewards received subtracted by costs incurred- is pursued by each participant, enclosed by perceived limits of fairness and decency; suggesting “People are expected to reciprocate for the benefits they have received.” (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2020). The social exchange theory was first suggested by Homans (1958;1961), and Blau (1964;1968;1986); and has been broadly researched by sociological theorists such as Cook & Rice (1987; 2007; 2013), and Thibaut and Kelley (1959; 2008), and it has endured as one of the most significant theoretical frameworks about social interaction and social structure (Cook, 2007; Cook et al., 2013; APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2020).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Employee engagement may be explained by social exchange theory (Jose, 2012; Biswas et al., 2013; Karanges, 2014; Slack et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2016; Ugaddan & Park, 2017; Yin, 2018); wherein the quality of social exchanges in the workplace forms the ground for developing essential factors leading to employee engagement. Employee engagement is suggested to be associated with topics such as procedural justice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions for quitting, and behaviors portraying organizational citizenship (Saks, 2006); these factors all have the common base of relational and/or social exchanges in the workplace that effectively creates the environment for organizational life. Perceived organizational support, which is a mediating variable in this study, is also explained partially by social exchange theory in literature (Sluss et al. 2008; Kurtessis et al., 2017). Perceived organizational prestige is associated with organizational identification, and attachment (Fuller et al., 2006a; 2006b). Research also suggests identification and attachment be outcomes of social and/or relational exchanges within the organization (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005; Liu & Deng, 2011; Casimir et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2016; Nazir et al., 2016; Albasu & Nyameh, 2017; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Liaquat & Mehmood, 2017; Ahmed et al., 2018). Hence; social exchange theory proposes a common ground for the theoretical basis of this study.
PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL PRESTIGE
Perceived organizational prestige may be defined as “an employee’s beliefs about how organizational outsiders view the organization.” (Smidts et al., 2001; Carmeli & Freund, 2002; Smith, 2012, p.10). Fuller et al. (2006a, p.819) state that “perceived external prestige is based upon the individual’s evaluation of the extent to which organizational outsiders hold the firm in high regard or esteem because of the positive, socially valued characteristics of the organization” (Kamasak, 2011, p. 210). In context, the term perceived organizational prestige is often used interchangeably with these terms: perceived external prestige construed external image, and organizational image (Dutton et al., 1994; Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006; Kamasak, 2011; Van Hoye & Saks, 2011; Smith, 2012). The perceived prestige of an organization by its employees is important for several reasons. Here, we may consider the “perception” of prestige both as an individual view of employees through their process of thought or experiences, and also as an influence or a consequence of external attitudes towards the organization by outsiders, as the variables highly cited measured by Mael & Ashforth’s (1992) questionnaire not only focuses on individual perceptions of employees themselves, but also on how they perceive external attention towards the organization by outsiders. Research shows that perceived organizational prestige is directly linked to the organizational identification of employees (March & Simon, 1958; Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
Previous research has shown that perceived organizational prestige has direct individual outcomes concerning employees (Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004). Organizational image, which is a term being used interchangeably with the perceived organizational image in literature, was found to be a factor directly influencing and encouraging an employee feel identified with their company (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Dutton et al. 1994; Smidts et al., 2001; Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006; Kamasak, 2011; Van Hoye & Saks, 2011; Smith, 2012). Employees are expected to develop meaningful emotional and psychological attachments towards their organizations as direct consequences of developing positive perceptions of prestige or reputation about their companies (Cialdini et al., 1976; Carmeli, 2005). These meaningful emotional attachments of employees stemming from their perceptions of prestige or reputation towards their companies consequently render behaviors portraying organizational citizenship (Cialdini et al., 1976; Dutton et al., 1994; Carmeli, 2005). Carmeli (2005) suggests two different forms of organizational prestige which are perceived economic prestige and perceived social prestige whilst confirming the influence of both aspects on organizational identification and turnover intentions (Mignonac et al., 2006).
Likewise, perceived organizational prestige was directly linked with employees satisfying their need for organizational identification, which in turn has a meaningful negative influence on turnover intentions (Mignonac et al., 2006). Various studies in the literature have supported the proposition that positive perceived organizational prestige is a meaningful factor in reassuring employees’ appreciation of organizational membership which directly translates into work motivation (Leonard et al., 1999; Tyler, 1999; Haslam et al., 2000; Smidts, 2001; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006). Job satisfaction is another outcome that is positively associated with perceived organizational prestige which may lead to decreased levels of turnover intentions for businesses (Carmeli & Freund, 2002; Kamasak, 2011).
This paper until now has referred to perceived organizational prestige as a concept that involves perceptions of the reputation of a company from the perspectives of both outsiders of the organization (such as the general public or close circles of employees like their families and friends) and insiders within the organization such as employees or managers of an organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Dutton et al., 1994; Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006; Kamasak, 2011; Van Hoye & Saks, 2011; Smith, 2012). Dutton and Dukerich (1991) and Dutton et al. (1994) have referred to the concept as “a member’s view of the outsiders’ beliefs” (Kamasak, 2011, p.211) which emphasizes the view that perceived organizational prestige has something to do with both: what outsiders think, and what insiders assume outsiders think. This view has supported using the terms perceived organizational prestige, perceived external prestige, and organizational image interchangeably (Dutton et al., 1994; Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006; Kamasak, 2011; Van Hoye & Saks, 2011; Smith, 2012).
There are opposing views to that; to the idea that perceived organizational prestige stems from both outsiders’ and insiders’ opinions, and that the terms perceived organizational prestige, perceived external prestige, and organizational image may be used interchangeably (Carmeli & Freund, 2002; Brown et al. 2006; Kamasak, 2011). Carmeli and Freund (2002) state that perceived organizational prestige and organizational image have different compositions; while Brown (2006) suggests that perceived organizational prestige and perceived external prestige are different in nature (Kamasak, 2011). The argument in both of these views by Carmeli and Freund (2002) and Brown (2006) is that; perceived external prestige and organizational image are both constructs that have to do with what the outsiders of the organization conceive about the company; whereas perceived organizational prestige is the mental and emotional conception of what the insiders of the company think about or feel about their organization (Kamasak, 2011).
PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT
Organizational Support Theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995) may be described as an assumption by an organization’s employees on believing that their company is discreet towards their needs with a sense of responsibility concerning supporting the organization, satisfying members’ social and emotional needs, as well as acknowledging and rewarding meaningful performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Perceived organizational support is regarded as a construct that is built upon the base of this theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). According to Eisenberger et al. (1986) perceived organizational support in context may be defined as “individuals’ global beliefs about the extent to which the organization cares about their well-being and to which it values their contributions.” (Fuller et al., 2006b, p. 328).
Kurtessis et al. (2017) define perceived organizational support as the extent of the general understanding of employees about their organization’s attitudes or actions towards valuing their contributions to the organization and caring about their general well-being. Kurtessis et al. (2017) associated perceived organizational support to be in relation with and supporting of three theories: Employee Attributions Theory (Heider, 1958;Kelley, 1967; 1973;Wiener et al., 1971;1976; Schmitt, 2015) which suggests members of the organization attributing beneficial and discreet (Eisenberger et al., 1997) treatments received from the organization with sympathy and appreciation; Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958; 1961; 1974; Blau, 1964; 1968; 1986; Cook, Rice & Emerson, 1987; Thibaut & Kelley, 2008; Cook et al., 2013) suggesting members of the organization regarding to their employment as an exchange between effort and loyalty by the employees for the return of tangible benefits and social resources from the organization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005); and Self-Enhancement Theory which argues perceived organizational support to be a meaningful factor with respect to satisfying the social and emotional needs of employees which in turn translates into organizational identification. The development of shared values through perceived organizational support may not only be a link between the self-enhancement of an employee and the evolution organizational identification but also a direct factor affecting affective organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 2006; Kurtesis et al. 2017).
Mignonac et al. (2018) has associated perceived organizational support with concepts such as employees’ perceptions of social identity and worth, organizational cynicism, and employee silence. Fuller et al. (2006b) suggested both perceived orgnizational prestige and perceived organizational support positively influence organizational attachment. Sluss et al. (2008) have suggested perceived organizational support to have a mediating role between the relational exchange and organizational identification relationship. Relational exchange is a variable derived from social exchange relationships which are argued to be essential for a professional’s organizational life (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964; Katz & Khan, 1978; Sluss et al., 2008). Sluss et al. (2008) suggested employees’ perceived organizational support to be a mediating factor between their leader-member exchanges and organizational identification. Perceived organizational support in literature is also found to be negatively associated with turnover intention (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Allen et al., 2003; Maertz et al., 2007; Dawley et al., 2010).
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Employee engagement may be defined as organization members governing themselves in their work roles by the engagement that might be expressed physically, cognitively, and emotionally when performing these work roles; hence, employee engagement can be described as; “being psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational role.” (Kahn, 1990; 1992; Saks, 2006, p. 601). Rothbard (2001) also identifies engagement as being present psychologically; while also suggesting this presence to have 2 essential instruments that are attention and absorption: attention concerning the cognitive ability of one’s-self and the measure of time spent contemplating on one’s role, and absorption signifying being captivated in a role that translates to an enhanced level of focus. Topics such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors have been positively associated with employee engagement, whilst turnover intentions have been negatively linked with the concept (Saks, 2006).
Maslach et al. (2001) proposed a second view on employee engagement, which stems from the burnout literature; suggesting engagement as an antipole of burnout; whilst regarding burnout as a disintegration of engagement about one’s duties; Maslach et al. (2001) have determined six broad factors leading to either engagement or burnout for organizational members, which are the amount of workload, the sense of control, organizational rewards and recognition of performance, social support and a surrounding community, anticipated fairness and shared values (Kular et al., 2008). May et al. (2004) confirmed the suggestions of Maslach et al. (2001) and argued meaningful work that is valued to be directly bounding with engagement (Kular et al., 2008).
Erickson (2005) have regarded employee engagement not only as a simple state of fulfillment towards arrangements of employment or a sense of loyalty towards the organization (or employer) but as a passionate willingness from the employee suggesting a commitment to investing their best efforts to help the organization (or the employer) to be successful (Macey & Schneider; 2008).
Macey & Schneider (2008) suggests a behavioral model for engagement, stating “engagement can be regarded as a directly observable behavior in the work context.” (p.14) while developing a reference to a psychological state of employee engagement to be a preliminary concept to behavioral engagement (Towers-Perrin, 2003; Erickson, 2005).
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
- Perceived Organizational Prestige and Employee Engagement
In previous research, perceived organizational prestige has been positively associated with concepts such as job satisfaction, affective well-being at work, affective organizational commitment, organizational identification, and organizational citizenship behaviors; while being negatively associated with turnover intentions (March & Simon, 1958; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Herrbach & Mignonac, 2004; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006; Kamasak, 2011). Likewise; employee engagement in literature has been positively associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors, while also being negatively associated with intentions to quit (Saks, 2006). Hence, it is hypothesized that;
H1a: Perceived organizational prestige has a statistically significant positive influence on employee engagement.
- Perceived Organizational Prestige and Perceived Organizational Support
Perceived organizational support in previous research is positively linked with concepts such as employees’ perceptions of social identity and worth (Mignonac et al., 2018), organizational attachment (Fuller et al., 2006b), and positive leader-member relational exchanges leading to organizational identification (Sluss et al., 2008); and negatively associated with organizational cynicism, and employee silence (Mignonac et al., 2018), as well as turnover intention (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Allen et al., 2003; Maertz et al., 2007; Dawley et al., 2010). Concepts such as meaningful emotional attachments by employees, organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational membership, and work motivation are also positively associated with perceived organizational prestige (Cialdini et al., 1976; Dutton et al., 1994; Leonard et al., 1999; Tyler, 1999; Haslam et al., 2000; Smidts, 2001; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006). Hence, it is hypothesized that;
H1b: There is a positive correlation between perceived organizational prestige and perceived organizational support.
- Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Engagement
Perceived organizational support and employee engagement have both been explained by social exchange theory (Sluss et al. 2008; Jose, 2012; Biswas et al., 2013; Karanges, 2014; Slack et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2016; Ugaddan & Park, 2017; Kurtessis et al., 2017; Yin, 2018); these two variables are expected to correlate not only because they share common theoretical ground, but also because they have been associated with similar other variables such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions for quitting, and behaviors portraying organizational citizenship (Cialdini et al., 1976; Dutton et al., 1994; Carmeli, 2005; Mignonac et al., 2006; Saks, 2006). Perceived organizational support has been positively associated with organizational attachment (Fuller et al.; 2006b), which is positively associated with employee engagement (Sahu et al., 2017; 2018). Hence, it is hypothesized that;
H2a: Perceived organizational support has a statistically significant positive influence on employee engagement.
CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH MODEL
- Research Variables
This research has three variables; Perceived Organizational Prestige is the independent variable (the factor, the predictor), Perceived Organizational Support is the mediating variable, and Employee Engagement is the dependent variable (the main problem) of this study.
- Research Hypotheses
This study has two research questions which are; Does Perceived Organizational Prestige affect Employee Engagement, and if so; in which direction and magnitude? and, Does Perceived Organizational Support act asa mediating factor over the influence of Perceived organizational Prestige on Employee Engagement?
Hence this research has two main hypotheses to be tested, that are:
H1a: Perceived Organizational Prestige has a statistically significant effect on Employee Engagement. (Main hypothesis)
H2a: Perceived Organizational Support has a mediating effect on the statistical significance of Perceived Organizational Prestige over Employee Engagement. (Main hypothesis)
This study will also test these three supporting hypotheses:
H1b: Perceived Organizational Prestige has a statistically significant positive influence on Perceived Organizational support.
H2b: Perceived Organizational Support has a statistically significant positive influence on Employee Engagement.
H3: Perceived Organizational Support has a statistically significant positive influence on Perceived Organizational Prestige.
- Conceptual Research Model
The conceptual research model of this study is shown in Figure 2.1 below:
METHODOLOGY
Aim of Research
This research aims to study the effects of Perceived Organizational Prestige on Employee Engagement, whilst considering Perceived Organizational Support as a mediator in this potential relationship.
Sampling and Data Collection
The population of the study was; Turkish employees over the age of 18 who have been working or have worked in a company with an organizational structure. The research design utilized convenience sampling. Online questionnaires were sent to a total of 322 individuals over the age of 18, residing in 5 different cities of Turkey which are; Istanbul, Ankara, İzmir, Bolu, and Kastamonu; from which 175 respondents have participated. The survey of the study hence had a 54.35% response rate.
Frequency analysis through descriptive statistics was utilized to observe the demographic profiles of the respondents of this study. The analysis showed that of the 175 respondents: the average age of participants was 36.6 with the oldest participant to be 64 years of age, and the youngest being 19 years of age; the average total work experience of the participants was 12.49 years, lying between 1 and 40 years of total work experience; the average work experience in current or last company was 6.454 years, lying between 1 and 34 years of seniority; and the overall numerical ranking of current or last company worked was at an average of 3.11, lying between a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 12 companies experienced in the participants’ careers. Of all the 175 participants; 101 were females (57.7%), and 74 were males (42.3%). The dominant position title among participants was Specialist (36.6%) followed by Supervisor (28.6%). Managers made up 16.6% of the study, while High Management employees’ rate was only 4%. Bachelor’s Degree was the dominant education level among participants (52.6%) followed by a Master’s Degree (26.9%). Only 12% of all participants had a Doctorate Degree (MD or Ph.D.).
The Questionnaire
This study utilized three scales to prepare a questionnaire. Perceived Organizational Prestige was measured using Mael & Ashforth’s (1992) 8-item Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale. Perceived Organizational Support was measured using Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) 17-item Perceived Organizational Support Scale, and Employee Engagement was measured using the 3-dimensioned 18-itemed Job Engagement Scale by Rich, LePine, and Crawford (2010). All three measurements were 5-point Likert Type scales with the following responses: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Partially Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree.
The questionnaire also utilized 7 demographic questions that were regarded as useful to the research’s findings regarding the participants’: age, gender, position in current (or last) company, total work experience in years, cumulative years worked in current (or last) company, the numerical ranking of current (or last) company in the person’s overall career, and education level. The demographic questions were created and delivered in Turkish.
The items from the three scales were originally in English, which was translated to Turkish for the preparation of the questionnaire. The items from the Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) were created to measure the perceived prestige of a University; hence, these items were assessed and their wording has been slightly changed to be able to measure a company’s perceived prestige. The original scales utilized for this study along with the demographic questions of the survey are available in the Appendix part of this paper.
Data Processing and Outlier Detection
The obtained data from 175 respondents have been coded for statistical analysis. Items 4, 6, 7, and 8 from the Perceived organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), and items 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 14 from the Perceived organizational Support Scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986) were back-translated during coding because the wording of the questions was negative in form. Three computed variables were created for the three variables of the study, which then have gone through an outlier detection test for assessing the validity of the collected data.
Outlier analysis was made on the collected data through SPSS to assess the validity of the gathered data. Computed variables have been created for each variable of the study; Perceived Organizational Prestige, Perceived Organizational Support, and Employee Engagement. The Mahalanobis Distance scores of each 175 responses for the three variables have been calculated using linear regression analysis. The scores of degrees of freedom for each of the 175 responses have then been compared with the probability distributions of chi-squares of each response. Chi-square probability ratings of 0.001 and below were considered to be possible outliers; from which, only one item (response number 79) was suspected with a chi-square value of 0.0015. Further analysis of computing an outlier variable from the chi-square probability scores would give a value of 0 for all normal responses, and a value of 1 for the outliers. All of the values from the computed outlier variable have been computed to be 0, signifying no outliers were detected in this study, and all of the 175 responses were accepted valid for statistical analysis.
Distribution of the Data (Normality Test: Skewness and Kurtosis)
The distribution of the collected data was investigated regarding normality, skewness, and kurtosis through frequency analysis of descriptive statistics. Skewness relates to where the data lies on the distribution and if it is weighing heavily towards one side of the distribution or not; data with skewness values between +1 and -1 are generally considered to have a normal distribution (Field, 2013). The skewness values of the computed variables for Perceived Organizational Prestige, Perceived Organizational Support, and Employee Engagement were -0.321, -0.418, and -0.342 respectively, lying between -1 and +1, rendering the distribution of the data to be normal, regarding skewness. Kurtosis relates to how peaked or flat the distribution is, and for normal distribution, it is expected to stand between the values -1 and +1 (Field, 2013). The kurtosis values of the computed variables for Perceived Organizational Prestige, Perceived Organizational Support, and Employee Engagement were -0.170, 0.362, and -0.409 respectively, lying between -1 and +1, rendering the distribution of the data to be normal, regarding kurtosis.
Reliability Analysis of Scales
The reliability of a scale refers to the internal consistency of its responses (Field, 2013). According to Nunnaly (1978) the Cronbach’s alpha value of a scale, which is the indicator for internal consistency, must be over 0.70. The results of the reliability analyses for the three scales utilized in this study were: 0.824 for the Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), 0.947 for the Perceived Organizational Support Scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986), and 0.957 for the Job Engagement Scale (Rich et al., 2010); rendering all three scales of the study to be internally consistent and reliable.
Descriptive Statistics of the Total Data
Regarding the descriptive statistics of all responses from participants; the items with the highest means from the Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) were items 6 (4.26), 4 (4.19), and 8 (4.16) with respective standard deviations of 0.765, 0.746, and 0.829. Most of the means from the items of the Perceived Organizational Support Scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986) ranged between 3.24 and 3.69; except for item number 17 (2.78). The standard deviations of the 17 items ranged between 0.794 and 1.085. The items with the highest means from the Job Engagement Scale(Rich et al., 2010) were items 5 (4.42), 4 (4.32), and 14 (4.26) with respective standard deviations of 0.618, 0.687, and 0.669.
Factor Analysis of the Scales
Factor analysis was applied to the three scales of this study to inspect if they have any dimensional characteristics regarding this particular research. The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) measure of Sampling Adequacy should be a value over 0.70 for sampling to be adequate; while the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Significance must be below 0.05 (Sipahi et al., 2008; Kaiser, 1974).
For the Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992); the KMO value of sapling adequacy was 0.848, and the Barlett’s test value was significant below 0.001; rendering it suitable for factor analysis. The percentage of cumulative variance value refers to the amount of all items covered with factor analysis (Sipahi et al., 2008; Kaiser, 1974) which is 63.778% for the Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) with the loading of 2-factor groups; the first group consisting of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; the second group consisting items 7 and 8. The total percentage of variance for the first-factor group was 48.956%, and it was 14.822% for the second-factor group.
Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) is originally a one-dimensioned measure. However, 2-factor loadings assuming 63.778% variance of the total items were computed for this study.
For the Perceived Organizational Support Scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986); the KMO value of sapling adequacy was 0.940, and the Barlett’s test value was significant at 0.000; rendering it suitable for factor analysis. The percentage of cumulative variance was 63.641% for the Perceived Organizational Support Scale(Eisenberger et al., 1986) with the loading of 2-factor groups; the first group consisting of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17; the second group consisting items 5, 8, 9, 11, and 15. The total percentage of variance for the first-factor group was 56%, and it was 7.641% for the second-factor group.
Perceived Organizational Support Scale(Eisenberger et al., 1986) is originally a one-dimensioned measure. However, 2-factor loadings assuming 63.641% variance of the total items were computed for this study.
For the Job Engagement Scale (Rich et al., 2010); the KMO value of sapling adequacy was 0.941, and the Barlett’s test value was significant at 0.000; rendering it suitable for factor analysis. The percentage of cumulative variance was 74.663% for the Job Engagement Scale(Rich et al., 2010) with the loading of 3-factor groups; the first group consisting of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; the second group consisting of items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; and the third group consisting of items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. The total percentage of variance for the first-factor group was 58.924%, it was 9.434% for the second-factor group, and 6.304 for the third group.
The Job Engagement Scale(Rich et al., 2010) is originally a three-dimensioned measure; the same result was observed for the factor analysis of this study, assuming 74.663% variance of the total items. Moreover, items were huddled among the same factor groups as the original study.
Correlation Analyses
Pearson Correlation Analysis was utilized to observe if there are any correlations between the three variables of the study. Since this study has a dependent, an independent, and a mediating variable; correlations are expected to be found between the independent variable (perceived organizational prestige) and the dependent variable (employee engagement) of this study. However, for the research model to work, the independent variable (perceived organizational prestige) and the mediating variable (perceived organizational support); along with the mediating variable (perceived organizational support) and the dependent variable (employee engagement) are also expected to be associated.
Correlation was found significant at 0.475 between the independent variable (perceived organizational prestige) and the dependent variable (employee engagement) of this study.
Correlation was also found significant at 0.686 between the independent variable (perceived organizational prestige) and the mediating variable (perceived organizational support) of this study.
The correlation between the mediating variable (perceived organizational support) and the dependent variable (employee engagement) of this study was also found significant at 0.456.
The research model, regarding expected correlations, work. Regression Analyses were utilized for the next step; to see if there are any cause and effect relationships of significant magnitudes between the research variables, and if so, in which directions.
Regression Analyses
Multiple regression analyses were utilized to observe the influences of the: independent variable over the dependent variable; the independent variable over the mediator, and the mediator over the dependent variable. The Baron and Kenny (1986) protocol of mediation was utilized to test the second hypothesis.
Perceived Organizational Prestige and Employee Engagement
The multiple correlation coefficient values between the independent variable (perceived organizational prestige) and the dependent variable (employee engagement) are observed in the R-value of the modal summary of linear regression; whilst the R-value being closer to 1 indicates a more efficient regression (Field, 2009).
The R-value of the predictor perceived organizational prestige on the dependent employee engagement was found to be 0.475 with an R Square value of 0.226; meaning Perceived Organizational Prestige was pertinent to 22.6% of the variance in Employee Engagement. In addition to that, the Adjusted R Square value of the model regarding its accuracy is 0.221; meaning 22.1% of the variance in Employee Engagement may be explained by Perceived Organizational Prestige. The results of the R and R Square values of the regression analysis between these two variables indicate a relationship, rendering the regression equation fulfilling.
As per the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); the F-Ratio was found to have a value of 50.377 which is significant at p < 0.001. The regression equation hence was decided to be meaningful.
The next step for hypothesis testing was to consider the Coefficients table of the regression model; in which the P-Value is the deciding value (Field, 2009).
Perceived Organizational Prestige is a significant predictor at p < 0.001 with a Standardized Beta Coefficient of 0.475. This means: Perceived Organizational Prestige has a positive (direct) statistical significance on Employee Engagement.
Hence; H1a is supported.
The next step was to utilize the Baron and Kenny (1986) protocol of mediation to test the second hypothesis, which is explained in the next parts.
Perceived Organizational Prestige and Perceived Organizational Support
The R-value of the predictor perceived organizational prestige on the mediator perceived organizational support was found to be 0.686 with an R Square value of 0.471; meaning Perceived Organizational Prestige justified 47.1% of the variance in Perceived Organizational Support. In addition to that, the Adjusted R Square value of the model regarding its accuracy is 0.468; meaning 46.8% of the variance in Perceived Organizational Support may be explained by Perceived Organizational Prestige. The results of the R and R Square values of the regression analysis between these two variables indicate a relationship, rendering the regression equation fulfilling.
As per the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); the F-Ratio was found to have a value of 154.173 which is significant at p < 0.001. The regression equation hence was decided to be meaningful.
As per the Coefficients analysis; Perceived Organizational Prestige is a significant predictor at p < 0.001 with a Standardized Beta Coefficient of 0.686. This means: Perceived Organizational Prestige has a positive (direct) statistical significance on Perceived Organizational Support.
Hence; H1b is supported.
Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Engagement
The R-value of the mediator (the predictor in this regression equation) perceived organizational support on the dependent variable employee engagement was found to be 0.456 with an R Square value of 0.208; meaning Perceived Organizational Support to assume 20.8% of the variance in Employee Engagement. In addition to that, the Adjusted R Square value of the model regarding its accuracy is 0.203; meaning 20.3% of the variance in Employee Engagement may be explained by Perceived Organizational Support. The results of the R and R Square values of the regression analysis between these two variables indicate a relationship, rendering the regression equation fulfilling.
As per the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); the F-Ratio was found to have a value of 45.318 which is significant at p < 0.001. The regression equation hence was decided to be meaningful.
As per the Coefficients analysis; Perceived Organizational Support is a significant predictor at p < 0.001 with a Standardized Beta Coefficient of 0.456. This means: Perceived Organizational Support has a positive (direct) statistical significance on Employee Engagement.
Regarding the Baron and Kenny (1986) protocol of mediation; since all three relationships between perceived organizational prestige and employee engagement, perceived organizational prestige and perceived organizational support, and, perceived organizational support and employee engagement have rendered significant at P values below 0.001, with positive magnitudes of 0.475, 0.686, and 0.456 respectively.
Hence; H2b and H2a are supported.
Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Organizational Prestige
For further analysis, the statistical significance of perceived organizational support on perceived organizational prestige has also been analyzed.
The R-value of perceived organizational support on perceived organizational prestige was found to be 0.686 with an R Square value of 0.471; meaning Perceived Organizational Support to assume 47.1% of the variance in Perceived Organizational Prestige. In addition to that, the Adjusted R Square value of the model regarding its accuracy is 0.468; meaning 46.8% of the variance in Perceived Organizational Prestige may be explained by Perceived Organizational Support. The results of the R and R Square values of the regression analysis between these two variables indicate a relationship, rendering the regression equation fulfilling.
As per the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); the F-Ratio was found to have a value of 154.173 which is significant at p < 0.001. The regression equation hence was decided to be meaningful.
As per the Coefficients analysis; Perceived Organizational Support is a significant predictor at p < 0.001 with a Standardized Beta Coefficient of 0.686. This means: Perceived Organizational Support has a positive (direct) statistical significance on Perceived Organizational Prestige.
Hence; H3 is supported.
Gender and Education Level Effects
An independent t-test was applied to the data to observe if women and men display different attitudes towards Employee Engagement. There was a slight difference between the Means of the two gender groups (4.1150 for women and 3.9820 for men) with similar standard deviations (0.608 and 0.617 respectively). Since the significance level for Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was above 0.05 (0.798), it was assumed for the two samples (101 women and 74 men) not to have significantly varying standard deviations. The homogeneity of variance assumption was applicable. The regular t-value and its associated significance hence were interpreted. T-value was 1.416 with a degree of freedom of 173, and a significance level of 0.158; however, since the significance is above 0.05; we have concluded that: there is not a meaningful difference between the Mean values of women and men. Employee Engagement, hence, was not found to be affected by gender.
Independent t-tests were also applied to perceived organizational prestige and perceived organizational support regarding gender as a control variable, and the results were similar: gender did not have a significant role to play on neither perceived organizational prestige nor perceived organizational support.
For further analysis, independent t-tests were conducted among different education levels from high school graduation, a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and a doctorate or post-doctorate level of education regarding a possible observation of significance on employee engagement; however, education level was also found to be statistically insignificant.
FINDINGS
Both main hypotheses and the three supporting hypotheses of the research have been supported through regression analyses. Perceived organizational prestige was found to have a direct statistical influence on employee engagement and perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational support was found to have a statistically significant mediating effect on the relationship between perceived organizational prestige and employee engagement. Also, perceived organizational support was found to have a direct positive statistical significance on employee engagement and perceived organizational prestige.
Hence; all of H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b and H3 were supported.
The dominant gender group participating in the study was female, while the dominant education level was bachelor’s degree. In addition to the regression analyses, independent t-tests were performed to see if gender influenced either one of the variables employee engagement, perceived organizational prestige, or perceived organizational support. The results showed that gender did not have a statistical influence on any of these three variables. An independent t-test was also applied to see if different education levels effected employee engagement; the results were once again unsupportive.
The average age of participants was 36.6 years old, while the dominant position title was Specialist. The average total work experience of the participants was 12.49 years, while the average work experience in the current or last company was 6.454 years. The overall numerical ranking of current or last company worked was at an average of 3.11. These findings were not subjected to a t-test, since they are numerical and non-binary values in nature.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
Convenience sampling was utilized for the data collection of this research. While respondents from 5 different cities volunteered to participate in the survey proposing diversity regarding the sample demographics, the sampling technique was not stratified according to population sizes of the cities or other criteria. A stratified random sampling technique might deliver more efficient results.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Research on employee engagement is important for many reasons. Psychological and behavioral engagement of employees in their work roles and performed tasks will surely enhance the quality and efficiency of performances, whilst creating an emotional and psychological bond between employees and their organization. This research has focused on perceived organizational prestige as a predictor of engagement, and perceived organizational support as a mediator through the relationship. Findings supported all three variables to be positively associated. The implications of these findings, which will be discussed in this section, may be regarded as contributions to the literature, however modest they might be. It is suggested that employee engagement, perceived organizational prestige, and perceived organizational support to be studied with other possible predictors and outcomes such as employer branding and sustainable management; since these three variables may be flexible enough to be researched not only for human resources or management studies but also for marketing and corporate image management.
The findings of this study are in support of past literature, and the research’s rational expectations based on past literature. All three variables of the research are in statistically significant positive associations with each other, as per expected. The findings of this study are consistent with the findings of Cialdini et al. (1976), Dutton et al. (1994), Leonard et al. (1999), Tyler (1999), Haslam et al. (2000), Smidts (2001), Carmeli (2005), and Mignonac et al. (2006) suggesting meaningful emotional attachments by employees are also positively associated with perceived organizational prestige. The findings of the study are also consistent with literature suggesting perceived organizational support to be positively associated with organizational attachment (Fuller et al.; 2006b), which also has been positively associated with employee engagement (Sahu et al., 2017; 2018).
As per the practical implications of this study; they may vary from selecting or adapting to certain human resources strategies to maintain and or increase the perceived organizational prestige and support of employees, to strategic management efforts for creating a positive working environment. Although perceived organizational support seems like the variable that might be easier to navigate internally, with in-house strategies of daily life and big picture management decisions. Building a supportive organizational culture or perhaps a learning culture within the organization might also be derived from the findings of this study, considering enhancing perceived support, for better employee engagement. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) is also important to understand for managers and decision-makers, to be able to evaluate the needs of their employees properly, and to build responding strategies.
Regarding perceived prestige, organizations might render more emphasis on concepts such as employee satisfaction, employer brand value, turnover intentions, and actual turnover rates. organizations need to have clear and carefully structured career path strategies; from employment, through professional development, and to a possible parting of ways. The routine and unusual processes of the work-life in a company might put as much emphasis on an organization’s prestige as actual material benefits, for the perception of an employee. Clear pathways of career development, training and professional education, promotions and added benefits, as well as the manner in professional parting, might be crucial to sustaining an integrated and well-respected perception of organizational prestige; which might be affecting an employee’s engagement in their job not only during their actual working period but also and perhaps before they even apply to a company. From this point of view, investing in perceived organizational prestige efforts might be significant for talent management; i.e. attracting and keeping talented professionals into the company.
REFERENCES
Abraham, S. (2012). Job satisfaction as an antecedent to employee engagement. sies Journal of Management, 8(2).
Ahmed, A., Khuwaja, F. M., Brohi, N. A., Othman, I., & Bin, L. (2018). organizational factors and organizational performance: A resource-based view and social exchange theory viewpoint. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(3), 579-599.
Akgunduz, Y., & Bardakoglu, O. (2017). The impacts of perceived organizational prestige and organization identification on turnover intention: The mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(14), 1510-1526.
Albasu, J., & Nyameh, J. (2017). Relevance of stakeholders theory, organizational identity theory, and social exchange theory to corporate social responsibility and employees performance in the commercial banks in Nigeria. International journal of business, economics, and management, 4(5), 95-105.
Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership, empowerment, and engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in health services.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99-118.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bin, A. S. (2015). The relationship between job satisfaction, job performance and employee engagement: An explorative study. Issues in Business Management and Economics, 4(1), 1-8.
Biswas, S., Varma, A., & Ramaswami, A. (2013). Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: A field study in India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1570-1587.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. International encyclopedia of the social sciences, 7, 452-457.
Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life (2nd printing). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S. T., Shacklock, K., & Farr‐Wharton, R. (2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well‐being, and engagement: explaining organizational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 428-441.
Carmeli, A., & Freund, A. (2002). The relationship between work and workplace attitudes and perceived external prestige. Corporate reputation review, 5(1), 51-68.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors. organization Studies, 26(3), 443-464.
Casimir, G., Ng, Y. N. K., Wang, K. Y., & Ooi, G. (2014). The relationships amongst leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and in-role performance: A social-exchange perspective. Leadership & organization Development Journal.
Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Avril, T., Walker, R.M., Freeman, S., & Sloan, R.L. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 34. September. pp: 366-375.
Cook, K. & Rice, C. Chapter 3. Emerson, R. M. (1987). Social exchange theory. 453-476.
Cook, K. S. (2007). Social Exchange Theory. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 1-4.
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. Social Exchange Theory. (2013).
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. Handbook of social psychology, 61-88.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of management annals, 11(1), 479-516.
Dawley, D., Houghton, J. D., & Bucklew, N. S. (2010). Perceived organizational support and turnover intention: The mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit. The Journal of social psychology, 150(3), 238-257.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M.. Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in organizational Adaptation. The Academy of Management Journal. 34(3):517-554; Academy of Management, 1991. Language: English, Veritabanı: JSTOR
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). organizational images and member identification. Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied psychology, 71(3), 500.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology, 82(5), 812.
Emerson, R. M. (1987). Social exchange theory.
Erickson, T. J. (2005). Testimony submitted before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, May 26.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. (2000). Social identity, self‐categorization, and work motivation: rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 319-339.
Herrbach, O., & Mignonac, K. (2004). How organizational image affects employee attitudes. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(4), 76-88.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior and its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Ferrer, J. (2005). Employee Engagement: Is it organizational commitment renamed?.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd Edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006a). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59(6), 815-846.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., & Relyea, L. F. C. (2006b). Perceived organizational support and perceived external prestige: Predicting organizational attachment for university faculty, staff, and administrators. The Journal of social psychology, 146(3), 327-347.
Gioia, D. A., Hamilton, A. L., & Patvardhan, S. D. (2014). Image is everything: Reflections on the dominance of image in modern organizational life. Research in organizational Behavior, 34, 129-154.
Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public management review, 7(1), 1-24.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 161-178.
Heider, F. (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relationships, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Huang, Y. H., Lee, J., McFadden, A. C., Murphy, L. A., Robertson, M. M., Cheung, J. H., & Zohar, D. (2016). Beyond safety outcomes: An investigation of the impact of safety climate on job satisfaction, employee engagement and turnover using social exchange theory as the theoretical framework. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 248-257.
Jose, G. (2012). Satisfaction with HR practices and employee engagement: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 4(7), 423-430.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.
Kahn, W.A. (1992), “To be full there: psychological presence at work”, Human Relations, Vol. 45, pp. 321-49.
Kaiser, H. F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, pp. 31–36.
Kamasak, R. (2011). The influence of perceived external prestige on job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Business and Economics, 2(3), 209-221.
Karanges, E. R. (2014). Optimizing employee engagement with internal communication: a social exchange perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, p. 528). New York: Wiley.
Kelley, H.H. (1967) Attribution theory on social psychology, in Nebraska Symposium on Motivations (ed. D. Levine), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 192–238.
Kelley, H.H. (1973) The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
Kim, K. Y., Eisenberger, R., & Baik, K. (2016). Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence. Journal of organizational Behavior, 37(4), 558-583.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee Engagement: A Literature Review.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884.
Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Human relations, 52(8), 969-998.
Liaquat, M., & Mehmood, K. (2017). organization citizenship behavior: Notion of social exchange theory. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 3(2), 209-216.
Liu, X., & Deng, J. (2011, August). Development of organizational commitment based on the social exchange theory. In 2011 International Conference on Management and Service Science (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self‐efficacy. Journal of management development, 21(5), 376-387.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
Maertz Jr, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal of organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(8), 1059-1075.
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958). organizations, Wiley, New York.
Maslach, C. Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001) ‘Job burnout’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 52, pp397-422.
Maslow, A. H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), pp. 370-396.
May, D.R. Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004) ‘The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work’, Journal of Occupational and organizational Psychology, Vol 77, pp11-37.
Mathumbu, D., & Dodd, N. (2013). Perceived organizational support, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior of nurses at Victoria Hospital. Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 87-93.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(5), 665-683.
Mignonac, K., Herrbach, O., & Guerrero, S. (2006). The interactive effects of perceived external prestige and need for organizational identification on turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 477-493.
Mignonac, K., Herrbach, O., Serrano Archimi, C., & Manville, C. (2018). Navigating ambivalence: perceived organizational prestige–support discrepancy and its relation to employee cynicism and silence. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 837-872.
Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Qun, W., Nazir, N., & Tran, Q. D. (2016). Influence of organizational rewards on organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Employee Relations.
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement: Considering the attitude “A-factor.”. The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice, 43-61.
Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). PSychoneric Theory. Second Edion, McGraw-Hil.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Rothbard, N.P. (2001), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 655-84.
Sahu, S., Pathardikar, A., & Kumar, A. (2017; 2018). Transformational leadership and turnover: Mediating effects of employee engagement, employer branding, and psychological attachment. Leadership & organization Development Journal.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial psychology.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement?. Human resource development quarterly, 25(2), 155-182.
Schmitt, J. (2015). Attribution Theory. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 1-3.
Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, S., & Çinko, M., 2008. Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS ile veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace, 149, 164.
Shuck, B., Twyford, D., Reio Jr, T. G., & Shuck, A. (2014). Human resource development practices and employee engagement: Examining the connection with employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 239-270.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
Smith, C. L. (2012). The perception of organizational prestige and employee engagement (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University).
Slack, R. E., Corlett, S., & Morris, R. (2015). Exploring employee engagement with (corporate) social responsibility: A social exchange perspective on organizational participation. Journal of business ethics, 127(3), 537-548.
Sluss, D. M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. J. (2008). Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 457-464.
Ugaddan, R. G., & Park, S. M. (2017). Quality of leadership and public service motivation: A social exchange perspective on employee engagement. International Journal of Public Sector Management.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley
Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (2008). Social exchange theory. A first look at communication theory, 2.
Towers-Perrin. (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement. Stamford, CT:
Author.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective.
VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.), 2007b. Maslow’s motivational hierarchy. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/maslows-motivational-hierarchy [Accessed January 22, 2022].
Van Hoye, G., & Saks, A. M. (2011). The instrumental‐symbolic framework: organizational image and attractiveness of potential applicants and their companions at a job fair. Applied Psychology, 60(2), 311-335.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I.H., Kukla, A. et al. (1971) Perceiving the causes of success and failure, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ.
Weiner, B., Nierenberg, R. and Goldstein, M. (1976) Social learning (locus of control) versus attributional (causal stability) interpretations of expectancy of success. Journal of Personality, 44, 52–68.
Yin, N. (2018). The influencing outcomes of job engagement: an interpretation from the social exchange theory. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research, 37(2), 197-206.
https://dictionary.apa.org/social-exchange-theory [Accessed January 22, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG-FnhvTud4 [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqSRt6Bt8ks [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SALh6JXWQdA [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8-wf6lBh8M [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdIhhtg-3LE [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRA3Wapx7fY [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOI5IlHfZVE [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8alv3kZt8Ug [Accessed January 24, 2022]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_exchange_theory [Accessed January 25, 2022]
APPENDIX
All measurements used in the study are 5 point Likert-type scales with responses (with codings): Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Partially agree (3), Agree (4), Strongly agree (5).
Perceived Organizational Prestige Scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992)
1. People in my community think highly of (name of school).
2. It is considered prestigious in the religious community to be an alumnus of (name of school).
3. (Name of school) is considered one of the best (conference schools).
4. People from other (conference schools) look down at (name of school). (R)
5. Alumni of all (conference schools) would be proud to have their children attend (name of school).
6. (Name of school) does not have a good reputation in my community. (R)
7. A person seeking to advance his career in (conference academia) should downplay his association with (name of school). (R)
8. When other (conference schools) are recruiting new students, they would not want students from (name of school). (R)
The following questions were derived from this scale by Mael & Ashforth (1992), for the research:
1. People in my community think highly of the organization in which I work.
2. It is considered prestigious in the sector to be working in my organization.
3. My organization is considered one of the best in the sector.
4. People from other firms in the sector look down at my organization. (R)
5. Retirees of all firms in the sector would be proud to have their children work in my organization.
6. My organization does not have a good reputation in my community. (R)
7. A person seeking to advance his career in the sector should downplay his association with the organization I work in. (R)
8. When other organizations in the sector are recruiting new employees, they would not want employees from my institution. (R)
Perceived Organizational Support Scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986)
1. The organization values my contribution to its well-being.
2. If the organization could hire someone to replace me at a lower salary it would do so. (R)
3. The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. (R)
4. The organization strongly considers my goals and values.
5. The organization would understand a long absence due to my illness.
6. The organization would ignore any complaints from me. (R)
7. The organization disregards my best interests when it makes decisions that affect me. (R)
8. Help is available from the organization when I have a problem.
9. The organization really cares about my well-being.
10. Even if I did the best job possible, the organization would fail to notice. (R)
11. The organization is willing to help me when I need a special favor.
12. The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work.
13. If given the opportunity, the organization would take advantage of me. (R)
14. The organization shows very little concern for me. (R)
15. The organization cares about my opinions.
16. The organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.
17. The organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible.
Job Engagement Scale (Rich et al., 2010)
Physical engagement
1. I work with intensity on my job.
2. I exert my full effort to my job.
3. I devote a lot of energy to my job.
4. I try my hardest to perform well on my job.
5. I strive as hard as I can to complete my job.
6. I exert a lot of energy on my job.
Emotional engagement
1. I am enthusiastic in my job.
2. I feel energetic at my job.
3. I am interested in my job.
4. I am proud of my job.
5. I feel positive about my job.
6. I am excited about my job.
Cognitive engagement
1. At work, my mind is focused on my job.
2. At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job.
3. At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job.
4. At work, I am absorbed by my job.
5. At work, I concentrate on my job.
6. At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job.
Demographic Questions:
1. Please state your gender. (Female/Male)
2. Please state your age. (Open-ended)
3. Please state your total work experience in years. (Open-ended)
4. Please state your experience in your current (or last) company in years. (Open-ended)
5. In terms of numerical ranking, what is the number ranking of your current (or last) company? (Open-ended)
6. Please state your position title in your current (or last) company. (Open-ended)
7. Please state your education level. (High school/2 years College/Bachelors Degree/Masters Degree/Doctorate Degree/Post-Doctorate)
Elif Karagoz 