Intensifying Social Exchange
Relationships in Public
Organizations: Evidence
from a Randomized
Field Experiment
Morten Jakobsen
Simon Calmar Andersen
Abstract
In accordance with social exchange theory, prominent streams of management research
emphasize the importance of reciprocal exchange relationships between organizations
and their employees. When employees perceive themselves as supported by the organization, they reciprocate with increased work motivation. However, we do not know
how this knowledge can be developed into management initiatives that increase public
employees’ perceived support, because severe endogeneity problems make it difficult
to estimate the effect of organizational support on employee commitment outside the
laboratory. We use a randomized field experiment involving more than 800 public employees to estimate the effect. We find no average effect of the organizational support
treatment on the employees’ perceived organizational support. Yet, a subgroup analysis shows a positive treatment effect when the employees’ local front-line managers
felt less supported prior to the intervention. We discuss the implications for theory
C 2012 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
and management practice. Management.
INTRODUCTION
Based on social exchange theory, prominent streams of management research suggest that employees’ work motivation is strongly affected by a reciprocal social
exchange relationship between the organization and its employees. Accordingly,
employees’ commitment, effort, and performance are expected to increase by exchange of noneconomic, intangible goods such as organizational support. When
employees perceive the organization as valuing their contributions, caring about
their well-being, and aiding them so they can carry out their jobs effectively, they
work harder and increase their commitment to the organization because of a norm
of reciprocity (Bottom et al., 2006; Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Eisenberger
et al., 1986; Romzek, 1990). This reciprocal relationship is found empirically in a
number of studies on public organizations (Armeli et al., 1998; Coyle-Shapiro &
Kessler, 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1997; Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005), and the
psychological mechanisms of social exchanges are documented in laboratory experiments (e.g., Bottom et al., 2006; Miller & Whitford, 2002; Molm, Peterson, &
Takahashi, 2003; Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000).
However, much less is known about what happens when this knowledge is operationalized and applied by public managers who wish to enhance the commitment,
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, 60–82 (2013)
C 2012 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pam
DOI:10.1002/pam.21662
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 61
behavior, and performance of their employees by using organizational initiatives.
Although the quid pro quo assumptions of traditional principal-agent models
have been extensively operationalized and tested in terms of pay-for-performance
schemes and other economically incentivized managerial tools, similar work still
remains to be done within the social exchange approach to the public organization–
employee relationship. How do public employees, who are already engaged in organizational exchanges, perceive attempts by managers to increase their motivation?
Turning this translation of the theory and laboratory results into testable management initiatives is no trivial task. First, should support, for instance, be supplied
as an offer—relying on employees’ willingness and ability to ask for and opt into
the support—or should support be given by fiat, risking that some employees find
it controlling and that resources are wasted on support that they do not need?
Second, studying the causal effects in the relationship between an organization
and its employees is methodologically difficult exactly because of the reciprocal
nature. This is especially the case when examining whether public managers could
intensify employees’ perceived organizational support (POS) by specific ways of
increasing the level of organizational support: Is employees’ increased perception
of support and commitment a result of increased organizational support—or is
increased organizational support a result of employees’ increased commitment?
Social exchange theory expects both, that is, a two-way causality.
In this study, we use a randomized field experiment involving more than 800
public employees from 117 public child-care centers to examine if and how management initiatives can increase POS among public employees and thus intensify
social exchange relationships in public organizations. We test the effect of a management initiative that provides professional support from the central administration
of a local government to the municipality’s child-care workers on a voluntary basis
without demanding any quid pro quo. We randomly divided the public child-care
centers into three groups. In one treatment group, child-care employees received
the additional organizational support from the municipality’s central administration. Another group received a Hawthorne treatment in the form of support aimed
at the parents. A third group was not affected at all and functions as a control group.
A difference-in-difference estimator utilizing pre- and postsurveys among the public
child-care employees is used to evaluate the average treatment effect of the increased
support on the employees’ POS.
The results show that even though we are able to replicate the correlation between
POS and commitment found in previous studies, we find no average treatment effect
of more organizational support on the employees’ perceived support or commitment. In a subgroup analysis we do, however, find that the initiative has a positive
effect on the employees when the local front-line manager of the center felt less supported prior to the intervention. No effect was found when the local manager felt
more supported at the outset. This empirical estimation of a dynamic, moderating
mechanism suggests an important modification to the theoretical understanding of
the causal effect of organizational support on employees. We suggest that the initial
level of perceived support among the receivers of organizational support is built into
the model. Such theoretical modifications are important not least to managers that
aim to intensify social exchange relationships.
These dynamics, however, are not easily captured by laboratory experiments.
Hence, in addition to answering recent calls for more experimental studies within
public management research (Brewer & Brewer, 2011; Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007;
Margetts, 2011), the study demonstrates the importance of supplementing our laboratory experiments with experiments from the field. We discuss these different
implications of our study in the penultimate section before the conclusion. First,
we introduce the theory on social exchange and outline the central expectations.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
62 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Subsequently, we present data and methods of the field experiment followed by the
empirical tests.
A SOCIAL EXCHANGE PERSPECTIVE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ COMMITMENT
Social exchange theory is one of the most important theoretical frameworks for
analyzing employer–employee relationships and employees’ commitment (Bottom
et al., 2006; Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Although
the theoretical foundation comes from different disciplines, such as organizational
theory (Bernard, 1938; March & Simon, 1958), social psychology (Gouldner, 1960;
Homans, 1958; Thibault & Kelly, 1959), and sociology (Blau, 1964),1 the contributions agree that social exchange involves a series of interactions among different
actors that generate obligations (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Emerson, 1976).
Hence, when an actor receives a valued good, tangible or intangible, from another
actor, an obligation to repay is generated. The actors are not restricted to being
individuals; they include groups or formal organizations as well (Eisenberger et al.,
1986; Molm, 2003). In an employment context, employers (organizations) and their
employees are often regarded as the main central actors in exchange relationships.
Moreover, the exchanged resources are not restricted to material or tangible resources, but can be nonmaterial, such as symbols of approval and prestige (Bottom
et al., 2006; Foa & Foa, 1980).
In contrast to negotiations, actors in reciprocal exchanges initiate exchanges individually by performing a beneficial act for another actor without knowing whether,
when, or to what extent the other actor reciprocates (Molm, 2003). However, receiving a valued good induces an obligation to repay. According to Gouldner (1960),
these obligations are generated by a norm of reciprocity stating that people should
help those who have helped them—not as a contractual relationship. Other exchange
rules see the obligation to reciprocate as an individual’s belief in mutual expectations
to the involved actors (Rousseau, 1989).
Social exchange theory has been used by different theoretical frameworks concerning the employer–employee relationship (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004, p. 5).
Among the most prominent is the POS framework developed by Eisenberger et al.
(1986), which we use in this study. Hence, the POS framework has previously been
employed, and the survey items developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) to measure
POS have been well tested in public administration settings (Armeli et al., 1998;
Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1997; Gould-Williams & Davies,
2005).
Perceived Organizational Support (POS)
The POS framework focuses on the relationship between support provided by an
organization to its employees, the employees’ perception of this support, and their
organizational commitment. POS refers to employees’ beliefs about the extent to
which the organization values their contributions, cares about their well-being, and
aids them so they can carry out their jobs effectively (Eisenberger et al., 1986, 2001;
Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). A high degree of POS elicits employees’ felt obligation to care about the organization’s welfare and help the organization reach its
objectives (Eisenberger et al., 2001). POS is therefore expected to have a positive
effect on employees’ organizational commitment, as illustrated in the right-hand
1
Good overviews of the different contributions are found in Coyle-Shapiro and Conway (2004) and
Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005).
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 63
Figure 1. The Organization–Employee Exchange Relation and New Management
Initiatives.
side of Figure 1, which shows the reciprocal mechanism in the organization–
employee exchange relationship. POS itself is expected to be affected by the organization’s support of its employees, that is, the extent to which it values their
contributions, cares about their well-being, and aids them.
The applicability of the hypothesized exchange relationship to public organizations must consider at least two features that distinguish public organization–
employer relationships from private ones. First, public employees tend to be more
oriented toward serving society, which can be captured by the notion of public
service motivation (PSM, see, e.g., Brewer, Selden, & Facer II, 2000; Perry, 2000).
Therefore, public employees’ commitment may be more influenced by their PSM
than by their perception of their organization, that is, they are more oriented toward
society than toward the organization. This may dampen the reciprocal organization–
employee relationship (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003). Second, compared to their
private counterparts, public managers are limited in their use of personal profitmaximization incentives to affect employee commitment (Wilson, 1989). This increases the importance of other forms of motivation, such as POS and PSM, compared to private settings.
Although the distinctiveness of public organizations may either dampen or increase the importance of the reciprocal organization–employee relationship, empirical evidence clearly demonstrates a positive correlation between POS and commitment in public organizations (Armeli et al., 1998; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003;
Eisenberger et al., 1997; Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). This underlines the importance of social exchange relationships in public organization settings. Notably,
Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler’s (2003) study of more than 5,700 public employees from
different sectors in the United Kingdom found that public employees’ organizational
commitment was correlated to their POS. While the causal relationship between
these interrelated phenomena are notoriously difficult to test in cross-sectional surveys, a number of laboratory experiments with high internal validity have been used
to show how these norms of reciprocity actually make people act more cooperatively
than would be expected from a rational choice point of view (Bottom et al., 2006;
Molm, Peterson, & Takahashi, 2003; Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000).
However, social exchange research in the public management context has paid
less attention to the question of how new management initiatives—organizational
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
64 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
support initiatives—can increase POS. In contrast, research within rational choice
theory has developed and tested a number of practical implications of public
management theory—for instance pay-for-performance schemes and other quid
pro quo, economically incentivized contracts. Here, studies have found that payfor-performance schemes do not always increase employees’ efforts (Andersen &
Pallesen, 2008; Frey, 1997; Weibel, Rost, & Osterloh, 2010).
What are similar implications of social exchange theory for public managers?
Management initiatives founded in rational choice theory are based on the assumption that agents do not perform a task for their principals without a credible promise,
for instance a contract, that they will receive some good in return. This is fundamentally different from social exchange theory that assumes that agents will put
more effort into their work if they feel supported by the organization—even if this
support comes in intangible forms without demanding any quid pro quo.
Laboratory experiments are of limited help in this regard because of their relatively low external validity. According to the theory, organizations are already the
result of a number of previous social exchanges that may affect the perception of
new management initiatives. This is not easily captured in the artificial settings
of laboratory experiments. On the other hand, cross-sectional surveys, which are
often used within this research area, are not ideal for sorting out the causal exchange between these factors: Are changes in POS and commitment a result of a
change in organizational support, or are changes in organizational support caused
by changes in POS and commitment? Social exchange theory predicts that they are
both in the sense that increased employee commitment will increase the employers’
organizational support because of a norm of reciprocity (see Figure 1).
We argue that the best way to test the effect of new management initiatives on
POS would be a randomized field experiment in which researchers randomly assign
the treatment to one group of employees and compare their POS to that of a control group.2 Unfortunately, this method is seldom used within public management
research. In a review of the field, Margetts (2011) shows that while the number of
experimental studies within political science increased dramatically in the 1990s
(see also McDermott, 2002), only scattered examples are found within public management (see also Brewer & Brewer, 2011; Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007).
Hence, the literature lacks empirical tests of which new management initiatives
can enhance POS in organizations in which these reciprocal relationships may
already be at play. The aim of our study is to examine this issue, which is illustrated
in the box to the left in Figure 1.
The general definition of organizational support states that it concerns the organization’s ability to value employees’ contributions, care for their well-being, and aid
them so they can carry out their jobs effectively (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades
& Eisenberger, 2002).3 Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002, p. 698) stress that “social
exchange theorists argue that resources received from others are more highly valued if they are based on discretionary choice rather than circumstances beyond the
donor’s control.” Such voluntary aid is welcomed as an indication that the donor
genuinely values and respects the recipient.
However, the literature does not restrict organizational support to any specific
type of aid or valuation of employees’ contributions. It emphasizes that organizational support may present itself in many different forms. A very large number of
2
3
For a more elaborate discussion of the benefits of randomized field experiments, see Margetts (2011).
This notion of organizational support corresponds to the items developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986,
2001) to measure employees’ perceptions of organizational support, for instance: “The organization is
willing to help me if I need a special favor,” “help is available from the organization when I have a
problem,” and “the organization values my contributions to its well-being.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 65
organizational characteristics seem to be associated with employees’ perception of
the supportiveness of their organization. Among suggested antecedents of POS are
the fairness of the organization, often conceptualized as structural and social aspects of procedural justice (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997), (perceived) supervisor
support (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988), pay and promotions, job security, autonomy
over job, and training (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Although this plethora of organizational characteristics gives an impression of
the many ways POS may be induced, they provide little guidance concerning which
management initiatives could increase employees’ POS—and subsequently their
commitment. This is no trivial task. Should support, for instance, be supplied as
an offer—relying on employees’ willingness and ability to ask for help—or should
support be given by fiat, risking that some employees find that resources are wasted
on kinds of support that they do not need?
To move research from studying the relationship among POS, commitment, and
effort, to studying the practical implications for public managers, the present study
uses a random assignment field experiment to test the effect of one way of increasing
organizational support. The next section presents how this initiative was designed
according to the organizational support theory as well as the empirical setting and
the design of the experiment in general.
DESIGN AND DATA
A test of this kind of management in practice through a randomized field experiment requires cooperation with a public organization taking initiatives to increase
exchange relationships with its employees. We conducted the experiment in cooperation with the local government in Aarhus, Denmark, which was planning initiatives
aimed at the frontline level prior to the experiment.
The study case is targeted language support of three- to five-year-old bilingual children that is managed by local governments and delivered through public child-care
centers. The children receiving this extra support are children of immigrants who
do not speak Danish as their first language. The mean share of bilingual children in
the child-care centers in the experiment is 0.34. Hence, providing targeted language
support for bilingual children is an important task for the child-care centers and
employees. Furthermore, targeted support for second language learners is both a
demanding and fairly new task for the employees. Like many European countries,
Denmark witnessed a large increase in immigration during the late 1990s, which
enhanced the need for the task considerably.
As an educational service, the examined task thus resembles some of the most
common public services. In the present setting, local governments are responsible
for managing most of the public welfare services such as public child-care, primary
schooling, elderly care, and social services. The study was conducted on public
child-care centers (73 percent of all child-care centers in the setting). Moreover, the
study includes only child-care centers that had at least one bilingual child enrolled
by April 15, 2009, which marked the experiment’s starting point. In sum, 117 public
child-care centers were included in the study.
Treatment Design Considerations
As mentioned, organizational support may take on a variety of forms. The design
of a treatment that tests a management initiative to increase POS is, however,
subject to a number of restrictions. First, it must, of course, comply with the general notion that organizational support concerns the organization’s ability to value
its employees’ contributions, care for their well-being, and aid them so they can
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
66 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
carry out their jobs effectively (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002). Second, it should be evident that it is actually based on discretionary choice
rather than circumstances beyond the managers’ control, because this will be valued
more by the employees according to the theory. Third, the support should have no
strings attached because it should not test the effect of a contractual relationship,
but a relationship based on reciprocity. For that reason, it may well use intangible
goods such as support and recognition rather than a massive increase in economic
resources. Because the theory of social exchange contends that social exchanges are
made out of a norm of reciprocity, organizational support should be provided on a
voluntary basis and not as something in which the employees are required to take
an active part. Fourth, to test an initiative that is in the hands of upper-level public
managers, it should be an intervention that can be initiated directly by such managers. They cannot be in daily contact with all street-level workers, so the initiative
should work through someone who the upper-level managers can manage. Fifth, for
ethical reasons, it should be an intervention that could realistically be prolonged by
the organization itself in case the results of the test give reasons for that. It would
not be fair to the organization to test a very costly intervention, demonstrate its
success, and then leave the organization with no chance of prolonging the initiative.
The organizational support treatment is designed in accordance with these requirements. The following sections describe the organizational support treatment and
the Hawthorne treatment.
Organizational Support Treatment
The organizational support treatment in our experiment consisted in providing the
child-care centers with a special language consultant from the central administration, whose function it was to visit the child-care centers individually and offer a
decentralized, professional, and appreciatory support to the employees. The special
consultant was an expert in second-language learning. The sole concern of the special consultant was to support the child-care employees based on their needs. We
attempted to meet the requirements mentioned above as follows.
(1) The special consultant was a trained specialist in language development and
offered the child-care workers advice and training on how to work with the
bilingual children, as well as assistance in resolving concrete cases. The special
consultant’s job instruction emphasized that she should provide appreciatory
support and express respect and valuation of the jobs carried out by the childcare employees.4 The special consultant was assigned a coach to help in this
endeavor, and a number of meetings between the special consultant and the
researchers were held prior to the intervention to ensure that the special consultant was familiar with the purpose and goal of the appreciatory approach.
(2) The child-care employees were told that the special consultant was a new
initiative taken by the department—not because there was a need, but as a way
to help and support them in their important task.
(3) It was made clear that the special consultant was an offer that had no strings
attached—it demanded no quid pro quo. The special consultant was meant
to respond to the needs and requests of the child-care employees. The special
consultant did not impose new tasks on the child-care employees or control
the work in the child-care centers. The special consultant was thus an optional
4
The job description is available in the online appendix. All appendices are available at the end of this
article as it appears in JPAM online. Go to the publisher’s Web site and use the search engine to locate
the article at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/34787
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 67
Table 1. The special language consultant’s visits to treatment centers.
No. of visits
Hours of visits (effective time in center)
Total
Mean
Std. dev.
Min.
Max.
(N)
105
210.25
2.44
4.89
1.45
3.91
0
0
6
17.75
(43)
(43)
resource. For instance, the special consultant was instructed to give the employees contact information and to inform them that they could call and write
about anything, and that she would be happy to assist in looking at a certain
child or group of children if needed. Hence, the organizational support consisted in the child-care employees’ access to expert assistance if they needed it.
The support, in the sense that aid was available when needed, was therefore
provided regardless of the child-care employees’ use of the assistance.
(4) Although the expression of organizational support by supervisors of each childcare employee may be more valuable to them than the aid of a special consultant, such support is not easily initiated by central managers of the organization. It would be inconsistent with the theory of social exchange if top-level
managers gave administrative fiat that supervisors should express obligation,
commitment, and empathy toward the employees. To offer a special consultant’s aid was an initiative that could be taken by upper-level managers and
provided to all parts of the organization.
(5) It was central to the design of the support treatment that it reflected realistic
interventions, that is, interventions that a local government’s administration
could apply without making major changes in the allocation of its economic
resources, rather than constructing inflated treatments that depended on a
supply of research or project funds and thus could not be sustained after the
trial period. Therefore, the treatments were not supported by any research
funds, but entirely funded by the local government. The managers set a budget
for the intervention that could realistically be sustained after the trial period.
Indeed, more support would, all else being equal, be expected to have a greater
impact than less support, but in this case, this concern had to be balanced
against the concern for an economically sustainable treatment.
The treatment was initiated in the spring of 2009. The special consultant contacted
the child-care centers, gave a brief introduction to the purpose of the initiative, and
arranged to visit the centers. The special consultant made it clear that the initiative
was optional for the centers. Interviews with both the special consultant and childcare employees during the intervention indicated that the special consultant and
the initiative were generally well received by the employees. The employees could
contact the special consultant to arrange visits or receive advice on the phone.
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the special consultant’s visits to the childcare centers in the treatment period. The special consultant made 105 visits and
spent 210.25 hours in the 43 treatment centers. Only three centers opted out in
the sense that they had no visits. Most centers (74 percent) were visited more than
once. Most importantly, however, all centers received the visits they asked for. This
means that all centers received the treatment in the sense that they were offered the
assistance without being required to accept a minimum or maximum number of
visits. The number of visits was decided by the child-care centers.
The child-care centers used the special consultant in different ways. Some asked
for general advice and training while others asked for assistance and advice in
concrete cases. Most often, the special consultant took part in daily work situations when providing the assistance. Thus, much of the visits consisted in providing
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
68 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
on-the-floor advice on language development techniques in relation to specific children. The concrete guidance and content of the visits were based on the concern for
the employees’ specific needs in relation to the task of language development. When
appropriate, the special consultant expressed appreciation of, and the importance
of, the child-care employees’ contribution to the children’s language development.
The organizational support treatment is described further in the online appendix.5
Hawthorne Treatment
One concern is that employees may change their perceptions and commitment, not
because of the increased organizational support but because they are being studied,
that is, as a consequence of a Hawthorne effect (see Adair, 1984). Furthermore,
employees’ perceptions and commitment may change because of a novelty effect
(employees increase commitment because the initiative is new). Therefore, besides
comparing the organizational support treatment to the control condition, it is also
compared to a Hawthorne treatment.
A program was designed to support the bilingual children’s families in their work
with their children to learn Danish. Each bilingual child in these centers received
a suitcase containing books, games, and a video tutorial. The language consultants
from the municipality’s central administration designed the content of the suitcase,
which was delivered to the families by the child-care workers. Thus, the program had
the same characteristics as the organizational support treatment in terms of being
a new initiative, implemented through the child-care centers, potentially improving
the language of the bilingual children, and evaluated in the same way as the organizational support initiative. Therefore, it contains the same potential Hawthorne
and novelty effects.
Ethical Considerations
Several ethical considerations apply to the study as a result of the experimental
design, in which some employees and users are offered additional support while
others are not. First, it is important to underline that the control group received the
same support as it would have if the experiment was not conducted. Second, new
initiatives are often implemented gradually in an organization so that some, but
not all, employees and users in a certain trial period receive a given support or are
involved in additional efforts that we do not know the effects of. Third, the treatment
is chosen on the basis of previous research, which indicates that the treatment has
positive, or at least neutral, effects. Fourth, all employees and families were offered
the treatments on an optional basis, that is, they could either accept or refuse to
participate in the initiative. Furthermore, the project has been submitted to the
relevant bodies for ethical consideration.6
5
All appendices are available at the end of this article as it appears in JPAM online. Go to the publisher’s Web site and use the search engine to locate the article at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/jhome/34787
6 The project has been submitted to the Research Ethics Committee, Region Central Jutland, and in a
written answer, the committee stated that the project does not need to further notify, or be evaluated by,
the committee. Moreover, the project has been approved and registered by the Danish Data Protection
Agency.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 69
The Experimental Design
The experiment includes one control group and two treatment groups, corresponding to the two interventions described above. To avoid experimental contamination,
that is, that the treatments are diluted because control group subjects are exposed
to the treatments, we assigned clusters of child-care centers to the groups instead of
individual centers. Each cluster of child-care centers consists of one to five centers
and is managed by a middle manager. Centers within a cluster cooperate on various
issues. Supporting some centers within a cluster, but not others, could result in the
employees in the control group being affected (positively or negatively) by the fact
that their colleagues in other centers within the cluster were offered support that
they did not receive themselves. In the statistical analyses, cluster effects are handled by generalized least squares (GLS) random effects regressions with child-care
centers as a grouping variable, because spatial autocorrelation is stronger at the
lower level. The analysis has been replicated in a multilevel model with employees
nested within centers within clusters of centers with no substantial impact on the
results.
In total, 41 clusters of child-care centers, containing 117 centers and 825 frontline
employees, were assigned to one of the three groups. Before the random assignment,
the clusters were stratified to ensure homogeneous groups.7
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics on how different variables are distributed
over the three experimental groups. The table shows that the assignment procedure
generally resulted in a balanced set of groups. Very few statistically significant
differences are found between the organizational support group and the two other
groups (indicated with asterisks in Table 2). Furthermore, in robustness analyses
we include the unbalancing covariates in the models, which does not change the
results.
In our analysis, we apply the intention-to-treat principle, in which the participants
are analyzed in the groups to which they were randomly assigned (Hollis & Campbell, 1999). The advantage is that the analysis utilizes the random assignment in
contrast to using an approach in which the participants are analyzed in the groups
to which they belong at the end of the experiment. Thus, participant movement is
not necessarily random. This entails that child-care employees who move between
the groups are placed in their original groups in the analyses. However, it was not
possible to include people who stopped working as child-care employees in the municipality during the test period, as they are deleted from the administrative data
used to contact them.
To increase precision levels in our analysis and thereby—all else being equal—
increase the statistical power of the study (Raudenbush, 1997; Sochet, 2008), we
include a pretest of POS and commitment in the model. We use a simple differencein-difference estimator utilizing pre- and posttests among the employees to evaluate
the effect of the organizational support treatment on POS and commitment.
However, not all respondents from the pretest responded to the posttest and vice
versa. Consequently, the gain in power from including the pretest variable in the
analysis may be set back by the reduction of respondents. We therefore supplement
the pretest–posttest model with a model in which only the posttest POS and commitment are used, and the participants are analyzed in the experimental groups
to which they belong at the end of the experiment. This approach provides more
7
Stratification variables include the following: (1) bilingual children’s expected Danish proficiency at
school entry calculated by a model including socioeconomic variables, (2) child-care employees’ taskspecific POS in 2008, and (3) the centers’ share of bilingual children.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
70 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Table 2. Balance test prior to intervention (2008).
Organizational
support
Control Hawthorne
treatment
group
treatment
Dependent variables
General POS (0 to 10, 10 = high
POS)
Task-specific POS (0 to 10, 10 =
high POS)
General organizational
commitment (0 to 10, 10 =
high commitment)
Task-specific commitment (0 to
10, 10 = high commitment)
Child-care employees
Age
Tenure
No. of sick days, 2007 to 2008
Wage (adj. for no. of working
hours)
Frontline manager (=1, not
manager = 0)
Woman (=1, man = 0)
Attitudes toward specific task
(0 to 10, 10 = positive
attitudes toward task)
Stress (0 to 10, 10 = highly
stressed)
Child-care centers
No of child-care employees (n)
No. of child-care centers (n)
No. of clusters of child-care
centers (n)
No. of children
Share of bilingual children
Budget for language support
(1,000 DKK)
Users’ socioeconomic status
Mother’s education
Primary school
Vocational training
High school
Higher education,
undergraduate
Higher education,
postgraduate
Father’s education
Primary school
Vocational training
High school
Higher education,
undergraduate
Higher education,
postgraduate
Total
3.54
3.14
2.93
3.29 (n = 343)
5.28
5.27
5.09
5.25 (n = 347)
3.94
3.62
3.73
3.82 (n = 412)
4.58
4.56
4.67
4.60 (n = 410)
42.88
10.45
18.98
28.29
42.64
11.39
28.28*
28.67
43.87
11.44
21.78
27.86
43.04 (n = 678)
10.87 (n = 678)
22.77 (n = 678)
28.29 (n = 678)
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18 (n = 678)
0.90
7.82
0.90
7.87
0.88
7.73
0.89 (n = 678)
7.82 (n = 406)
6.39
6.89
6.95
6.68 (n = 426)
301
43
14
31.72
0.34
87.84
257
35
14
34.46
0.30
94.94
267
39
13
30.09
0.36
95.9
825
117
41
43.44 (n = 116)
0.34 (n = 116)
92.59 (n = 107)
0.31
0.20
0.10
0.25
0.26
0.18
0.15**
0.26
0.30
0.17
0.12
0.26
0.29 (n = 5983)
0.19 (n = 5983)
0.12 (n = 5983)
0.26 (n = 5983)
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.14 (n = 5983)
0.24
0.27
0.10
0.23
0.20
0.26
0.11
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.11
0.22
0.23 (n = 5906)
0.26 (n = 5906)
0.10 (n = 5906)
0.23 (n = 5906)
0.16
0.19
0.17
0.17 (n = 5906)
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 71
Table 2. Continued.
Organizational
support
Control Hawthorne
treatment
group treatment
Rented house
(=1, ownership = 0)
Household income
(1,000 DKK)
Attrition (=1, no attrition = 0)
from 2008 to 2010, dependent
variables
0.56
0.66*
Total
0.65
0.62 (n = 6492)
491.64 (n = 7530)
506.94
474.81
479.94
0.51
0.45
0.46
0.48 (n = 287)
Note: The cells display means, unless otherwise stated.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Two-tailed significance tests of difference between organizational support group
and the control and Hawthorne groups, respectively.
respondents and less attrition to the estimation as we can use all of the respondents
who answered the 2010 survey.
Measuring the Dependent Variables
The dependent variables, POS and employee commitment, were measured by two
surveys, one in December 2008 prior to the intervention, another in January 2010,
nine months after the intervention was initiated. If POS had been measured immediately after the first visits, we might have been measuring a novelty or warm glow
effect. After nine months, the vast majority had received more than one visit. On the
other hand, effects might dissipate after nine months, but if managers want lasting
effects, they should expect to prolong the intervention.
Fifty-one percent of the population returned the questionnaire in 2008, and 55
percent returned the questionnaire in 2010.8 Thirty percent returned both questionnaires. The attrition rates (share of employees who did not provide information on
the dependent variables in 2010 based on those who provided information on the
dependent variables in 2008) do not differ significantly between the organizational
support group and the control and Hawthorne groups, respectively (see bottom of
Table 2). A nonresponse analysis presented in Table 3 shows minor differences on
age, gender, size of child-care centers, and share of frontline managers. The sampling bias is not large, but it implies that the accuracy in the descriptive statistics is
slightly reduced. However, there are no differences in the number of sick days, wage,
number of children, and share of bilingual children. Moreover, because the experimental groups are nicely balanced and attrition rates do not differ significantly
between the groups (see Table 2), the causal effect estimations are not expected to
be substantially affected by nonresponse.
We used two measures of POS. One is the employees’ general perception of the
organization’s support (general POS), which uses the six high-loading items (used
by Eisenberger et al., 2001) from the survey of POS (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 502,
8
The response rates are calculated on the basis of the entire study population of child-care employees (both employees with and without contact information were included in the calculation). Contact
information was missing for some child-care employees. A calculation based on to whom the questionnaire was sent to (excluding employees with missing contact information) shows that 65 percent of the
child-care employees answered in 2008 and 55 percent in 2010.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
72 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Table 3. Nonresponse analyses, child-care employee surveys.
Nonrespondents Respondents Nonrespondents Respondents
2008
2008
2010
2010
Child-care employees
Age
Tenure
No. of sick days, 2007 to
2008
Wage
Frontline manager
(=1, not manager = 0)
Woman (=1, man = 0)
Characteristics of employee’s
child-care center
No. of children
Share of bilingual
children
Budget for targeted
language support
42.06
10.32
24.19
43.62*
11.19
21.83
41.71
9.78
23.96
44.52**
12.08**
21.27
27.99
0.20
27.66
0.17
27.95
0.10
27.61
0.18*
0.87
0.91
0.86
32.83
0.32
34.28**
0.35
33.23
0.35
34.29*
0.33
68.32
75.83
71.25
75.29
0.93**
Note: The cells display means, unless otherwise stated.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Two-tailed significance tests of the difference between nonrespondents and
respondents.
items no. 1, 4, 9, 20, 23, and 27). Except where noted, the respondents indicated
the extent of their agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
agree, 7 = strongly disagree). The item wordings and factor loadings are shown in
Table 4. The six items were included in the additive index General POS, ranging from
0 to 10 (10 = high POS). This measure is supplemented by a four-item measure of
the employees’ POS with regard to the task of targeted language support of bilingual
children (Task-specific POS, 0 to 10, 10 = high POS, see Table 4). As the increased
organizational support concerns a specific task (the work with targeted language
support of bilingual children), one would expect the increased support to primarily
affect employees’ perceived support regarding that task rather than the employees’
general perceived support from the organization. Three of the task-specific POS
items have been taken from Eisenberger et al. (1986, p. 502, items no. 1, 8, and 10),
but adjusted to incorporate the task-specific element. In addition, we constructed
an item measuring the cooperation between the organization and the employees
regarding the specific task. The correlation (Pearson’s r) between the general POS
and the task-specific POS is 0.57 in 2008 and 0.65 in 2010.
We used two items from Eisenberger et al. (2001, p. 45, items no. 23 and 24)
to measure the employees’ general organizational commitment (0 to 10, 10 = high
commitment, see Table 4, items 13 and 14). Like the POS measure, we supplemented
the general commitment index with a task-specific commitment measure (0 to 10,
10 = high commitment) that included two self-constructed items (see Table 4). Item
14 was included in the 2010 survey to replace an item in the 2008 survey measuring
task-specific commitment that did not work as expected. As item 14 was not present
in the 2008 survey, it is not included when examining the change in task-specific
commitment. As shown in the next section, the commitment indexes correlate with
POS very much like they do in previous research, which gives us confidence that
the items provide valid measures. The correlation (Pearson’s r) between the general
commitment and the task-specific commitment is 0.15 in 2008 and 0.32 in 2010.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 73
Table 4. Items and factor loadings.
Item
Factor loading
2008
General POS (0 to 10, 10 = high POS; Alpha, 2008 = 0.91;
Alpha, 2010 = 0.91)
1. The organization strongly considers my goals and
values
2. The organization shows little concern for me (R)
3. The organization values my contributions to the
delivery of the best possible service
4. The organization really cares about my well-being
5. The organization takes pride in my
accomplishments
6. The organization is willing to help me if I need a
special favor
Task-specific POS (0 to 10, 10 = high POS; Alpha, 2008 = 0.84;
Alpha, 2010 = 0.88)
7. The organization values my contributions to the
targeted language support of bilingual children
8. We have a comprehensive cooperation with the
organization regarding targeted language support
of bilingual children
9. Help and support is available from the
organization with regard to the targeted language
support of bilingual children
10. The organization is willing to extend itself in
order to help me perform targeted language
support of bilingual children to the best of my
ability
General commitment (0 to 10, 10 = high commitment;
Pearson’s r 2008 = 0.59;
Pearson’s r 2010 = 0.62)
11. I feel a strong sense of belonging to the
organization
12. I am proud to tell others I work at the
organization
Task-specific commitment (0 to 10, 10 = high commitment;
Pearson’s r 2010 = 0.35)
13. I see it as a personal victory when a bilingual
child from the child-care center becomes good at
Danish
14. Working with targeted language support has a
great deal of personal meaning to me
Factor loading
2010
0.84
0.84
0.72
0.90
0.68
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.89
0.85
0.83
0.86
0.75
0.81
0.85
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.83
0.87
Note: Factor loadings are not calculated for general commitment and task-specific commitment (Pearson’s r correlations are used to examine the association between the items).
EMPIRICAL TEST
In Table 5, we replicate the well-established relationship between POS and commitment using our data on Danish public child-care employees. Employees who
perceive the general organizational support as high are also more committed
to their organization than employees who feel less supported by the organization (Models I and III). Similarly, we find a significantly positive relationship
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
74 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Table 5. Relationship between POS and commitment, 2008 and 2010.
2008 Survey
Model I
Dependent variable
Explaining variables
General POS
Task-specific POS
Child-care employee variables
(control)
Gender (female =1,
male = 0)
Tenure
Manager (yes =1, no = 0)
Number of sick days
during 2007 and 2008
Wage (DKK 1,000)
adjusted for number of
working hours
Stress (0 to 10, 10 =
highly stressed)
Unit language worker
(yes =1, no = 0)
Language counselor
(yes =1, no = 0)
Constant
N
Number of groups
R2
2010 Survey
Model II
Model III
General
TaskGeneral
organizational
specific
organizational
commitment commitment commitment
0.82 (0.04)**
Taskspecific
commitment
0.87 (0.04)**
**
0.20 (0.05)**
0.10 (0.03)
−0.32 (0.27)
Model IV
0.14 (0.22)
0.39 (0.32)
1.07 (0.36)**
0.006 (0.01)
−0.012 (0.01)
0.03 (0.24)
0.09 (0.31)
0.004 (0.003) −0.004 (0.003)
0.02 (0.01)
0.75 (0.27)**
0.002 (0.002)
0.001 (0.01)
0.64 (0.22)**
0.001 (0.002)
−0.02 (0.03)
−0.06 (0.03)*
0.03 (0.04)
0.03 (0.05)
−0.02 (0.04)
0.049 (0.03)
0.02 (0.03)
0.02 (0.04)
−0.33 (0.19)
0.43 (0.24)
0.26 (0.25)
0.39 (0.31)
0.11 (0.19)
−0.25 (0.26)
0.34 (0.16)*
0.05 (0.21)
1.76 (0.99)
5.16 (0.86)** −0.15 (1.05)
4.26 (1.41)**
324
89
0.62
330
91
0.09
266
91
0.15
266
93
0.71
Note: Two-tailed significance tests. GLS random effects regressions with child-care centers as grouping
variable. Standard errors are presented in parentheses.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
between the task-specific POS and the task-specific commitment (Models II and
IV). The result shows that Eisenberger and his colleagues’ theory of organizational support can be generalized also to the present empirical setting of exchange relationships between the organization and the public child-care centers.
Furthermore, the result confirms that the translated survey questions are useful
for testing whether increased organizational support affects perceived support and
commitment.
Table 6 presents the results of testing the effect of the management initiative on
the employees’ POS as well as their commitment. Models I to IV use the change in
general POS, task-specific POS, general commitment, and task-specific commitment
as dependent variables. Models V to VIII use the posttest variables. Each model
includes a dummy variable identifying the organizational support treatment group
and a dummy variable identifying the Hawthorne treatment group (the control
group works as a reference category). Moreover, Models I to IV each include a
variable measuring the initial (2008) level of general POS, task-specific POS, general
commitment, and task-specific commitment, respectively, to account for any ceiling
effects. For instance, employees with high initial POS cannot increase their POS as
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
182
84
0.13
1.71 (0.25)**
195
82
0.20
2.64 (0.34)**
−0.35 (0.05)**
−0.25 (0.31)
−0.27 (0.30)
−0.26 (0.05)**
−0.02 (0.27)
−0.23 (0.26)
task-specific
POS,
2008 to 2010
general
POS, 2008 to
2010
247
87
0.22
2.45 (0.28)**
−0.39 (0.05)**
−0.34 (0.43)
−0.13 (0.31)
general
commitment,
2008 to 2010
Model III
243
86
0.28
2.36 (0.28)**
−0.52 (0.05)**
−0.12 (0.18)
−0.10 (0.16)
task-specific
commitment,
2008 to 2010
Model IV
393
110
0.01
4.18 (0.21)**
0.01 (0.30)
0.31 (0.30)
General POS,
2010
Model V
399
109
0.01
6.09 (0.20)**
−0.07 (0.28)
0.29 (0.28)
Task-specific
POS, 2010
Model VI
479
110
0.01
4.53 (0.20)**
0.19 (0.28)
0.46 (0.29)
General
commitment,
2010
Model VII
450
111
0.00
7.26 (0.16)**
0.01 (0.24)
0.10 (0.23)
Task-specific
commitment,
2010
Model VIII
Note: p values test the one-sided hypothesis. GLS random effects regressions with child-care centers as grouping variable. Standard errors are presented in
parentheses. Item number 14 in Table 4 was only included in the 2010 survey and therefore not used when examining the change in task-specific commitment.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
N
Number of groups
R2
Control variables
General POS, 2008
Task-specific POS,
2008
General commitment,
2008
Task-specific
commitment, 2008
Constant
Experimental treatments
(ref. = control group)
Organizational
support treatment
Hawthorne treatment
Dependent variable
Model II
Model I
Table 6. Treatment effects on POS and commitment.
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 75
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
76 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
much as employees with low initial POS. Leaving that variable out of the model
does not change the conclusions.
Table 6 shows that the organizational support treatment does not have a statistically significant effect on the change in the employees’ POS, regardless if we look
at the general or task-specific POS (see Models I and II). These models use the
difference-in-difference estimator combined with the intention-to-treat design. This
design provides the highest internal validity. On the other hand, it has fewer respondents. However, Models V and VI show that using only the posttest POS measure
and the end-group design does not produce significant estimates even though the
coefficients change from negative to positive.
For that reason, it is no surprise that we do not find any effect on general or
task-specific commitment in either the difference-in-difference models (III and IV)
or posttreatment models (VII and VIII). The Hawthorne treatment did not have an
effect on POS or commitment either. Robustness analyses show that the results do
not change if we include covariates in the models. We also assured that the effect
of the organizational support treatment is not contingent on whether the child-care
centers have large or small shares of bilingual children.
MODERATING MECHANISMS: A SUBGROUP ANALYSIS
The results presented in Table 6 show that the management initiative had no average
effect on employees’ POS. However, the results raise a number of issues for future
studies.
A central concern in the design of the initiative was that the support should be
an offer, not a requirement, that is, it was voluntary for the child-care centers to
accept the offer. All centers but three accepted the offer, and the vast majority
asked for more support. However, there was also some variation in the number and
length of the visits by the consultant (see Table 1). This leads to the question of
who made the most use of it. Bivariate analyses reveal that local frontline managers
who felt less supported, less committed, and more stressed prior to the intervention
had more and longer visits than the rest of the treatment group. Furthermore,
more and longer visits are associated with the perception of being more supported
afterwards.
This suggests that we should expect the new management initiative to have the
largest positive effect in the child-care centers where the local manger felt less supported at the outset. We examine this by interacting local managers’ general POS
(0 to 10, 10 = highest POS) prior to the intervention with the treatment variable.
Consequently, only employees whose local manager responded to the survey in 2008
were included in this analysis, which lowers the number of observations compared
to the previous analyses (see Table 6). Table 7 shows the results of this subgroup
analysis when examining the treatment effects on task-specific POS. The results
confirm the expectation. The constitutive term of the treatment variable now shows
the effect for child-care centers where the local manager did not feel supported at
all before the intervention, that is, cases that take the value 0 on the local manager’s
POS in the pretest. For this group of employees, the treatment increases the employees’ POS significantly in both the difference-in-difference model (Model I) and
the posttreatment model (Model II).
Following Brambor, Clark, and Golder (2006), we illustrate the marginal effect
of the treatment initiative across different values of managers’ ex ante POS. This is
done in Figure 2. We see that the management initiative has a positive, significant
effect on the change in POS in child-care centers where the manager scores between
0 and 2.15 on the pre-POS measure (about 19 percent of the employees), although
there is no statistically significant effect on the rest of the child-care centers. Using
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 77
Table 7. Treatment effect on task-specific POS contingent on frontline manager’s POS.
Dependent variable
Experimental groups (ref. = control group)
Organizational support treatment
Hawthorne treatment
Local frontline manager
General POS of frontline manager
(2008)
Organizational support treatment ×
General POS of frontline manager
(2008)
Control
Task-specific POS, 2008
Constant
N
Number of groups
R2
Model I
Model II
task-specific POS,
2008 to 2010
Task-specific POS,
2010
1.39 (0.59)*
−0.26 (0.33)
1.90 (0.72)**
0.19 (0.39)
0.16 (0.08)
0.31 (0.10)**
−0.29 (0.12)*
−0.39 (0.06)**
2.24 (0.42)**
146
58
0.27
−0.34 (0.15)*
4.73 (0.44)**
192
65
0.08
Note: p values test the two-sided hypothesis. GLS random effects regressions with child-care centers as
grouping variable. Standard errors are presented in parentheses.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
the post-POS measure as a dependent variable, the marginal effect is significant
up to 3.25 on the pre-POS measure (not shown) corresponding to about 32 percent
of the employees. These effects are also found if we use the Hawthorne group as
control instead of the regular control group. Hence, nothing indicates that the effect
is a Hawthorne or novelty effect.
Correlations between treatment and a certain subgroup should be interpreted
cautiously when they are not part of the ex ante theoretical hypothesis. They
may be coincidences rather than causal effects. Nevertheless, these results raise
important considerations to both theory and praxis. These issues are discussed
next.
DISCUSSION
The study has important implications for cross-sectional studies, psychological laboratory experiments, and public management research of social exchanges, as well
as for practitioners in public organizations. First, research within areas such as
POS (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1989), and organizational citizenship behaviors (Konovsky &
Pugh, 1994; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006) suggest that even without any
economic incentives or contractual regulations, a positive self-reinforcing dynamic
exists between workers’ motivation, behavior, and performance, on the one hand,
and managers’ rewards and support to the workers on the other.
We find the same cross-sectional correlation between employees’ POS and commitment in our study. However, the field experiment shows that increased organizational support does not automatically produce increased average perceived
support or commitment. This finding shows that the reciprocal relation between
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
78 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Figure 2. Treatment Effect Contingent on Local Frontline Manager’s POS. Dependent variable: task-specific POS, 2008 to 2010. The observed range of local
frontline manager’s POS in 2008 is 0 to 8.6.
managerial support and employee motivation found in many cross-sectional studies should be interpreted with care. Especially, one cannot infer from these associations that increased organizational support will immediately result in increased
commitment and effort.
Second, laboratory experiments have convincingly demonstrated the psychological mechanism in social exchange relationships, in particular how actors can initiate
exchanges individually by performing a beneficial act for another because norms of
reciprocity make the other cooperate (Bottom et al., 2006; Miller & Whitford, 2002;
Molm, Peterson, & Takahashi, 2003; Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000). Our field
experiment shows that these results cannot be directly applied to real organizations
outside the laboratory without taking into account the social exchanges already at
play. In the subgroup analysis, we found that frontline managers’ prior levels of POS
affected how they received the offer of more support and whether it had any effect
on subsequent levels of perceived support. Theoretically, this subgroup analysis suggests that a more complex model of social exchange theory is needed to understand
the dynamic moderating impact of previous experiences within the organization. In
Figure 3, we suggest a modification of the theoretical model (cf. Figure 1) in which
earlier levels of POS (at time t0 ) affects the way new initiatives are received and
perceived (at time t1 ).
New laboratory experiments are needed to test the psychological validity of this
modification of the model. It should be possible to examine not just if repeated
games increase the level of social exchanges, as expected by the simpler model in
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 79
Figure 3. Moderation of the Employee–Organization Exchange Relation.
Figure 1, but also whether previous levels of perceived support interact with the way
new beneficial acts are received and perceived, as suggested in Figure 3.
Third, in our field experiment, the frontline managers seemed to play the role of
gatekeepers, because their previous perceived support affected how the new support initiative was received. This finding suggests that along with research on the
psychological mechanisms in social exchanges, more research in public management is needed if the theoretical notions are to be implemented in practice. Especially, the interplay between upper-level and lower-level managers seems important
because the way lower-level managers feel supported seems to be important to the
implementation of new upper-level managerial initiatives.
Fourth, to practitioners the study shows that if new organizational support initiatives are offered on a voluntary basis, managers risk that only a minor group of
employees make use of the offer to an extent that affects their POS. On the other
hand, presenting a new organizational support initiative as mandatory may not result in the intended effects. According to the social exchange theory, the intricate
interplay among organizational support, perception of organizational support, and
employee commitment is based on intrinsic norms of reciprocity. This exchange relationship may not easily be altered by new management initiatives. It may even be
undermined if employees feel that new mandatory initiatives are driven by upperlevel managers’ ulterior motives. Alternatively, managers may target their voluntary
offer of support to groups that feel less supported at the outset. That may be a
more efficient use of scarce resources. On the other hand, targeted support may
have negative effects on those who are not offered support, for example, because
of jealousy—or it may have negative effects on those selected because they might
feel stigmatized. More theoretical and empirical work is needed to resolve these
issues.
CONCLUSION
Based on social exchange theory, we have tested the effect of a new management initiative aimed at increasing public employees’ perceived support and commitment.
The study demonstrates the importance of handling endogeneity when reciprocal
relationships between managers and employees are studied empirically. The correlation between POS and commitment found in many cross-sectional studies was
replicated in our study. However, the experiment shows that even if this pattern of
support and commitment is found in many organizations, we cannot infer that an
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
80 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
increase in one factor automatically increases the next factor in the model. Reality
seems to be more complex than that.
Laboratory experiments may help test and develop modifications to the theory, including the psychological and sociological mechanisms at play. But if such theoretical insights are to be turned into managerial practice, field experiments are needed
to test the effect in real organizations. Employees and managers already engage in
exchanges, and they may therefore respond differently to treatments compared to
participants in the laboratory. Particularly, the results of the field trial suggest that
perceptions of previous organizational support affect the way new initiatives are
received and perceived.
These findings raise important considerations to both researchers and practitioners using social exchange theory. The results suggest that the relationship between
managerial support and employee motivation found in cross-sectional studies within
the psychology and management literatures should be interpreted with care. We cannot infer from these associations that increased organizational support necessarily
increases commitment and effort. Furthermore, new organizational support initiatives must take into account mechanisms that moderate the effect on perceived
support and commitment. Our results suggest a modification of the theoretical
model that takes into account the social exchanges already at play. Specifically, the
results contend that existing levels of perceived support among the receivers of new
organizational support initiatives is important.
MORTEN JAKOBSEN is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science
and Government, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
SIMON CALMAR ANDERSEN is Associate Professor at the Department of Political
Science and Government, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is a part of a major research project that conducted field experiments in cooperation with the Municipality of Aarhus. We would like to thank the municipality, especially
Catharina Damsgaard and Anette D. Knudsen, for this opportunity and excellent collaboration. We are also grateful to Søren Serritzlew for numerous comments and suggestions to
the project. Furthermore, the paper has benefitted significantly from comments provided by
Lotte B. Andersen, Rhys Andrews, as well as the participants at EUROLOC 2010 in Norway
and presentations of the paper at The Department of Political Science at Aarhus University.
We also thank editor Marueen Pirog, coeditor Matt Potoski, and four anonymous reviewers
for their comments and suggestions. Finally, we would like to thank KREVI (The Danish
Evaluation Institute for Local Government) for funding the project’s data collection.
REFERENCES
Adair, J. G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 334–345.
Andersen, L. B., & Pallesen, T. (2008). “Not just for the money?” How financial incentives
affect the number of publications at Danish research institutions. International Public
Management Journal, 11, 28–47.
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.
Bernard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. New York: Wiley.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations / 81
Bottom, W. P., Holloway, J., Miller, G. J., Mislin, A., & Whitford, A. (2006). Building a
pathway to cooperation: Negotiation and social exchange between principal and agent.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 29–58.
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving
empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.
Brewer, G. A., Selden, S. C., & Facer II, R. L. (2000). Individual conceptions of public service
motivation. Public Administration Review, 60, 254–264.
Brewer, Sr., G. A., & Brewer, Jr., G. A. (2011). Parsing public/private differences in work
motivation and performance: An experimental study. Journal of Public Administration
Review and Theory, 21(Suppl 3), i347–i362.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the
lens of social exchange. In J. A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, & M. S. Taylor (Eds.), The
employment relationship. Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 5–28).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Kessler, I. (2003). The employment relationship in the U.K. public
sector: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 13, 213–230.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee-organization relationship:
Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 166–179.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through
the maze. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 317–
372.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
42–51.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
812–820.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–
362.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Inter-personal behavior as social exchange.
In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory
and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Plenum Press.
Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money. An economic theory of personal motivation.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of
HRM practice on employee outcomes. Public Management Review, 7, 1–24.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Hollis, S., & Campbell, F. (1999). What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of
published randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 319, 670–674.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 63,
597–606.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. The
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational
support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
82 / Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Margetts, H. Z. (2011). Experiments for public management research. Public Management
Review, 13, 189–208.
McDermott, R. (2002). Experimental methods in political science. Annual Review of Political
Science, 5, 31–61.
Miller, G. J., & Whitford, A. (2002). Trust and incentives in principal-agent negotiations: The
“insurance/incentive trade-off.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14, 231–267.
Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21,
1–17.
Molm, L. D., Peterson, G., & Takahashi, N. (2003). In the eye of the beholder: Procedural
justice in social exchange. American Sociological Review, 68, 128–152.
Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An
experimental test of a classical proposition. The American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1396–
1427.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perry, J. L. (2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 471–488.
Raudenbush, S. (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials.
Psychological Methods, 2, 173–185.
Rhoades, L. & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Romzek, B. S. (1990). Employee investment and commitment: The ties that bind. Public
Administration Review, 50, 374–382.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Sochet, P. Z. (2008). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 62–87.
Thibault, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector: Benefits
and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 387–412.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it.
New York: Basic Books.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
APPENDIX: INTENSIFYING SOCIAL EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC
ORGANIZATIONS
This appendix contains additional information regarding the manuscript “Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations: Evidence from a
Randomized Field Experiment.” The appendix includes an expanded description of
the organizational support intervention and setting, and additional results referred
to in the paper.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT TREATMENT
Setting
The experiment was carried out in cooperation with the Municipality of Aarhus
in Denmark, which has a population of about 300,000. Due to a large increase
in immigration during the 1990s, the city has experienced an increase in bilingual
children who learn Danish as their second language. Consequently, public child-care
centers (enrolling 3- to 5-year-old children) have been required to provide bilingual
children with targeted language support. In Denmark it is quite normal for parents
to enroll their children in child care during the daytime. In fact, 87 percent of all 3to 5-year-old children are enrolled in child care (Statistics Denmark, 2008, pp. 156–
157). Seventy-eight percent of all 3- to 5-year-old descendants of immigrants (the
primary users of language support) are enrolled in child care. The cost of child care
is shared between the users, who pay a monthly fee for enrollment in a child-care
center, and the municipality. The study was conducted on public child-care centers
(73 percent of all child-care centers in the setting).
The mean share of bilingual children in the child-care centers included in the
experiment is .34 (the distributions of the child-care centers’ number of children and
proportion of children who learn Danish as their second language are shown for each
of the three experimental groups in Figure A1). Hence, providing targeted language
support for bilingual children is an important task for the child-care centers and
the child care employees. However, it is also a difficult task. Because the task is
relatively new, second language learning was not a part of the basic education
for most of the child care employees. In practice, the child-care centers have a dual
approach to the targeted language support. First, several times a week the child-care
center’s bilingual children are gathered in small groups in which language activities
adjusted to the children’s needs are undertaken (e.g., reading aloud, dialogic reading,
singing, language games). Second, the child care employees try to incorporate the
bilingual children’s language needs into care routines (e.g., eating, brushing teeth,
and playing).
The Special Language Consultant
The experiment was conducted in cooperation with the Municipality of Aarhus,
which was planning initiatives aimed at supporting the front level with regard to
the task of providing bilingual children with targeted language support. The organizational support treatment in our experiment consists in providing the child-care
centers with a special language consultant from the central administration, whose
function it was to visit the child-care centers individually and offer a decentralized,
professional, and appreciatory support to the employees. The special consultant is
an expert in second language learning and the sole concern of the special consultant
was to offer support to child care employees, based on their needs of assistance in
performing the task of targeted language support of the bilingual children.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Figure A1. Distribution of Child-Care Centers: Number and Proportion of Bilingual
children.
The job instruction of the special consultant emphasized that she should provide appreciatory support expressing respect and valuation of the jobs carried out
by child care employees—in accordance with the social exchange theory and POS
framework. In addition to expertise within second language learning, the selection
of the special consultant paid close attention to ensuring that the special consultant
possessed human relations qualifications and the personality necessary to support
the employees in an appreciatory way. Furthermore, the consultant was assigned a
coach to help in this endeavor.
The following translated version of the special consultant’s job description of how
the treatment of organizational support was meant to be implemented was part of
a longer document that also introduced the theory behind the treatment and the
project in general. The description was delivered to the special consultant prior
to the intervention as part of the special consultant’s preparations. A number of
meetings between the special consultant and the researchers were held prior to the
intervention to ensure that the special consultant was familiar with the purpose and
goal of the initiative. The job description reads as follows:
JOB DESCRIPTION
Acknowledgement of effort and importance, autonomy and the opportunity to
organize one’s work, ownership of one’s work, concern for the well-being of
employees, and job training are important aspects of work life that affect an
employee’s POS.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Eisenberger et al.’s (1986, 2001) measurements of POS show that it is a unidimensional, universal perception of the organization—that is, there is a large
degree of correlation between the perception of the various elements in it.
Strictly speaking, this must mean that a reinforcement of the OS (organizational support) in one area will result in a general increase in POS, all things
being equal.
According to the theory, OS to a great extent consists in intangible resources
in the form of acknowledgement and concern for the well-being of employees.
However, this may be expressed in more tangible forms (payment, promotion,
etc.).
To test politicians’ and administrators’ capacity to influence the public employees’ efforts without financial rewards, the treatment group of child-care
centers must, first, receive the intangible resources in the form of acknowledgement of efforts (when relevant—it should not be a lavish praise that takes place
regardless if the effort is worth acknowledging) and concern for the well-being
of employees in all contexts in which contact takes place between the administration and the employees. Second, it should take place in the framework of a
more tangible and organized support to help the employees perform their jobs
better. The operationalization will therefore focus on the conditions that should
have a positive effect according to the social exchange theory and existing nonexperimental studies, that is, acknowledgement from the organization of the
employees’ contribution and importance, autonomy (see also Wilson, 1989),
the absence of stressful additional tasks, support for handling new and difficult
tasks, job training, and supervisor support.
This will take place through a number of meetings between a project member
(PM) [denoted “special consultant” in the article] employed in a part-time position (30 hours per week for one to two years) from the administration and the
individual child-care centers (child-care centers). Three-quarters of PM’s time
is allocated for reinforced organizational support.
Start-Up of the Organizational Support on Staff Meeting at the Beginning of 2009
The organizational support from the administration is initiated through participation of PM at the next staff meeting, which is held (in January and February 2009) in the individual child-care centers belonging to the group that receives the organizational support. More specifically, PM contacts the individual
child-care centers and arranges to participate on the next staff group meeting. The managers of the child-care centers have been informed about PM’s
participation on a managers’ meeting on 5 January.
Contact to the Child-Care Center in Connection with the Visit
When contact is made with the child-care center to arrange the start-up meeting,
PM’s function is explained very briefly. Already at this point, the child-care
center will probably have an idea of PM’s function, which is why it is made clear
that PM is to function as support from the administration in “Børn & Unge”
[the children and youth administration] in relation to the language stimulation
efforts already being made in the child-care center. It is therefore made clear
that PM will not place new tasks on the pedagogues. PM draws up a plan for
the contact to the child-care center departments containing the above elements,
that is, PM’s function, and makes it clear that PM is to function as an additional
support from the administration for an important task and that PM will not
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
introduce new tasks or mandatory procedures—PM will support the pedagogues
in the tasks they are already carrying out.
The Actual Staff Meeting
At the staff meeting, PM makes a short presentation in which PM touches
upon the importance of language stimulation, the pedagogues’ role, and PM’s
future function. Subsequently, PM asks about the pedagogues’ experiences and
challenges. The purpose of the meeting is for PM to
r
r
r
r
r
r
account for the importance of an early effort with children with Danish as
their second language (this point will in some/many cases probably be of
greatest importance to the pedagogues who are not language pedagogues
because the language pedagogues are in many cases the ones who best see
the importance of an early effort),
account for the importance of the pedagogues’ efforts in this
regard,
ask about the pedagogues’ experiences with language stimulation,
account for the importance of a day-to-day language effort among all the
pedagogues in the child-care center,
account for the political and organizational focus on the problem. In this
connection, PM can mention that the subject receives significant attention
from the administration because an early effort appears to be of great
importance,
mention the limitations in resources that are inevitable—but that everything will be done within these limitations to assist the pedagogues in
their work. The extra effort is exactly an attempt to prioritize the language
effort. PM can also explain that no journal or control will be made for the
administration.
If so wished, a time for the next follow-up meeting can be arranged at the
staff group meeting.
Underlining that this is not a new task from the administration, but support
for the task they are already carrying out is crucial—PM can therefore function
as a resource for the pedagogues to draw on. In this connection, PM could mention that the child-care center can of course make use of the existing language
consultants from the municipality’s administration to the same extent as before.
The support and process should be arranged to accommodate the employees
in the individual child-care centers the best way possible. Ideas for how PM’s
function can be best explained can be found in Appendix A.
Moreover, the meeting and the following effort should include the employees’ experiences with what works well and what causes problems—obviously
combined with PM’s experience.
Generally, everyone should have PM’s telephone number and e-mail and be
informed that they can call and write about anything and everything, and that
he or she will be happy to come out and assist in looking at a certain child or
group of children if there is a need for it.
PM can suggest a work plan, e.g., a template like the project model used in the
children and youth department (see below), or a template that the pedagogues
are used to working with, where sub-goals can be made within the general goal
of improved language development—for instance, a certain work method or
goals for the individual children. In that case, it should be emphasized that
using the project model is optional and entirely up the staff. In other words,
the model can be used if the pedagogues find it useful—it should not be seen
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
as a demand for registration or unnecessary filling in of forms. Furthermore,
it should be mentioned that if the staff are reluctant to use the templates that
they usually work with, using these would be unsuitable.
Project title:
Strategic
goals
Project goal
Description
Indicators
Risk assessment
Established in advance
by the strategic
management
Established in advance
for the entire project
Established in advance
for the entire project
In what way could
local project
processes hinder the
results of the local
project from adding
value to the entire
project?
In what way could
local project
processes hinder
planned activities in
leading to the
required results?
Results
Total list of results for
the entire project
Activities
List of activities in the
individual local
project
Total resource
requirements for all
local projects
Conditions that must be present for the individual local project to be
carried out. These are conditions over which the local project has no
control. To be checked before the project is launched.
Resources
Conditions
Outlined for results in
the individual local
project
Follow-Up Visit Spring to Early Summer 2009
During the follow-up visit at the individual child-care centers, PM follows up
on the progress with the work and the individual children. PM contacts the
child-care center and arranges the visit—alternatively, the meeting is arranged
already at the staff meeting or via regular contact between PM and the child-care
center department.
In connection with the visit, it is discussed
r
r
r
r
r
r
if the pedagogues experience progress in the individual children’s language
development
how they experience their own effort—what works and what does not
work?
how they will proceed with their work—should any of the pedagogical
methods be adjusted?
if PM can refer to other child-care centers that achieve good results with
certain approaches
what linguistic challenges the pedagogues experience and how these challenges can be approached
if there are issues in the newsletter from the administration regarding
language stimulation that needs follow-up
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Moreover, during the visit, PM attempts to communicate the same points
to the pedagogues as in the staff meeting. PM also has the opportunity
to talk with the pedagogues and participate in the child-care center’s daily
activities.
Other Initiatives
On sight, it would be an advantage if the cooperation between PM and the staff
in the child-care centers could take place on the staff’s initiative when there is
a need for meetings or parents’ evenings. PM should give high priority to such
requests, large and small.
Moreover, joint meetings can be considered for all child-care centers in the
project, in the process, or as a completion, during which the pedagogues have
the opportunity to share information about their work with the children and
the results from it.
Appendix A
Ideas for how the project worker may present herself and her function:
“Why am I (the project worker) here?”
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
“It appears that ages 0 to 6 are very important for children’s language
skills—and the pedagogues in particular play an important role—they have
the possibility to influence the bilingual children’s language—make a difference.”
“The language stimulation in the child-care center is important, and you
pedagogues play a very important part in improving the language of children with Danish as their second language—the administration will offer
the best possible support to the pedagogues.”
It is important to note that we are, as always, subject to certain resource limitations—that is how it is—this is not something that the children and youth administration decides—but within these limitations, they
have chosen to focus on offering reinforced support to you in connection
with the language stimulation of children with Danish as their second
language.”
“I am not here to tell you what to do—hopefully, I can be a resource for
you to draw on in relation to the challenges in the language stimulation.
Hopefully, I can be of assistance in relation to the language stimulation
task.”
“The children and youth administration would like to support you in your
work with language stimulation of children with Danish as their second
language.”
“But this is a task that can seem difficult, and this is why the children and
youth administration has decided to include me as a further support in
the language work.”
“As the children and youth administration has made clear to me, my function is not to come out to tell you what to do.”
“What is my (the project worker’s) function and how will you be able to draw
on my knowledge?”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
r
r
r
Joint planning of how language stimulation in the child-care center could
take place: “I will visit you in the child-care center. As a starting point, you
will tell me about your ideas for the best approach to language stimulation.”
Follow-up on the themes in the newsletters:
“In each newsletter, a particular language subject will be dealt with, as
you know. However, several pedagogues have requested that the administration should, to a greater extent, follow-up on the newsletter and the
techniques for language stimulation mentioned in the newsletter. This is
an important part of my function. Hopefully, I will be able to help and
provide ideas in relation to some of the specific situations.”
“During the process, you have the possibility to contact me with the challenges you may have with the language stimulation.”
References
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
42–51.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it.
New York: Basic Books.
INTERVENTION PROGRESS
The treatment was initiated in the spring of 2009. The special consultant contacted
the child-care centers, gave a brief introduction to the purpose of the initiative, and
arranged to visit the centers. The special consultant made it clear that the initiative
was optional for the centers. Interviews with both the special consultant and childcare employees indicated that the special consultant and the initiative were generally
well received by the employees. The special consultant’s version of the reception is
illustrated in the following quote:
They [the child care employees] always start out with a healthy skepticism. . . . Out there
they have experienced that projects lead to a lot of extra work that does not correspond
to the outcome. So they look tired and sit with their arms crossed. . . . But when they
have heard what it is about, that it is a custom support that will fit their workday, and
that they are not required to fill in forms, etc., they think it is a gift. I have heard that
many times, “well, this is a gift,” they say.
Interviews with the special consultant and child care employees from the treatment group indicated that the child-care centers used the special consultant in
different ways. Some asked for general advice and training, while others asked for
assistance and advice in concrete cases. The employees could contact the special
consultant to arrange visits or receive advice on the phone. Most often, the special consultant took part in daily work situations when providing the assistance.
Thus, much of the visits consisted in providing on-the-floor advice on language development techniques in relation to specific children. For example, one employee
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Table A1. The special language consultant’s visits to treatment centers.
No. of visits
Hours of visits (effective time in center)
Total
Mean
Std. dev.
Min.
Max.
(N)
105
210.25
2.44
4.89
1.45
3.91
0
0
6
17.75
(43)
(43)
described the cases in which she used the special consultant (from posttreatment
interview) as follows:
[W]hen they [the children] cannot express themselves verbally, it gets physical; hitting,
slapping, and pulling stuff out of other children’s hands. How can we help this child in
the best way to make him or herself understood? . . . What should we focus on? Which
sentences does the child need? Also, just getting her [the special consultant] out here
to see if there is anything we are missing. She [the special consultant] has been visiting
many children in the same situation. . . . That is the way I have used her—very concrete:
what can we do for this child, who could he or she be paired with . . . and what material
would be relevant to use? Very concrete.
In another example, one of the local mangers described how the centers’ employees have used the special consultant for general advice on second language
learning:
She has been here, and she was actually just available to us, and I know that several
[people] have used her for inspiration. Among other things, she has participated in our
field trips.
The special consultant mostly provided the organizational support by visiting
the child-care centers. When she was not visiting child-care centers, she was located at the central administration so that there would be no doubt that the
support was provided by the municipal administration. When appropriate, the
special consultant expressed appreciation of, and the importance of, the childcare employees’ contribution to the children’s language development during her
visits.
Table A1 shows descriptive statistics of the special consultant’s visits to the childcare centers in the treatment period. The special consultant made 105 visits and
spent 210.25 hours in the 42 treatment centers. Only two centers opted out in the
sense that they had no visits. Most centers (76 percent) were visited more than
once. Most importantly, however, all centers received the visits they asked for. This
means that all centers received the treatment in the sense that they were offered the
assistance without being required to accept a minimum or maximum number of
visits. The number of visits was decided by the child-care centers.
ADDITIONAL RESULTS
This section presents additional results referred to in the article, but not shown in
tables or figures. Tables A2, A3, and A4 replicate Models I and II in the article’s
Table 6. Table A2 includes the share of bilingual children as moderator of the
treatment effect. Table A3 includes an additional cluster variable (organizational
clusters of child-care centers). Table A4 includes covariates when estimating the
treatment effect.
Table A5 shows the relationship between local managers’ pretreatment POS, commitment, and stress and the number of visits of their child-care centers. Table A6
shows the relationships between number of visits and POS.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Table A2. Treatment effect on POS contingent on share of bilingual children.
Dependent variable
Model I
Model II
task-specific POS,
2008–2010
general POS,
2008–2010
Experimental groups
Control (ref.)
0
Organizational support
.17 (.38)
treatment
Hawthorne treatment
−.21 (.31)
Share of bilingual children in the child care centers
Share of bilingual children
−.32 (.47)
Organizational support
−.46 (.75)
treatment × Share of bilingual
children
Control
Task-specific POS, 2008
−.34 (.05)**
General POS, 2008
Constant
2.72 (.36)**
N
195
Number of groups
82
.21
R2
0
−.19 (.36)
−.22 (.30)
−.35 (.44)
−.06 (.73)
−.25 (.05)**
1.79 (.27)**
182
84
.13
*p < .05; **p < .01. P-values test the two-sided hypothesis. GLS random effects regressions with child-care
centers as grouping variable. Standard errors are presented in parentheses.
Table A3. Treatment effect on POS, multilevel model with employees nested within centers
within clusters of centers.
Dependent variable
Experimental groups
Control (ref.)
Organizational support treatment
Hawthorne treatment
Control
Task-specific POS, 2008
General POS, 2008
Constant
N
Number of groups
Model I
Model II
task-specific POS,
2008–2010
general POS,
2008–2010
0
−.02 (.27)
−.24 (.30)
0
−.22 (.27)
−.26 (.30)
−.36 (.05)**
**
2.64 (.33)
195
82
−.26 (.05)**
1.71 (.25)**
182
84
*p < .05; **p < .01. P-values test the two-sided hypothesis. Random effects regressions with childcare centers and cluster of child-care centers as grouping variables. Standard errors are presented in
parentheses.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Table A4. Treatment effect on POS, including covariates.
Dependent variable
Experimental groups
Control (ref.)
Organizational support treatment
Hawthorne treatment
Control
Task-specific POS, 2008
General POS, 2008
Stress (0–10, 10 = highly stressed)
Unit language worker (yes = 1, no = 0)
Language counselor (yes = 1, no = 0)
Gender (female = 1, male = 0)
Tenure
Manager (yes = 1 , no = 0)
Number of sick days during 2007 and 2008
Wage (DKK 1000) adjusted for number of
working hours
Share of bilingual children in center
Budget for language support in center (1,000
DKK)
No. of children in center
Constant
N
Number of groups
Model I
Model II
task-specific POS,
2008–2010
general POS,
2008–2010
0
.05 (.30)
−.13 (.33)
−.35 (.06)**
−.08 (.06)
.19 (.28)
.57 (.34)
.67 (.43)
.01 (.02)
.46 (.37)
.001 (.004)
−.07 (.06)
0
−.31 (.29)
−.34 (.34)
−.25 (.06)**
.02 (.06)
.21 (.29)
.65 (.33)
−.22 (.44)
.02 (.02)
.20 (.38)
.004 (.004)
−.04 (.05)
−2.16 (.92)*
.006 (.003)*
.57 (.95)
−.004 (.003)
.0001 (.01)
4.17 (1.77)*
183
78
−.007 (.01)
2.77 (1.69)**
167
80
*p < .05, **p < .01. P-values test the two-sided hypothesis. GLS random effects regressions with child-care
centers as grouping variable. Standard errors are presented in parentheses.
Table A5. Relationship between local managers’ pretreatment condition and number of visits.
Model I
Local managers’ pretreatment condition
General POS, 2008
−.15 (.12)
General commitment, 2008
Stress, 2008
Constant
3.10 (.63)**
N
23
.06
R2
Model II
−.26 (.11)*
3.72 (.63)**
35
.06
Model II
.40 (.17)*
−.11 (1.08)
35
.17
*p < .05; **p < .01. P-values test the two-sided hypothesis. Bivariate regression coefficients. Standard
errors are presented in parentheses.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Intensifying Social Exchange Relationships in Public Organizations
Table A6. Relation between number of visits and task-specific POS.
Dependent variable
Number of visits
Constant
N
Number of groups
R2
Model I
Model II
task-specific POS,
2008–2010
.06 (.14)
.57 (.43)
79
32
.00
Task-specific
POS, 2010
.24 (.15)+
5.78 (.44)**
104
34
.04
*p < .05; **p < .01. P-values test the two-sided hypothesis. Bivariate regression coefficients. Standard
errors are presented in parentheses.
+p
< .10.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management DOI: 10.1002/pam
Published on behalf of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management