See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242342238

Organizational and supervisory support in relation to employee intentions

Article in Journal of Managerial Psychology · June 2012

DOI: 10.1108/02683941211235418

CITATIONS READS

46 1,142

2 authors:

Ipek Kalemci Tuzun R. Arzu Kalemci

Baskent University Cankaya University
24 PUBLICATIONS 121 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ipek Kalemci Tuzun on 17 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Managerial Psychology
Emerald Article: Organizational and supervisory support in relation to
employee turnover intentions
Ipek Kalemci Tuzun, R. Arzu Kalemci

Article information:
To cite this document:
Ipek Kalemci Tuzun, R. Arzu Kalemci, (2012),"Organizational and supervisory support in relation to employee turnover intentions",
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss: 5 pp. 518 - 534
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211235418
Downloaded on: 06-07-2012
References: This document contains references to 71 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP
27,5 Organizational and supervisory
support in relation to employee
turnover intentions
518
Ipek Kalemci Tuzun
Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey, and
Received January 2011
Revised August 2011 R. Arzu Kalemci
October 2011
December 2011
Cankaya University, Ankara, Turkey
December 2011
Accepted December 2011
Abstract
Purpose – The present paper aims to examine the relationship between perceived organizational
support (POS), perceived supervisory support (PSS) and turnover intentions. The paper also aims to
investigate whether employee’s individual cultural values regarding collectivism and individualism
moderate the relationship between POS and turnover intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained utilizing survey from a sample of 304
full-time employed adults working in insurance companies in Turkey. Employees completed regular
survey that contained measures of the constructs of interest of this study.
Findings – Results revealed that employees who perceive high levels of PSS but report low levels of
POS will also report high levels of turnover intentions compared to employees who perceive low PSS
and low POS.
Practical implications – For increasing POS to be successful, managers must strive to find out the
way to increase their social support, and then tailor support accordingly. Managers may benefit from
considering cultural values during the support process. Furthermore organizations may develop
different support policies for employees.
Originality/value – The study’s findings add to the growing body of research concluding that
supervisor-related perceptions and attitudes can shape organization-related perceptions and attitudes.
Keywords Individualism, Collectivism, Perceived organizational support,
Perceived supervisory support, Turnover intentions, Turkey, Individual development, Perception,
Employees turnover
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 5, 2012
pp. 518-534
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941211235418
Introduction
Many researchers have attempted to answer the question of what fosters employee
turnover by investigating possible antecedents of it. This pervasive interest comes
mainly from recognition that turnover can be very costly, and that understanding and
managing it better can provide considerable benefits. Prior research provides
consistent support for intent to leave as the strongest predictor of actual turnover (Tett
and Meyer, 1993). Intention to leave is considered a conscious and deliberate desire to
leave the organization within the near future, and is regarded as the last part of a
sequence in the withdrawal cognition process (Mobley et al., 1978). A meta-analysis by
Steel and Ovalle (1984) demonstrated that intent to leave is a better predictor of actual
turnover behavior than affective variables, such as overall job satisfaction and
satisfaction with the work itself. That is why better understanding of the causes of
turnover intentions and how to control them will likely remain a crucial concern into Employee
the future. turnover
Social exchange theory has gained prominence as a framework of understanding
the employee-organization relationship and is arguably one of the most influential intentions
frameworks for understanding exchange behavior in organizations (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005). Although there are number of contributors to the theoretical foundation
of the social exchange literature, Blau (1964) and Gouldner (1960) have been 519
particularly influential in providing the key tenets that have been applied to studies in
the employee-organization literature (Shore et al., 2009). The application of social
exchange theory to the employee-organization relationship has focused on the
relationship an individual develops with his/her manager (Liden et al., 1997), the
organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986) or both (Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne et al.,
1997). Greater social exchange is associated with stronger employee contributions in
the form of higher commitment, lower intentions to quit, and better performance (Shore
et al., 2009).
Based on social exchange perspective Eisenberger et al. (1986) developed the theory
of perceived organizational support (POS) to understand employee-employer exchange
relationships. POS refers to an individual’s perception concerning the extent that an
organization values his or her contributions and cares about his or her wellbeing. Thus,
employees tend to seek a balance in their exchange relationships with their
organizations by having their attitudes and behaviors based on their employer’s
commitment to them as individuals. Related empirical research has shown that high
levels of POS to be associated with a host of positive work outcomes including
increased affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Rhoades et al., 2001), reduced
absenteeism and turnover intentions (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1990;
Wayne et al., 1997). Moreover, social exchange theory posits that workers can develop
a relationship between both the organization and the supervisor (Settoon et al., 1996).
Evidence suggests that employees do engage in enduring exchanges with both the
organization as a whole, and their immediate supervisor (Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne
et al., 1997). Just as employees form global perceptions concerning their valuation by
the organization, they also develop a general view concerning the degree to which
supervisors value their contributions and their wellbeing. Kottke and Sharafinski
(1988) state that perceived supervisory support (PSS) refers to employee views
concerning the extent to which supervisor value employees’ contributions, and care
about their wellbeing. This indicates that, if employees perceive their supervisors as
representatives of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Levinson, 1965), they may
develop exchange relationships with them that are distinct from those they
experienced with their organization. Research from organizational support literature
indicates that when supervisors are supportive of subordinates, this treatment
produces a felt obligation of subordinates to help supervisors reach their goals
(Eisenberger et al., 2002; Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe, 2003). Recently, researchers
have focused significant attention on the concept of POS as a key predictor of turnover
intentions (e.g. Allen et al., 2003; Maertz et al., 2007; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002)
Nevertheless, studies strongly indicate that the immediate manager play an important
role in employee turnover decisions (Maertz et al., 2003; Maertz et al., 2007; Payne and
Huffman, 2005).
JMP Moreover, cultural variables can play a role in an employee’s work-related attitudes
27,5 and behavior (Hofstede, 1984). Recent publications highlight the significance of
individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 2001) in cultural and psychological studies
(Earley and Gibson, 1998). Evidence suggests that cultural variables like individualism
and collectivism are implicated in a wide range of work outcomes, which may also
play an explanatory role in relation to other work behaviors. While
520 individualism-collectivism constructs have been used at a societal level to describe
cultural differences, it has been argued that people from individualistic and collectivist
cultures may hold individualist and collectivist values. The constructs are often used
by management scholars to measure attitudes and values at the individual-level
analysis, and capture individuals’ preferences for either collectivism or individualism
(Earley and Gibson, 1998; Triandis, 1995). Consistent with these suggestions, in this
study we treated individualism and collectivism as a variable that differentiate
individuals.
In the light of the above explanation, the primary purpose of this present study is to
further increase our knowledge and understanding of POS and PSS in the context of
employee turnover intentions by examining the potential associations of employee’s
cultural values.

Literature review and hypothesis

POS and its link to turnover intentions
Based on the norm of reciprocity, enhanced POS makes employees feel obligated to
care about the organization’s welfare, and to help the organization reach its objectives
(Eisenberger et al., 2001). POS increases employees’ effort-outcome expectancy, which
makes employees believe that their efforts will be rewarded in the future (Eisenberger
et al., 1986). Although POS is related to a variety of important work-related outcomes,
two issues requiring further attention are the relationship between POS and voluntary
turnover, and the factors leading to the development of POS (Shore and Shore, 1995;
Shore and Tetrick, 1991). Regarding turnover, Eisenberger et al. (1990) specifically
suggested that individuals with high POS would be less likely to seek out and accept
jobs in alternative organizations. Based on high effort-outcome expectancy and
employees’ willingness to maintain membership with the organization because of
enhanced POS, Loi et al. (2006) further proposed that enhanced POS would lower
employees’ intentions to leave the organization. The reason why POS negatively
associated with turnover intentions should also be explored. Hill (1987) argued that the
motivation for social contact has a major influence on human behavior, and he
described several such needs include the need for self esteem, the need for affiliation,
and the need for emotional support. Martin (1984) suggested that to protect their
self-concept, individuals have a need for social approval. POS should be especially
satisfying for employees with high needs for self esteem, affiliation, emotional support
and approval. POS may also strengthen the perception that the organization is satisfied
that the employee acting in accord with established norms and policies, thereby
fulfilling their social approval (Armeli et al., 1998). A significant negative relationship
between POS and turnover intentions (Allen et al., 2003; Cropanzano et al., 1997;
Randall et al., 1999; Wayne et al., 1997) and employee turnover (Allen et al., 2003;
Eisenberger et al., 2002; Rhoades et al., 2001) were well established in numerous
studies. Thus, employees with high POS would be expected to avoid high levels of Employee
turnover intentions (Eder and Eisenberger, 2008). turnover
H1. POS will be negatively associated with employee’s turnover intentions such intentions
that employees reporting high levels of POS will report low levels of turnover
intentions.

PSS and its link to turnover intentions

521
It has long been suggested that work represents a reciprocal relationship where
employees provide effort in exchange for both tangible rewards such as pay and
benefits, and socio-emotional benefits such as appreciation and esteem (Angle and
Perry, 1983; Levinson, 1965). Levinson argued that employees tend to view the
behavior and actions of organizational agents as actions of the organization itself. This
situation is especially valid for the employee’s immediate managers or supervisors,
who embody the organization itself. Chen et al. (2002) proposed that loyalty to
supervisors would lead to commitment to the organization as supervisors are
considered organizational agents, and loyal employees’ intent to stay with the
organization. Moreover, organizational support theory states that beneficial treatment
from supervisors results in increased POS, which makes the employees obligated to
help the organization meet its goals and feel more committed, which consequently
results in reduced turnover (Rhoades et al., 2001). Because supervisors act as an agent
of the organization in directing and evaluating employees, subordinates tend to
attribute supportiveness of such treatment, in part, to the organization rather than
solely to the supervisor’s personal inclinations. As a consequence, perception of
supervisors support will be associated with subordinates POS (Shanock and
Eisenberger, 2006). Tepper and Taylor’s (2003) findings suggest that supervisors may
view their advantageous position for helping subordinates to better carry out their jobs
as an opportunity to repay the organization for its support. Because subordinates view
the perceived support they receive from supervisors as representative of the
organization’s favorable or unfavorable orientation toward them, subordinates’ PSS
should lead subordinates to have higher POS (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Earlier studies
found that greater PSS leads to greater POS (Dawley et al., 2010). Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002) found that PSS is the strongest predictor of POS. Previous POS
research has reported that PSS relationship with turnover cognition are fully mediated
by POS (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Rhoades et al., 2001), yet there has been little interest
in investigating and higher order causes among POS and PSS (Maertz et al., 2007).
Maertz et al. (2007, p. 1064) have specified a model to design interventions involving
both POS and PSS and they explained that one construct may associate the salience of
the other in the minds of employees, separate from increasing or reducing its average
level. More specifically, more frequent day-to-day contact with employees provides the
supervisor with more opportunity than the organization itself, to demonstrate support
(or lack thereof) to employees. Because of this, PSS levels become obvious to employees
relatively quickly, and may fluctuate more than POS levels. This would make POS
more salient for turnover decisions under conditions of low PSS. On the other hand,
high PSS delivers important benefits. When supervisors are perceived to provide such
support, they are likely to impart positive feelings and trust to the employees (Dirks
and Ferrin, 2002). This makes supervisors even more able to position themselves in the
forefront of their employees’ consciousness as the primary provider of employee
JMP support. The supervisors providing regular support may overshadow the organization
27,5 as a source of support, making POS less salient to employee decisions, and thereby
weakening the POS-turnover intentions relationship.
H2. PSS moderates the negative relationship between POS and turnover
intentions such that employees who perceive high levels of PSS but report
low levels of POS will also report high levels of turnover intentions compared
522 to employees who perceive low PSS and low POS.

Cultural values and its reflection

Despite the apparent generalizability of social exchange, there have been noticeable
differences in applying social exchange theory in cultures with different value
orientations, especially regarding the view of one’s relationship with others. One of the
most widely cited perspectives on individualism and collectivism comes from
cross-national cultural variables by Hofstede (1984). Hofstede saw individualist
cultures as placing priority on personal goals and self actualization, whereas
collectivist cultures place priorities on the family and group and seek satisfaction from
a job well done as defined by the group, rather than by oneself. People in individualist
cultures give priority to their own goals over those of groups; conversely, those in
collectivist cultures are especially concerned with relationships (Triandis, 2001). In
spite of between country differences however, it should be noted that there could also
be substantial within-country variation on this dimension (Oyserman et al., 2002).
Individualism and collectivism as one of the key cultural dimensions has helped to
explain and clarify cultural differences under the assumption that people in the same
culture are largely homogenous. Contrary to general belief of same- or
single-mindedness, however, the literature shows that people selectively form their
attitudes and preferences from both individualistic and collectivistic cognitive
structures under different situations (Triandis, 1995). Hence, it would be in haste to
believe that everyone in a collectivistic culture is a collectivist, and everyone in
individualistic culture would be an individualist. That indicates nations were
compared based on their classification of individualism or collectivism, so should
people within a “culture” be compared in this way. There is considerable evidence to
suggest that a distinction between collectivist and individualist may exist within
cultures in the form of an individual difference (Triandis, 1995; Wagner, 1995) and that
the above outlined defining attributes of individualism and collectivism exist at the
individual level (Triandis et al., 1995; Wasti, 2003). When individualism and
collectivism are measured at the individual level they are either called as idiocentrism
and allocentrisim (Triandis et al., 1995; Wasti, 2003) or individualistic and collectivistic
values (Ramamoorthy and Carroll, 1998; Ramamoorthy and Flood, 2002, 2004)
respectively.
In the context of organizational setting, individualism and collectivism refer to the
patterns whereby employees relate to their co-workers, teams, workgroups,
supervisors and organization. The differing emphasis on self versus group goals
manifested in cultural syndromes of individualism and collectivism arguably has
implications for the nature of the employee attachment to the organization (Wasti,
2003). Collectivists define themselves by in a group membership (Earley and Gibson,
1998; Triandis, 1995). They are people-oriented (Hofstede, 1984), and seek close and
long-term relationships. Collectivists might view their relationship to have moral
elements, they commit to organizations due to their ties with colleagues or supervisors Employee
(Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991). They view the self as embedded in social context and turnover
they have a strong need for interpersonal harmony in the work environment.
Individualists on the other hand, might establish an exchange and they have
intentions
calculative involvement with the organization and have strong need for freedom and
preference for low-context relationships based on emotional detachment (Earley and
Gibson, 1998; Hofstede, 1984; Triandis, 1995). Wagner (1995) suggests that an 523
employees with individualistic values view the self as being separate from others are
concerned with personal achievement and give priority to personal goals over the goals
of collectives. They are task oriented and they may be attracted to the job content or
promotional plan (Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991). Individualists may cooperate with
others in a group to the extent such group work is instrumental to the attainment of
individual goals that cannot be obtained by working alone (Ramamoorthy and Flood,
2002).
Prior studies reveal that individualistic and collectivistic values predict different
management practices (Gomez-Mejia and Welbourne, 1991; Ramamoorthy and Carroll,
1998; Ramamoorthy and Flood, 2004). These studies indicate that employees who
endorse individualistic values associated with equitable reward systems, formal
appraisal systems, merit based promotion. Contrary, employees who endorse
collectivistic values tended to be related informal appraisals and seniority based
promotions. Triandis et al. (1995) state that collectivist employees differ from
individualist employees in their great desire to associate with coworkers, supervisors
as well as their lesser concern about personal progress. Employees with collectivistic
values use the group as the unit of analysis in social relationship and favor
interdependence, in group harmony, personalized relationship and duty to one’s group
and motivated by deference, affiliation and abasement (Marcus and Kitiyama, 1991).
Collectivist individuals expect greater support from supervisors than to individualists
(Orpen, 1982). Employees with individualistic values commit the organizations
primarily owing to the job itself or the particular compensation theme and far less
owing to their ties with managers and owners (Stone-Romeo and Stone, 2002).
Satisfaction with supervisor is an important determinant for organizational
attachment individuals who endorse collectivist values (Wasti, 2003). However,
those who stress individualistic values believe that they are independent entities who
are separate from the group and who have distinctive rights (Spence, 1985).
Individualists should retain jobs that well-rewarded by organization and provide
opportunities for achievement, competition and autonomy and they motivated by
competition, individual rewards and recognition by their own needs and motives that
will lead to results that benefit themselves in terms of providing more pay or desirable
organizational support (Stone-Romeo and Stone, 2002). They may put great emphasis
on receiving rewards directly from the organization. That is why; employees POS
negative association with turnover intentions might be more influential in employees
with individualistic values.
H3. POS will be negatively related to turnover intentions under the conditions of
higher levels of individualism than under higher levels of collectivism.
JMP Method
27,5 Sample and procedure
In order to test the hypotheses, a survey was administered among employees in the
insurance industry in Turkey. When the Turkish commercial insurance sector was
reviewed, the number of insurance companies included 59 forming, 23 life, and 36
non-life insurance companies. All of the insurance and reinsurance companies, local or
524 foreign, operating in Turkey and branch offices of foreign companies in Turkey are
obliged to be members of the Association of the Insurance and Reinsurance Companies
of Turkey. The mentioned association is the reference institution in the field of
insurance for conducting research, activities of publicity, and organizing and
coordinating the activities of all the stakeholders in the sector. The data collection part
of this study was realized with the help of Association of the Insurance and
Reinsurance Companies of Turkey.
Questionnaires were sent to all 59 Turkish insurance companies, where 23 of them
accepted to participate in the study. Employees received a questionnaire from their
immediate supervisor, who gave a short description of the study and requested their
cooperation. Absolute anonymity was stressed and guaranteed in the introduction.
Respondents had three weeks in which to reply. Following the three-week period,
employees completed the questionnaires and returned them in a sealed envelope to
their immediate supervisor. Of the 950 questionnaires sent, 304 questionnaires were
returned. The response rate was 32 percent. Several authors have claimed that a
response rate between 20 percent and 40 percent should be accurate to be
representative of the target group (Badger and Werret, 2005). Respondents fell within
the following demographical characteristics: 55 percent were older than 30 years, the
ratio of male/female was 3:1, 43 percent of respondents had been employed at the
employment organization for more than five years, and 74 percent held a university
degree.

Measurement and validation

POS, PSS and turnover intentions
The scales used in this study were made on a even-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An employee’s level of organizational support was
measured using the three items of Fuller et al. (2006) scale. We measured perceived
organizational support with three items from the scale described in Tate et al. (1997), to
assess an employee’s perception that their supervisors cares for their well being and
supports them at work. The dependent variable turnover intentions were assessed by
three items, which were developed by Mobley et al. (1978).
The possibility of common methods bias occurs when items are measured with the
same type of measure (seven-point Likert scales) and responses are received from a
single individual in the organization. Harman’s single factor test (Harmon, 1967) was
used in this study, where all variables are hypothesized to load on a single factor was
performed using both exploratory factor analytic approach and confirmatory factor
analytic approach (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results of
one-factor model fit indices ðx2 ¼ 499; 65; df ¼ 27; RMSEA ¼ 0:07; GFI ¼ 0:60;
AGFI ¼ 0:59Þ and two-factor fit indices ðx2 ¼ 205; 82; df ¼ 26; RMSEA ¼ 0:15;
GFI ¼ 0:83; AGFI ¼ 0:79Þ do not fit the data. The confirmatory factor results of the
test indicate that common methods bias is unlikely to be present, with the goodness of
fit indices for three-factor model indicating ðx2 ¼ 54; 22; df ¼ 24; RMSEA ¼ 0:05; Employee
GFI ¼ 0:95; AGFI ¼ 0:96Þ: The results allow the evidence to validate the presence of a turnover
priori, hypothetical factor structures.
intentions
Individualism/collectivism
We measured the individualism and collectivism (I/C) using 19 items of Ramamoorthy
and Carroll (1998), which is previously developed by Wagner (1995) and replicated by 525
several studies (e.g. Ramamoorthy and Flood, 2002; Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). I/C
scale have been used by several other studies. For instance Cohen and Avrahami (2006)
found that I/C orientation and justice perceptions are statistically significant each other
(0.15 to 0.35). Moreover, Ramamoorthy and Flood (2002) examined that I/C orientation
have statistically significant relationship with extra effort (0.19) and organizational
commitment (0.09).
These 19 items were designed measure the following dimensions of I/C: Solitary work
preferences, competitiveness, supremacy of individual interest and supremacy of
individual goals. We followed the same factor analysis procedure, which was previously
implemented by Ramamoorthy and Flood (2004). We conducted exploratory factor
analysis of the 19-item using principal component analysis with varimax rotation to
form sub dimensions of I/C. The factor analyses results were quite consistent with the
results of Ramamoorthy and Flood (2004). However, supremacy of individual interest
had a reliability of 0.52. We decided to drop supremacy of individual interest from
further analysis. The reliabilities of other four I/C scales-competitiveness, solitary work
preferences, supremacy of individual goals and self-reliance dimensions were in excess
of 0.70 (0.79, 0.76, 0.77, 0.81 respectively). Following items; “winning is everything” and
“people who belong to a group should realize that they are not always going to get what
they want” did not load any factor clearly and hence were not included in the scales.
Later, remaining 13 items computed (reliability of total scale is 0.78) such that a higher
score on these dimensions indicated a higher levels of individualism. Conversely, a lower
score indicated higher levels of collectivism[1].

Results
The means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas and inter-correlations of the final
version of the scales measures are provided in Table I.
In order to test hypotheses, regression analysis was undertaken. As noted by
Rosopa and Stone-Romeo (2008) inferences regarding the relations detected in a

Study variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Turnover Intention (0.85)

2. POS 20.48 * * (0.70)
3. PSS 20.35 * * 0.42 * * (0.86)
4. Individualism 0.18 * * 20.16 * * 20.27 * * (0.76)
5. POS *PSS 20.50 * * 0.85 * * 0.81 * * 2 0.26 * *
6. Individualism *POS 20.25 * * 0.67 * * 0.25 * * 0.60 * * 0.49 * *
Mean 2.38 4.70 5.30 3.39 25.99 16.99
Standard deviation 1.56 1.28 1.50 0.78 11.67 5.64 Table I.
Descriptive statistics and
Notes: N ¼ 304, one-tailed; * *p , 0.01; Cronbach’s alphas are given in parentheses correlations
JMP non-experimental study (e.g. a causal chain, suppression, or confounding) depend
27,5 greatly on what a researcher terms an independent variable (e.g. POS in this study)
versus other labels (e.g. POS and PSS interaction in this study), posing a serious logical
problem regarding the interpretation of results. That is why we used single model to
test both direct and moderated relations between independent and dependent
variables. So we entered POS, PSS, POS and PSS interaction term, Individualism, POS
526 and Individualism interaction term into the model to test their relations with turnover
intentions. Table II indicates the results of regression analysis predicting turnover
intentions. Results showed that PSS moderated the relationship between POS and
turnover intentions ðb ¼ 20:27 p , 0.05) hence H2 is supported. That is, participants
perceiving high PSS that report low levels of POS are more likely to report increased
turnover intentions, especially compared to participants perceiving low PSS in low
POS situation (see Figure 1). As seen by Table II, POS and moderating influence of
POS * Individualism on turnover intentions are not statistically significant, hence H1
and H3 are not supported. Results showed that interaction term of POS and PSS
qualifies the main relations of turnover intentions.

Discussion
The present study examined the relationship between POS, PSS, turnover intentions
and individual cultural values. Findings of this study addressed PSS moderates the
negative relationship between POS and turnover intentions. Although much of the
subsequent research has focused on attitudinal (e.g. satisfaction) and tangible (e.g. pay)
inducements to stay, a growing body of work recognizes that relational inducements
such as support from the organization and from a supervisor can also play an
important role in such decisions (e.g. Allen et al., 2003). Our findings add to the
growing body of research concluding that supervisor-related perceptions and attitudes
can foster organization-related perceptions and attitudes (Wayne et al., 1997; Maertz
et al., 2007). Consistent with Maertz et al. (2007), we discovered that when the
supervisor provides high support, POS becomes a less important predictor of turnover
intentions and POS becomes significantly more important when support from the
supervisor is relatively absent. The implication for turnover research is that future
studies should always consider the potential of employee’s relationship with their
supervisors to impact on turnover intentions.

b t

POS 20.18 2 0.79

POS *PSS 20.27 2 2.76 *
Individualism 0.13 0.70
Individualism *POS 20.09 2 0.34
R 0.51
R-squared 0.26
Adj. R-squared 0.25
F 29.97 * *
Df 4
Table II. 299
Regressions predicting
turnover intentions Notes: N ¼ 304: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01. Dependent variable: turnover intentions
 Employee
turnover
intentions

527

Figure 1.
Moderating role of PSS on
the relationship between
POS and turnover
intentions

In the present study, we revisit the question of whether individual cultural values
influence employee turnover intentions. Based on the premise, we predict that
individualistic values will foster individuals when evaluating the support gathering
from organization, thereby shaping their turnover intentions. It should be discussed
that according to study results, in particular, we did not found any support that POS
negative association on employee’s turnover intentions is higher in individualists. We
considered that POS might be more influential on turnover intentions because they are
oriented more toward self interest, reaching their own goals; looking out for
him/herself and considering the attainment of his/her own personal goals of primary
importance (Triandis, 1995). It should be also noted that the present individual level
study was conducted in a single country, namely Turkey. Turkey is located in the
middle of the Middle East, between Europe and Central Asia. Its strong secular identity
and its membership in NATO link it to Western Europe. Turkey can be best
characterized as in transition from a rural to increasingly urbanized, industrialized and
egalitarian one (Wasti, 2003). According to Hofstede (1984) Turkish culture has been
described as being high on collectivism (value of 37 over 100 under individualism
verses collectivism index) and power distance for Turkey. According to Schwartz
(1992) in culture value dimensions in a survey of 34 cultures, Turkey ranked above the
average in values of conservatism (12th), hierarchy (5th) egalitarian commitment (13th)
and harmony (5th). A more recent and extensive study on Turkish culture was
conducted as a part of the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004). Findings of the GLOBE
study revealed that two predominant characteristics of Turkey to be in group
collectivism and power distance among 62 cultures. Above findings indicate that
Turkish people were collectivist, but there has been a change toward individualism in
recent years since Turkey has been living through a transition period between Eastern
and Western attitudes, values, and lifestyles. Therefore, although Turkish culture
JMP protects its collectivistic nature, individualism is a concern for Turkish society. While,
27,5 tendency toward individualism is stimulated by the separation of big families,
immigration from rural areas to cities and economic conditions and increased
industrialization of Turkey, current study cannot provide any support for this
condition. The current study investigated the notion that emphasizing individual
differences in cultural values are likely to have important implications for employees
528 work related attitudes. It should be also noted that this study was located within a
broader collectivistic context. This transition obviously has some reflections in
organizational settings.
Main result of this study is PSS moderates the relationship between POS and
turnover intentions. It means POS and PSS interaction qualifies the main relation of
turnover intensions that is why the other predictor variables are not statistically
significant. While Turkish culture still holds its collectivist nature, employees might
commit to organizations primarily because of their ties with managers, owners, and
co-workers and far less because of the job itself or the particular compensation scheme
(individualistic incentives).

Implications
The findings of this study hold crucial implications for practitioners concerned that
POS and PSS are potentially quite valuable as a part of turnover management.
Organizations must pay attention to foster PSS in order to reduce turnover intentions.
For increasing POS to be successful, managers must strive to find out the way to
increase their social support, and then tailor support accordingly. On the other hand,
supervisors acting supportive and promoting themselves as such seems to be
generally good for reducing turnover intentions. Supervisors would be well advised
to act primarily upon supporting aspects (i.e. regularly ask employees how they can
help them to their job, and show personal consideration) of the job in order to build
constructive relationships with employees. Indeed, such action will ultimately
increase the likelihood that employees stay with their organization. However,
increasing PSS could have potentially mixed implications as well. Because of the
relatively frequent interactions between most employees and their supervisors, the
supervisors become the primary focus and the potential shaper of employees support
perceptions. As seen by our results, a supportive supervisor may be able to cover for
the shortcomings of organizational policies. But, on the other hand, management
should provide relative support to supervisors to attach the organizations. For
employees, attachment to a supervisor only means attachment to the organization as
long as the employees see the supervisor as somewhat attached to the company (see
Maertz et al., 2007).

Implications for society as a whole

Our research suggests that organizations should take into account PSS when
tailoring organizational support. Organizations should take steps to ensure that they
have human resource policies and practices that appeal employee needs and wants.
As suggested earlier by Stone and Stone-Romeo (2008) organizations might adopt
cafeteria-based reward and benefit packages that will enable them to retain
productive workers. Apart from organizational support, supervisors should facilitate
different support package for employees. For instance managers should offer
alternative family oriented benefits that meet the needs of workers value such Employee
outcomes (Stone et al., 2008). They may develop different support policies for turnover
employees depending on their needs. Moreover, organizations could provide
employees with a set amount of total compensation and allow employees to decide intentions
a choice of rewards to meet their needs.

529
Limitations and directions for future research
There are several limitations of this study that should be addressed in future research.
Any generalization from the findings of this study should be done with caution
because of the limitations imposed by the nature of the sampled subjects and country.
Our sampled country, Turkey, has been characterized as a relatively collectivist
country, and it is important to note that the comparison of individualists and
collectivists made in this study was located within a broader collectivistic context.
Thus, the range of collectivism versus individualism among Turkish employees may
be only a small portion of the full continuum of the dimension that can be found when
surveying from more countries. A similar study in an individualistic culture may
demonstrate some differences. We believe it is important for scholars to understand the
mediating psychological processes by which these differences are created, in order to
better understand what interventions organizations can use to effectively manage
diverse workforces. Moreover, current studies individualism/collectivism measure
may be problematic. As noted previously by Stone et al. (2008) there are numerous
measures of individualism collectivism cultural values (Triandis et al., 1995; Dorfman
and Howell, 1988; Ramamoorthy and Flood, 2004; Wagner, 1995,) the construct validity
of these measures has not always been assessed therefore existing measures may not
be appropriate to define the construct. That is why; more research is needed to assess
the degree to which these measures are reliable and valid.
Future research should extend our efforts by considering specific areas of turnover
management with other causal variables, additional populations, and additional
methods of measuring cultural orientation to increase our understanding of the link
between organizational-specific (organization and supervisor-based) variables and
employee behavior both at the cultural and the individual level. In addition,
multi-method probes that include surveys, personal interviews, direct observation, and
experiments are needed to provide further validation of the link between cultural
values and individual employee behavior. Future research needs to address this issue
by comparing individualists and collectivists within and across individualist and
collectivist cultures. Future research should also examine how other cultural attributes
may associate with employee’s job attitudes. The approach developed in this paper
may also be a useful theoretical lens for understanding how other cultural values
(e.g. uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, or power distance) shape
individuals reactions to their work environment. As stated before because of the
changing nature of Turkish society, more research is needed about the fluctuating
individualistic and collectivistic characteristic of Turkish culture. Finally, in this
study, we focus on predicting employee turnover intentions. However, a useful
extension of this research could be examining actual turnover and how cultural
orientation influences on actual turnover rates.
JMP Note
27,5 1. Current study did not found any statistical support for the dimensions of I/C orientation for
moderation analyses. Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for the remaining 13 I/C
items in order to analyze I/C orientation with their dimensions. Several alternative models
were tested (one factor model, two factor competitiveness and solitary work preferences with
supremacy of individual goals and model, two factor competitiveness and self reliance with
530 supremacy of individual goals and solitary work preferences model, four factor model). The
confirmatory factor results of the test indicate that common methods bias is unlikely to be
present, with the goodness of fit indices for four factor model indicating x2 ¼ 123; 59;
df ¼ 59; RMSEA ¼ 0:06; GFI ¼ 0:94; AGFI ¼ 0:91 when comparing other models. After
that, it has been tested whether multi-collinearity problem exist in our study or not. That is,
when the correlation POS and the IC dimensions are high, then the interaction term
essentially captures the linear effects of the variables used in forming the interaction terms
(Cortina, 1993). However, the correlation between POS and competitiveness (0.05 p , 0.05),
correlation between POS and solitary work preferences (0.06 p , 0.05), correlation between
POS and supremacy of individual goals (0.09 p , 0.05) were both closer to zero and non
significant suggesting that multi-collinearity is not an issue of this study.

References
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organizational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Angle, H.L. and Perry, J.L. (1983), “Organizational commitment: individual and organizational
influences”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 123-46.
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Lynch, P. (1998), “Perceived organizational support
and police performance: the moderating influence of socio-emotional needs”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 288-97.
Badger, F. and Werret, J. (2005), “Room for improvement? Reporting response rates and
recruitment in nursing research in the past decade”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 51
No. 5, pp. 502-10.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boyacigiller, N. and Adler, N.J. (1991), “The parochial dinosaur: the organizational science in a
global context”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 262-90.
Chen, Z.X., Tsui, A.S. and Farh, J.L. (2002), “Loyalty to supervisor vs organizational commitment:
relationships to employee performance in China”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 339-56.
Cohen, A. and Avrahami, A. (2006), “The relationship between individualism, collectivism, the
perception of justice, demographic characteristics and organizational citizenship
behavior”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 889-901.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “Interaction, nonlinearity and multicolinearity: implications for multiple
regression”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 915-22.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A. and Toth, P. (1997), “The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes and stress”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-80.
Dawley, D., Houghton, J.D. and Bucklew, N.S. (2010), “Perceived organizational support and Employee
turnover intention: the mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit”, The Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 150 No. 3, pp. 238-57. turnover
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications intentions
for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-28.
Dorfman, P.W. and Howell, J.P. (1988), “Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership
patterns: Hofstede revisited”, Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3, 531
pp. 127-50.
Earley, P.C. and Gibson, C.B. (1998), “Taking stock in our progress on individualism –
collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 265-304.
Eder, P. and Eisenberger, R. (2008), “Perceived organizational support: reducing the negative
influence of coworker withdrawal behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 55-68.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 51-9.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational
support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002),
“Perceived supervisory support: contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-73.
Fuller, J.B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L. and Relyea, C. (2006), “Perceived organizational
support and perceived external prestige (PEP): predicting organizational attachment for
university faculty, staff and administrators”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 146
No. 3, pp. 327-47.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. and Welbourne, T. (1991), “Compensation strategies in a global context”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-78.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hill, C.A. (1987), “Affiliation motivation: people who need people but in different ways”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 1008-18.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javiclan, M., Dorfman, P.F. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Corsage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kottke, J.L. and Sharafinski, C.E. (1988), “Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational
support”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 1075-9.
Levinson, H. (1965), “Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 370-90.
Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997), “Leader member exchange theory: the past
and potential for the future”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 47-119.
JMP Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N. and Foley, S. (2006), “Linking employees’ justice perceptions to
organizational commitment and intention to leave: the mediating role of perceived
27,5 organizational support”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79
No. 1, pp. 101-20.
Maertz, C.P., Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (2003), “A turnover model for the Mexican
maquiladoras”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 111-5.
532 Maertz, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., Campell, N.S. and Allen, D.G. (2007), “The effects of perceived
organizational support ad perceived supervisory support on employee turnover”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1059-75.
Marcus, H.R. and Kitiyama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion
and motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53.
Martin, H.J. (1984), “A revised measure of approval motivation and its relationship to social
desirability”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 508-19.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-48.
Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O. and Hollinsworth, A.T. (1978), “An evaluation of precursors of
hospital employee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 408-14.
Orpen, C. (1982), “The effect of social support on the reactions to role ambiguity and conflict: a
study among white and black clerks in South Africa”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 375-84.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002), “Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumption and meta analysis”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
Payne, S.C. and Huffman, A.H. (2005), “A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring
on organizational commitment and turnover”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 158-68.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Carroll, S.J. (1998), “Individualism/collectivism orientations and reactions
toward alternative human resource management practices”, Human Relations, Vol. 51
No. 5, pp. 571-88.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P.C. (2002), “Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: a test of
the main and moderating effects of individualism and collectivism orientations”, Human
Relations, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 1071-96.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P.C. (2004), “Individualism/collectivism, perceived task
interdependence and teamwork attitudes among Irish blue collar employees: a test of
main and moderating effects”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 347-66.
Ramamoorthy, N., Gupta, A., Sardessai, R.M. and Flood, P.C. (2005), “Individualism /collectivism
and attitudes towards human resource systems: a comparative study of American, Irish,
and Indian MBA students”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16
No. 5, pp. 852-69.
Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. and Birjulin, A. (1999), “Organizational politics
and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance and
 organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 2, Employee
pp. 159-74.
turnover
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714. intentions
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment of the organization:
the contribution to perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-36. 533
Rosopa, P.J. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (2008), “Problems with detecting assumed mediation using
the hierarchical multiple regression strategy”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 294-310.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries”, in Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-65.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), “Social exchange in organizations: perceived
organizational support, leader member exchange and employee reciprocity”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 219-27.
Shanock, L.R. and Eisenberger, R. (2006), “When supervisors feel supported: relationship with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 689-95.
Shore, L.M. and Shore, T.H. (1995), “Perceived organizational support and organizational
justice”, in Cropanzano, R.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice and
Support: Managing the Social Climate of Workplace, Quorum, Westport, CT, pp. 149-64.
Shore, L.M. and Tetrick, L.E. (1991), “A construct validity study of the survey of perceived
organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 637-43.
Shore, L.M., Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Chen, X.P. and Tetrick, L.E. (2009), “Social exchange in work
settings: content, process, and mixed models”, Management and Organization Review,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 289-302.
Spence, J.T. (1985), “Achievement American style: the rewards and costs of individualism”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 1285-95.
Steel, R.P. and Ovalle, N.K. (1984), “A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship
between behavioral intentions and employee turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 673-86.
Stinglhamber, F. and Vandenberghe, C. (2003), “Organizations and supervisors as sources of
support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 251-70.
Stone, D.L. and Stone-Romero, E.F. (2008), The Influence of Culture on Human Resource
Management Processes and Practices, Psychology Press and Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hove.
Stone, D.L., Isenhour, L. and Lukaszewski, K.M. (2008), “A model of influence of cultural values
on job application intentions and behaviors”, in Stone, D.L. and Stone-Romeo, E.F. (Eds),
The Influence of Culture on Human Resource Management Processes and Practices,
Psychology Press and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, pp. 25-53.
Stone-Romeo, E.F. and Stone, D.L. (2002), “Cross cultural differences in responses to feedback”,
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 21, pp. 275-81.
Tate, U., Whatley, A. and Clugston, M. (1997), “Sources and outcomes of job tension: a three
nation study”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-8.
JMP Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), “Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’
procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Academy of
27,5 Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 97-105.
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 259-93.
534 Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview, Boulder, CO.
Triandis, H.C. (2001), “Individualism-collectivism and personality”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 69
No. 6, pp. 907-24.
Triandis, H.C., Chan, D.K.S., Bhawuk, D.P.S., Iwao, S. and Sinha, J.P.B. (1995), “Multimethod
probes of aliocentrism and idiocentrism”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 461-80.
Wagner, J.A. (1995), “Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-72.
Wasti, S.A. (2003), “Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the influence of cultural
values”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 303-21.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.

About the authors

Ipek Kalemci Tuzun received her PhD in Management from the Gazi University. She is an
Assistant Professor at Baskent University, Faculty of Commercial Sciences. She is currently
lecturing organizational behavior and human resource management courses. Her areas of
research include human resource management applications and employee behavior, social
exchanges in organization and social identity theory. Ipek Kalemci Tuzun is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: tuzun@baskent.edu.tr
R. Arzu Kalemci received her PhD in Management and Organization from the Baskent
University. She is working as an Assistant Professor at Cankaya University, Faculty of
Economic and Administrative Sciences. Her research interest includes organizational theory and
design, social exchange and work ethic.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats