Effects of Advertising on Costumer's Purchase Intentions

Iram Ahmad

Facility of Management Sciences (International Islamic University Islamabad)

Irum.ahmed74@live.com

Abstract:

This research is done to examine effects of advertising on customers purchase intentions that also indicate their decision making process while persuasion and customers loyalty are factors effecting customers decision making process. Advertising always have a very rational and influencing impact on customers thinking powers.Some advertisers uses celebrity endorsement to persuade customers because some celebrities are having very pleasant and attractive personalities that can make any specific group of customers to change their decisions toward any particular brand. It's been also examined that creative persuasive advertisements have strong and dominant impact on consumers mind mapping because first time purchase of any product is uncommon and people use to buy similar product again and again. They feel hesitation to try new brands. However advertisers also use norms, values and physiographic factors in commercials to change consumers perception toward prestige of any brand, some other factors also have impact on customers buying intentions like, music, graphic quality, concept of commercial and the level of persuasion used in it. But price of a product and quality of product also influence consumers buying intentions.

Primary data is collected through questionnaires taking 250 consumers as samples.

key words: Advertising, Customer's Purchase intentions , Persuasion, Customers loyalty

Effects of Advertising on Costumer's Repurchase Intentions
Iram Ahmad

Faculty of Management Sciences (International Islamic University Islamabad)

irum.ahmed74@gmail.com

Advertising always has a very rational and influencing impact on customers thinking powers. This research is done to examine effects of advertising on customers repurchase intentions that also indicate their decision making process while persuasion moderates the relation between advertising and customers repurchase intentions strongly, on the other hand customer’s loyalty mediates this relationship. In results persuasive advertisements have strong and dominant impact on consumers mind mapping it could make them loyal to stick single brand because first time purchase of any product is uncommon and people use to buy similar product repeatedly. They feel hesitation while trying new brands. On the other hand persuasion also effects customers loyalty negatively. They may change their loyalty after being influenced by persuasive advertising.
Primary data is collected through questionnaires taking 250 customers of different telecom companies as samples. To measure the relationship of advertising and customers repurchase intentions, statistical techniques regression and correlation was used. This research investigated that advertising has a very strong and positive influence on customers repurchase intentions. Customer loyalty is also analyzed having positive and negative (two-way) relationship with persuasion .
Key words: Advertising, Customer's repurchase intentions, Persuasion, Customers loyalty

The Impact of Abusive Supervision on Subordinates

Iram Ahmad 

(irum.ahmed74@gmail.com,)

International Islamic University Islamabad

Abstract:

Purpose: The main purpose of the study is to identify the moderating role of self-control capacity and its impact on Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Design/methodology/approach: The data used in this study is cross-sectional in nature. Convenience sampling technique was used to collect the data. Sample size was 300 and for this purpose we have approached teachers of universities and responses are traced through questionnaire method. Statistical tools regression and correlation to compile results.

Findings: The research has found that there is strong negative relationship between abusive supervision and OCBs. The self-control capacity has moderated effect on this negative relationship.

Research Limitations: The research can be conducted on longitudinal period in future.

Practical implications: The current study has emphasized on individuals to manage their self-control capacity. As it is clear from existing study, the abusive supervision can affect the organization as a whole when an employee decreases their OCBs. Management should also understand the issues of the employees and try to handle them timely rather than indulging in abusive supervisory towards subordinates.

Key words: Abusive supervision, Self control capacity, OCB

1.      Introduction:

Abusive supervision is mostly studied topic in past two decades because it is a common practice in today’s organizational cultures. Abusive supervision is a non physical aggressive behavior of a supervisor toward his/her subordinates (Tepper et al., 2008). Abusive supervisors affects overall environment of an organization with their belligerent behaviors. The one who is abused will feel aggravation, lower self control and uncomfortable in this environment (Ashforth, 1997). Employees are the assets for an organization. Losing their self-control could be destructive for an organization as well as their own selves. Abusive supervision affects subordinate performance (Chirtopher et al., 2015). Some supervisors are always abusive and others are abusive under specific circumstances. The behavior of an abusive supervisor amended on daily bases (Johnson et al., 2012). It also varies from employee to employee. The person who is not interacting with supervisor on daily bases are less abused. Being a part of higher level in organization an individual is more powerful and lesser abused by his supervisor than a lower level employee (Grandey and Kern., 2004). Some people with are practically self regulated, A good working relationship with co-workers is basically not the part of job for any employee (Organ, 1988). But if he is holding his self while being abused by his supervisor he is showing his workplace responsibility for not arguing with supervisor.

Past researches are arguing about abusive supervision and its outcomes like aggression, job performance, job satisfaction, motivation, turn-over intentions etc but still affect of self-control capacity of subordinates on overall OCB is lacking. In this study we are presenting a model in which self control capacity is moderation between abusive supervision and OCBs of subordinates. It will ultimately help to understand the behavior of an abused employee who is working under his own self regulatory process.

Ultimate goals of this study are to provide help to understand the behavior of subordinates that when and why they are engaged in working proficiently under abusive supervision. And how their self control capacity helps them while they are facing an abusive supervisor, Basic idea for moderating role of self control capacity is taken from Huiwen at el,. (2014) who argued that self-control capacity control individual’s reactions. Present research is answering following question.

Is self control capacity of subordinates can restrain the negative consequences of abusive supervision on subordinate’s OCB?

Our research is providing a better understanding toward subordinate’s reactions toward abusive supervision. It helps an abusive supervisor to get a better idea about the compulsion under which his subordinate is behaving well in organization. On the other hand it is helping out a subordinate that how he could show endurance toward an abusive supervisor after controlling his inner emotions. Our research contributes in a scenario where self control capacity of subordinate limits the negative consequences of abusive supervision. The practice of self control capacity from subordinates will eventually confine retaliation toward supervisor and bad attitude toward co-workers. It’s important to maintain a better environment for better

1.1  Research problem statement

“To examine the moderating role of self-control capacity between abusive supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors”

1.2  Research objectives

Ultimate goal of this study is to provide help in understanding the behavior of subordinates that when and why they are engaged in working proficiently under abusive supervision. Another objective of this research is how self control capacity of individuals helps them while they are facing an abusive supervisor. Basic idea for moderating role of self control capacity is taken from (Huiwen at el,. 2014) who argued that self-control capacity control individual’s reactions.

1.3  Research questions

Is there negative relationship between abusive supervision and OCBs?

Is self control capacity of subordinates can restrain the negative consequences of abusive supervision on subordinate’s OCB?

1.4  Significance/contribution-theoretical/practical

Our research is providing a better understanding toward subordinate’s reactions toward abusive supervision. It helps an abusive supervisor to get a better idea about the compulsion under which his subordinate is behaving well in organization. On the other hand it is helping out a subordinate that how he could show endurance toward an abusive supervisor after controlling his inner emotions. Our research contributes in a scenario where self control capacity of subordinate limits the negative consequences of abusive supervision. The practice of self control capacity from subordinates will eventually confine retaliation toward supervisor and bad attitude toward co-workers. It’s important to maintain a better environment for better outcomes.

2.      Literature review:

Subordinate’s OCB

Abusive Supervision

Self control Capacity of Subordinates

 

As explained in (Tepper, 2000: 178). Abusive supervision is considered as sustained exhibition of hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior, of supervisors toward subordinates, as perceived by subordinates. The abusive supervision has persistent and negative effects on employees working in organizations.

Tepper (2007: 265) also noted that Abusive supervisory by supervisors toward subordinates involves continued exposure to mistreatment. A boss who has a bad day and blows all the frustration out on his or her subordinates would not be considered an abusive supervisor unless such behavior became a regular feature of his day to day routine. Examples of abusive supervision include lying, public ridicule, screaming at employees, disrespectful interactions, withholding needed information, rudeness toward subordinates, threats, silent treatments, , and inappropriate expressions of anger. Organizational Citizenship Behavior is characterized by the aim to make a positive contribution to the functioning of the organization (Bowling, 2010; Feather & Rauter, 2004; Organ 1997). It is also known as extra-role behavior.  In contrast of formal job descriptions, OCBs are optional, positive employee behaviors that are directed toward organization’s performance, but are not part of the employee’s official job description (Organ, 1988).

There are five dimensions of OCB. They are as follows (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al, 1990):

1. Altruism: The helping of an individual coworker on a task; voluntary actions that help a fellow employee in work related problems.

2. Civic virtue: Participating in the governance of the organization; voluntary participation in, and support of, organizational functions of both a professional and social nature.

3. Conscientiousness: minimum requirements; a pattern of going well beyond minimally required role and task requirements.

4. Courtesy: Alerting others in the organization about changes that may affect their work; the discretionary enactment of thoughtful and considerate behaviors that prevent work related problems for others.

5. Sportsmanship: Refraining from complaining about trivial matters; a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions that result in an organization without complaining and doing so with a positive attitude.

Subordinates’ perceptions of their relationships with supervisors are shaped by the current condition of the relationship, as well as by past interactions and future expectations of interactions with their supervisor (George and Jones, 2000). Employees engage in positive OCBs that benefit the organization when helping another coworker with work-related problems, when providing a coworker psychological support and comfort, when performing extra duties without complaint, and/or when communicating positive aspects of the organization to outsiders. Employees may withhold psychological support and comfort to others, along with other citizenship behaviors, due to a variety of reasons. Zellars et al. (2002) demonstrate empirical support for the notion that subordinates, in response to abusive supervision, may withhold OCBs as the discretionary nature of OCBs makes withholding them a relatively safe option for retaliation against their supervisor’s abuse. Subordinates offer OCBs in response to supportive leadership and positive situational factors, and withhold OCBs in response to non-supportive leadership and negative situational factors.  In essence, employees react when they are frustrated by a loss of personal control by engaging in behaviors they believe will help to restore their sense of control (Brehm and Brehm, 1981; Zellars et al., 2002). In response to perceptions of unfair treatment, some subordinates will restore their sense of balance in terms of freedom, autonomy and control by withholding behaviors that the organization values, in a “tit-for-tat” manner. Social exchange scholars (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964), describe social behavior as an exchange of resources, both material and non-material, between multiple parties, where individuals evaluate the costs and benefits of exchanging with current partners. The abused employee may perceive that they have received less valuable resources from their supervisor (e.g. Intimidation, threats, or inappropriate expressions of anger) than would an employee whose supervisor demonstrates supportive leadership behaviors (e.g. Coaching or mentoring). In order to bring an abused employee’s relationship with the abusive supervisor back into equilibrium, the employee may either seek to reduce the value of the intangible resources that they provide to their manager (e.g. Motivation, commitment, OCBs, etc.), or maybe even exhibit counterproductive behaviors that will allow them to “get even” (Richard et al., 2002; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). Although some employees may respond to abusive supervision with destructive behaviors such as organizational deviance (Thau et al., 2009; Tepper et al., 2008), the power differential between supervisors and subordinates makes it unlikely that the subordinates will respond with identical action to their more powerful abusers (Zellars et al., 2002). Zellars et al. (2002) base their argument for the negative relationship between abusive supervision and OCBs on reactance theory (Brehm and Brehm, 1981), as abused subordinates feel less control over their lives (Ashforth, 1997) and try to restore that control by exercising discretion and autonomy in their activities (Wright and Brehm, 1982). Zellars et al. (2002) suggest that since OCBs are discretionary, subordinates may withhold them to retaliate against abusive supervisors and to hold their company somewhat responsible for their supervisor’s behavior (Tepper, 2000). Based on these theoretical arguments, we offer the following hypothesis:

H1. Abusive supervision will be negatively related to subordinates’ organizational citizenship behaviors.

In a broad stroke, this model suggests that workplace stressors cause negative emotions, which motivate deviant behavior. Moreover, the strength of these emotional reactions predicts the strength of deviant responses. Correspondingly, negative emotions also predict the desire for revenge (McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, & Johnson, 2001).

Moderating role of self-control capacity:

Self-control refers to a enthusiastic behavior in which individual deals under controlled manners (Tangney et al., 2004). Previously it was discovered that self control capacity is a barrier for abusive supervision (Lian, et al. 2012) The present research will extend the self-control account of supervisor-directed retaliation by integrating it with predictions from the stressor-emotion model. In previous researches it is suggested that, although supervisor-directed retaliation is thought to be the result of ego depletion (Thau & Mitchel, 2010; Lian et al., 2012), pessimistic emotions will lead subordinates toward revenge again his/her supervisor (Hofmann et al., 2012; McCulloguh et al., 2001; Liu, Kwan, Wu, & Wu, 2010). While everyone may experience moments of ego depletion, research has shown that there are individual differences in the extent to which people are able to consistently engage self-controlled behavior (Tangney et al., 2004).

American social psychologist Roy Baumeister and his colleagues proposed a model that relates self-control to a muscle, which can become both strengthened and fatigued. Initial use of the “muscle” of self-control will cause a decrease in strength, or ego depletion, for subsequent tasks. Multiple experimental findings show support for this muscle model of self-control and ego depletion.

This theory by Roy Baumeister proposed that self-control cause decrease in strength. The abusive supervision is stressor and that leads to decrease in low OCBs. The individuals who are low at controlling their self, this negative relationship will be strengthened. Because when subordinates are abused, they drain their ego and lose self-control and hence decrease their extra-role behavior.

The Conservation of Resources (COR) Model (Hobfoll, 1989) includes several stress theories. According to this model, Individual get stressed when they feel fear of losing resources. Conflicts on workplace can lead toward losing resources such as energy, confidence and incase of abusive supervision if subordinates are not having enough self control capacity they will lose their self esteem as well as they may show their anger toward other co-workers or assets of organization. Losing self control can make individuals aggressive and somehow sadistic.

Thus, on the basis of above literature, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2: The self-control capacity moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and OCBs such that this negative relationship will be strengthen when self-control-capacity is low.

3.      Methodology:

  We took 300 professors from different universities as sample, within Pakistan. They were asked to fill questionnaires which were completed and returned by respondents.

All items were answered on 5 likert scale. Where 1 was indicating Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Neural, 4 Agree, 5 strongly agree. We analyzed data by using statistical tools regression and correlation we compile our results. In addition, CFA (confirmatory factor analysis) was applied to check whether further analysis is required are not. We checked the compatibility and crone-back alphas for all variables taken.

4.      Appendix

Impact of Abusive Supervision on Subordinate’s OCB

Good day!

The purpose of this study is to check the impact of abusive supervision on subordinate. Your provided data is valuable for us and we promise your provided information will not be shared with anyone. Feel free to tell us your true opinion.

Please tick (✓) in the box to indicate how agreeable you are with following statements on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neural), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree)

Section (A)

Abusive supervision

Tepper , 2000

My supervisor,	Strongly Disagree 1	Disagree 2	Neutral 3	Agree 4	Strongly Agree      5
Ridicules me
Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid
Gives me the silent treatment
Puts me down in front of others
Invades my privacy
Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures
Doesn't give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort
Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment
Breaks promises he/she makes
Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason
Makes negative comments about me to others
Is rude to me
Does not allow me to interact with my coworkers
Tells me I'm incompetent
Lies to me

Section (B)

Self Control

Tangney et al. (2004)

	Strongly Disagree 1	Disagree 2	Neutral 3	Agree 4	Strongly Agree      5
I am good at resisting temptation
I have a hard time breaking bad habits
I say inappropriate things
I am lazy
I do certain things that are bad for me, if they are fun
I wish I had more self-discipline
I refuse things that are bad for me
People would say that I have iron self- discipline
Pleasure and fun sometimes keep me from getting work done
I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals
Sometimes I can’t stop myself from doing something, even if I know it is wrong
I often act without thinking through all the alternatives
I have trouble concentrating
I am able to work effectively toward long-term goals

Section (C)

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzi, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990)

	Strongly Disagree 1	Disagree 2	Neutral 3	Agree 4	Strongly Agree 5
I help others who have heavy work load
I do my job without constant requests from my boss
I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay
I do not waste time complaining about trivial matters
I try to avoid creating problems for co-workers
I keep abreast of changes in the organization
I tend to magnify problems
I do not consider the impact of my actions on co-workers
I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but important
I am always ready to give a helping hand to those around me
I attend functions that are not required, but help the company image
I read and keep up with organization announcements, memos, and so on
I help others who have been absent
I respect the rights of people that work with me
I willingly help others who have work related problems
I always focus on what is right, rather than what is wrong
I take steps to try to avoid problems with other workers
My attendance at work is above the norm
I always find fault with what the organization is doing (R)
I am mindful of how my behavior affects other people’s jobs
I do not take extra breaks
I respect company rules and policies even when no one is watching me
I guide new people even though it is not required
I am one of the most conscientious employees

Section (D)

PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF:

Instructions: Please tick (✓) appropriate answer below:

Name (optional)                                 _______________________

Email                                                  ________________________________

Gender                                                Male___   Female___

Age                                                     20-29____     30-39____      40 & above___

Education                                           Bachelors___   Masters__    PhD__

Organizational Sector                        Education____ Private Sector____ Public Sector____

Your designation                               __________________________

Tenure                                                Less than 1 year___ 1-3 years____ 3-5____ above 5____

Thank you!

Wish you all the best in your career and life

 

References

Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 14, pp. 126-140.

Feather, N. T. & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 81‐94.

Grandey, A.A. and Kern, J. (2004), “Biting the hand that serves them: when does customer aggression predict employee exhaustion?”, unpublished manuscript, Penn State University, University Park, PA

George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (2000), “The role of time in theory and theory building”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 657-684.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.

Hofmann, W. & Van Dillen, L. (2012). Desire: The new hot spot in self-control research.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 317-322.

                      

Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C. H. 2012. Leader identity as an antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 1262–1272.

Lian, H., Brown, D., & Feriss, D. L., et al. (2012). Abusive supervision and retaliations: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, Advance online publication,1-56.

Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Long-zeng, W., & Wu, W. (2010). Abusive supervision and

subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: The moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 835-856.

McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Posdakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513‐563.

Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190.

Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33: 261–289.

Tepper, B.J., Henle, C.A., Lambert, L.S., Giacalone, R.A. and Duffy, M.K. (2008), “Abusive supervision and subordinate’s organization deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 721-732.

Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009-1031.

Zellars et al. (2002) demonstrate empirical support for the notion that subordinates, in response to abusive supervision, may withhold OCBs as the discretionary nature of OCBs makes withholding them a relatively safe option for retaliation against their supervisor’s abuse.

Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.T. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinate’s organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 1068-1076.