Content uploaded by Florence Stinglhamber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Florence Stinglhamber on Nov 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 1
In press in European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
Perceived Organizational Support and Employees’ Well-Being:
The Mediating Role of Organizational Dehumanization
Gaëtane Caesens, Florence Stinglhamber, Stéphanie Demoulin, and Matthias De Wilde
Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gaëtane Caesens, Université
catholique de Louvain, Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Place Cardinal Mercier, 10,
L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. E-mail: gaetane.caesens@uclouvain.be. Phone:
+32 10 47 42 99. Fax: +32 10 47 37 74.
Acknowledgments
Gaëtane Caesens is a (Aspirant (ASP) = Research Fellow) of the Fonds de la Recherche
Scientifique-FNRS.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 2
Abstract
Perceived organizational support (POS) has been found to predict important
organizational outcomes such as increasing employees’ well-being. In this research, we
examine a new underlying mechanism of the relationship between POS and employees’ well-
being, i.e. employees’ perceptions that their organization dehumanizes them. This proposition
was tested across two studies. Using an experimental design manipulating POS in a laboratory
setting, Study 1 indicated that in the high POS condition the subsequent feelings of being
dehumanized by the organization were lower than in the low POS condition. More
importantly, organizational dehumanization perceptions were found to mediate the POS
condition and satisfaction link. Furthermore, using a sample of 1209 employees, results of
Study 2 indicated that organizational dehumanization mediates the relationship between POS
and three indicators of employees’ well-being (i.e., job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and
psychosomatic strains). Implications for research on both organizational support theory and
dehumanization theory are discussed.
Keywords: Perceived organizational support; organizational dehumanization; job
satisfaction; emotional exhaustion; psychosomatic strains.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 3
Perceived Organizational Support and Employees’ Well-Being:
The Mediating Role of Organizational Dehumanization
Understanding the way employees perceive their relationship with their organization has
emerged as a major concern for organizational behavior scholars during the last decades (e.g.,
Shore, Coyle-Shapiro, & Tetrick, 2012). In exploring the employee-organization relationship,
numerous studies have focused their attention on the construct of perceived organizational
support (POS) defined as employees’ general perception regarding “the extent to which their
organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). Rooted in the social exchange theory and the
norm of reciprocity, organizational support theory (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger
and Stinglhamber, 2011; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002) suggests that employees reciprocate
for the positive treatments received by the organization by developing more favorable
attitudes and behaviors toward this organization. Research in this domain has indeed shown
that employees respond to high levels of POS by developing many positive work attitudes,
behaviors, and by experiencing higher levels of subjective well-being (e.g., Baran, Shanock,
& Miller, 2012; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002).
Aside from the well-developed concept of POS, scholars interested in employee-
organization relationships have also recently started to examine the construct of
organizational dehumanization. Drawn from the social psychology literature (e.g., Haslam,
2006; Leyens et al., 2000, 2001), organizational dehumanization refers to “the experience of
an employee who feels objectified by his or her organization, denied personal subjectivity,
and made to feel like a tool or instrument for the organization’s ends” (Bell & Khoury, 2011,
p. 170). According to this recent literature, the perception of being dehumanized by one’s
organization has detrimental effects on employees’ attitudes towards the organization (e.g.,
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 4
increasing their intentions to quit), and on their well-being (Bell & Khoury, 2011, 2016)
because it thwarts individuals’ fundamental needs (Christoff, 2014).
Despite the obvious relevance of both POS and organizational dehumanization in the
employee-organization relationship, these two literatures have largely developed
independently from one another. The present research aims to link these two constructs in a
single integrative model depicting the employee-organization relationship. More precisely, in
the present research, we argue that high levels of POS will reduce organizational
dehumanization perceptions among employees by conveying that their organization values
them as a unique individual and considers their individual needs. Furthermore, drawing on the
proposition that organizational dehumanization is detrimental for employees’ well-being (Bell
& Khoury, 2011), we postulate that organizational dehumanization will mediate the well-
demonstrated positive relationship between POS and employees’ subjective well-being. By
doing so, the present work will contribute to the organizational and management literature in
several ways.
First and foremost, it contributes to an enrichment of organizational support theory (e.g.,
Baran et al., 2012; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). Indeed, while organizational support theory mainly explains the positive
consequences of POS through a social exchange perspective, this theory also suggests that
POS leads to beneficial outcomes by fulfilling employees’ socioemotional needs, contributing
to self-enhancement processes (e.g., Kurtessis et al., 2015). Even if this mechanism has been
proposed in the early development of organizational support theory, the “emphasis on need
fulfillment is often omitted” in the literature (Vardaman et al., 2016, p. 1484). Interestingly,
the literature on dehumanization (Christoff, 2014) suggests that people experiencing
dehumanization treatments have their fundamental needs thwarted which harm self-
enhancement processes and therefore leads to foster individuals’ unwell-being. By showing
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 5
the mediating role of organizational dehumanization in the POS-well-being relationship, we
thus contribute to a better understanding of self-enhancement processes described in
organizational support theory.
Second, the present research adds to the burgeoning literature on dehumanization
applied to work settings (e.g., Bell & Khoury, 2011, 2016; Christoff, 2014) by providing first
evidence of its nomological network. Practically, organizational dehumanization is in need of
research as this phenomenon has been described as a frequent experience for workers in
modern organizational settings (e.g., Christoff, 2014). As recently stated by Rochford, Jack,
Boyatzis, and French (2016), there “appears to be a growing tendency for organizations and
leaders to see humans as “means” rather than “ends in themselves’” (p. 9). As a matter of fact,
organizational discourse encourages and facilitates the dehumanization of its people when it
refers to persons only “as a means to accomplishing organizational ends (e.g., ‘people are an
asset to be allocated’)”, or “as commodities, products, or resources of monetary value (e.g.,
‘human capital’)” (Rochford et al., 2016, p. 9). More generally, characterized by an ever-
advancing technological development, repeated restructurations reducing the size of the
workforce while the workload remains stable, and impersonal organizations where personal
agency is frustrated by formal bureaucratic procedures, today’s workplace often considers the
employee as a robot or tool that is the property of and is used by the organization for its own
purposes (e.g., Bell & Khoury, 2011; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Despite its
relevance, the construct of organizational dehumanization has been underdeveloped both in
the organizational psychology and management literatures. Below, we present the theoretical
arguments underlying each hypothesis included in our theoretical model (see Figure 1).
Perceived Organizational Support
Since the introduction of the POS construct in the organizational literature, several
studies have shown that POS is positively related to numerous positive outcomes (e.g., Baran
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 6
et al., 2012; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Specifically, Eisenberger
and Stinglhamber (2011) proposed in their literature review that POS outcomes can be
categorized in three main categories: increased (1) favorable attitudes toward organization and
work (e.g., affective commitment, work engagement), (2) beneficial behavioral outcomes
(e.g., performance), and (3) employees’ subjective well-being (e.g., job satisfaction and
health).
Organizational support theory (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger &
Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) also provided a
theoretical framework to describe how POS operates to generate each of its three categories of
positive consequences. As summarized by Baran et al. (2012), three main processes have been
identified to explain the relationship between POS and its consequences. First, rooted in the
social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), organizational support theory holds that because
POS provides tangible and intangible resources to employees, the norm of reciprocity
(Gouldner, 1960) produces a felt obligation among employees to care about organizational
welfare and help the organization to reach its goals (Eisenberger et al., 1986). This
fundamental mechanism mainly explains how POS leads to positive employees’ attitudes and
behaviors. Second, organizational support theory states that POS conveys to employees that
increased efforts will be rewarded (e.g., Baran et al., 2012; Eisenberger et al., 1986;
Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). In other words, POS provides an assurance that
investments that employees put into their organization will be reciprocated and thus rewarded
(Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011), which contributes to increase employees’ positive
attitudes and behaviors toward the organization. Finally, POS is assumed to fulfill several
socioemotional needs in the workplace, such as the need for esteem, affiliation, emotional
support, and approval (e.g., Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch,1998; Baran et al., 2012;
Eisenberger et al., 1896; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 7
Such fulfillment of employees’ socioemotional needs contributes to a self-enhancement
process leading to positive attitudes and to greater employees’ subjective well-being
(Kurtessis et al., 2015). The fundamental processes underlying the links between POS and
employees’ attitudes and behaviors have been extensively studied in organizational support
theory (e.g., Armeli et al., 1998; Baran et al., 2012; Caesens, Marique, & Stinglhamber, 2014;
Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli,
2001). In contrast, underlying mechanisms of the relationship between POS and employees’
subjective well-being have received rather limited research attention (Baran et al., 2012). Such
imbalance has led scholars to call for more research on underlying processes that might help
to better understand the link between POS and employees’ well-being (Kurtessis et al., 2015).
In the present research, we propose that organizational dehumanization perceptions may act as
one of these mechanisms.
Organizational Dehumanization
Drawn from the social psychology literature (Haslam, 2006; Haslam & Loughnan,
2014; Leyens et al., 2000, 2001), the term dehumanization refers to “a psychological
phenomenon whereby people perceive of other human beings as something lesser than, or
profoundly different from, themselves; in other words, their human characteristics are being
denied” (Väyrynen & Laari-Salmela, 2015, p. 2). It is a pervasive phenomenon which not
only applies to extremely stigmatized groups in our societies (e.g., homeless people or
criminals) but that also affects (in a more subtle way) members of relatively less stigmatized
social categories such as medical patients (e.g., Vaes & Muratore 2013), woman (Vaes,
Paladino, & Puvia, 2011), and occupational groups (Loughnan & Haslam, 2007).
Haslam (2006) proposed a convenient theoretical model of dehumanization which
suggests that humanity can be denied at two levels leading to two forms of dehumanization:
animalistic dehumanization and mechanistic dehumanization. First, animalistic
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 8
dehumanization refers to the tendency to deny features that distinguish humans from animals
(i.e., uniquely human features) such as civility, refinement, moral sensibility, rationality, and
maturity. An animalistic form of dehumanization leads to the perceptions that the target is
lacking culture, that he or she is coarse, amoral, irrational, and childlike. This type of
dehumanization has been frequently examined in relation with immigration, war, and
genocide (e.g., Kelman, 1973; Staub, 1989).
Second, mechanistic dehumanization occurs when others are being compared or
associated with non-human objects (object or automata; Haslam, 2006). When others are
being dehumanized this way, they are perceived as lacking features that define human nature:
individuality, interpersonal warmth, cognitive openness, and agency/depth. Thus, mechanistic
dehumanization leads to the perception that the target is superficial, rigid, passive, cold,
fungible, and is replaceable/interchangeable. Mechanistic dehumanization has been evidenced
in many domains and affects a series of very different targets. For instance, mechanistic
dehumanization has been related to patient’s treatment in modern medicine (in which the
increased reliance on technology can lead to the treatment of human patients as defective
machines; Haque & Waytz, 2012), or to side-effects of computer uses (i.e., “the robotic
pursuit of efficiency and regularity, automaton-like rigidity and conformity, and an approach
of life that is unemotional, apathetic and lacking in spontaneity”; Haslam, 2006, pp. 253-254;
see also Beckers & Schmidt, 2001).
Interestingly, if both forms of dehumanization should exist in the context of work, the
second form of dehumanization, i.e. mechanistic dehumanization, has been suggested to be
more prone to occur in organizational settings and is more frequently discussed in the context
of work (e.g., Bell & Khoury, 2011; Christoff, 2014). Only a scarce number of studies have
recently started to examine empirically this phenomenon in the workplace (e.g., Bell &
Khoury, 2016; Christoff, 2014; Väyrynen & Laari-Salmela, 2015). Yet, such a perception that
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 9
one is being treated by the organization -or by its representatives- as a mere object is not void
of important consequences. Indeed, “dehumanization is a negative experience that diminishes
the individual and is therefore likely to motivate the individual to dissociate from the
organization” (Bell & Khoury, 2011, p. 184). More importantly, according to several scholars
(e.g., Christoff, 2014) dehumanizing treatments might impair employees well-being by
enhancing, for instance, their level of anxiety or depression as it thwarts basic individual
needs such as the needs for competence or relatedness. In accordance with this view,
Baldissarri, Andrighetto, and Volpato (2014) found that employees who felt treated like an
instrument by their supervisor, reported higher level of job burnout (in terms of emotional
exhaustion and cynicism) which, in turn, led to an internalization of these objectifying
perceptions (i.e., “self-perception of lacking human mental capacities”, Baldissarri et al.,
2014, p. 5). Lately, Andrighetto, Baldissarri, and Volpato (2016) showed that several key
objective characteristics of the work, i.e. repetitiveness of movements, fragmentation of
activities, and dependence on the machine, enhance people’ view of a target employee as an
instrument, less able to experience human mental states. Finally, results of Bell and Khoury’s
(2016) research indicated that procedural justice reduced employees’ organizational
dehumanization perceptions, which in turn increased employees’ turnover intentions among
women.
POS and Organizational Dehumanization
In the present work, we argue that POS should decrease employees’ perceptions that
they are dehumanized by their organization. Several theoretical reasons support this
prediction. First, according to Kelman (1976), rejecting or excluding individuals from their
community’ membership is one key component of treating others as less than humans. In line
with this argument, Bastian and Haslam (2010) have shown experimentally that social
ostracism enhances feeling of mechanistic dehumanization. Thus, it can be argued, on the
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 10
contrary, that, by conveying “employees that the organization is committed to them and
accepts them as welcomed members” (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011, p. 58) and by
satisfying their socioemotional needs (more particularly, their need for affiliation; Baran et al.,
2012), POS might help to reduce the feelings of being treated as less than human or as an
object.
Second, dehumanization feelings have been shown to rise from the perception that one
has been treated by others with disrespected, arrogance, neglect, humiliation, and
thoughtlessness, or when one is not being recognized as having an existence that is socially
valuable (Bastian & Haslam, 2011). Indeed, maltreatments that involve “exploitation, betrayal
or conditional regard” (Bastian & Haslam, 2011, p. 296), lead targets to feel considered as a
means to an end or an object (i.e., the mechanistic form of dehumanization). In the same line,
Renger, Mommert, Renger, and Simon (2016) have proposed that equality recognition, in
terms of social self-esteem and care, can help individuals to protect against humiliation or
dehumanization. These authors showed that high equality-based (dis)respect received from
group members enhances the feeling of being treated as a (non)human being. POS by
definition implies that the organization treats its employees respectfully. Indeed, POS implies
a positive regard toward employees through which the organization values their contributions
and cares for their well-being (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Therefore, we can
postulate that POS will convey employees that they are valued and respected as full human
beings of both value and worth which should, in turn, reduces organizational dehumanization
perceptions.
In sum, a workplace environment that helps employees fulfill their fundamental needs
such as need for belonging, relatedness or respect should reduce organizational
dehumanization perceptions (Bell & Khoury, 2016). As a matter of fact, some scholars
(Väyrynen & Laari-Salmela, 2015) have already proposed that employee’ perceptions that
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 11
“the employer is concerned with their welfare” and “takes interest in their needs” (p. 4)
should be linked to organizational dehumanization. However, to the best of our knowledge,
this theoretical proposition has never been tested at the empirical level. In the present paper,
we take this endeavor and hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: POS is negatively related to organizational dehumanization perceptions.
Organizational Dehumanization as a Mediator of the Relationship Between POS and
Well-Being
As indicated earlier, organizational support theory (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011;
Kurtessis et al., 2015) early suggested that POS is related to employees’ subjective well-
being. How their organization values and cares about them must indeed have a substantial
influence on employees’ welfare at work by making the workplace more pleasant
(Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). In agreement with this view, several studies reported
that POS is positively related to a wide number of indicators of employees’ subjective well-
being such as increased levels of job satisfaction (e.g., Caesens & Stinglhamber, 2014;
Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997), decreased levels of burnout (e.g., Kang,
Twigg, & Hertzman, 2010), psychological strains (e.g., Caesens & Stinglhamber, 2014), and
psychosomatic complaints (e.g., Karonglar, Eisenberger, & Aselage, 2016).
In addition, several authors have suggested that mechanistic dehumanizing experiences
might be detrimental for individuals’ psychological well-being (e.g., Bastian & Haslam, 2011;
Christoff, 2014). For instance, Christoff (2014), based on Bastian and Haslam’s (2011), work
stated that “when people are mechanistically dehumanized by being treated as objects, as
means to an end, or as lacking the capacity for feeling, they tend to enter into “cognitive
deconstructive” states that are characterized by reduced clarity of thought, emotional
numbing, cognitive inflexibility, and an absence of meaningful thought” (p. 2). Interestingly,
in the organizational psychology literature, Shore and Coyle-Shapiro (2012) also suggested
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 12
that “being in a relationship with an organization that is destructive and demeaning is likely to
invoke perceptions of relational devaluation, unfairness and is also likely to thwart an
individual’s basic needs” (p. 155). Prior scholars (Gillet, Fouquereau, Forest, Brunault, &
Colombat, 2012; Shore & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012) similarly suggested that the violation of
employees’ basic needs, such as the need of self-esteem or belonging, has a detrimental effect
on employees’ health and subjective well-being. More generally, need fulfillment was found
to be consistently associated with subjective well-being across world regions (Tay & Diener,
2011).
The above arguments and evidence led us to consider that dependent variables
capturing employees’ subjective well-being were particularly relevant in the present research
to the extent that the relationship between lack of POS and dehumanization thwarts socio-
emotional needs of employees. More precisely, we proposed that organizational
dehumanization will act as an important underlying mechanism in the positive relationship
between POS and employees’ subjective well-being (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011).
In the present research, we operationalized employees’ well-being as the manifestation of a
high level of job satisfaction, low levels of emotional exhaustion, and psychosomatic strains.
More precisely, we refer to the common conceptualization of well-being proposed by Diener,
Scollon, and Lucas (2004) and characterized as employees’ emotional responses, moods, and
assessment of their satisfaction. More importantly, as the affective dimension of well-being is
considered as the most central aspect of occupational well-being (e.g., van Horn, Taris,
Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2004), we included job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion which
are frequently used in the literature to reflect this dimension of employees’ well-being (e.g.,
Audenaert, Vanderstraeten, & Buyens, 2016). In addition, because psychosomatic strains
(e.g., complaining about headaches) and the affective dimension of well-being are commonly
strongly interrelated (e.g., Kinunnen, Parkatti, & Rasku, 1994) and “constitutes an important
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 13
dimension of a broad conceptualization of well-being” (van Horn et al., 2004, p. 369), we also
measured employee’ psychosomatic strains. Thus, we posited that:
Hypothesis 2: Organizational dehumanization mediates the relationship between POS
and employees’ (a) satisfaction, (b) emotional exhaustion, and (c) psychosomatic strains.
Studies Overview
Our hypotheses were tested using two different research methodologies: (1) one
laboratory experimental study using vignettes manipulating POS among a population of
students (Study 1) and (2) a field cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire among
a diverse sample of workers originating from a variety of organizations (Study 2). The use of
complementary methodologies allowed us to provide strong evidence of causality (Study 1)
and to assess the external validity of our hypotheses in real work settings (Study 2). The
combination of these two methods is thus complementary in a way that it allows to take
benefits from each method and to compensate for the weaknesses of one method by the
strengths of the other (e.g., De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002). The first study was
designed to test our Hypotheses 1 and 2a. The second study tested all our Hypotheses (i.e.,
Hypotheses 1, 2a, 2b, and 2c) among workers of real organizations.
Study 1
Method
Participants and design.
One hundred and ninety-four undergraduate psychology students of a University in
Belgium participated in the experiment for course credits (172 women, 22 men; mean age =
21.20 years, SD = 3.94 years).
Procedure and experimental manipulation.
Upon arriving in the laboratory, participants were welcomed by the experimenter.
They were invited to complete a task on a computer. All further instructions were provided on
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 14
the computer screen. POS was manipulated by the use of two vignettes (i.e., high versus low
POS) and participants were randomly assigned to one of these two conditions. General
instructions explained participants that the Faculty of Psychology aimed at testing first-year
bachelor students’ level of reading comprehension. Participants were then exposed to a report
supposedly written by the student representatives of the prior year and based on a quantitative
survey conducted within the faculty. In the high POS condition, the text reported that the
majority of the students perceived the faculty as providing high organizational support (i.e.,
students feel supported by their faculty). In the low POS condition, the report yielded that the
majority of the students perceived the faculty as providing low organizational support (i.e.,
students do not feel supported by their faculty). To reinforce the effect of the manipulation
and to enhance the realism of our cover story, students were further asked to respond to
several questions related to the level of reading comprehension. All the students reported
correctly what they had read. A manipulation check was included immediately after the
reading comprehension items in order to check the effectiveness of our manipulation. After
the manipulation check, we assessed among other things our variables of interest, namely
organizational dehumanization and students’ overall satisfaction with their studies. In this
student context, we reasoned that satisfaction with the studies would be the variable what
most closely matches with the construct of job satisfaction in a work context.
Measures.
All items were assessed using a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly
disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).
Manipulation check. We measured our manipulation check with 8 items adapted from
the SPOS (Eisenberger et al., 1986) (Cronbach’s alpha = .85). A sample item is “My faculty
really cares about my well-being”.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 15
Organizational dehumanization. Immediately after the manipulation check, we
measured organizational dehumanization perceptions. In order to assess these perceptions, we
developed an original pool of 22 items reflecting the different facets of mechanistic
dehumanization: inertness/coldness/rigidity, fungibility/interchangeability, and
instrumentality. Following the recommendations for scale development by DeVellis (1991),
these items were developed after a literature review on the dehumanization construct both
from the social (e.g., Bastian & Haslam, 2011; Haslam, 2006; Nussbaum, 1995) and the
organizational psychology literatures (Bell & Khoury, 2011). After a careful screening of
these extant measures, we constructed items that would best suit the workplace context and
refer to an organizational target. To assist in the refinement and culling of our pool of items
that might be spurious or overlapping, we asked an expert in the field of dehumanization to
rate each item and to highlight those that appeared redundant, irrelevant or unclear. We also
assessed the validity of our items by collecting data through questionnaires and by conducting
statistical analyses (see Study 2, for more details). Finally, we also consulted a colleague in
management who conducted interviews on a related topic to better identify which key
components of the organizational dehumanization construct should be comprised in the items.
This was done in order to meet face validity. Finally, based on the above process, we selected
11 final items (see full scale in Table 1). These 11 items were then slightly adapted in order to
fit the experimental context. A sample item is: “My faculty considers me as a number” (11
items; Cronbach’s alpha = .89). We performed exploratory factor analyses using SPSS.23 on
the 11 items measuring organizational dehumanization. The results of a first EFA indicated a
two-factor structure. Nevertheless, a close examination of the scree plot and eigenvalue (the
second factor accounting for 9.30 % of variance; eigenvalue = 1.02) as well as the factor
loadings, led to the conclusion that only one factor was relevant. We therefore performed an
EFA imposing a one-factor solution. Results of this EFA are presented in Table 1 and
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 16
indicated that the variance extracted from this one-factor solution was 48.17 %. All factor
loadings were greater than .50. Finally, we also conducted confirmatory factor analyses which
confirmed the one-factor structure (see Table 1 for more details).
Studies satisfaction. We measured university studies satisfaction using 4 adapted
items from Eisenberger et al.’s (1997) scale of job satisfaction. A sample item is: “All in all, I
am very satisfied with my studies” (Cronbach’s alpha = .81).
---------------------------
INSERT TABLE 1ABOUT HERE
--------------------------
Results
POS-Manipulation check. We conducted a regression analysis on the POS measure
(low POS condition coded 0 and high POS condition coded 1). As expected, results showed
that our manipulation was effective in inducing different perceptions of organizational support
(β = .33, p < .001). Participants in the high POS condition reported significantly higher levels
of POS (M = 4.73; SD = .09) than participants in the low POS condition (M = 4.06; SD = .11).
Main analyses. We first assess the impact of our manipulation of POS on
organizational dehumanization by means of a regression analysis. Supporting Hypothesis 1,
results confirmed that the POS manipulation had a negative effect on organizational
dehumanization (β = -.19, p < .01). Participants in the high POS condition reported lower
levels of organization dehumanization (M = 3.28; SD = 1.03) than participants in the low POS
condition (M = 3.68; SD = 1.06).
In order to test Hypothesis 2a, suggesting a mediating role of organizational
dehumanization in the relationship between POS and satisfaction, hierarchical regression
analyses were conducted following the recommendation of Baron and Kenny (1986). First,
replicating previous findings in the literature, results indicated that POS positively predicted
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 17
students’ satisfaction with their studies (β = .22, p < .01). Second, we entered organizational
dehumanization in the prediction of students’ satisfaction. Results showed that, when
organizational dehumanization is controlled for, the effect of POS on satisfaction was reduced
though it remained significant (β = .13, p < .05). At the same time, the effect of organizational
dehumanization on students’ satisfaction proved to be highly significant. The more students
perceived to be dehumanized by their faculty, the less satisfaction they reported with their
studies (β = -.47, p < .001). Finally, a bootstrap analysis (Hayes, 2013; macro PROCESS,
model 4; 5000 iterations) further indicated that the unstandardized indirect effect of POS on
satisfaction via organizational dehumanization was significant (indirect effect = .18, BCa 95%
CI = [.05; .36]). In sum, and in line with Hypothesis 2a, our results confirmed that
organizational dehumanization partially mediates the effect of POS on satisfaction.
Discussion
Study 1 provides first experimental evidence that POS has a negative effect on
individuals’ perceptions of organizational dehumanization (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, our
findings indicate that these organizational dehumanization perceptions mediate the positive
relationship between POS and satisfaction, supporting Hypothesis 2a. To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first research that examines the relationship between POS and
organizational dehumanization and, more particularly, their causal relationship. Despite its
important contributions, this first study was conducted in a laboratory setting and the scenario
was adapted to a convenient sample of students rather than a real population of workers. Van
Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005) stressed that using a student sample “should not be
considered problematic for experimental studies that are aimed at establishing causality in
relationships with high internal validity, and there is no reason to expect students to behave
differently from other populations” (p. 35). However, it raises the question whether the same
findings would be observed in real organizational settings and among real employees. Our
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 18
second study was designed to address these limitations. It is based on an online questionnaire
distributed to employees working in a broad variety of organizations. In addition to the
replication of our results in a more ecological context, Study 2 aims at testing a broader
variety of outcomes related to employees’ well-being (i.e., job satisfaction, emotional
exhaustion, and psychosomatic strains).
Study 2
Method
Sample and procedure.
We decided to collect data from a diverse sample of workers for two main reasons.
First, having a sample composed of workers coming from a variety of organizations and jobs
was a necessary requirement for external validity and increases the potential generalizability
of the findings. Second, because we assessed organizational dehumanization with a new scale
for the first time, we aimed at getting sufficient variability in the perceptions of organizational
dehumanization. More precisely, we used a convenience sample of alumni from a Belgian
University. These prospective participants were approached via email and were invited to take
part in an online questionnaire as part of a larger survey on the topic “recognition at work”.
Participants were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and kept confidential.
In order to encourage individuals to complete our questionnaire, participants were offered the
chance to win one of five different prizes (as part of a lottery). A total of 1407 workers
participated in the study. Among this sample, 1209 participants fully completed our
questionnaire on our variables of interest or were eligible to be part of our final sample (i.e.,
not reporting being self-employed). Among these participants, 48.97% were females, 48.14%
males, and 2.89% omitted to indicate their gender. The final sample of employees had an
average age of 38.93 years (SD = 11.27) and had been employed by their organization for an
average of 8.78 years (SD = 8.98). Participants worked in a variety of jobs, the most of
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 19
common of which were health and social services (18.28%), teaching and education
(13.56%), public sector (13.32%), science and pharmaceutics industry (7.11%), and
engineering and manufacturing (6.62%). The major part of participants (71.38%) held a
master degree. In addition, 7.44% worked in small enterprises (1 to 10 employees), 16.87% in
organizations between 11 and 49 employees, 20.02 % in organizations between 50 and 249
employees, 7.53 % in organizations between 250 and 500 employees, and 45.33% worked in
large organizations (> 500 employees) (2.81% omitted to indicate the size of their
organization). Finally, a total of 82.30% participants were full-time workers.
Measures. The response scale for all items ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree), unless otherwise specified.
POS. Organizational support perceptions were assessed using 8 items of the Survey of
POS from Eisenberger and his colleagues (1986). A sample item is “My organization really
cares about my well-being”.
Organizational dehumanization. Organizational dehumanization perceptions were
assessed with the same 11 items (see Table 1 for the full scale) used in Study 1. Sample items
are “My organization considers me as a tool to use for its own ends”, and “If my job could be
done by a machine or a robot, my organisation would not hesitate to replace me by this new
technology”. As indicated in Table 1, results of both EFA and CFA performed on these 11
items indicated a clear one-factor structure of this scale with satisfactory factor loadings.
Job Satisfaction. Employees’ job satisfaction was assessed using the 4 items from
Eisenberger et al. (1997). A sample item is “All in all, I am very satisfied with my current
job”.
Emotional exhaustion. Employees’ emotional exhaustion was measured using the 9
items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) developed by Maslach and Jackson (1981).
An item used to measure emotional exhaustion is “I feel emotionally drained from my work”.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 20
Responses to these items were provided using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 7
(“Every day”).
Psychosomatic strains. Psychosomatic strains were measured using 7 items from the
Physical Strains Inventory (PSI) developed by Spector and Jex (1998). These seven items or
symptoms were selected because of their relevance to our sample which included a large
diversity of workers. This selection procedure was already used by prior scholars (e.g.,
Jennings, Sinclair, & Mohr, 2016; Karonglar et al., 2016). Participants indicated the
frequency by which they felt each type of symptoms during the last month on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 7 (“Always”). Symptoms are trouble sleeping,
headache, acid indigestion or heartburn, eye strain, loss of appetite, dizziness, and fatigue.
Control variables. As recommended by Becker et al. (2005), we examined the
empirical relationships between our socio-demographic variables and the dependent variables
of our model (i.e., organizational dehumanization, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and
psychosomatic strains). As indicated in Table 2, several socio-demographic variables
displayed significant correlations with the dependent variables of our model (i.e., age,
organizational tenure, and organizational size correlated with organizational dehumanization;
organizational tenure correlated with job satisfaction; gender correlated with both emotional
exhaustion and psychosomatic strains). Following Becker et al.’s (2005; 2015)
recommendations, we then performed
1
our analyses with and without these control variables.
The results were essentially identical so that controlling or not for these variables did not alter
the interpretation of our findings. Thus, in order to lessen the complexity of our model
(Becker et al., 2005), the results without control variables are reported in this article.
1
Missing values on the socio-demographic variables were computed using the multiple
imputation method in Lisrel.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 21
---------------------------
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
--------------------------
Results
Discriminant validity. Because organizational dehumanization was assessed with a
new measure, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA; with oblimin rotation) using
SPSS.23 on the items measuring our five constructs (i.e., POS, organizational
dehumanization, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion and psychosomatic strains). The
results of this first EFA indicated a six-factor structure, where two items of emotional
exhaustion seemed to contribute to an (unexpected) sixth factor. Nevertheless, a close
examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues (the sixth factor accounting for 2.70 % of
variance; eigenvalue = 1.05), led to the conclusion that only five factors were theoretically
relevant. We thus conducted an EFA (with oblimin rotation) imposing a five-factor solution.
Results of this EFA indicated that the variance extracted from this five-factor solution was
60.92%. All factor loadings were greater than .40 (Costello & Osborne, 2005) (i.e., ranging
from .59 to .78 for POS, from .57 to .84 for organizational dehumanization, from .53 to .78
for job satisfaction, from .42 to .74 for emotional exhaustion, and from .50 to .74 for
psychosomatic strains) and only two items from pre-existing scales appeared to cross-load a
bit on another factor (e.g., one item from the psychosomatic strains scale [“being tired”]
logically cross-loaded on the emotional exhaustion factor).
Then, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses using Lisrel 8.8 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1993) in order to assess the distinctiveness of the five constructs included our model.
The hypothesized five-factor model that treats these five constructs as separate was compared
based on the χ2 difference test (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) to several four-factor models, three-
factor model, a two-factor model, and a one-factor model. Results indicated that the
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 22
hypothesized model achieved a very good fit (2(692) = 4692.38, CFI = .97, NNFI = .97,
RMSEA = .07, and SRMR = .05) and fitted the data significantly better than every other more
constrained model. In addition, results of the Harman’s one-factor test indicated a very poor
fit of the one-factor model (2 (702) = 25042.51, CFI = .91, NNFI = .90, RMSEA = .17, and
SRMR = .11). Further, all items loaded reliably on their respective latent factors with
standardized loadings ranging from .46 to .83 for POS, from .69 to .82 for organizational
dehumanization, from .78 to .90 for job satisfaction, from .51 to .85 for emotional exhaustion,
and from .56 to .73 for psychosomatic strains. As a consequence of the above evidence, we
considered our five variables as distinct constructs in the following statistical analyses.
Relationships among variables. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and inter-
correlations are displayed in Table 2. As evidenced in this table, POS and organizational
dehumanization are negatively correlated. In addition, POS is positively related to job
satisfaction and negatively related to emotional exhaustion and psychosomatic strains. In
contrast, organizational dehumanization is associated negatively with job satisfaction,
whereas it positively correlates with emotional exhaustion and psychosomatic strains.
Tests of hypotheses. In order to test our hypotheses, the hypothesized structural
relationships were tested using structural equation modeling (Lisrel 8.8). We then compared
the fit of this hypothesized model with three alternative models based on the χ2 difference test
(Bentler & Bonett, 1980). As displayed in Table 3, results showed that the hypothesized
model accurately fitted the data. Nevertheless, the χ2 difference test indicated that the
alternative model 3, which adds direct paths between POS and (a) job satisfaction, (b)
emotional exhaustion, and (c) psychosomatic strains was superior to the hypothesized model
and the alternative models 1 and 2 (see Table 2 for more details). Therefore, this alternative
model 3 was retained as the best depiction of the data.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 23
Standardized parameter estimates of the retained model are displayed in Figure 1. As
showed in this figure, results indicated that POS was negatively associated with
organizational dehumanization (γ = -.76, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. In addition,
results showed that organizational dehumanization had, in turn, a significant and negative
effect on job satisfaction ( = -.24, p < .001), and a significant and positive impact on
emotional exhaustion ( = .26, p < .001) and psychosomatic strains ( = .25, p < .001)
2
. The
indirect effects were assessed with bootstrapping analyses using the PROCESS macro (model
4, 5000 iterations; Hayes, 2013). Results of these bootstrapping analyses showed that the
unstandardized indirect effects of POS on each of our three dependent variables via
organizational dehumanization were significant (indirect effect = .24, BCa 95% CI = [.19;
.29], for job satisfaction; indirect effect = -.21, BCa 95% CI = [-.26; -.16], for emotional
exhaustion; indirect effect = -.15, BCa 95% CI = [-.19; -.11], for psychosomatic strains),
supporting our Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c. Finally, POS was found to be directly related to job
satisfaction (γ = .58, p < .001), emotional exhaustion (γ = -.34, p < .001), and psychosomatic
strains (γ = -.27, p < .001).
---------------------------
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
--------------------------
---------------------------
INSERT FIGURE1 ABOUT HERE
--------------------------
General Discussion
2
As suggested by an anonymous reviewer, we test the robustness of our model by randomly
dividing our sample in two sub-samples and testing our final model in each sub-sample.
Results remained essentially the same in the two sub-samples.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 24
The main aim of the present research was to propose an integrative model which
includes two constructs that have been developed independently from each other, i.e. POS and
organizational dehumanization. In two studies, we tested the assumption that POS would
attenuate organizational dehumanization perceptions. In addition, we aimed to examine the
mediating role of organizational dehumanization perceptions in the positive relationship
between POS and employees’ subjective well-being. In a first experimental study
manipulating POS, we showed that one’s level of POS negatively predicts organizational
dehumanization. In addition, organizational dehumanization was shown to act as a partial
mediator in the relationship between POS and one’s job satisfaction (operationalized as
students’ satisfaction with their studies). The second study confirmed these results through a
field study conducted in real organizational contexts. This second study also extends the
findings of the first one by exploring the effects of the POS-organizational dehumanization
relationship on broader indicators of well-being, namely job satisfaction, emotional
exhaustion, and psychosomatic strains.
Overall, our findings contribute to the organizational psychology literature and, more
particularly, to the employee-organization relationship framework. Indeed, by showing that
POS acts as an antecedent of organizational dehumanization, our work is the first to link both
positive and negative aspects of the employee-organization relationship into one single
integrative model. As a matter of fact, research on the negative aspects of the employee-
organization relationship is rather scarce in the literature (Shore & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012).
Research efforts on this topic have so far focused on very specific negative treatments
employees receive from the supervisor target rather than the organizational target, such as
abusive supervision (e.g., Tepper, 2000), and destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aasland, &
Skogstad, 2007). The present paper extends these research efforts on negative relational
aspects in organizations by focusing on the concept of organizational dehumanization, a rather
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 25
neglected construct in organizational psychology and management literature. In contrast to the
large amount of research on dehumanization that can be found in the domain of social
psychology, interest for the construct of dehumanization in organizational settings is rather
recent even if it is described as a frequent and common experience by workers (e.g., Bell &
Khoury, 2016). In this domain, empirical research is still scarce and more efforts should be
devoted to explore both the antecedents and consequences of such phenomenon. The two
studies presented in the present paper clearly contribute to this burgeoning literature on
organizational dehumanization applied to the work setting (e.g., Bell & Khoury, 2011, 2016;
Christoff, 2014; Väuryven & Larri-Salmel, 2015).
In addition, the present research proposes a new scale in order to assess organizational
dehumanization perceptions. To the best of our knowledge, the only available scale that
assesses organizational dehumanization is the one developed by Bell and Khoury (2011).
However, a close examination of this existing scale suggests that some of its items tap into the
POS construct (e.g., “Do you think [organization members] feel valued and respected by the
[target organization] or do [organization members] feel undervalued and disrespected”). Yet,
as developed above, there is theoretical support for distinguishing these two constructs at the
conceptual level. Therefore, it was clearly important to use scales that discriminate between
the positive (POS) and the negative (organizational dehumanization) aspects of the employee-
organization relationship. We thus chose to develop our own scale based on a careful review
of the literature in both social and organizational psychology literature. On top of proposing
an organizational dehumanization scale including items that do not theoretically overlap with
those of the POS scale, we tested discriminant validity of the two scales in our second study.
In particular, we assessed whether POS and organizational dehumanization should be
considered has as two distinct constructs or whether they represent two sides of the same coin.
Using both exploratory and confirmatory analysis, Study 2 provides first evidence that, even
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 26
if POS and organizational dehumanization are strongly negatively related, they should be
considered as two distinct constructs. Both theory and empirical evidence suggest that POS is
different from organizational dehumanization.
More importantly, results of our research indicate that organizational dehumanization
perceptions predict additional variance above and beyond POS in order to predict well-being
outcomes. Specifically, organizational dehumanization was shown to partially mediate the
positive relationship between POS and well-being. Overall, these findings are consistent with
Väuryven and Larri-Salmela’s (2015) proposition that organizational benevolence should be
related to organizational dehumanization perceptions and with Shore and Coyle-Shapiro’s
(2012) argument that destructive or demanding relationships with the organization violate
employees’ basic needs which have damaging impact on their health and well-being. Our
results also extend prior work from Bell and Khoury (2016) which found that organizational
dehumanization mediates the negative relationship between procedural justice and employees’
turnover intentions among women. Interestingly, these authors argued in their paper that
procedural justice should be negatively related to organizational dehumanization because
procedural justice is closely associated with the POS construct. However, in their study, they
did not assess empirically this theoretical proposition. In the present research, we therefore
extend Bell and Khoury’s (2016) results by showing that POS is indeed an important
antecedent of organizational dehumanization.
Last but not least, in shedding light on the mediating role of organizational
dehumanization in the relationship between POS and employees’ subjective well-being, our
research also adds to organizational support theory (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger
& Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Indeed, this
research contributes to a better understanding of the processes related to self-enhancement as
described in the organizational support theory and which explain the positive consequences of
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 27
POS (e.g., Kurtessis et al., 2015; Vardaman et al., 2016). As previously mentioned by several
scholars, these self-enhancement processes have been less empirically examined as compared
to social exchange (e.g., Vardaman et al., 2016). It also responds to the call of scholars to
empirically investigate underlying processes of the POS-subjective well-being link (e.g.,
Baran et al., 2012). Yet, it is interesting to note that while we investigated employees’
organizational dehumanization as one important mechanism of the relationship between POS
and employees’ health and well-being, our results indicated that this mediation is only partial.
Therefore, future research should consider other relevant mechanisms of this relationship such
as employees’ choice of coping strategy (e.g., Baran et al., 2012; Kurtessis et al., 2015).
Limitations and Future Research
Despite its contributions, the present research has some limitations that need to be
acknowledged. First, our field study relied exclusively on data collected from self-reported
measures. Using self-reported measures may have reduced the validity of our results by
having artificially inflated the correlations among the variables included in our study due to
the common method variance bias (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
With this in mind, we took several necessary precautions both at the methodological and
statistical levels in order to overcome this bias. At the methodological level, we took great
care to follow several scholars’ recommendations (e.g., Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff et
al., 2003) such as assuring participants of the anonymity or confidentiality of their responses,
and by stressing that there was no right or wrong answers to the questions. At the statistical
level and even though scholars (e.g., Conway & Lance, 2010) challenge the effectiveness of
currently available post hoc statistical procedures to detect common method variance bias, we
performed the Harman’s one-factor test which indicated a very poor-fit (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Furthermore, we tested for a model adding a common method factor. Results showed
that the average variance explained in the items by the common method factor was under the
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 28
value of 25% median that Williams, Cote, and Buckley (1989) refer to for self-reported
studies. Overall, applying these different recommendations and conducting these post-hoc,
albeit controversial tests, lessened our concerns regarding this potential bias in our data.
Second, samples used in this research are composed of Belgian participants. Thus, it is
possible that the findings and implications of our research might not be generalizable to other
populations. Yet, “considering cross-cultural and international issues is crucial within the
organizational sciences to keep pace with the globalization of organizations” (Baran et al.,
2012, p. 134). In line with the above, Sels, Janssens, Van den Brande, and Overlaet (2000)
claimed that the employer-employee relationship in Belgium is "driven by attitudes and
behaviors of high loyalty and low exit; respect for authority combined with the value of
equality; strong work and salary orientations as driving motivators; a culture of compromise
grounded in an institutional basis of rules and regulations; and a paradoxical mix between the
need to belong to a group and individualistic perspective on work" (p. 48). Belgian employees
might therefore differ from employees from other countries in the way they develop a
relationship with their organization. Accordingly, it would be very helpful to replicate our
results in other countries and within culturally-diverse populations in order to increase the
generalizability of the findings.
Third, theoretical evidence led us to consider POS as an antecedent of organizational
dehumanization and results of our first experimental study confirmed that POS negatively
impacts organizational dehumanization. Nevertheless, we cannot disregard the possibility that
organizational dehumanization perceptions might also reduce perceptions of organizational
support (i.e. a reverse causality relation). We cannot thus preclude the idea that a bidirectional
relationship or reciprocal relationships occurs among POS and organizational
dehumanization. In order to address this interesting issue, longitudinal research with repeated
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 29
measures is greatly needed in order to deepen the understanding of the relationship between
POS and organizational dehumanization, and their related outcomes.
Fourth, we did not take into account the influence of possible relevant variables that
might increase or, conversely decrease, the strength of the relationship between POS and
organizational dehumanization, or between organizational dehumanization and its subsequent
outcomes. Yet, as organizational dehumanization is a subjective experience (Bell & Khoury,
2011), there are certainly several relevant contextual (e.g., type of contract, occupational
status) or individuals factors (e.g., gender, age, organizational tenure) that might influence the
extent to which employees’ develop organizational dehumanization perceptions, or the extent
to which organizational dehumanization perceptions have an influence on its outcomes. In this
perspective, Bell and Khoury (2016) recently found that organizational dehumanization
mediated the relationship between procedural justice and turnover intentions, only among a
women population. To the best of our knowledge, this is the unique study that examined a
moderator of the relationships between organizational dehumanization and its antecedents and
consequences. Yet, as Bell and Khoury (2011) claimed “distinguishing differences in
dehumanization among people experiencing the same organizational context will help us
understand the basic nature of dehumanization” (p. 192). Age might be an interesting
individual’s factor to consider in future research in the relationship between organizational
dehumanization and its subsequent consequences. Some studies (e.g., von Hippel,
Kalokerinos, & Henry, 2013) showed that older workers are more sensitive to feelings of
stereotype threat and thus react more negatively in terms of subsequent job attitudes and well-
being as compared to younger workers. Therefore, we might expect that older workers will
react more negatively to perceptions of being dehumanized by their employing organization
(e.g., the feeling that their organization will replace them if it enabled the organization to
make more profit) and consequently should report lower level of well-being or more negative
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 30
attitudes toward their organization. In addition, future research might examine the moderating
role played by work centrality (i.e., “individual beliefs regarding the degree of importance
that work plays in their lives ”; Walsh & Gordon, 2008, p. 46) in the relationship between
organizational dehumanization and employees’ well-being. As employees with a high level of
work-centrality consider their work as a crucial aspect of their life and identify strongly with
their work role (e.g., Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002), we can expect that when
treated in a dehumanized manner by their organization they will react more negatively and
will hence suffer more from unwell-being. In a similar vein, as individuals experiencing high
career commitment “may display higher levels of requirements and expectations from the
organizations with which they establish relationships” (Lin & Chen, 2004, p. 524), future
research might analyze whether these employees suffer more from perceiving that their
organization will not hesitate to replace them if it allows making higher profits.
Fifth, we were interested in the consequences of organizational dehumanization as
focusing on the mechanistic aspect of Haslam (2006)’s model of dehumanization because it is
more likely to occur in organizational settings (Bell & Khoury, 2011). Yet, several scholars
such as Bell and Khoury (2011) also suggested that the animalistic form of dehumanization
(see Haslam, 2006) might also arise within organizations. For instance, Nisim and Benjamin
(2010) argued that animalistic dehumanization should be most prevalent among housekeeper
positions or cleaning employees. It will be interesting in future research to investigate the
consequences of this other form of dehumanization and how it differs from the mechanistic
form of dehumanization.
Finally, in this research, we exclusively examined the consequences of the POS-
organizational dehumanization link in terms of employees’ subjective well-being. If this
research contributes to a better understanding of the organizational dehumanization’
nomological network, it will be valuable for future research to examine other relevant
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 31
consequences (e.g., affective commitment and performance) and antecedents of this construct.
In line with this latter perspective, it would have been very interesting to examine the
influence of other sources of support (e.g., perceived supervisor support, perceived coworker
support, perceived family support) in the prediction of organizational dehumanization
perceptions and their subsequent outcomes. In this research, we were interested to the
influence of POS on organizational dehumanization, as they both refer to the organizational
target. Nevertheless, prior studies indicated that the effects of different sources of social
support might be different (e.g., Caesens, Stinglhamber, & Luypaert, 2014; Ng & Sorensen,
2008). Accordingly, researchers (e.g., Ng & Sorensen, 2008) recommended to carefully
examine the effects of each source of support conjointly in the prediction of outcomes. More
generally, future research on the antecedents of organizational dehumanization might examine
the relative weight of factors related to the organization (e.g., size of the organization), the
supervisor (e.g., abusive supervision), the job (e.g., task characteristics) or the employee
him/herself (e.g., intrinsic motivation) in the development of organizational dehumanization
perceptions.
Practical implications
The present research provides a number of practical implications for managers. More
precisely, our findings indicate that when employees feel supported and cared for by their
organization they feel less dehumanized by their organization and ultimately experience a
higher levels of subjective well-being (e.g., increased employees’ job satisfaction, decreased
employees’ emotional exhaustion and psychosomatic strains). Organizations with employees
perceiving low or average organizational support might take practical ways to enhance POS in
order to reduce employees’ perceptions of organizational dehumanization and finally have
benefits in terms of employees’ well-being. Prior work (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber,
2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015) suggests diverse ways to foster employees’ POS. More precisely,
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 32
a recent meta-analysis (Kurtessis et al., 2015) indicated that one of the major antecedents of
POS is organizational justice. Managers should thus be attentive to promote fairness in the
way organizational human resources politics and reward are administrated such as by
providing accurate information, non-bias and consistent application of rules or procedures and
permit employees to voice (e.g., Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011).
In addition, organizations might enhance POS by means of a variety of human
resources practices and policies such as by assuring employees that their jobs are secure, by
offering valuable training or developmental programs that promote employees’ personal
growth, and/or by eliminating continual work overloads (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011).
Finally, meta-analyses (Kurtessis et al., 2015; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) revealed that
one important driver of POS is the support provided by supervisors. Organizational
representatives should make efforts to train their supervisors to be supportive toward their
subordinates in order to promote POS. In this regard, Gonzales-Morales, Kernan, Becker, and
Eisenberger (2016) recently developed a training program for supervisors suggesting four
basic strategies (i.e., benevolence, sincerity, fairness, and experiential processing) and
concrete behaviors in order to treat subordinates more supportively and ultimately enhance
perceived supervisor support.
Conclusion
As a whole, results of our studies suggest that POS, by signaling to employees that
they are welcomed and accepted members in the organization, by satisfying their need for
affiliation, and by conveying them that there are respected, contributes to lessen their feeling
of being treated like an object, or instrument useful for the organization’s end. The decrease in
organizational dehumanization that POS triggers leads, in turn, to higher levels of well-being
among employees.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 33
References
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., & Volpato, C. (2016). (Still) Modern Times: Evidence of
objectification within working domain. European Journal of Social Psychology. Advance
online publication.
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, 288-297. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.288
Audenaert, M., Vanderstraeten, A., & Buyens, D. (2016). When affective well-being is empowered:
The joint role of leader-member exchange and the employment relationship. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1137610
Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2014). When work does not ennoble man:
Psychological consequences of working objectification. Testing, Psychometrics,
Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 1-13. doi:10.4473/TPM21.3.7
Baran, B., Rhoades, L., & Miller, L. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the
twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 123-147.
doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social
ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107-113.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 34
Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2011). Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects
of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295-303.
doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods,
8, 274-289. doi:10.1177/1094428105278021
Becker, T.E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J.A., Carlson, K.D., Edwards, J.R., & Spector, P.E. (2015).
Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational
researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1002/job.2053
Beckers, J. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2001). The structure of computer anxiety: A six-factor model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 35–49.
Bell, C. M., & Khoury, C. ( 2011). Dehumanization, deindividuation, anomie and organizational
justice. In: S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (eds.), Emerging Perspectives on
Organizational Justice and Ethics, Research in Social Issues in Management, Vol. 7 (pp.
169–200). Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Publishing.
Bell, C. M., & Khoury, C. (2016). Organizational powerlessness, dehumanization, and gendered
effects of procedural justice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 570-585.
doi:10.1108/JMP-09-2014-0267
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.88.3.588
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Caesens, G., Marique, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived
organizational support and affective commitment: More than reciprocity, it is also a question
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 35
of organizational identification. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 167-173.
doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000112
Caesens, G., & Stinglhamber, F. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support
and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. European Review of
Applied Psychology, 64, 259-267. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.002
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Luypaert, G. (2014). The impact of work engagement and
workaholism on well-being-the role of work-related social support. Career Development
International, 19, 813-835. doi:10.1108/CDI-09-2013-0114
Christoff, K. (2014). Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some scientific and ethical
considerations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-5. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00748
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25,
325-334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Costello, A. B, & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation, 10, 1-9.
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? the effects
of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 858-866.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.858
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications Sage Publications, Inc,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job
involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–108.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 36
Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Lucas, R. E. (2004). The evolving concept of subjective well-being:
the multifaceted nature of happiness. In Costa, P. T. & Siegler, I. C. (Eds), Advances in cell
Aging and Gerontology (Vol.15, pp.187-220). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition
and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support,
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812-820.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037//0021 9010.71.3.500
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering
enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Forest, J., Brunault, P., & Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of
organizational factors on psychological needs and their relations with well-being. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 27, 437-450. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9253-2
Gonzalez-Morales, M., Kernan, M. C., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (2016). Defeating abusive
supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/ocp0000061
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161-178.
Haque, O. S., & Waytz, A. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: causes, solutions and functions.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 176-186.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 37
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65, 399-423. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Jennings, K. S., Sinclair, R. R., & Mohr, C. D. (2016). Who benefits from family support? work
schedule and family differences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 51-64.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Kang, B., Twigg, N. W., & Hertzman, J. (2010). An examination of social support and social
identity factors and their relationship to certified chefs’ burnout. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 29, 168–176. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.08.004
Karonglar, G., Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2016). Reciprocation wary employees discount
psychological contract fulfillment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 23–40.
doi:10.1002/job.2016
Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of
victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 25-61.
Kelman, H. C. (1976). Violence without restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and
victimizers. In G. M. Kren & L. H. Rappoport (Eds.), Varieties of psychohistory (pp. 282–
314). New York: Springer.
Kinunnen, U., Parkatti, T., & Rasku, A. (1994). Occupational well-being among teachers in
Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 315–332.
Kurtessis, J., Eisenberger, R. Ford, M. T. Buffardi, L. C. Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2015).
Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 38
theory. Journal of Management. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0149206315575554
Leyens, J.P., Paladino, P.M., Rodriguez, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez, A., & Gaunt, R.
(2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups
and outgroups. Personnality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186-197.
doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
Leyens, J. P., Rodriguez, A., Rodriguez, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, P. M., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S.
(2001). Psychological essentialism and the attribution of uniquely human emotions to
ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 395–411.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.50
Lin, C.-P., & Chen, M.-F. (2004). Career commitment as a moderator of the relationships among
procedural justice, perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, and
turnover intentions. Asia Pacific Management Review, 9, 519-538.
Loughnan, S., & Haslam, N. (2007). Animals and androids: implicit associations between social
categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science, 18, 116–121.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2, 99-113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships
between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization
Management, 33, 243-268.
Nisim, S., & Benjamin, O. (2010). The speech of services procurement: The negotiated order of
commodification and dehumanization of cleaning employees. Human Organization, 69,
221-232.
Nussbaum, M.C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24, 249-291.
doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 39
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Renger, D., Mommert, A., & Renger, S., Simon, B. (2016). When less equal is less human:
Intragroup (dis)respect and the experience of being human. The journal of Social
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1135865
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The
contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-
836. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
Rochford, K. C., Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., & French, S. E. (2016). Ethical Leadership as a
Balance Between Opposing Neural Networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16. Advance
online publication. doi: doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3264-x
Sels, L., Janssens, M., Van den Branden, I., & Overlaet, B. (2000). Belgium: A culture of
compromise. In D. M. Rousseau & R. Schalk (Eds.), Psychological contracts in
employment: Cross-national perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shore, L. M., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. (2012). Perceived organizational cruelty: An expansion of
the negative employee-organization relationship domain. In Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J.
A., & Tetrick, L. E. (Eds) The employee organization relationship: applications for the 21st
century. Routledge/Psychology Press, New York.
Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). The Employee-Organization
Relationship: Applications for the 21st Century. Routledge/Psychology Press, New York.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 40
workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3, 356-367. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. Cambridge
University Press. New York.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 354-365. doi: 10.1037/a0023779
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
178-190.
Vaes, J., & Muratore, M. (2013). Defensive dehumanization in the medical practice: a cross-
sectional study from a health care worker’s perspective. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 52, 180–190.
Vaes, J., Paladino, M., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized females complete human beings? Why
males and females dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 774-785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
van Horn, J. E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2004). The structure of
occupational well-being: A study among dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77, 365-375.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 25-37.
Vardaman, J. M., Allen, D. G., Otondo, R. F., Hancock, J. I., Shore, L. M., & Rogers, B. L. (2016).
Social comparisons and organizational support: Implications for commitment and retention.
Human Relations, 69, 1483-1505. doi:10.1177/0018726715619687
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 41
Väyrynen, T., & Laari-Salmela, S. (2015). Men, mammals, or machines? Dehumanization
embedded in organizational practices. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2947-z
von Hippel, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., & Henry, J. D. (2013). Stereotype threat among older
employees: Relationship with job attitudes and turnover intentions. Psychology and Aging,
28, 17-27.
Walsh, K., & Gordon, J. R. (2008). Creating an individual work identity. Human Resource
Management Review, 18, 46–61.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–
468. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 42
Table 1
Study 1 and Study 2: Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis for organizational dehumanization
Study 1
Study2
Items
EFA
CFA
EFA
CFA
Organizational dehumanization
1. My organization makes me feel that one worker is easily as good as any other
.58
.52
.77
.74
2. My organization would not hesitate to replace me if it enabled the company to make more profit
.71
.67
.77
.74
3. If my job could be done by a machine or a robot, my organization would not hesitate to replace me by this new
technology
.68
.64
.74
.70
4. My organization considers me as a tool to use for its own ends
.75
.73
.81
.79
5. My organization considers me as a tool devoted to its own success
.65
.61
.76
.73
6. My organization makes me feel that my only importance is my performance at work
.69
.65
.80
.78
7. My organization is only interested in me when it needs me
.72
.69
.82
.80
8. The only thing that counts for my organization is what I can contribute to it
.76
.73
.82
.80
9. My organization treats me as if I were a robot
.71
.67
.80
.79
10. My organization considers me as a number
.63
.58
.81
.80
11. My organization treats me as if I were an object
.74
.70
.83
.81
Note. EFA = Exploratory factor analysis, CFA = Confirmatory factor analysis. For EFA, eigenvalues and percentage of variance accounted for 5.30
(48.17%) (Study 1) and 6.93 (62.95%) (Study 2), respectively. For CFA, fit indices were (2 (44) = 134.69, CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, and
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 43
RMSEA = .106, and SRMR = .06 (Study 1) and (2 (44) = 937.08, CFI = .97, NNFI = .96, and RMSEA = .13, and SRMR = .04 (Study 2) and
loadings presented in the table are standardized. Please note that for Study 1, the items were slightly adapted in order to fit the experimental
context.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 44
Table 2
Study 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Variables
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Gender
--
--
--
.17***
.10**
.12***
.09**
.06*
.03
.05†
-.07*
-.17***
2. Age
38.93
11.27
--
.74***
.17***
.12***
-.09**
.08**
-.04
-.02
.04
3. Organizational tenure
8.78
8.98
--
.11***
.18***
-.12***
.10***
-.06*
.02
.04
4. Education
--
--
--
.14***
-.02
.01
.01
.02
.05
5. Size of the organization
--
--
--
-.12***
-.18***
.01
.01
.01
6. POS
4.33
1.27
(.89)
-.67***
.66***
-.43***
-.36***
7. Organizational dehumanization
3.69
1.46
(.94)
-.61***
.46***
.38***
8. Job satisfaction
4.76
1.50
(.90)
-.55***
-.43***
9. Emotional exhaustion
2.97
1.28
(.90)
.66***
10. Psychosomatic strains
2.95
1.04
(.82)
Note. N = 1209 (excepted for gender N = 1174, age N = 1176, organizational tenure N = 1171, education N = 1175, and size of the organization N
= 1175). Internal reliabilities (coefficient alphas) are given in parentheses on the diagonal. POS = perceived organizational support. Females were
coded 0 and Males were coded 1. Education was coded 1 for bachelor degree, 2 for master’s degree, and 3 for Ph.D. or MBA. Organizational size
was coded 1 for 1-10 employees, 2 for 11-49 employees, 3 for 50-249 employees, 4 for 250-500 employees and 5 for more than 500 employees.
† p < .10 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 45
Table 3
Fit Indices for Structural Models
Model
2
df
NNFI
CFI
RMSEA
SRMR
2 (df)
Model
comparison
Hypothesized
5556.53
698
.96
.97
.08
.09
313.69(1)***
Hypothesized vs.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 (path added between POS and job
satisfaction)
5242.84
697
.96
.97
.07
.09
55.83(1)***
Alternative 1 vs.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 (Alternative 1 + path added
between POS and emotional exhaustion)
5187.01
696
.97
.97
.07
.09
9.91(1)**
Alternative 2 vs.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 (Alternative 2 + path added
between POS and psychosomatic strains)
5177.10
695
.97
.97
.07
.09
--
--
Note. N = 1209. POS = perceived organizational support. NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND DEHUMANIZATION 46
Figure 1. N = 1209. POS = perceived organization support. Completely standardized path coefficients for the alternative Model 3.
***p < .001.
Organizational
dehumanization
-.24***
.26***
Job
satisfaction
POS
Psychosomatic
strains
.58***
-.27***
-.76***
Emotional
exhaustion
.25***
-.34***