Determinants of perceived organizational support: an empirical study of administrative staff at public hospitals in Viet Nam

Main Article Content

Nguyen Le Hoang Long
Viet Anh Ho

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the factors that affected perceived organizational support (POS) and was conducted on participants from the administrative staff at public hospitals in Viet Nam. A quantitative approach was used for collecting and analyzing data, and hypothesis testing was performed by structural equation modeling using Smart PLS 3.0. Analysis of 128 participants showed that the perception of employees toward their organization was influenced by organizational reward, procedural justice, and perceived supervisor support. The results suggested that to increase POS, public hospitals should focus on improving their reward systems—for example, building  non-financial policies that currently lack opportunities for administrative staff, such as training and promotion. The organization’s accountability policy needs to emphasize attention to transparency, and managers should listen carefully to the feedback from their employees. Finally, supervisors must nurture the goals and values of their employees. This study also provides suggestions for future research related to POS, including an expanded sample size or a cross-lagged longitudinal survey design to reduce bias.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Short Report
Author Biographies

Nguyen Le Hoang Long, School of Government, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.

School of Government, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.

Viet Anh Ho, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic.

Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlín, Zlín, Czech Republic.

References

1. Liu Y. Perceived organizational support and expatriate organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of affective commitment towards the parent company. Pers Rev. 2009;
2. Allen DG, Shore LM, Griffeth RW. The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. J Manage. 2003;
3. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J Appl Psychol. 2002;
4. Dawley D, Houghton J, Bucklew N. Perceived organizational support and turnover intention: The mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit. J Soc Psychol. 2010;
5. Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, Sowa D. Eisenberger 1986 JAppPsychol POS original article. J Appl Psychol. 1986;
6. CR M, YF H, IL U. The effect of perceived organizational support on organizational commitment of diagnostic imaging radiographers. Radiography. 2006;
7. Moorman RH, Blakely GL, Niehoff BP. Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Acad Manag J. 1998;
8. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R, Armeli S. Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol. 2001;
9.Allen MW, Armstrong DJ, Reid MF, Riemenschneider CK. Factors impacting the perceived organizational support of IT employees. Inf Manag. 2008;
10. Gillet N, Colombat P, Michinov E, Pronost AM, Fouquereau E. Procedural justice, supervisor autonomy support, work satisfaction, organizational identification and job performance: The mediating role of need satisfaction and perceived organizational support. J Adv Nurs. 2013;
11. Vatankhah S, Javid E, Raoofi A. Perceived organizational support as the mediator of the relationships between high-performance work practices and counter-productive work behavior: Evidence from airline industry. J Air Transp Manag. 2017;
12. Alderfer CP, Porter LW, Lawler EE. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Adm Sci Q. 1968;
13. Katz R, Van Maanen J. The Loci of Work Satisfaction: Job, Interaction, and Policy. Hum Relations. 1977;
14. Williamson IO, Burnett MF, Bartol KM. The interactive effect of collectivism and organizational rewards on affective organizational commit-ment. Cross Cult Manag An Int J. 2009;
15. Triandis HC, Herzberg F. Work and the Nature of Man. Ind Labor Relations Rev. 1967;
16. Malhotra N, Budhwar P, Prowse P. Linking rewards to commitment: An empirical investigation of four UK call centres. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2007;
17. Lynch PD, Eisenberger R, Armeli S. Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. J Appl Psychol. 1999;
18.Eisenberger R, Stinglhamber F, Vandenberghe C, Sucharski IL, Rhoades L. Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. J Appl Psychol. 2002;
19.Shore LM, Shore TH. Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. Organ Polit justice, Support Manag Soc Clim Work. 1995;149:164.
20. Allen MW. Communication concepts related to perceived organizational support. West J Commun. 1995;
21. Liu W. Perceived organizational support: Linking human resource management practices with important work outcomes. 2004.
22. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry WR. Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In: Justice and social interaction. 1980.
23.Korsgaard MA, Schweiger DM, Sapienza HJ. Building Commitment, Attachment, and Trust in Strategic Decision-Making Teams: The Role of Procedural Justice. Acad Manag J. 1995;
24. Cropanzano R, Greenberg J. Progress in oganizational tunneling through the maze. In: International review of industrial and organizational psychology. 1997.
25. Greenberg J. Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. J Manage. 1990;
26. Eisenberger R, Fasolo P, Davis-LaMastro V. Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation. J Appl Psychol. 1990;
27. Fasolo PM. Procedural justice and perceived organizational support: Hypothesized effects on job perfor-mance. Organ Polit justice, Support Manag Soc Clim Work. 1995;185195.
28. Kottke JL, Sharafinski CE. Measuring Perceived Supervisory and Organizational Support. Educ Psychol Meas. 1988;
29. Becker TE. FOCI AND BASES OF COMMITMENT: ARE THEY DISTINCTIONS WORTH MAKING? Acad Manag J. 1992;
30. Levinson H. Reciprocation: The Relationship Between Man and Organization. Adm Sci Q. 1965;
31. Maertz CP, Griffeth RW, Campbell NS, Allen DG. The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. J Organ Behav. 2007;
32. Shanock LR, Eisenberger R. When supervisors feel supported: Relation-ships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor aupport, perceived organi-zational support, and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2006;
33. Eisenberger R, Cummings J, Armeli S, Lynch P. Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol. 1997;
34. Leventhal GS. Fairness in social relationships. Contemp Top Soc Psychol. 1976;
35. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. vectors. 2006.
36. Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S. Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Sage Publications; 2003.
37. Hair Jr. JF, Matthews LM, Matthews RL, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int J Multivar Data Anal. 2017;