


































UAFS Advances in Business Research 2012 LOWREZ (2).pdf


Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

1 

 

We Get By With a Little Help from Our Friends: Exploring the Effects of Perceived 

Coworker Support on Employee Burnout and Job Attitudes  
 

G. Stoney Alder, University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

Daniel McAllister, University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

John Chase, Boulder City Police Department 
 

 

Perceived Organizational Support is but one source of employee support; perceived coworker support is important 

as well. This study examined the effects of perceived coworker support on employees’ job satisfaction, burnout, 
deviance, and turnover. Results indicate that perceived coworker support and perceived organizational support 

affect job satisfaction burnout and deviant behavior both directly and indirectly by moderating the effects of work 

pressure on these outcomes. Additionally, perceived coworker supporter exerted a stronger influence on these 

variables than did perceived organizational support.  Implications for both research and practice are discussed.    
 

 

We live in difficult and stressful economic times. Depending on where an individual lives, and perhaps which 

political party they pay attention to, there may be signs of recovery and improvement. However, the reality for many 

workers remains uncertain and therefore stressful. Other changes in the nature of business and new organizational 

structures, including an increase in team-oriented work, may further magnify these feelings of stress among workers.  

Increased tele-work arrangements, while offering convenience, may also isolate workers and create added stress and 

pressure. Many firms are decentralizing their organizational structure, thereby flattening out their once hierarchal 

chain of command. Employees from different departments and levels of authority are working side by side. New 

multi- and cross-functional work teams are being formed to handle both long-term and short-term tasks. Given that 

these work teams are often required to work closely together on various projects, inevitably this will involve some 

degree of stress. In short, in today’s economic and business climate, managing and coping with stress is critical for 

both individuals and organizations.  

Research indicates that one critical factor in relations to work place stress and pressure is perceived 

organizational support (POS).  A significant amount of research by Eisenberger and colleagues (e.g., Eisengerger et 

al., 2001; Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli, 2001) indicates that POS is an influential determinant of a number of 

employee attitudes and behaviors. However, this paper argues that POS provides only a partial picture of support in 

the workplace. Specifically, coworkers are also an important source of support. However, research has largely 

ignored this possibility. The objective of this study is to bridge this gap in the literature. Specifically, we examine 

the dual role of both perceived organizational support (POS) and perceived coworker support (PCS) in determining 

employee attitudes and turnover intentions.   

Below, we first review the existing research on Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Subsequently, we 

review research indicating that PCS may also be important. Based on these literature reviews, we next draw several 

hypotheses proposing that both PCS and POS directly impact employees’ job attitudes. In addition, we predict that 

PCS and POS moderate the relationship between job-related stress and worker attitudes. The paper concludes with a 

discussion of the implications of our study’s findings for work organizations.    
 

LITERATURE REVIEW 
 

Perceived Organizational Support 
 

Over the past two decades, Perceived Organizational Support (POS) has increasingly received a great deal of 

attention. POS has been shown to have a strong relationship with several aspects of employee behavior. 

Organizational support theory (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) asserts that employees establish 

a common belief in regards to how much their organization cares about their socioemotional and overall well-being, 

and to what degree their performance and loyalty to the company is rewarded. Reflected in this common belief is the 

assurance that aid will be available from the organization when it is needed to perform their job effectively and to 

deal with stressful situations (George, Reed, Ballard, Colin, & Fielding, 1993). 

In addition, Rhodes, Eisenberger and Armeli (2001), point to POS as contributing to an emotional bond formed 

by the employee toward the organization. Eisenberger et al. (1986) further asserts that employees attribute 

humanlike characteristics to their organization. For example, if an employee perceives the organization as treating 

them fairly, they translate this into the organization liking them on a personal level. Conversely, if they feel they 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

2 

 

have been unfairly treated, they view this as the organization disliking them. With these human-like characteristics 

assigned to the organization, it follows that employees would feel the need to reciprocate favorably or negatively to 

the organization (Blau, 1964). 

POS is also credited with moderating the effect of employees’ intent to quit. Rhoades et al. (2001) noted that 

increased POS leads to employees feeling committed and obligated to help the organization, which reduces turnover. 

Furthermore, the findings of Armeli et al. (1998) stated that “...the organization plays an important social role in 

employees' lives. Satisfying socio-emotional needs by the communication of respect, caring, and approval, and has 

the potential of markedly increasing employees' performance”.  It follows that when employees feel their needs are 

being met by the organization, job satisfaction increases resulting in an increase in their desire to stay with the 

organization and reducing their desire to quit. 
 

Perceived Coworker Support 
 

Although there have been two decades of empirical studies on Perceived Organizational Support (Armeli et al., 

1998; Aselage & Eisenberger 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Eisenberger et.al., 1997; and 

Eisenberger et al., 1999), less attention has been paid to the effects of coworker support. Perceived Coworker 

Support (PCS) is also an important moderator of work-related stress, employee conduct and outcomes.  Perceived 

Coworker Support is the degree to which employees feel they are supported and treated favorably by their 

coworkers; and provided aide when it is needed to carry out their job effectively and to deal with stressful situations. 

Typically employees who feel a high degree of work pressure would be expected to experience higher rates of 

burnout. Toppinen-Tanner et. al. (2002) attributes burnout to prolonged work-related stress. Employees 

experiencing burnout may use deviant behavior as a coping mechanism and/or as retaliation to stress they feel was 

brought on by work pressure. As a result, it is expected that they would not only engage in deviant acts, but also feel 

less committed to the organization, leading to higher rates of turnover. However, we predict that support from 

coworkers will reduce these relationships. Specifically, if employees feel they receive sufficient support from 

coworkers, then work stress will not necessarily lead to burnout or negative behaviors and attitudes. For example, an 

employee who is feeling the pressure of an impending deadline may be relieved of some of this pressure by help 

offered from a coworker to meet said deadline. Thus, the help from the coworker reduces the pressure which may 

have led to burnout and negative attitudes or behaviors. 

Mohrman and Cohen (1995) have asserted that coworker interaction influences both individual and group 

behavior. Further, they suggest that individuals working in teams must possess certain social skills, among which is 

helpfulness. In addition, Bishop et al. (2000) assert that an employee’s perception of team support affects his or her 

commitment to the team, thereby moderating individual job performance. If an employee feels that he or she is 

taking on more work than the rest of the team and/or receiving little or no support from fellow team members, then 

he or she may exhibit deviant behavior. Deviance may take the form of such behaviors as absenteeism, tardiness, 

work slowdown, resigning and, in severe cases, theft or aggression.  
 

Psychological Contract Theory 
 

Psychological Contract Theory proposes that individuals negotiate their needs via psychological contracts. As 

numerous studies have shown in reference to POS, any lack of coworker support would be viewed as a 

psychological contract breach, which, as Aselage and Eisenberger (2003) states, “leads employees to decrease their 

level of commitment and production. When fulfilled, the psychological contract would be expected to have positive 

effects on employee performance. This is because the reciprocity norm would encourage employees to fulfill their 

contractual obligations.” 

Employees who enjoy perceived support from coworkers will reciprocate by being helpful themselves, thus 

fostering a supportive work environment. In essence, favorable treatment generates more favorable treatment. This 

theory of an individual’s need or obligation to reciprocate favorable treatment is supported by Eisenberger et al. 

(2001). They also noted that George and Brief (1992), previously asserted that positive mood may prime employees 

to think about favorable characteristics of coworkers, leading to helpful behavior. 
 

Social Exchange Theory 
 

Social exchange theory denotes that reciprocity is a fundamental aspect of social life (Deckop, Cirka, Andersson, 

2003). Reina and Reina (2006) argue that reciprocity is fundamental to organizational effectiveness. They argue that 

trust is vital to organizational success in today's competitive global economy marked by difficult, even distressing 

changes. For them to be successful, trust is vital. After all, business is conducted via relationships, and trust is the 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

3 

 

foundation to effective relationships. Based on 15 years of research with thousands of people, Reina and Reina 

conclude that strong relationships involve three types of transactional trust. They use the term transactional trust 

because trust is reciprocal in nature. That is, you have to give it to get it. We argue that trust is important as both an 

antecedent and consequence of both POS and PCS. Specifically, to the extent that employees trust the organizations, 

they will likely expect greater support. At the same time, the actual receipt of such support will likely reinforce that 

trust. 

Reciprocity is thus is a critical component to workers’ relationship with the organization and may be important 

in the POS relationship. Reciprocity may also be critical in terms of PCS. According to social exchange theory, 

consistent exposure, repeated reliance, trust and favorable treatment will result in a beneficial reciprocal relationship 

among coworkers. When one person treats another well, the reciprocity norm obliges the return of favorable 

treatment (Gouldner, 1960). Regarding the norm of reciprocity, Gouldner (1960) asserts that a significant cause of 

an employee's helping behavior is how much organizational citizenship behavior (helping behavior) the employee 

has received from coworkers.  

Applied to coworker relationships, the reciprocity norm dictates that each employee reciprocates favorable 

treatment. This behavior results in mutually advantageous outcomes. For instance, coworker A staying late to help 

coworker B with a work project, because coworker B had previously switched days off with coworker A, so that 

coworker A could attend their child’s school play; or an employee offering a ride home to a fellow employee who 

has in the past been supportive of their ideas, are examples of reciprocity. In these instances the employees feel a 

sense of gratitude and responsibility toward one another; further, they each reap the rewards of the favorable 

treatment shown them. This environment should enhance employees’ attitudes and behaviors directly. In addition, it 

should help them deal with work conditions and thus reduce the costly results of stress, namely, burnout, deviance 

and turnover. 
 

Work Pressure and Burnout 
  

 External pressure is derived from an outward source which weighs heavily on one’s mental or physical state 

causing stress. In the case of work pressure, an employee’s tasks, work environment, and work relationships are all 

sources of work pressure. For example, deadlines, difficult bosses, dissatisfied customers, or the conforming of a 

project to exacting specifications, can be difficult and draining aspects of a job. Dealing with these pressures 

requires exerting energy, both mental and physical. If an individual is constantly facing these pressures alone this 

can lead to mental burnout and physical exhaustion. According to Toppinen-Tanner et al. (2002), the most often 

used definition of burnout, “is a severe syndrome which develops as a consequence of a prolonged stress situation at 

work [in addition] exhaustion is one dimension of burnout.” Further, their study found that a lack of resources and 

high job demands, such as time pressure, was positively related to exhaustion. However, POS and PCS can provide 

resources that help employees deal with the pressure. When POS and PCS are high the employees does not have to 

face the pressure alone. 
 

Figure 1: Direct and Moderating Effects of PCS and POS 
 

 
 

 

     

WORK 
  

PRESSURE 
  

  Antecedent  
    Moderators 

          Outcomes 
  

PCS   

PO S   

  Burnout / Exhaustion on  
Turnover   
Job   Satisfaction on  
Production   Deviance ce    
  



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

4 

 

Hypotheses 
 

 Figure 1 above depicts the relationships between work pressure, PCS, POS, and related outcomes. As shown in 

the figure, we expect both PCS and POS to affect employees’ experienced work pressure (H1), to directly affect the 

dependent variables of burnout, turnover, job satisfaction, and deviance (H2), and to moderate the relationship 

between work pressure and these dependent variables (H3). 

Organizational and coworker can provide resources that help employees deal with the demands of their job.  

When support is high, employees do not have to tackle the demands of the job alone. As a result, they are likely to 

experience less work pressure and stress than employees who do not have such support. Consequently, we predict: 
 

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived Organizational Support will be negatively related to employees’ experienced work 

pressure. 
 

Hypothesis 1b: Perceived Coworker Support will be negatively related to employees’ experienced work 

pressure. 
 

PCs and POS may also affect other important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. It is human nature to want to 

fit in or feel that you belong. People feel the need for an affiliation (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; McClelland, 1961). 

For example, as teenagers we form social clicks. These relationships offer a supportive and safe environment in 

which to deal with issues and pressures that arise in high school. Support during these formative years, in the social 

setting of a high school, moderates the effects of these pressures on our behavior in this same setting. In addition, we 

feel those who are supportive of us are in fact treating us fairly. This concept is continued into adulthood, where in 

the social settings provided by employers, workers gravitate toward those that offer them a supportive foundation on 

both an emotional and professional level.  

The relational model of Tyler & Lind (1992) suggests that social/psychological needs are likely to be satisfied 

when people interact with others who are procedurally fair. Support from the individuals around us contributes to 

our sense of well-being and fairness. Further, when others treat us favorably we feel the need to reciprocate 

(Gouldner, 1960); thus, the norm of reciprocity takes effect. The continued effects of reciprocity offer security. 

Workers feel secure in the knowledge that others will be there to help them with work-related needs. In addition to 

coworker relationships based on reciprocity and quid-pro-quo helping behavior, high POS and PCS may also satisfy 

employee needs for affiliation and belonging in more loosely defined organizational relationships. Both mechanisms 

lead to the same results. Specifically, we predict that PCS and POS directly affect the relationships between 

satisfaction, burnout, deviance, and turnover. Thus, we predict: 
 

Hypothesis 2a: Perceived Organizational Support will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively 

related to deviant behavior, burnout, and intentions to quit. 
 

Hypothesis 2b: Perceived Coworker Support will be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively 

related to deviant behavior, burnout, and intentions to quit. 
 

Support from coworkers affects both individual and group performance, and is fueled by the norm of reciprocity. 

In addition, there is an established link between POS and how employees negotiate their relationship with the 

organization (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Thus, it can be said that there are two moderators: POS and PCS; each 

moderates the relationship between work pressure and attitudinal outcomes. Essentially, we hypothesize that when 

POS and PCS are high the relationship between job stress/pressure and negative outcomes will be lower than when 

POS and PCS are low, indicating POS and PCS help employees deal with pressure, therefore we further predict: 
 

Hypothesis 3a: Perceived Organizational Support moderates the negative effects of work pressure such that 

high perceived organizational support reduces the relationship between a high degree of work pressure and 

job satisfaction, deviant behavior, burnout, and intentions to quit. 
 

Hypothesis 3b: Perceived Coworker Support moderates the negative effects of work pressure such that high 

perceived coworker support reduces the relationship between a high degree of work pressure and job 

satisfaction, deviant behavior, burnout, and intentions to quit. 
 

Methods 
 

We examined surveys administered to 224 dispatchers in over forty law enforcement agencies throughout the 

United States. The surveys examined the employees’ relationships with coworkers, supervisors and their perception 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

5 

 

of, and role in, the organization. This study focused primarily on the employee and coworker interactions. All 

participants were assured of anonymity. Of the respondents, 76% were women. The average age was 40 years     

(SD = 10.75) and the average tenure with their agency was 8.36 years (SD = 7.38).   
 

Measures 
 

The respondents were asked to measure the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement as it 

was presented on the survey. A 7-point Likert-type scale was used, with 1 = strongly agree and 7 = strongly 

disagree. Appendix 1 illustrates the seven scales as they appeared on the survey. 
  

Work Pressure/Stress. Six statements assessed the extent to which respondents felt they were under a high degree 

of work- !"#$!%&' !(() !&*+&,&-./0.  
  

Perceived Organizational Support. Seven statements adapted from Eisenberger et al. (1986) evaluated 

!1'"23!!(4&'! 5!'$627(&28&$9!&()''2 $&$9!3& !5!6:!%&8 21&$9!6 &2 ;#76<#$627&*+&,&-==0.   
 

Perceived Coworker Support. Five-item measure that assessed respondents perceptions of coworker support      

*+&,&-=>0. 
 

Burnout/exhaustion. Four statements measured the degree to which the employees felt their jobs left them 

burned-2)$&#7%&!?9#)($!%&*+&,&-==0.  
 

Job satisfaction. Five items from Brayfield & Rother (1951) evaluated the degree to which the employees felt 

(#$6(8#5$627&@6$9&$9!6 &A2B(&*+&,&-.=0.  
 

Production deviance. Five items were adapted from Bennett & Robinson (2000) to assess the extent to which 

dispatchers engaged in production deviance. 
   

Turnover Intentions. Four items from Chalykoff & Kochan (1989) assessed respondents intentions to leave their 

#;!753&*+&,&-=C0.  
 

Results 
 

Table 1: Presents Scale Reliabilities, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations  

for All Dependent and Independent Variables in the Study 

 
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Variables  

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

1. Work Pressure 3.23 1.24 (.79)       

2. POS 3.98 1.24 -.26** (.88)      

3. PCS 4.89 1.20 -.26** .44** (.82)     

4. Burnout 3.74 1.48 .58** -.36** -.35** (.88)    

5. Job Satisfaction 5.49 1.13 -.33** .40** .54** -.37** (.78)   

6. Deviance 2.31 1.06 .16* -.16* -.21** .13 -.20** (.67)  

7. Turnover Intentions 2.83 1.52 .23** -.48** -.39** .27** -.67** .19** (.83) 

Note: Scale reliabilities are shown in parentheses on the diagonal; **p<.01; *p<.05 

 

We tested our hypotheses with a series of step-wise multiple regression analyses. In all analyses we controlled 

for respondents’ gender, tenure with the agency, and type of shift (standard 8 hour, compressed work week etc.) as 

these have been shown to be related to work pressure and burnout. For our test of Hypothesis 1, we entered our 

control variables first. We then entered PCS and POS as a block.  Finally, we entered the PCS X Work Pressure and 

POS X Work Pressure interactions. In our analyses of Hypotheses 2 and 3, we entered our control variables first 

followed by work pressure, PCS and POS as a block and then the PCS X Stress and PCS X POS interactions. In 

testing our hypotheses we used one-tail tests for our hypothesized main effects and two-tailed tests for the 

interaction effects.   

Table 2 below depicts the effects of POS and PCS on dispatchers’ experienced work pressure and stress. As 

predicted, both PCS and POS significantly affect the extent to which employees experience work pressure and 

stress. As a result, the data support our first hypothesis. 

 

 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

6 

 

Table 2  

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses  

Effects of  PCS and POS on Work Pressure/Stress 

Dependent Variable: Work Pressure/Stress 

Independent Variables B beta 

Step 1:  Controls   

Type of Shift -.07 -.062 

Gender .057 .02 

Tenure .027* .166* 

Step 2: Main Effects   

POS -.156* -.158* 

PCS -.208** -.207** 

Total R2 .125***  

*** = p< .001 

** = p< .01 
  

 

Table 3 

Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses  

Work Pressure, PCS, POS, and Deviance 

Dependent Variable: Deviance 

Independent Variables B beta 

Step 1:  Controls   

Type of Shift -.050 -.052 

Gender -.342+ -.143+ 

Tenure .024* .167* 

Step 2: Main Effects   

Work Pressure/Stress .055 -.126 

POS -.069 -.082 

PCS -.161* -.188* 

Step 3: Interactions   

Pressure/Stress X POS 

Pressure/Stress X PCS 

.059 

-.096+ 

.099 

-.149+ 

Total R2 .127**  

** = p< .01   

* = p< .05 

+ = p<.10 
  

 

 

Table 3 depicts the results for deviance. Contrary to our expectations, job-related stress was not significantly 

associated with deviance in step 1. As shown in Table 3, the results support Hypotheses 2b and 3b. PCS exerts a 

significant direct effect on production deviation such that employees who believed they received more support from 

coworkers engaged in less deviance than did those who received less support. In addition, PCS also interacts with 

work pressure and stress to influence the extent to which respondents engage in production deviance. However, 

Hypotheses 2a and 3a were not supported as there was no significant main effect or interaction effect for POS.  

Table 4 presents our results for burnout. The results here support our first hypothesis, but not our second. As 

shown in the Table, PCS added explanatory power above and beyond the effects of POS. Both PCS and POS 

significantly influence the extent to which employees experience burnout. However, the results did not support our 

third hypothesis as related to burnout, as neither PCS nor POS interacted with work pressure/stress to affect burnout. 
 

 

Table 5 depicts the results for job satisfaction. As related to satisfaction, the results supported Hypothesis 2. As 

shown in the Table, PCS added explanatory power above and beyond the effects of POS. However, Hypothesis 3 

was not supported in regards to satisfaction as there was no significant PCS or POS X Work Pressure interaction 

effect on satisfaction. 

Table 6 below depicts the results for respondents’ intentions to leave their agency. Our first hypothesis was not 

supported as related to turnover intentions as there was no direct relationship between work pressure and 

dispatchers’ intentions to quit. In contrast, both hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported in terms of turnover intentions.  

Table 4 

Results Of Hierarchical Regression Analyses  

Work Pressure, PCS, POS, and Burnout 
Dependent Variable: Burnout 

Independent Variables B beta 

Step 1:  Controls   

Type of Shift .081 .063 

Gender .273 .084 

Tenure .046** .248** 

Step 2: Main Effects   

Work Pressure/Stress .576*** -.499*** 

POS -.293*** -.257*** 

PCS -.11+ -.095+ 

Step 3: Interactions   

Pressure/Stress X POS 
Pressure/Stress X PCS 

-.001 
-.013 

-.001 
-.015 

Total R2 .493***  

*** = p< .001   

** = p< .01 
+ = p<.10 

  

 

 Table 5 

Results Of Hierarchical Regression Analyses 

Work Pressure, PCS, POS and Job Satisfaction 

Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction 

Independent Variables B beta 

Step 1:  Controls   

Type of Shift .184** .188** 

Gender .341+ .137+ 

Tenure -.007 -.047 

Step 2: Main Effects   

Work Pressure/Stress -.153** -.175** 

POS .178*** .208*** 

PCS .383*** .437*** 

Step 3: Interactions   

Pressure/Stress X POS 
Pressure/Stress X PCS 

.059 
-.067 

.097 
-.102 

Total R2 .454***  

*** = p< .001   

** = p< .01 
+ = p<.10 

  

 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

7 

 

As shown in the Table, the direct effects for both PCS and POS were significant. In addition, both PCS and POS 

interacted with job-related pressure and stress to affect employees’ turnover intentions. 
 

Table 6 

Results Of Hierarchical Regression Analyses 

Work Pressure, PCS, POS, and Turnover Intentions 

Dependent Variable: Turnover Intentions 

Independent Variables B Beta 

Step 1:  Controls   

Type of Shift -.194+ -.142+ 

Gender0 -.482+ -140+ 

Tenure -.014 -.071 

Step 2: Main Effects   

Work Pressure/Stress .074 .061 

POS -.494*** -.412*** 

PCS -.272** -.208** 

Step 3: Interactions   

Pressure/Stress X POS 

Pressure/Stress X PCS 

-.134* 

.153* 

-.158* 

.160* 

Total R2 .369***  

*** = p<.001 
** = p<.01 

  

* = p< .05 

+ = p<.10 

  

 

Conclusion 
 

 Our research extended theory and research on POS to include PCS. We administered a survey to police 

dispatchers throughout the United States. As predicted by Hypothesis 1, both POS and PCS are significantly related 

to respondents’ experienced work pressure. Results further indicated that job-related stress directly affects burnout 

and job satisfaction. Consistent with our second set of hypotheses, both PCS and POS were positively related to job 

satisfaction and negatively related to burnout and turnover intentions. PCS was also negatively related to production 

deviance. In contrast, the results indicate no significant direct effect for POS on deviance. In addition, as predicted 

in our third hypothesis, PCS moderated the relationship between job-related stress and deviance and turnover 

intentions while POS moderated the relationship between job-related stress and turnover intentions. However, our 

further predictions in hypothesis three were not supported. Our research found that PCS and job-related stress did 

not interact to affect burnout or job satisfaction. Our results indicate that both job-related stress and PCS influence 

burnout and job satisfaction. However, their effects on these outcomes are direct and not interdependent. Although 

PCS significantly influences burnout and satisfaction, it does not appear to diminish the effects of job-related stress 

on burnout and satisfaction.   
 

Research Implications 
 

These results of this survey have important implications for both research and practice. For over twenty years 

perceived organizational support has received a great deal of attention, and has proven to be a concept worthy of 

study. Our results indicate POS significantly and directly affects employees’ felt work pressure and stress, 

satisfaction, turnover intentions and experienced burnout. POS also interacts with work pressure to affect 

employees’ turnover intentions.   

In contrast, relatively little research attention has been paid to perceived coworker support. However, our results 

indicate that PCS is also of vital importance to organizations and thus should receive greater research attention. Our 

results indicate that PCS significantly and directly affects the extent to which employees feel pressure and stress at 

work as well as their burnout, job satisfaction, deviance behavior, and turnover intentions. In addition, PCS blunted 

the effects of work pressure and stress on all four dependent variables.   

Indeed, PCS may be a more important predictor than POS for some outcomes. In our study, the direct effects of 

PCS on employee work pressure and deviant behavior were stronger than the direct effects of POS on those same 

variables. In addition, PCS moderated the effects of stress on employee deviance whereas POS did not. The 

relationship between PCS and deviance is particular noteworthy. Our results indicate that neither POS nor work 

pressure directly affects employee deviance. Additionally, the data indicate no significant interaction of POS and 

work pressure on employee deviance. In contrast, the results indicate PCS directly affects deviance and interacts 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

8 

 

with work pressure to influence employee deviant behavior. Thus, it appears that PCS may be a central driver and 

determinant of the extent to which employees engage in deviant behavior.          

Our research also suggests some avenues for future research.  First, given the importance of PCS and POS, more 

research could examine the potential antecedents of POS and PCS. Our survey methodology also does not permit us 

to determine causality. Additional research could seek to confirm our proposed casual relationships. For example, 

PCS and POS may be highly correlated with workplace effectiveness. Specifically, an ineffective worker may 

receive negative feedback and perceive that as a lack of organizational support. Similarly, an employee who does 

not meet expectations may receive less coworker support.   

Future research could also explore the parameters under which the relationships observed here generalize to 

other contexts and populations. For example, it is plausible that industries and businesses characterized by higher 

levels of pressure and stress enhance the determinants and consequences of POS and PCS relative to less stressful 

industries and businesses. Similarly, the effects of PCS and POS might be amplified or diminished among different 

cultural groups. Gender might also be an important determinant of the antecedents, consequences, and moderating 

effects of both POS and PCS. This may be particularly important because women tend to have more social 

connections at work and tend to be in jobs that are socially connected. This is an important consideration as 76% of 

our sample was female.    
 

Organizational Implications 
 

We live in difficult and stressful economic times. Changes in the way of doing business are furthering increasing 

the pressure and stress workers face. Our research shows a significant association between work-related stress and 

employee burnout, decreased job satisfaction, increased turnover intentions, and increased deviant behavior of 

employees. Whether the deviant behavior is used as a coping mechanism or retaliation, it is counter-productive.  

However, our results indicate POS and PCS mitigate the effects of stress on employee attitudes and behaviors.  

Specifically, POS moderated the relationships between stress and turnover and satisfaction while PCS moderated the 

relationship between stress and the outcomes of deviance and turnover. When POS and PCS are high, stress has less 

of an effect on turnover, satisfaction and deviant behavior. In addition, POS and PCS both directly affected 

deviance, turnover, satisfaction, and burnout. In short, in today’s uncertain and stressful economic environment, 

organizational effectiveness may hinge on providing workers organizational support and on creating an environment 

in which employees can get by with a little help from their coworkers.   

Organizations can help to foster a supportive environment in several ways. First, they may provide training 

courses which include such topics as: interpersonal relationships, dealing with stress, and ways to assist your 

coworkers. Second, they may wish to consider the implementation of work groups and teams.  However, there may 

be a paradox here. On the one hand, based on our results, we suggest that perceived coworker support likely 

influences group effectiveness. At the same time, the formation of work teams may also enhance perceived 

coworker support. As such, this may become a self-reinforcing cycle. Given these possibilities, the relationship 

between PCS and work groups and teams appears to be a promising avenue for future research. 

Additionally, organizations may need to they can modify their reward system to give additional valuable rewards 

for supportive interpersonal behaviors. Kerr’s classic article on the folly of rewarding A when organizations want B, 

indicates that organizations that wish to enhance perceived coworker support need to reward supportive and helpful 

behavior rather than competitive, individual oriented behaviors.     

Finally, it may prove valuable to facilitate offsite bonding opportunities through company sponsored social 

events. In difficult economic times company social events are often among the first things cut. However, in the 

midst of difficulty and turmoil, it may be more important than ever for companies to provide these opportunities as a 

means of facilitating workplace cohesiveness which may then lead to greater coworker support. In turn, this support 

from coworkers may enable workers to avoid burnout and maintain job satisfaction despite the current stressful 

conditions of the economy generally and their organization specifically. As a result, such support may be what 

motivates employees to stick with the company and to refrain from organizational deviance behaviors. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. 1998. Perceived organizational support and police performance: 

The moderating influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 288-297. 
 

Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. 2003. Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical 

integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 491-509. 
 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

9 

 

Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.   
 

Bishop, J., Scott, K., & Burroughs, S. 2000. Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. 

Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113-1132. 
 

Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley 
 

Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307-311. 
 

Chalykoff, J., & Kochan, T. 1989. Computer-aided monitoring: Its influence on employee job satisfaction and 

turnover.  Personnel Psychology, 42(4), 807-834. 
 

Cropanzano, R., & Schminke, M. 2001. Using social justice to build effective work groups. In M.E. Turner (Ed.), 

Groups at work: Theory and research, pp. 143-172. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
 

Deckop, J., Cirka, C., & Andersson, L. 2003. Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in 

organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 101-113. 
 

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. 2001. Reciprocation of perceived 

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42-51. 
 

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. 1997. Perceived organizational support, discretionary 

treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820.  
 

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. 1990. Perceived organizational support and employee diligence. 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59. 
 

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. 
 

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. 2002. Perceived supervisor 

support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 87(3), 565-573.   
 

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 1998. Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 
 

George, J., & Brief, A. 1992. Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work: Organizational 

spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310-329. 
 

George, J., Reed, T., Ballard, K., Colin, J., & Fielding, J. 1993. Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-

related distress: Effects of organizational and social support. Academy of Management Journal, 36(1), 157-

171. 
 

Guzzo, R. 1995. Introduction: At the intersection of team effectiveness and decision making. In R. A. Guzzo and E. 

Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. (pp. 1-8).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.  
 

Hutchison, S., Sowa, D., Eisenberger, R., & Huntington, R. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. 
 

Kerr, S.  1975. On the folly of Rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-

783. 
 

Konovsky, M. 2000. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of 

Management, 26(2), 486-512. 
 

Lynch, D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 1999. Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior 

performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 467-483. 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

10 

 

 McClelland, D. 1961. The Achieving Society. New York: MacMillan Company.   
 

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 2001.Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of 

perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-836.  
 

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R.  2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.  
 

Toppinen-Tanner, S., Kalimo, R., & Mutanen, P. 2002. The process of burnout in white-collar and blue-collar jobs: 

Eight-year prospective study of exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 555-570. 

 

Tyler, T., & Lind, E. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental 

social psychology, vol. 25: 115–191. New York: Academic Press. 
 

 

G. Stoney Alder is an associate professor of management at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He received his 

Ph.D. in organization management from University of Colorado at Boulder. His current research interests include 

organizational justice, business ethics, and performance monitoring. He has published in Organizational Behavior 

and Human Decision Processes, Human Resource Management Review, Human Resource Management, Journal of 

Business Ethics and others.       
 

Daniel McAllister is an associate professor of management at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He received his 

Ph.D. from University of Washington in Seattle. He was named a master teacher in 2012. His research interests 

include performance evaluation, team building and pedagogy. He has published in Academy of Management 

Review and Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, (OBHP), and others. 
 

John Chase is 20 year veteran with the Boulder City Police Department. He received his MBA from University of 

Nevada at Las Vegas. His current research interests include social exchange theory, police officer suicides and 

appropriate usage of levity and humor. He authors a monthly column for Boulder City Magazine where he discusses 

the police profession with his readers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Alder, McAllister, and Chase                                                                                                                                        Advances in Business Research 

                                                                                                                                                                                               2012, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1-11 

11 

 

Appendix 1: Questionnaire 
 

 

Antecedent 

Strongly       Strongly  

  disagree        agree   

Work pressure  

I have no problems with my coworkers. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I have to work too fast 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My agency provides adequate staffing levels. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I work under considerable time pressure. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I have problems with the pace of work.  1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I wish I could work at an easier pace. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Moderators  

PCS  

My coworkers care about my well being. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

If necessary, I can ask my coworkers for help. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My coworkers are a source of frustration for me. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I can rely on my coworkers when things get tough at work. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My coworkers show very little concern for me. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

POS  

My agency strongly considers my goals and value. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My agency cares about my opinions. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My agency shows very little concern for me. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My agency really cares about my well being. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My agency would forgive an honest mistake on my part. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

My agency is willing to help me when I need a special favor. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Help is available from my company when I have a problem. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Outcomes  

Turnover  

I often follow up on job leads I have heard about. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I view this job as something I would like to continue doing for the foreseeable future. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Before long I will be leaving this company. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I view this job as something to do until I can find a better job elsewhere. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Burnout/exhaustion  

After a working day, I frequently feel too fatigued to engage in any other activity.  

At the end of a working day, I feel really fatigued. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Due to my job, I feel rather exhausted at the end of a working day. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

During the last stage of a working shift, I frequently feel too fatigued to perform well.  1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Job Satisfaction  

My job is pretty uninteresting. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I find real enjoyment in my work. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I consider my job rather unpleasant. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I am disappointed I ever took this job. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

Production Deviance  

I sometimes intentionally work slower than I am capable of working. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I occasionally take an additional or a longer break than is acceptable at my agency. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

In the past year, I have violated formal call taking and subsequent dispatching procedures  

and guidelines at least once. 

1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

I sometimes go against my boss’s decisions. 1    2    3    4    5    6    7 

 


