Organizational Support and Job Satisfaction: Meta- a nalysis s tudy

. This study aims to determine the relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction. Using the meta-analysis approach, the hypothesis is proposed that there is a relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction. Previous studies used 19 articles containing 22 research results that have F, t, d, and r values. The total sample obtained was 11,257 samples with various backgrounds. The analysis show that the population correlation coefficient after being corrected by the number of samples is 0.57. Referring to the 95% significance level, the acceptance limit is between 0.3687 < r < 0.7648. Thus the results of 0.57 are at the acceptance limit. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the hypothesis that there is a relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction is acceptable. These results strengthen the relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction.


INTRODUCTION
Job satisfaction as one of the key factors of job performance has been agreed by many researchers (Kim & Back, 2012). The meta-analysis results of 48 journal articles by Davar and RanjuBala (2012) showed a correlation between job satisfaction and job performance by 0.29222 (p ≤ 5%). This result means a positive and significant relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.
Job satisfaction is employees' emotional condition and affection in response to specific aspects of their work (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). O'Reills states that job satisfaction results from individuals' cognitive process of work, which includes perceptions of work and perceptions of conformity between organizations and themselves (Kim & Back, 2012).
The social information processing theory suggests that work attitudes and behavior are influenced by their social environment (Fritzsche & Parrish, 2005). Thus, how individuals process information, signs, and symbols received will affect work behavior. One social element of individuals in the workplace is the organization, which has various variables, including organizational support. Abraham asserts that organizational support, organizational climate, and self-efficacy are factors that influence job satisfaction (Kim & Back, 2012). Eisenberger et al. (2016) define organizational support as valuing employee contributions and concern for their welfare.
Several job satisfaction measurement tools have been developed for a long time. Brayfield and Rothe (1951) created the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale (OJS), comprising five indicators of job satisfaction: the job itself, wages, promotion opportunities, supervision, and work colleagues.  Hackman and Oldham (1976) mentioned the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), which consists of five dimensions of job satisfaction: diversity of skills, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Camman et al. (1979) developed a Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ) scale that measures job satisfaction consisting of three items. These three items include dislike of work, satisfaction with work, and preference for the workplace (Inoyatova, 2021). The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), according to Spector (1985), has nine aspects, including social security, communication, bonus, work itself, workplace conditions, salary, promotion, supervision, and work colleagues. Meanwhile, Bowling and Zelazny (2021) divided all these scales into two categories, global scale (such as OJSS and MOAQ) and composite scale (such as JDS and JSS).
On the other hand, reciprocity theory proposes that employees will pay their organizations for their support through attention and care for the organization and bring out the best performance (Kim & Back, 2012). Eisenberger et al. (1986) affirm that high organizational support for employees will bring positive results for both the organization itself and its employees. Strong organizational support will also meet the socio-emotional needs of employees and encourage them to bring up positive work attitudes, including job satisfaction.
According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), organizational support has four aspects: appreciation, assessment, development, and involvement. Giving awards/appreciation for the achievement of the work can be done, especially if it exceeds the target set. Besides, the assessment is carried out to provide fair and balanced treatment to all employees. The assessment results will be one of the references in the individual development process carried out by the organization. Individuals are also given the opportunity to take a role in the organization's running through involvement in the absorption of aspirations and decision making. The development of measuring instruments, which were later carried out based on Eisenberger's theory, resulted in various versions (Kurniawan & Harsono, 2021).
The variety of approaches taken to job satisfaction is different from the uniform approach used for organizational support. Fields (2002) states that all approaches to job satisfaction have a strength' level of indicators and items that have been tested for validity and reliability. Then, it is essential to examine the relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction based on the previous research. In this regard, this study aims to determine the relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction. The hypothesis developed is that there is a relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, this study used a metaanalysis method to integrate various studies conducted on these two variables.

Literature Search
Articles that fit this research theme were obtained through online access to several scientific journal provider sites, including EBSCO, ProQuest, Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, Willey, and Sage Publication. Article searches focused on publications between 2000 -2014. The keywords used to look for related journals included job satisfaction and perceived organizational support. All of the findings were then selected according to the appropriate criteria for the meta-analysis process to be carried out.

Article Criteria
The article criteria for this research were articles with perceived organizational support as an independent variable and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. Research conducted in the article also had statistical data in the form of mean value, standard deviation, r-value, and F-value. The search resulted in 19 articles that met the criteria. There were 22 research results in the 19 articles. One study had an F-value, and the other 21 had a correlation coefficient (r). The existing F-value was then transformed into an r-value for analysis. The total respondents were 11,257 people, consisting of 5,769 workers and 2,758 management.

Characteristics of Research Samples
This study used 11,257 subjects, with characteristics as in Table 1.

Meta-analysis Procedure
The meta-analysis conducted refers to Hunter and Schmidt (2004), namely through stages: 1) transforming the algebraic equation from F-value to r-value; 2) correction of sample errors was done by calculating the population correlation mean, the r xy variance (σ 2 r), the sampling error variance ( σ 2 e), and the impact of sampling. Measurement error correction was not carried out due to limited information on the measurement process conducted.

Transforming F-values into t, d, and r values
Only one study had an F-value, so it needed to be transformed into t, d, and r values to be analyzed further. This value transformation used the equation formula: Correlation r xy values of all studies, including the transformation results of the F-value, can be seen in Table 2.

Sampling Error Correction
This correction was carried out to get the best estimate of the mean correlation from several studies, obtained by weighting the correlation coefficient of each study with the number of samples (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

Mean of Population Correlation. The population correlation mean was obtained through the following equation:
The mean calculation step was performed as in Table 3. The mean population correlation after being corrected was ȓ = 0,57  Sampling Error Variance. The calculation results of variance r xy of 0.010209 were not purely variations in population correlations since they still contained variations in sample correlations produced by sampling errors. To get the pure magnitude of variation in population correlation, Hunter and Schmidt (2004) suggest a r xy variance of 0.010209 to be corrected for sampling error. The calculation process was done through the equation formula: The calculation using the formula above resulted in σ 2 e = (1-0.57²)² / (511.68-1), so the magnitude of σ 2 e = 0.00089.

Estimation of Population Correlation Variance.
This true variance was obtained through correction of the variance r xy minus the sampling error variance. The equation formula is as follows: σ2ρ = σ2r -σ2e. The calculation results of the population correlation variance were σ2ρ = 0.00932.
Impact of Sampling Error. The impact of sampling error from this meta-analysis study was calculated using the equation formula: The results of this calculation produced an impact sampling error rate of 9.58%. It means that there were 90.42% of other error factors not studied.

Confidence
Interval. This meta-analysis study's confidence range was calculated using the equation formula = ȓ ± 1.96 SD. The calculation results showed that the standard deviation was 0.10104, and the confidence interval range was 0.3687 < ȓ < 0.7648.

Comparison of Population Correlation Rates Based on Sample Characteristics
This study grouped the sample characteristics in Table 1 into two large groups: the employee and the manager. Research that used mixed samples or outside the two groups was not included in the comparison. The full comparison can be seen in Table 5. Based on Table 5, the population correlation mean in the manager's group was greater than the employees' group. It indicates that the relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction was a little stronger in the manager sample.
The analysis results showed the population correlation after being corrected with a sample error obtained of 0.57, with the population correlation variance of 0.00932 and SD = 0.10104. At the 95% significance level, the limit for the range of acceptance of confidence intervals is 0.3687 < ȓ < 0.7648. It denotes that this study's hypothesis was acceptable, meaning there was a relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction.
A correlation score of 0.57 indicates a moderate relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction (Sprinthall, 2014). This moderate relationship shows that there was a moderate influence of organizational support received on perceived job satisfaction. It is consistent with Eisenberger et al. (1986) that the support provided by the organization will bring about changes in socio-emotion in employees so that it will affect their attitudes towards work, including increased job satisfaction. Appreciation, assessment, development, and involvement in the organization will also be felt like a positive thing in the employee to create a feeling of satisfaction at work. Moreover, the assessment has been done to provide fair and balanced treatment to all employees. An appraisal is also a tangible form of organizational support for employees because a sense of attention and need will appear. The effect of valuation is, of course, the rewards in various forms. Giving awards for the achievement of work results, especially if it exceeds the target set, shows that there is real support from the organization to employees so that they always try to work optimally. Rewards in the form of salaries, bonuses, promotions, and so on will also increase satisfaction with what they get from their work. In this case, financial satisfaction is one of the main indicators of job satisfaction (Bowling & Zelazny, 2021;Inoyatova, 2021).
Individuals are also given the opportunity to take a role in the organization by absorbing aspirations and decision-making. It facilitates the needs of employees so that the programs will be in line with employee expectations. It is also the beginning for the organization to make employees work totally. Bright ideas are expected to appear more in decision-making forums that involve employees. The feeling of being involved will encourage the emergence of a sense of belonging and satisfaction with the work being done.
The meta-analysis results also uncovered that the correlation between organizational support and job satisfaction was a little stronger in the manager sample (0.58) than the employee sample (0.55). However, this difference was not large, and the two groups were in the same category of moderate relationships (mean correlation > 0.5). It is consistent with the overall results, showing a moderate correlation between organizational support and job satisfaction.

CONCLUSION
This study's hypothesis was accepted that there was a moderate relationship between organizational support and job satisfaction. These results have implications for organizations that organizational support is vital for job satisfaction of employees and managers, which will further have implications for job performance. For this reason, the organization needs to provide a system of adequate organizational support for employees and managers. The next researcher is expected to explore the various characteristics of the sample that can be assessed from various existing studies, for example, differences in types of measuring instruments, cultural background, age, and tenure.