Citation
Employee Popularity: Its Nature, Measurement, and Organizational Relevance

Material Information

Title:
Employee Popularity: Its Nature, Measurement, and Organizational Relevance
Creator:
SCOTT, BRENT A. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Charisma ( jstor )
Humor ( jstor )
Industrial and organizational psychology ( jstor )
Labor ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Psychological research ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Syntactical antecedents ( jstor )
Workplaces ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Brent A. Scott. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2008
Resource Identifier:
659860332 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EMPLOYEE POPULARITY: ITS NATURE, MEASUREMENT, AND ORGANIZATIONAL RELEVANCE By BRENT A. SCOTT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Brent A. Scott

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I thank Tim Judge and Jason Colquitt for their exceptional a dvice and support. Their mentoring has been invaluable. I also thank committee members Jeff LePine and James Algina for their helpful suggestions and guidance. Seco nd, I thank my family for their interest and encouragement. Finally, I thank my wife Kimberly for all that she has done to help me along the way. I would not be where I am without her love, support, and reassurance.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................12 Popularity Defined............................................................................................................. .....18 3 DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES.................................................................................. 23 Antecedents of Employee Popularity..................................................................................... 23 Personal Antecedents....................................................................................................... 24 Situational Antecedents................................................................................................... 34 Outcomes of Employee Popularity......................................................................................... 36 Coworker-Originating Outcomes....................................................................................44 Overview of Studies...............................................................................................................49 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS: STUDY 1......................................................................... 53 Participants.............................................................................................................................53 Procedure................................................................................................................................53 Measures.................................................................................................................................56 Employee P opularity ....................................................................................................... 56 Convergent Validity Measures........................................................................................ 56 Discriminant Validity Measures...................................................................................... 57 Antecedent Measures....................................................................................................... 58 Outcome Measures.......................................................................................................... 58 Analyses..................................................................................................................................59 5 RESULTS: STUDY 1............................................................................................................. 62 Support for Aggregation........................................................................................................ .62 Factor Structure......................................................................................................................63 Exploratory Factor Analysis............................................................................................ 63 Confirmatory Factor Analysis......................................................................................... 63 Convergent and Discriminant Validity................................................................................... 64

PAGE 5

5 Convergent Validity........................................................................................................ 64 Discriminant Validity...................................................................................................... 64 Tests of Hypotheses................................................................................................................66 Summary.................................................................................................................................68 6 MATERIALS AND METHODS: STUDY 2......................................................................... 76 Participants.............................................................................................................................76 Procedure................................................................................................................................76 Measures.................................................................................................................................78 Employee P opularity ....................................................................................................... 78 Antecedent Measures....................................................................................................... 78 Outcome Measures.......................................................................................................... 80 Analyses..................................................................................................................................80 7 RESULTS: STUDY 2............................................................................................................. 82 Support for Aggregation........................................................................................................ .82 Factor Structure......................................................................................................................82 Exploratory Factor Analysis............................................................................................ 82 Confirmatory Factor Analysis......................................................................................... 82 Tests of Hypotheses................................................................................................................83 Additional Analyses............................................................................................................ ....85 8 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................97 Theoretical Implications....................................................................................................... 100 Practical Implications......................................................................................................... ..102 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........103 Suggestions for Future Research.......................................................................................... 106 Conclusion............................................................................................................................109 APPENDIX MEASURES USED IN ST UDY 1 AND/OR STUDY 2 .................................... 111 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................137

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5-1. Principal components f actor analysis of e mployee popularity scale (Study 1)................. 70 5-2. Descriptive statistics and convergen t and discrim inant validities (Study 1)..................... 70 5-3. Descriptive statistics and corre lations am ong employee popularity and its antecedents and consequences (Study 1)........................................................................... 71 5-4. Employee popularity regressed on hypothe sized personality anteced ents (Study 1)........ 72 5-5. Organizational ju stice regressed on employee popularity (S tudy 1)................................. 73 5-6. Organizational ci tizenship behaviors and counterpr oductive behaviors directed at em ployee regressed on employee popularity (Study 1)..................................................... 74 5-7. Incremental validity of employee popularity in predicting O CBs and CWBs directed at em ployee over and above employee reputation, charisma, and interpersonal liking (Study 1).............................................................................................................................74 7-1. Principal components f actor analysis of e mployee popularity scale (Study 2)................. 90 7-2. Descriptive statistics and corre lations am ong employee popularity and its antecedents and consequences (Study 2)........................................................................... 91 7-4. Organizational ju stice regressed on employee popularity (S tudy 2)................................. 94 7-5. Organizational ci tizenship behaviors and counterpr oductive behaviors directed at em ployee regressed on employee popularity (Study 2)..................................................... 95

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Personal and situational an teced ents of employee popularity........................................... 51 3-2. Supervisorand coworker-origi nating outcom es of employee popularity........................ 52 5-1. Popularity scale for Study 1: Confirm atory factor analysis results................................... 75 7-1. Popularity scale for Study 2: Confirm atory factor analysis results................................... 96

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EMPLOYEE POPULARITY: ITS NATURE, MEASUREMENT, AND ORGANIZATIONAL RELEVANCE By Brent A. Scott May 2007 Chair: Timothy A. Judge Major: Business Administration I introduced the concept of em ployee popularity to organizationa l behavior research in two separate studies by examining the construct valid ity of a newly developed measure of popularity and testing a model of its hypothesized antecedents and consequences. Participants in Study 1 consisted of 126 working undergraduate students and their coworkers (n = 331). The developed scale of employee popularity demonstrated accept able reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity. In terms of antecedents, popularity was predicted by humor expression and agreeableness. In terms of outcomes, popular empl oyees reported receiving more interpersonal citizenship behaviors and fewer in terpersonal counterpr oductive behaviors from their coworkers. Study 2 consisted of 148 health care employees from 22 intact work groups. As in Study 1, coworkers (n = 908) completed the develope d measure of employee popularity. Regarding antecedents, popularity was predicte d by core self-evaluations a nd network centrality. Regarding outcomes, popular employees once again reported receiving more interpersonal citizenship behaviors and fewer interpersonal counterprodu ctive behaviors from their coworkers than unpopular employees. Taken together, convergent findings from both studie s demonstrate that employees can readily identify who is popular an d who is not within their work groups, and

PAGE 9

9 these collective perceptions have implications for the way employees are treated in the workplace.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Children and adolescents frequently are conc erned about where they stand socially am ong their peers (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985; Eder & Kinney, 1995). Indeed, concerns about attaining social status and ga ining peer acceptance tend to be greater than concerns about excelling academically (Coleman, 1961; Cusi ck, 1973; Gordon, 1957). Perhaps as a result, students are rather adept at id entifying who is “popular” and w ho is not (Ausubel, Schiff, & Gasser, 1952), and they frequently vie either to become popular or to ma intain their popularity (Eder, 1985). Children and adolescents’ striving for popularity is not surpri sing considering that popular students are emulated and approached more often than less popular students (Adler & Adler, 1998), are the recipients of positive st ereotypes (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1998), receive more help than unpopular students (Raviv, Bar-T al, Ayalon, & Raviv, 1980), and maintain more positive relationships with others than their less popular counterp arts (for a re view, see Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). In short, research, particularly in developmental and educational psychology, has demonstrated that social standing is a salient and relevant concern to both children and adolescents. Although a considerable amount of research in developmental and educational psychology has been conducted on the subject of popularity, very little research exists beyond the contexts of primary and secondary school. Given the importance of popularity during childhood and adolescence, it is somewhat surprising that researchers have not yet examined popularity beyond the school-age years to determin e whether popularity retains its importance. It may be that popularity as a concept ceases to matter once indi viduals reach adulthood. However, it seems more likely that popularity continues to be an impo rtant aspect of social life, affecting the way individuals are viewed a nd treated by others.

PAGE 11

11 If popularity does matter in adulthood, the quest ion then becomes, in which adult context should popularity be studied? For children and a dolescents, school serves as a primary social venue, and thus research tends to examine popularity within this milieu. For adults, however, the workplace would appear to be an appropriate setting in which to explore the concept of popularity. Just as children spend a considerable amount of their waking hours at school, adults spend a considerable amount of their waking hours at work (Hulin, 2002). Indeed, with the increasing reliance on teams in organizations (K ozlowski & Bell, 2003), work has become an even greater outlet for social interaction, as individuals may interact with teammates and coworkers multiple times throughout the day. Consequently, the same social stratification that characterizes children’s and adoles cents’ school experiences may al so characterize adults’ work experiences. In other words, some organizationa l members may be more “popular” than others, and this may have an impact on the way those me mbers are treated by their work colleagues. If so, then it is important to study popularity within a work context to determine what influences popularity and to what extent popula rity impacts work outcomes. Thus, the purpose of my study was to introdu ce (or re-introduce) th e concept of popularity to organizational behavior rese arch. Drawing from the existing developmental and educational psychology literatures, I define and construct a measure of po pularity suitable for use in organizational behavior research. In addition, I formulate a model of antecedents and workrelevant outcomes of employee popula rity. I then test th ese hypotheses in two separate samples.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Much of the existing research in developm ental psychology on popularity has its roots in sociom etry, which began with the work of J acob Moreno. Moreno (1934) described individuals’ peer relationships according to three separate inte rpersonal forces: attracti on (positive forces that bring individuals together), repulsion (negativ e forces that drive individuals apart), and indifference. Kirlinger and Lee (2000) defined sociometry as “the study and measurement of social choice” (p. 742), and it is a means of examining the attractions and repulsions of individuals within a given group. To assess thes e forces, Moreno (1934) asked individuals to indicate whether they liked (attra ction) or disliked (re pulsion) a member of a particular social group. These methods subsequently were a dopted by Lemann and Solomon (1952) and Dunnington (1957), among others, to study children’s peer rela tionships. Children receiving many liking nominations and few disliking nom inations were described as having high "sociometric status;” in other wo rds, being popular (Dunnington, 1957). Three decades later, Peery (1979) developed a two-dimensional sociometric classification system based on the work of Lemann and Solomon (1952) and Dunnington (1957). The first dimension, social preference, is calculated by subtracting the nu mber of disliking nominations from the number of liking nominations and is interpreted as an inde x of liking. The second dimension, social impact, is calculated by a dding the number of liking nominations to the number of disliking nominations and is interpreted as an index of visibility or prominence. Expanding upon Peery’s (1979) taxo nomy, Coie, Dodge, and Coppotel li (1982) created what has become the most widely used sociometric classi fication system. The Coie et al. (1982) method uses the social preference and social impact dimensions to separate individuals into five categories. Popular children are those who recei ve many liking nominations and few disliking

PAGE 13

13 nominations (high social preferen ce, high social impact). Rejected children are those who receive few liking nominations and many disliking nomina tions (low social pr eference, high social impact). Controversial children are those who receive many liking nominations and disliking nominations (moderate social preference, high so cial impact). Neglected children are those who receive few liking nominations and disliking nominations (low so cial preference, low social impact). Finally, average children are those who receive an average number of liking and disliking nominations (moderate soci al preference and social impact). The impact of the Coie et al. (1982) method is underscored by a meta-analysis by Newcomb, Bukowski, and Pattee (1993) examining th e behavioral profiles of popular, rejected, controversial, and neglected children. The result s of this meta-analysis revealed that popular children demonstrate less aggression, are less withdrawn, are more sociable, and possess more cognitive ability than children in other sociometric categor ies. All in all, the behavioral repertoire of sociometrically popular children appears to be comprised of a variet y of socially-skilled behaviors. Although much research in developmental ps ychology on popularity has utilized the Coie et al. (1982) method, sociologists of education have utilized a somewhat different approach (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder, 1985; Eder & Kinne y, 1995). In contrast to measuring popularity via liking and disliking nominations , sociologists have tended to rely on children’s own intuitive understanding of the concept when classifyi ng children as popular or unpopular. In this literature, popularity is measured simply by aski ng individuals directly to nominate “who is popular” (Eder & Kinney, 1995). In cont rast to sociometric research, results of these studies tend to show that children who are pe rceived to be popular tend to be the most visible or dominant among their peers; however, they may or may not be well-liked (Adler & Adler, 1998; Eder,

PAGE 14

14 1985, Eder & Kinney, 1995; Kosir & Pecjak, 2005) . For example, Eder (1985) conducted a qualitative study of middle-school girls’ peer relationships. She found that popular girls received the most attention from others and were th e girls most people knew by name. Though the vast majority of students agreed on who was popular, not all agreed that the popular students were well-liked. Eder thus concluded that the defining characteristic of popularity is social visibility. Thus, while developmental psychologists workin g in the sociometric tr adition have tended to define popularity in terms of liking, emphasizing the social preference component, sociologists of education have tended to define popularity in terms of salience, emphasizing the social visibility component. More recently, research has integrated the two camps, using both liking nominations and direct, peer-perceived measures of popularity (Babad, 2001; Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Kosir & Pecjak, 2005; LaFontana & Cillessen, 1999; Lease, Kennedy, & Axelrod, 2002; Lease, Musgrove, & Axelrod, 2002; Parkhurst & Hopm eyer, 1998; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). Findings of these studies generally show moderate to strong convergence between the two techniques of identifying popular children. For example, Babad (2001) found that a sociometric nomination of “child ren who you would like to take with you to another classroom” and a direct nomination of “the most popular children in this cl assroom” (p. 10) correlated .44 in a total sample of 4,541 elementary and middleschool students from 153 American and Israeli classrooms. When limited to American students, this correlation increased to .58. In addition, Lease, Kennedy, et al. (2002) reported a correlation of .62 between sociometric liking nominations and direct popularity nominations in a sample of 487 elementary school students, and Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (1998 ) found that a direct measure of popularity correlated .47 with liking nominations and .27 with soci al preference scores (liking minus disliking) in a sample of

PAGE 15

15 725 middle-school students. Finally, Lease, Musg rove, et al. (2002) id entified via cluster analysis a group of liked, admired, and perceived popular students as having the highest standing among their peers. As Kosir and Pecjak ( 2005) commented, “Popular students defined by different measures of popularity are quite a unified group after all” (p. 142). Thus, it appears that both components – social preference (liking) an d social impact (visibility) – are important indicators of the concept of popularity. Although the above research has increased our knowledge of popularity among children and adolescents, it is not without limitations. Sociometric res earch in particular has been criticized on several gr ounds. First, researchers have given little attention to the concept of popularity (Rubin et al., 1998). Popularity typically is defined in operational terms – those who receive a large number of liking nominations ar e labeled “popular.” Second, the method of classifying individuals into vari ous groups, such as the Coie et al. (1982) method, artificially truncates the continuous data obtained from multiple liking and disliking nominations. Moreover, the individual nominations themselv es are artificially dichotomous for a given respondent (i.e., a person either is nominated or is not). Thus, poten tially informative variance is lost (Rubin et al., 1998). Third, the algebraic difference is used to compute social preference scores (e.g., liking-disliking), wh ich is problematic for severa l reasons. Among other problems, algebraic difference scores confound the effects of their components, concealing the unique contribution of each (for a more complete disc ussion of these issues, see Edwards [1994, 2001]). Limitations of sociological rese arch also are apparent. Perhaps most critical is that an a priori definition of popularity is not provided to participants. Instead, researchers rely on participants to define popularity for themselves, and such definitions may differ from person to person. In addition, liking and admiration ar e not components of popularity, though both,

PAGE 16

16 particularly liking, are central as pects of virtually all dictionary definitions of the concept (American Heritage Dictionar y, 2000; Oxford English Dictionary, 2005). Locke (2003) advocated the use of dictionaries as a useful starting point when formulating definitions of academic concepts. Given that rigorous definition s are a prerequisite to construct validity (Locke, 2003; Schwab, 1980), it may be problematic that a frequently defined component of popularity (namely, liking or admira tion) is not included in this literature. Take n together, the above limitations suggest that the concept of popularity can be better understood by addressing some of these concerns. Moreover, given that the vast majority of research on popularity has been limited to school-age samples, expansion of the study of popularity to the workplace should provide new insight into the concept as well contribute to the litera ture on organizational behavior. To date, only a handful of studies have exam ined the popularity of adult employees, most of which were conducted a generation ago. Va n Zelst (1951) measured the popularity of 66 construction workers by aggregating ratings of each worker’s desira bility as a work partner. Van Zelst found that popularity, or interpersonal desira bility, correlated .82 with a combined measure of job satisfaction. Popularity also was positively related to several of the specific facets of the satisfaction measure, including sense of job secur ity (r = .64), confidence in supervisor ability (r = .47), good working conditions (r = .67), percei ving coworkers as friendly (r = .72), and adequacy of income (r = .21). Porter and Ghiselli (1960) measured popular ity by having shop workers in 48 groups, ranging from four to 13 members, nominate no more than five “men in your lead (work) group whom you would prefer as work teammates” (p . 143) and found that groups with a high number of popular members were more productive. In on e subset of 24 groups, mean popularity scores

PAGE 17

17 for the group correlated .48 with group effectiveness, operationaliz ed as the percent of the time each group achieved work time standards on various tasks performed three months before the study. In the other subset of 24 groups, consis ting of a foreman and four workers, mean popularity scores for the group correlated .42 w ith upper-management ratings of each foreman. Though the authors attempted to identify indivi dual characteristics distinguishing popular workers from unpopular workers, they were una ble to identify such characteristics. Lodahl and Porter (1961), in a sample of 55 airline maintenance groups, found that the popularity of a group’s leader was positively associated with team productivity (r = .24) and team cohesiveness (r = .42). Both popularity and productivity were assessed using the same measures reported in Porter a nd Ghiselli (1960), while group c ohesiveness was operationalized as the extent to which sociom etric choices among group members were reciprocal (e.g., person A chooses person B, and person B chooses person A). Both Bass (1962) and Hollander (1965) examin ed the relationship between individual worker popularity and job perfor mance. In a sample of 99 salesmen, Bass (1962) examined relationships between popularity and supervisor ratings of performance over a 48-month period. Popularity was measured by having workers nominate others with whom they would prefer to work. Results showed that worker popularity correlated .39 with merit ratings after six months and .10 after 48 months. Hollander (1965) studied popularity in a sample of 639 Naval officer trainees. Popularity was operationalized by aggr egating the total number of “friendship” nominations received by each individual. This measure correlated .22 with a measure of posttraining performance. Finally, Mitchell and Liden (1982) interviewed Naval officers a bout critical incidents in which one of their subordinates performed poorl y. Using direct, peer-perceived measures of

PAGE 18

18 popularity, the officers were asked to indicate the extent to wh ich the subordinate in question was a popular member of his or her unit. The officers then were asked how severely they punished the subordinate in question for poor performance. Results showed that popularity correlated -.41 with punishment severity. Though these studies are noteworthy in that they included popularity as a work-relevant variable, they are limited in several respects. None of the above studies included a formal definition of popularity, and little theoretical ra tionale was presented li nking popularity to other constructs. In addition, many of the measures used to assess popularity likely are confounded with other variables. For example, Van Zelst (1951), Porter and Ghis elli (1960), Bass (1962), and Lodahl and Porter (1961) measured popularity by asking employees to nominate coworkers with whom they would like to work, which may confound popularity with the performance or ability of the nominated employees. Hollander (1 965) used friendship nominations to identify popular individuals; however, as Bukowski and Hoza (1989) noted, friendship and popularity are not identical concepts because friendship by definition involves mutual choice, while popularity does not necessarily. Taken together , these studies hint at the pote ntial relevance of popularity to organizational behavior research, sugges ting that further study is warranted. Popularity Defined As Schwab (1980) noted, sound conceptual definitions are essential for construct validity. Thus, how should popularity be defined? As no ted above, developmental psychologists have emphasized social preference, or liking, in their de finitions of popularity. That is, an individual is popular if he or she receives a large number of liking nominations and a small number of disliking nominations (Coie et al., 1982). In contra st, educational sociologists focusing on direct, perceived measures of popularity have emphasized social visibility wh en describing who is popular and who is not (Adler & Adler, 1998). That is, an individual is popul ar if he or she is

PAGE 19

19 well-known. Thus, research has shown both liking and social visibility to be important indicators of popularity. Furthermore, these two components te nd to be moderately to strongly related, such that if an individual is well-liked, he or she is also well-known or visibl e (Babad, 2001; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998). This finding fits well with di ctionary definitions of popularity, which tend to define popular individuals as those who are well-liked and sought-after (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000). Consequently, a complete definition of popularity should include both components. I thus define popularity as the state or situati on of being popular; that is, of being socially visible and collectively liked or admired by one’s peers. This definiti on integrates the two concepts of liking and social visibility inherent in previ ous research on popularity and acknowledges that an individual is popular when he or she is well-known and liked by many. Some clarifications to this definition are necessary. First, a highly visible individual may not always be considered “popular ,” as situations may arise wh ere an individual is very wellknown and highly visible, yet despised by many. Sec ond, an individual does not have to be liked by everyone in order to be considered popular ; indeed, research ha s shown that unpopular individuals tend to dislike thos e who are popular, perhaps out of resentment or envy (Eder, 1985; Eder & Kinney, 1995). Instead, popu lar individuals are those w ho generally are liked by many (e.g., the majority). Third, although individuals lik ely possess certain qualities that make them more or less popular, popularity it self is a collective perception and is situationally-specific. When deciding whether or not someone is popular , individuals do not simply assess their own internal feelings about the pe rson in question. Instead, judgments are made about how others view the person in question. Is this person well-l iked by others? Is this person well-known? Such

PAGE 20

20 questions are likely to be answered by indivi duals when making assessments about whether someone is popular or not popular. The above notion fits well with Chan’s (1998) typology of composition models. Chan distinguished among additive, direct consensus, re ferent-shift consensus, dispersion, and process models. For the study of popularity, referent-shift consensus seems most applicable. According to Chan, with referent-shift consensus, as oppos ed to assessing how an individual perceives a given target, the interest lies in assessing how an individual believes ot hers perceive a given target. Moreover, referent-shift consensus models require with in-group agreement to justify aggregation, which fits well with the notion of p opularity as a collect ive perception. Thus, because it is a collective pe rception, popularity represents an emergent, higher-level phenomenon (see Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) even t hough the concept itself refers to a specific individual. An additional issue is how popularity, as defined above, is related to other constructs of a similar nature. Two constructs that stand out as potentially overlapping ar e status and reputation. According to the American Heritage Dictionary (2000), status is defined as “position relative to that of others; standing,” while re putation is defined as “a specific ch aracteristic or trait ascribed to a person” (see also Raub & Weesie, 1990). Fe rris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, and Treadway (2003) offered a more detailed definition of personal reputation, defining it as “a perceptual identity reflective of the complex combination of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated behavior, and intended images presented over some period of time as observed directly and/or as re ported from secondary sources” (p. 215). As these definitions illustrate, status and reputation are rather broad constructs. One’s status, or position relative to others, could refer to a number of f actors that separate individuals

PAGE 21

21 into ranks, such as income or wealth (i.e., econ omic status), power or authority (i.e., political status), educational atta inment or skill (i.e., informational st atus), and honor or prestige (i.e., social status) (Sorokin, 1927). Likewise, a pers on could have a reputa tion for virtually any attribute or behavior, such as a reputation for fairness (Jones & Skarlicki, 2005) or a reputation for being a good performer (Kilduff & Krackhard t, 1994). Moreover, reputation itself is not necessarily positively valenced, as one could ha ve a “good” reputation or a “bad” reputation. Thus, in order to take specific meaning, both status and reputation need to be defined in terms of some characteristic. In other words, one has stat us in terms of something and has a reputation for something. In organizational behavior research, conceptu al ambiguities exist over the definitions of and distinctions between status and reputat ion. For example, Sutton and Hargadon (1996) defined status in terms of reputation, and Elsbach and Kramer (1996) used the two terms interchangeably in their examination of top business schools. Wash ington and Zajac (2005), however, distinguished status from reputation, defining the former as a sociological concept capturing differences in social rank and the latte r as an economic concept capturing differences in perceived or actual quality. Social status in particul ar has been used to refer to one’s position within the formal organizational hierarc hy (Chen, Brockner, & Greenberg, 2003, Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995) as well as to the soci al consensus of the va lue of one’s job (Staw & Ross, 1985). Moreover, while Flynn (2003) operationalized social status in terms of respect, value, and influence, Weisband et al. (1995) proposed that influe nce and status are distinct and that influence results from social status. Given that status and reputati on are such broad concepts, of ten defined and operationalized differently from one study to the next, it is difficult to determine exactly how status and

PAGE 22

22 reputation are distinct from popularity, as this de termination requires specifying to what status and reputation refer. In the current study, my interest lies in employ ees within a similar hierarchical level in order to gain a better understanding of how differences among peers of similar organizational status emerge and effect the way they are treated. Accordingly, I adopt the perspective that although popularity may contribute to and reflect one’s status and reputation, it likely is not a perfect substitute, as other factor s also should influence status and reputation. Popularity also can be distinguished conceptua lly from the concept of charisma. According to Weber (1947), charisma is a quality of an i ndividual, a personal magnetism that results in the extraordinary ability to influence and dominate others, especially in times of crisis. Given that popularity is more of a collective perception rather than a characteristic of an individual, popularity and charisma also ar e conceptually distinct. Now that I have defined employee popularity, I turn to identifying an tecedents and consequences of popularity within a work setting in order to derive specific, testable hypotheses.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES Antecedents of Employee Popularity If popularity indeed does matter in the workplace, then an important question arises: What factors lead individuals to beco me more or less popular? As Fi gure 3-1 shows, both personal and situational factors should pr edict one’s popularity, a perspe ctive in accordance with person/situation perspectives of behavior (Fleeson, 2004). Specifically, I suggest that the personal characteristics of physical attractiveness, humor expressi on, and personality in the form of extraversion, agreeableness (Goldberg, 1990), and core-self evaluations (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) affect an indivi dual’s popularity among his or her peers. Moreover, I argue that an individual’s position in the group’s network is a situational factor associated with being more or less popular. I chose the personal antecedents in Figure 3-1 for two primary reasons. First, as I expand upon below, existing theory suggests that these characteristics may be some of the primary determinants of popularity across a variety of s ituations. Second, these ch aracteristics possess a genetic component and are set relatively in place once adulthood is reached (Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998), reducing concerns of casua l ambiguity (e.g., temporal precedence). Thus, for example, it is more likely that physical at tractiveness leads to popular ity than popularity leads to physical attractiveness. In te rms of situational characteristic s, the temporal precedence of network centrality is more ambiguous compared to the personal characteristics. Although the theoretical argument I present below supports cas ting network centrality as an antecedent of popularity, it is perhaps more precise to label network centrality as a correlate of popularity rather than an antecedent.

PAGE 24

24 Personal Antecedents Physical attractiveness. Several age-old m axims, such as never judge a book by its cover and beauty is only skin deep instruct individuals that physical attractiven ess should not be an important factor in society. A wealth of research has show n otherwise, relating physical attractiveness to a variety of outcomes, including positive impressions, dating experience and mate selection, judgments of intelligence and comp etence, help giving, and mental health (for meta-analyses, see Eagly, Ashmore, Makhija ni, Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1 992; Langlois et al., 2000). In the work domain, a meta-analysis by Hosoda, Stone-Romero, and Coats (2003) linked physical attractiveness to outcomes such as better performance evaluations and more favorable hiring and promotion decisions. Overall, results of these studies provid e strong evidence that physically attractive people enjoy numerous benef its relative to physica lly unattractive people. Many theories have emerged over the years e xplaining why physical at tractiveness matters. Some have their origins in evolutionary ps ychology (Barber, 1995; Buss, 1998; Daly & Wilson, 1995), while others are grounded in social psychology (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979; Schneider, 1973). However, all share the prediction that physi cal attractiveness impact s the way individuals think about themselves as well as how they are viewed and treated by othe rs. Eagly et al. (1991) noted that no single theory is likely to offer a complete explanation of physical attractiveness effects. Rather, existing theories should be viewed as compleme ntary rather than competing, and the appropriateness of one theory over another will depend on the domains and conditions under which physical attractiven ess is being studied. Social psychological theories in particular stand out as partic ularly relevant to the current study. According to these theories, attractive individuals are percei ved differently than unattractive individuals. Speci fically, individuals hold stereotypes about attractive and unattractive people (Ashmore & De l Boca, 1979). These stereotypes serve as implicit personality

PAGE 25

25 theories (Schneider, 1973), alteri ng perceptions and attributions in positive or negative ways. Indeed, one of the most frequently cited studi es on physical attractiveness was conducted by Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972), who concl uded “what is beautiful is good” (p. 285), meaning that individuals hold positive stereotype s about attractive individuals and consequently ascribe positive qualities to them, while unattractive individuals are attrib uted negative qualities. Hatfield and Sprecher (1986) summarized thes e findings nicely by stating “people believe goodlooking people possess almost all the virtues known to hu mankind” (p. xix). What are the sources of physical attractivene ss stereotypes? One explanation is that media portrayals of attractive individua ls create and reinforce the noti on that attractive people are good and unattractive people are bad (Eagly et al., 1991). For example, heroes in both children’s and adult media typically are beautiful and attr active, while villains typically are ugly and unattractive. Commercials often tout the benefits of being physically attractive, part icularly with regards to relations with the opposite sex (Downs & Harrison, 1985). In addition, Hollywood movie stars, frequently idolized in American society, tend to be physically attractive, further emphasizing the benefits of beauty. Physical attractiveness stereotypes also may be explained by positive affect; that is, attractive people may be aesthetically pleasing a nd thus may elicit positive affect in others. Individuals experiencing positive affect may then infer that that attractive individual possesses positive qualities – a view that fits well with mood as input models of cognitive judgment. (Schwarz & Clore, 1983, 1996). According to th ese models, individuals use their current affective feelings as information when evalua ting a target stimulus. During experiences of positive affect, individuals may mistake their feelings as a valid reaction to a given individual, leading to more favorable evaluations of that individual. Although less research exists on the

PAGE 26

26 affect-eliciting qualities of attractiveness, re searchers manipulating positive affect with photographs often include photos of physically at tractive people (Larsen, Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987). Importantly, the beautiful-is-good stereotype is mo re likely to affect perceptions of social competence than intellectual co mpetence (Eagly et al ., 1991), suggesting that perceptions of popularity may be influenced by physical attracti veness. Research outsid e of the work context has supported this notion. The meta-analyses of Feingold (1992) and Langl ois et al. (2000) both revealed that attractive individua ls are judged as more popular, more sociable, and more socially competent than unattractive i ndividuals, though the operationalizations of popularity were different in both meta-analyses. While Fei ngold (1992) operationalized popularity as dating activity, Langlois et al. (2000) operationalized popularity in terms of liking, interpersonal attraction, social standing, and so rority and fraternity membersh ip, among others. Interestingly, in both meta-analyses, physical attractiven ess was equally important for men and women. Studies in developmental psycholog y also have revealed that popul ar children tend to be more physically attractive th an less popular children (Adler & Adler, 1998; Dodge, 1983; Eder, 1985; Franzoi, Davis, & Vasquez-Suson, 1994), sugges ting that these effects remain relatively consistent over time. To what extent will physical attractiveness be related to popularity in the workplace? On the one hand, the meta-analysis by Eagly et al. (1991) found that the beau tiful-is-good effect is weaker in the presence of ot her individual trait informati on (e.g., personality, attitudes), suggesting that the effects of physical attractiveness may be weaker in work settings, where individuals have ample time to gather information on the traits and behavioral patterns of others. On the other hand, the meta-analysis by Hosoda et al. (2003) failed to show that the biasing

PAGE 27

27 effect of physical attrac tiveness on judgments of others was weaker when individuals had more information about the target. As Morrow (1990) noted, in workplace settings, though physical attractiveness is likely not the most important fa ctor in the workplace, when individuals (e.g., job applicants) are similar in other respects, it may be a deciding factor for decision makers. Taken together then, existing theory and empirical evidence suggest that physically attractive employees will be perceived as more popular am ong their peers than physically unattractive employees. Hypothesis 1 : Physical attractiveness is posi tively related to employee popularity. Humor expression. A prevalent notion in society is that the ability to make others laugh and the possession of a “good” sense of humor are valued characteristics. Those who are very successful at generating laughter in others, such as Johnny Carson and Jerry Seinfeld, may reach celebrity status. The importance of humor is nicely illustrated by Chapman and Foot (1976), who, in their pioneering book on the subject, comm ented, “Men will confess to treason, murder, false teeth or a wig. How many will own up to a lack of humor?” (p. 1). Considering this importance, it is perhaps not surprising that hum or has been found to have consequences in the workplace (for a review, see Duncan, Smeltzer, & Leap, 1990; see also Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999; Cooper, 2005). The concept of humor is multidimensional and is not easily defined with single, generalized statements (Chapman & Foote, 1976). Humor can refer ei ther to one’s ability to find humor in various situations (i.e., sense of humor) or to one’s ability to express humor effectively (i.e., being witty). It is this latter aspect of humor – the ability to express humor effectively – that is perhaps most relevant to the current study. In th is respect, humor is akin to a personality trait – a view consistent not only with humor resear ch (Cooper, 2005) but also with research in

PAGE 28

28 personality (De Raad & Hoskens, 1990; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998). If humor can be viewed as a relatively stable individual differe nce (i.e., a personality trait), then it is im portant to demonstrate that humor is not completely encompassed by broader and more common taxonomies of personality, such as the Bi g Five (Goldberg, 1990). Evidence supports that humor lies beyond the Big Five traits of extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience. For example, a study by Saucier and Goldberg (1998) found that humor displayed a multiple correlation of .36 with the Big Five and was most strongly related to extraversion (t hough this correlation was modest in magnitude [r = .33]), followed by openness to experience (r = .12). These results fit well with circumplex structures of personality, which have placed adjectives like “witty” as a blend of high extraversion and high openness (Hofstee, De Raad, & Goldberg, 1992). Thus, it appears that humor, is distinct, yet related, to ot her broader personality dimensions. Having defined humor, how might humor be related to popula rity? Put differently, why might funny individuals be more popular than unfunny i ndividuals? According to reinforcement models of attraction, individuals ar e attracted to others based on the extent to which they either elicit positive affect or are associated with a stimulus that elicits positive affect (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Neuman, 1992). Research has indicated that humor is one such stimulus (Carnevale & Isen, 1986; Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987). It thus follows that individuals should be attracted to others who use humor effectivel y. Moreover, individuals who are perceived as humorous not only should be like d more, but also should tend to be more socially visible among their peers by directing more pos itive attention to themselves. Some empirical evidence supports this lin e of reasoning. For example, in an early qualitative study of department store employees on the use of humor in the workplace, Bradney

PAGE 29

29 (1957) observed that employees wh o joked frequently were “obvi ously very much more popular” than employees who did not. Similarly, Goodchilds (1959), in a hypothe tical vignette study, found that being witty was positively related to being visible and wellliked. More recently, Cooper (2002) found that subordinates’ liking for their supervisor was positively related to the frequency with which the supervis or expressed humor. Studies on children’s popularity also have related humor to popularity (Babad, 2001; Gest, Graham-Berman, & Hartup, 2001). It is important to note an assumption of the proposed relationship between humor expression and popularity. As Cooper (2005) note d, the humor expressed must be perceived positively by the humor recipient in order for th e humor expressor to receive greater attention and increased liking. Humor that is offensive or th at is viewed as manipulative, for example, may not produce positive effects in others. Although th eories exist specifying the conditions under which individuals will find a particular expre ssion of humor amusing (Wyer & Collins, 1992), this issue is beyond the scope of the current discussion given that the focus is on the expressor of the humor rather than on the target. Thus, all el se equal, individuals w ho are perceived as funny (able to express humor effectively) should tend to be more popular than individuals who are not. Hypothesis 2 : Humor expression is positively related to employee popularity. Personality. Scholars have long been interested in di fferences in individuals’ personalities. Perhaps as a result, several taxonomies have been proposed attempting to characterize broad factors that comprise personality. One taxonomy in particular that has gained widespread attention is the five factor model or the “Big Five” (Goldberg, 1990; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1958). As noted above, the Big Five factors are: extr aversion (vs. introversion), neuroticism (vs. emotional st ability), conscientiousness, ag reeableness, and openness to experience. Two traits in particul ar (extraversion and agreeablene ss) appear especially relevant

PAGE 30

30 to the current study given their likely associations with liking and receiving attention from others. Extraversion is the tendency to experience positive emotions and to be outgoing, assertive, energetic, sociable, and excitement-seeking. Agreeablen ess is the tendency to engage in prosocial behaviors and to be kind, gentle, trusti ng, and warm (Goldberg, 1992). Both extraversion and agreeableness should have implications for how socially visible and well-liked (i.e., popular) an indi vidual is among his or her peer s. Indeed, McCrae and Costa (1989) stated that, of the Big Five, extraversion and agreeableness are the most interpersonal in nature and “appear to determine directly the am ount of social stimul ation preferred and the prevailing quality of social in teraction” (p. 586). Regarding extraversion, Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, and Shao (2000) reported evidence that a con cept termed reward sensitivity lies at the core of the trait. Reward sensitivity has ties to approach/avoidance models of motivational behavior (Depue & Collins, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Fowles, 1987; Gray, 1970) and refers to the tendency to experience “an incentive motivational state that facilitate s and guides approach behavior to a goal” (Depue & Collins, 1999, p. 495). According to Lucas et al. (2000), extraverts are sociable because they have strong incenti ve motivation systems to approach rewarding situations, and social situa tions tend to be rewarding. An alternative view of the core of extraversion was proposed by Ashton, Lee, and Paunonen (2002). They argued and provided evid ence that social attention, not reward sensitivity, comprises the core of extraversion. Ac cording to their study, ex traverts are sociable because they enjoy receiving a ttention from others; consequently, they behave in ways to accomplish this. As the authors noted, “Other things being equal, extraverts tend to win the competition for social attention over introverts an d are thereby more likely to attract the most desirable allies, friends, and mates” (Ashton et al., 2002, p. 251). Although a complete resolution

PAGE 31

31 of the above debate has not been reached, the st udies by Lucas et al. (2000) and Ashton et al. (2002) are both relevant to the present study. Their results suggest that extraverts are highly motivated to engage in social interaction, thereby receiving greater amounts of attention and increasing their visibility among their peers. However, even though extraverts should receive more attention than introverts, will they also tend to be liked more? The positive emotional core of extraverts implies that such attention will be positively valenced. Acco rding to emotional contagion perspectives (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1992, 1994; Schoenewolf, 1990), individuals “catch” the emotions of others during social interactions and come to feel what the other person is feeling. The process of emotional contagion proceeds as follows. First, the actor displays the emotion in a blend of nonverbal displays such as facial expressi on and body posture, as well as verb al displays such as tone of voice. Second, the target of th e emotional display subconsciousl y and automatically mimics the actor’s display, including the actor’s facial expression (Dim berg, 1982; Lundqvist & Dimberg, 1995). Third, the target receives in ternal feedback from his or her own facial expression, leading to the experience of the same emotion as the target (Tourangeau & El lsworth, 1979). It thus follows that extraverted individua ls should not only be more soci able and receive more attention, but because they tend to display positive emotions , others should experience positive affect when interacting with such individuals, leading to incr eased liking. Thus, I propose that extraverts are more popular than introverts. Agreeableness should be related to popularity as well. Agreeable individuals possess several characteristics th at should lead them to be more prominent and collectively liked. Regarding liking, agreeableness is associated with adjectives such as “sympathetic,” “kind,” “helpful,” “considerate,” and “warm.” Why are su ch attributes valued by others? According to

PAGE 32

32 Konner (1975), cooperation is viewed as e ssential to effectiv e group functioning. The characteristics of agreeable individuals make them valuable to groups because they aid in maintaining group harmony, which is especially important in organizations given that an increasing amount of work is performed by teams (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In contrast, disagreeable individuals, who tend to be cold and distant, are le ss valuable to groups and may be excluded (see Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997). The above line of reasoning fits with Wiggins’ (1979, 1980) interpersonal circumplex model of personality. According to Wiggins, two orthogonal dimensi ons can be used to describe interpersonal behavior: agency and communion. Agency refers to strivings for mastery and power and is characterized by an individualist orientation, while communi on refers to strivings for union and solidarity and is characterized by a more collectivist or ientation. McCrae and Costa (1989) examined the relationship between Wiggins’ agency and communion dimensions and the Big Five. Results showed that agreeable ness could be represented as a blend of low agency and high communion. On this note, Barr ick, Stewart, and Piotrowski (2002) found that extraverts are motivated to strive for status, wh ile agreeable individuals are motivated to strive for communion. Thus, agreeable individuals may benefit from greater group inclusion because their behaviors are directed to ward accomplishing this goal. In addition, the prosocial natu re of agreeable individuals should lead them to be collectively liked more than disagreeable individuals. Indi viduals who receive prosocial behaviors such as friendly approaches, acceptance of peer overtures, and helping should feel more cognitively satisfied to like that individual than to dislike the individual (Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958). Research in developmental psyc hology has demonstrated that the behavioral repertoires of popular children include such prosocial behaviors (Newcomb et al., 1993).

PAGE 33

33 Moreover, not only are prosocial children liked mo re, but also they tend to be highly central and prominent, drawing positive attention to themse lves (Rodkin et al., 2000). Taken together, the above suggests that agreeable ness should be positively rela ted to employee popularity. In addition to the Big Five, another broad pers onality trait termed core self-evaluations may have implications for popul arity. Proposed by Judge et al. (1997), core self-evaluations represents bottom-line evaluations about the self and is a higher-order factor comprised of the following personality traits: a) se lf-esteem, a overall belief in one’s self-worth (H arter, 1990), b) generalized self-efficacy, a general belief in one’s capabilities to perform successfully across a variety of situations (Locke, McCl ear, & Knight, 1996), c) internal locus of control, a belief that events are under one’s control (Rotter, 1966) and d) emotional st ability, the opposite of neuroticism (Goldberg, 1990). According to Judge et al. (1997), individuals with high core selfevaluations have an overall posit ive self-concept that benefits them in several ways, including increased job and life satisfact ion (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005), task motivation (Erez & Judge, 2001) and increased job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001). Core self-evaluations also should be relate d to employee popularity. In terms of social visibility, individuals with low co re self-evaluations are less likely than those with high core selfevaluations to approach others in a positive way. As Judge et al. ( 1997) noted, “A person who feels worthlessmay withdraw from other people since to him they are not to be trusted, thus ensuring that he will not develop any positive relationships” (p. 159). Regarding liking, because of their low self-esteem, individuals with low core self-evaluations should tend to display greater anxiety and depression, lack initia tive and assertiveness, and exhibi t poorer social skills and less friendliness (Tharenou, 1979), all of which should make them less likable than those with a positive self-concept. In addition, the neuroticism of individuals with low core self-evaluations

PAGE 34

34 should lead to more frequent display of negative emotions such as hostility, sadness, and anxiety (Watson, 2000). To the extent that such emo tions are contagious (H atfield et al., 1992), individuals should dislike interacting with neurotic individuals and thus should be motivated to avoid them. Indeed, Bono and Judge (2003) recently opined that supervisors may like employees with high core self-evaluations and may find such employees more pleasant interaction partners. Thus, core self-evaluations should be positively related to employee popularity. Hypothesis 3 : Extraversion is positively re lated to employee popularity. Hypothesis 4 : Agreeableness is positively related to employee popularity. Hypothesis 5 : Core self-evaluations is posit ively related to employee popularity. Situational Antecedents Netw ork centrality. Figure 3-1 not only acknowledge s that individuals may possess certain characteristics that ma ke them more or less popular, but also that situational characteristics may influence popul arity. In particular, one’s positi on in the organization’s social network should have an impact on one’s social visibility and collective liking. A social network refers to the structure of social relationships within a group or organization and consists of a set of individuals (actors) and their relationships (ties) with one anot her (Koehly & Shivy, 1998; Tichy, Tushman & Fombrun, 1974; Wasserman & Fa ust, 1994). Broadly speaking, individuals who are tied to many others, either directly or indirectly, are referred to as socially central. Because central individuals are at the nucleus of communication lines and interaction patterns in the workflow, they have higher degrees of access to and control over valued firm resources compared to individuals on the periphery of the network (Burt, 1982). As a result, their positions are more objectively advantageous than those of less central individuals. Research has linked social network centrality to numerous work outco mes, including job satisfaction (Flap & Volker, 2001; Rice & Mitchell, 1973), organizational commitment (Hartman & Johnson, 1989),

PAGE 35

35 influence on decisions (Kameda, Ohtsubo, & Ta kezawa, 1997), ratings of transformational leadership (Bono & Anderson, 2005; Pastor, Meindl, & Mayo, 2002), career advancement (Burt, 1992; Podolny & Baron, 1997), tu rnover (Mossholder, Settoo n, & Henagan, 2005), and power and influence (Brass, 1984; Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Ibarra, 1993; Kr ackhardt, 1990; Salk & Brannen, 2000). Although existing research demonstrates the importance of network centrality to individuals in organizations, I am aware of no research that has linked centrality to employee popularity. However, highly central individuals should be more popular than more peripheral individuals for the following reasons. According to Knoke and Burt (1983; see also Wasserman & Faust, 1994), central individua ls are involved in extensiv e relationships with others, characterized by frequent interac tion and communication. As a result of this frequent interaction and communication, central individu als should become more socially visible among their peers. Although central individuals should be more well-known than peripheral individuals, to what extent will their visibility be positively va lenced? In other words, will central individuals tend to be liked more than periph eral individuals? On this point, a substantial amount of research has shown that the more individu als are exposed to a stimulus, th e more they come to like that stimulus (for a meta-analysis, see Bornstein, 198 9), implying that central individuals will tend to be liked more because of their increased exposur e to others. This “mere exposure” effect was described by Zajonc (1968) as the phenomenon that “mere repeated exposure to a stimulus is a sufficient condition for the enhancement of his att itude toward it. By ‘mere exposure’ is meant a condition which just makes the given stimulus acce ssible to the individual’s perception” (p. 1). According to Zajonc, novel stimuli are associat ed with uncertainty a nd conflict as organisms attempt to discern whether such stimuli are sour ces of danger, and states of uncertainty and

PAGE 36

36 conflict are more likely to produce negative rather than positive affect. However, if the stimulus is not appraised as dangerous, individuals ar e motivated to continue interaction. Through repeated exposure, the stimulus becomes more familiar and comfortable, resulting in liking. Thus, individuals like familiar persons or objec ts because learned structures are pleasing and provide comfort (Meyer, 1956). It thus follows that individuals who are central in a given soci al network should tend to be more popular than individuals w ho are peripheral. Indeed, resear ch in developmental psychology supports the above contention, fi nding that popular school childr en tend to be those who are central among their peers (Farmer & Farmer, 1996; Farmer & Rodkin, 1 996; Gest et al., 2001; Rodkin et al., 2000). Given that or ganizations also can be charact erized in terms of social networks, I expect these findings to generalize. Hypothesis 6 : Network centrality is positivel y related to employee popularity. Outcomes of Employee Popularity As Figure 3-2 shows, I propose that popularity is associated with several exchange-based outcom es. Exchange-based outcomes are those that are transacted during the course of social interactions. More specifically, so cial exchanges refer to “volunta ry actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others” (Blau, 1964, p. 91). According to social exchange theories (for a review, see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), interactions or exchanges between individuals are interdependent and contingent upon each party’s own actions. Such exchanges are guided by norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), which stipulate that individuals should help those who have helped them. Though the types of resources ex changed may be purely economic, they also may include less tangible resources such as servi ces and status (Foa & Foa, 1980) . Importantly, Blau (1964) noted

PAGE 37

37 that individuals in social exch ange relationships often do not t horoughly keep track of debits and credits. I suggest that popular employees are the more frequent recipients of several exchangebased outcomes than less popular employees: fairer treatment from their supervisors, as well as more organizational citizenship behaviors (O CB, Organ, 1990; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) and fewer counterproductive work behaviors (CWB , Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2002). This standpoint differs slightly from previous work on these outcomes. In the literature on organizational justice, researchers have examined how individuals react once they are tr eated fairly or unfairly (for meta-analytic reviews, see Cohen, Charash, & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & N g, 2001). In the literatures on OCB and CWB, researchers have explored the factor s that lead an individual to engage in these behaviors (for a meta-analysis, see Dalal, 2005). In this study, however, I turn the tables and examine whether popularity is a ssociated with receivi ng these behaviors from other individuals in the organization. Why might popular employees be the recipien ts of such beneficial outcomes? By definition, popular individuals are those who are well-known a nd liked by many. Thus, popular individuals, by virtue of their so cial visibility, should receive a greater degree of attention from others – an argument that fits well with re search on celebrity CE Os, who often receive tremendous public attention during their te nure (Chen & Meindl, 1991; Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). Of course, simply receiving attention does not guarantee that such atte ntion will be positively vale nced; however, because popular employees also are defined as those who are coll ectively liked or admired, such attention should be positive. According to Frijd a (1994), liking is a sentiment, with sentiments defined as

PAGE 38

38 tendencies to respond affectively to specific objects or events. When a particular sentiment is held toward a given object, affective states corresponding to the valence of the sentiment are activated upon actual or possible encounter with the object (Frijd a, 1994; Lazarus, 1994). In the case of popularity, positive affect should be elicited during encounters with a popular person because liking is a positively-valenced sentiment. It follows then that popular individuals, because they tend to generate positive emotional responses in others, should be perceived as more rewarding to interact with than less popular individuals. The neurotransmitter dopamine may be a key underlying neuropsychological mechanism here. According to Ashby, Isen, and Turken’s (1999) neuropsychological theory of positive affect, during episodes of positive affect, there is a concomitant increase in brain dopamine levels. Research has supported a direct link between the experience or the anticipation of reward and the elicitation of dopamine (f or reviews, see Beninger, 1991; Bozarth, 1991; Phillips, Blaha, Pfaus, & Blackburn, 1992; Phillips, Pfaus, & Blaha, 1991). Drugs such as morphine and cocaine, for example, which tend to elevate feelings, work primarily either by mimicking the effects of dopamine or enhancing dopamine activity. Consequently, from a neuropsychological perspective, the rewards associated with inter acting with a popular pe rson may be due to an increase in brain dopamine levels. In essence, popular individuals may act as a mild “drug,” reinforcing the desire for future interaction. Interactions with popular indi viduals should be perceived as rewarding not only for purely affective reasons (i.e., because they generate positi ve affect in others), but also for relatively more cognitive, practical reasons. Specifically, an individual who associ ates with a popular employee may either directly or indirectly increase his/her own popularity. In essence, the individual “basks in the reflect ed glory” of the popular employ ee (Cialdini et al., 1976; Kilduff

PAGE 39

39 & Krackhardt, 1994), sharing in some of th e employee’s social status. Research in developmental psychology has supported this notion. Eder (1985), for example, found that middle-school girls increased their own popularity by affiliating with the popular clique – those who were members of the school’s cheerleading squad. In organizationa l behavior research, citizenship behaviors tend to be affiliative by nature (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). In sum, the above suggests that interactions with popular individuals should be perceived as rewarding for both affective and practical reasons. Consequently, popular employees should be valued social companions, and individuals should be motivat ed to retain popular employees within the organization and to maintain positive re lationships with them in order to increase the likelihood of future interaction. From a social exchange theory perspe ctive (Blau, 1964), the rewards received from interacting with a popular employee should trigger norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), resulting in positive behaviors directed to ward the popular person. What behaviors might be exchanged? For supervisors of popular employees, fair treatment may be one set of behaviors. For coworkers, however, fair tr eatment is likely not a to ol at their disposal given their lack of legitimate and coercive power (French & Raven, 1959). Instead, increased OCB and decreased CWB may be exchanged. Below, I examine these outcomes in more detail. Supervisor-Originating Outcomes Organizational justice. The importance of fair treatment, or organizational justice, in the workplace has been demonstrated (for a revi ew, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Meta-analytic reviews show th at fair treatment is associated with a variety of relevant employee attitudes and behaviors, including j ob satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnove r intentions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;

PAGE 40

40 Colquitt et al., 2001). Thus, fairness is a valued workplace attribute, a nd employees care about the treatment they receive. Employees value fair treatment for a numb er of reasons. Fairness communicates to individuals that they are valu ed members of their group or or ganization (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992), fairness prov ides control over allocation procedures, which maximizes long-term outcomes (Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975), and fairness upholds basic moral codes of human dignity (Folger, 1998; Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). Consequently, fair treatment, becau se it is valued, may be direct ed toward popular employees as a means of retaining them within the organization and maintaining positive relationships with them. This reasoning fits well with Hulin’s (1991 ) notion that employee withdrawal is based on a comparison of outcomes to inputs (i.e., distributive justice) and with the meta-analyses of CohenCharash and Spector (2001) and Colquitt et al. (2001), both which found that organizational justice was positively related to organizational commitment and ne gatively related to turnover intentions. Scholars have distinguished am ong four dimensions of jus tice (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993), all of which may be relevant to employ ee popularity. Distributive justice is concerned with the fairness of the outcomes workers r eceive (Adams, 1965; see also Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976). Procedural justice is concerned with the fairne ss of the procedures used to allocate outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Two forms of interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986), interpersonal and informational justice, are concerned with the fairness of the interpersonal treatment that employees receive. The former is fostered when employees are treated with respect and dignity, while the latter is fostered when employees are provided with

PAGE 41

41 truthful justification during re source allocations and when em ployees are kept informed of important organizational ev ents (Greenberg, 1993). Regarding distributive justice, research on performance evaluation has shown that supervisors often give favorable ratings to employees whom they like (for a narrative review, see Lefkowitz, 2000). Such ratings may be due to a halo effect (Cooper, 1981; Murphy, Jako, & Anhalt, 1993; Thorndike, 1920), a stereotype in which a rater’s overall impression of a ratee influences assessments of specific behaviors or attributes. On this point, research in developmental psychology has shown that popular children are the recipients of a number of positive stereotypes, including ha lo (Hymel, Wagner, & Butler, 1989). Moreover, not only are behaviors performed by popular individuals viewed more positively in general, but others tend to view those positive behaviors as internally caused (Hymel, 1986). Thus, when evaluating a popular employee’s behaviors, supervisors should be more likely to view those behaviors positively and attribute them as generated by the employee. Consequently, performance evaluations and rewards should be more favorable, resulting in greater extrinsic outcomes and increased perceptions of distributive justice. The above argument is based on the assumption that the evaluating supervisor likes the popular employee, as decision-making “errors” such as halo are the resu lt of holding favorable impressions of others. Though a supervisor may allocate greater rewards to a popular employee because he or she likes the popular employee (and as a result gives very positive performance evaluations), there are other re asons to suggest that popular em ployees receive more favorable outcomes. Specifically, supervisors may allocate greater rewards to popula r individuals because they view such individuals as especially valuable to their work unit, regardless of whether they

PAGE 42

42 like them or not. The increasing reliance on grou ps and teams in the workplace has made the ability to effectively in teract with others a valued employee input. On this point, research on the behavioral correlates of popularity among children has revealed that popular children are more sociable, described by their peers as helpful, cooperative, considerate, and socially outgoing (Coie, D odge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Newcomb et al., 1993). Popular children are more accurate at encoding social cues (Dodge & Price, 1994), more likely to generate and positively evaluate prosocial problem-solving strategies, and are more likely to endorse relational goals over instrumental ones (Nelson & Crick, 1999). To the extent that these findings generalize to adulthood, they suggest th at popular employees should facilitate social interactions and thus should be perceived by others as rewarding colleagues with whom to work. Consequently, supervisors should have a strong de sire to retain and reward these employees, resulting in greater percepti ons of distribu tive justice. Hypothesis 7 : Popularity is positively re lated to perceptions of distributive justice. According to approach/avoidance models of behavior (Depue & Collins, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Fowles, 1987; Gray, 1970), organi sms are directed toward stimuli that are rewarding and are driven away fr om stimuli that are repulsing. If interactions with popular individuals are more rewarding, supervisors should be motivated to approach those employees more than less popular individuals , with whom interaction may be less rewarding. Importantly, procedural justice is promoted when empl oyees are provided voice in decision-making procedures (Greenberg & Folger , 1983; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and when those procedures are consistent, without bias, accurate, correctable, re presentative of various organizational groups, and ethical (Leventhal, 1980). It follows that popular employees should have more opportunities to provide voice in decisions because they will tend to be approached more frequently by

PAGE 43

43 management. In contrast, less popular employees, with whom managers should interact less frequently, should have fewer opportunities to provide input. In addition to voice, approach responses should facilitate adhe rence to other rules of justice. For example, Niehoff and Moorman (1993) demonstrated that employees who were observed more frequently by their managers had higher perceptions of procedural ju stice. By observing employees more frequently, managers were presumably perceived to base decisions on more accurate, consistent, and unbiased information. Taken together then, popular employees should perceive greater procedural justice than less popular employees. Hypothesis 8 : Popularity is positively related to perceptions of procedural justice. A similar argument can be made for informational justice. Recall that informational justice is fostered when managers are honest with th eir employees, provide justification for their decisions, and in general keep employees up-to-date on relevant organizational matters (Greenberg, 1993). If managers are motivated to approach and interact with popular employees more frequently than less popular employees, then greater opportunities to discuss and share information should arise. Supporti ng this assertion is research on liking an d self-disclosure, which has shown that people share information w ith those to whom they are attracted (for a meta-analysis, see Collins & Miller, 1994). According to Worthy, Gary, and Kahn (1969), disclosure is thought of as rewa rding to others, and individuals reward those whom they like. This suggests that managers should tend to sh are more information with popular employees, leading to increased perceptions of informational justice. Hypothesis 9 : Popularity is positively related to perceptions of informational justice. Finally, supervisors should tend to engage in more interpersonally fair treatment toward popular employees compared to less popular employ ees. Interpersonal justice is promoted when

PAGE 44

44 supervisors treat employees with sincerity and respect (Greenbe rg, 1993). According to studies by Weisfeld and colleagues (Dong, Weisfeld, Bo ardway, & Shen; Weisfeld, Bloch, & Ivers, 1983; Weisfeld, Bloch, & Ivers, 1984), children with high amounts of social prestige command others’ attention and respect. Th is notion fits well with resear ch by Eder (1985), who found that popular middle school girls, because of their pa rticipation in prestigious school-activities, received the most attention from their peers. Gi ven that popular individual s also tend to be liked by others, this attention should te nd to be positively valenced. T hus, supervisors not only should give more personal attention to popular employees, but such attention should tend to be positive (e.g., respectful, kind, sincere, etc.), leading to perceptions of interpersonal justice. In contrast, less popular employees, who should receive less positively-valenced attention from their supervisors, should perceive a lower degree of interpersonal justice. Hypothesis 10: Popularity is positively related to perceptions of interpersonal justice. Coworker-Originating Outcomes Citiz enship behavior and counterproducti ve behavior directed at employee. As stated above, because popular employees should be re warding to interact with, managers and employees should be motivated to retain popular employees in the organization and maintain positive relationships with them. Supervisors ma y accomplish this via increased fair treatment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). Coworkers, however, lack the authority to use justice (particularly distribu tive and procedural justice, as these types of justice tend to be bounded more in resource allocation decisions [Greenberg, 1993]) as a means to maintain relationships with popular employees and thus mu st look to other valued resources at their disposal to exchange. What might these resource s be? As I discuss below, behaviors such as increased organizational citizen ship behavior Organ, 1990; Smith et al., 1983) and decreased counterproductive work behavior (Fox et al., 2001; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Spector & Fox,

PAGE 45

45 2002), appear to be two resources that coworker s could direct toward popular employees as a means of maintaining positive affiliation. OCB, which also has been referred to as pr osocial behavior at work (George, 1990, 1991), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992) , extra-role behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), and contextual performance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), is defined as voluntary behavior that is not directly recognized by the formal organizational reward system but contributes to group functioning (Organ; 1990; Smith et al., 1983) . CWB, which also has been referred to as workplace aggres sion (Baron & Neuman, 1996), antisocial behavior (Giacolone & Greenberg, 1997), organizational retaliation behavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2003) is defined as “voluntary behavior of organizational members that violates significan t organizational norms, and in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization and/or its members” (R obinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556). Both behaviors have in common the notion of discretion; that is, they typically are not pa rt of an individual’s formal job requirements. However, both behavior s, along with task performance, fall under the broad domain of job performa nce (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Both OCB and CWB have been broken down into similar components. For OCB, Smith et al. (1983) (see also Williams & Anderson, 1991), pr oposed two primary dimensions of OCB: an interpersonal dimension, defined as citizenship behavior directed toward coworkers (OCB-I) and an organizational dimension, defined as citizensh ip behavior directed toward the organization (OCB-O). Behavioral examples of the former include helping a coworker and demonstrating courtesy, while behavioral examples of the latter include praising the organization to organizational outsiders and defending the organization from criticism.

PAGE 46

46 For CWB, Robinson and Bennett (1995) also di stinguished between in terpersonal-directed and organizational-directed behaviors that they termed workplace deviance. Behavioral examples the former include making fun of and acting ru dely toward a cowork er, while behavioral examples of the latter include taking property from work without permission and dragging out work in order to get overtime. Although these dime nsions appear to be conceptually distinct, research has demonstrated that they are very highly related (Lee & Allen, 2002; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Most research on OCB and CWB has adopted an actor perspective, identifying the factors that lead individuals to engage in these behaviors (Dalal, 2005). In contrast, very little research has focused on the targets, or recipients, of th ese behaviors (for exceptions, see LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Bowler & Brass, 2006). Questions such as, “What factors lead individuals to receive citizenship or counterproductive behaviors from their coworkers? ” remain relatively unanswered. This question is particularly relevant to inte rpersonal forms of these behaviors, which are specifically directed toward work colleagues. Thus, although the interper sonal and organizational forms of OCB and CWB are strongly related (Lee & Allen, 2002; LePine et al., 2002), for the purposes of this study, I focus on interpersona l-directed OCB and CWB in order to more accurately address the question of whether popu lar employees are the recipients of more citizenship behaviors and fewe r counterproductive behaviors. Why should popular employees be the benefici aries of such behaviors? As suggested above, interactions with popular employees shou ld tend to be rewarding, and, as a result, employees should be motivated to maintain positive relationships with them. I propose that increasing OCB and decreasing CWB toward popular employees may be a form of ingratiation (see Liden & Mitchell, 1998) where by individuals attempt to get th e popular person to like them.

PAGE 47

47 Existing research supports the e ffectiveness of ingratiation, show ing that such tactics often succeed in increased liking. Regarding OCB as an ingratiation tactic, severa l studies have demonstrated that employees who render favors for their immediate supervisors are liked more by their supervisors (Ferris, Fedor, & King, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Liden, 1995; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997). Such results fit well with Heider ’s (1958) balance theory (and Festinger’s [1957] related cognitive dissonance theory), which suggest s that an individual who receives favors or help from another should feel induced to like that person rather than dislike that person in order to maintain balance in the relationship and feel more cognitively sa tisfied (experience less psychological dissonance). It shoul d be noted, however, that enga ging in OCB toward coworkers is not always purely altruistic or pursued with the intent to ingr atiate. Instead, OCB may be used as political favor exchange behavior (Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor , & Judge, 1995). Whatever the intent of the behavior, OCB should be instru mental in increasing the likelihood of future interaction with popular employees. Likewise, individuals should refrain from directing CWB toward popular employees, as behaviors such as cursing, making ethnic or raci al remarks, and acting rudely likely will be viewed negatively by others and hence will decrea se the likelihood of futu re interaction. This view fits well with approach/avoidance models of behavior, which stat e that individuals are directed away from noxious or threatening stim uli (Depue & Collins, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Fowles, 1987; Gray, 1970). Taken together, the above suggests that popular employees should be the recipients of more OC B and fewer CWB from their peers. Much of the above discussion implies that em ployees direct benefici al behaviors toward popular individuals for relatively strategic, practical reasons. Th at is, interacting with popular

PAGE 48

48 employees is rewarding, and because individuals desire to maintain re lationships with popular individuals, they exchange valued resources such as increased OCB and reduced CWB. However, such behaviors are not always enacted after careful delib eration. According to Spector and Fox’s (2002) emotion-centered model of volunt ary work behavior, environmental conditions that elicit positive affect lead to OCB, while e nvironmental conditions that elicit negative affect lead to CWB. Research has supported this notio n, relating positive affective states to OCB (George, 1991; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002; Williams & Shiaw, 1999) and negative affective states to counterproductive behavior (Judge, Sc ott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002). Regarding CWB specifically, Spector and Fox (2002) noted that inte rpersonal conflicts with others (getting into arguments with coworker s, receiving poor treatment from coworkers) is a frequently experienced job stre ssor in organizations that leads to negative affect (see Keenan & Newton, 1984; Spector & Jex, 1998). In turn, nega tive affect leads to CWB. Spector and Fox also noted that it is unlikely that the occasional negative interaction will have a strong impact on CWB unless the resulting negative affect is very intense. Instead, CWB will be more likely when interactions are repeatedly nega tive, resulting in an accumulation of negative affect. Given that popular individuals tend to be pr osocial (Newcomb et al., 1993), and by definition are well-liked, it is unlikely that repeated interpersonal conflicts with such individuals will occur. To the extent that negative affect is felt less frequently ar ound a popular employee (and positive affect is felt more frequently), CWB toward popular employees should be lower, and OCB higher, compared to less popular employees. An additional issue that warrants discussion is whether unpopular employees will direct positive behaviors toward popular employees. A lthough by definition popular individuals are

PAGE 49

49 well-known and liked by many, they are not nece ssarily liked by all. Indeed, research on children’s popularity has shown that unpopular children often expr ess disliking of their popular peers, perhaps resenting their popularity (Eder, 1985). However, it is not necessary for an individual to like a popular pers on in order for the popular person to receive favorable treatment. Though beneficial behaviors may be a result of lik ing, they also may result from ego-centered motives to increase one’s own social standing by “basking in the reflecte d glory” of the popular employee (Cialdini et al., 1976; Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994). As LaFontana & Cillessen (1998) suggested, “children may resent popular children, but their beha vior toward them may be positive nonetheless, out of a desire to ingratiate themselves, thereby increasing their own social status” (pp. 317-318). In addition, those who dislike popular employees may engage in OCB for impression management purposes, or out of a desi re to be viewed favorably by others (Bolino, 1999, Bowler & Brass, 2006). In this case, OCB is enacted not merely to share in others’ social standing, but instead to create a favorable impression in the ey es of management as a “good citizen.” Thus, although the underlying motivatio ns for directing positive behaviors toward popular employees may differ from person to pe rson, the end result is the same – popular employees receive more from others than do their less popular peers. Hypothesis 11: Popularity is positively related to receiving interpersonal citizenship behaviors from peers. Hypothesis 12: Popularity is negatively relate d to receiving interpersonal counterproductive behaviors from peers. Overview of Studies To test the above hypotheses, I conducted two studies. In both studi es, and in accordance with referent-shift consensus m odels (Chan, 1998), coworkers served as raters of a focal employee’s popularity. In Study 1, I developed a multi-item scale of employee popularity based on the proposed definition and previous research on the concept. I examin ed interrater agreement

PAGE 50

50 to determine the extent to which popularity is a collective perception as well as the factor structure of the popularity measure to determine th e dimensionality of th e scale. In addition, I investigated convergent, discrimi nant, and predictive validity to begin the process of construct validation. In Study 2, I tested all of the hypothesized antece dents and consequences of employee popularity in a sample of full-time empl oyees from intact work groups to replicate some of the findings of Study 1.

PAGE 51

51 Personal Characteristics Physical Attractiveness Humor Expression Extraversion Agreeableness Core Self-Evaluations Employee Popularity Situational Characteristics Network Centrality Figure 3-1. Personal and situatio nal antecedents of employee popularity

PAGE 52

52 Supervisor-Originating Outcomes Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Interpersonal Justice Informational Justice Employee Popularity Coworker-Originating Outcomes Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviors Interpersonal Counterproductive Behaviors Figure 3-2. Supervisorand coworke r-originating outcomes of employee popularity

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS: STUDY 1 Participants Participants were 126 undergraduate students enro lled in a large m anagement course at a large, southeastern university. In order to incr ease generalizability to work settings, I limited participation to students who currently were working more than 20 hours per week and who would be able to have multiple coworkers provide ratings of each participant’s popularity. Participants worked in a variet y of jobs, including restaurant servers, sales associates, and administrative assistants. The sample included 53 males and 73 females. Reported ethnicities were as follows: African American (2.4%), Asian American/Pacific Islander (9.5%), Hispanic/Latino (15.1%), Native American Indian/Alaskan Nativ e (0.8%), White (NonHispanic) (68.3%), and Other (1.6%). Three respondents did not report their ethnicity. The average age of the sample was 21.9 years (SD = 4.2), and particip ants had worked an average of 1.9 years in their current position (SD = 2.0). Procedure Participants were recruited via an announcem ent posted on the course w ebsite. The study was described as an examination of attitudes an d behaviors toward coworkers. Instructions on the website indicated that participants would be asked to have coworkers complete ratings on their behalf. In addition, particip ants were instructed that, foll owing completion of the coworker surveys, they would be asked to complete a survey about themselves. In exchange for participation, participants received course ex tra credit. Measures within the surveys were counterbalanced in order to av oid potential order confounds. Data were collected online using SurveyMonkey.com (www.surveymonkey.com), an online service devoted solely to electronic data collection. After reading the study instructions

PAGE 54

54 and the informed consent, participants were inst ructed to have at least three coworkers working under the same supervisor as the focal participant complete a survey on their behalf. Participants gave each coworker the web address for the onlin e survey, which the coworkers then completed after viewing an informed consent page. Th e coworker survey included the measure of popularity developed for this study as well as measures used to assess convergent and discriminant validity (see the Appendix), which I discuss in further detail below. To develop content-valid items for the popularity scale, I re lied on the above definition of popularity as well as on existing operationalizations of popularity (Babad, 2001). Thus, items were derived that tapped perceived collective liking of the focal em ployee, perceived social visibility, and direct, perceived popularity. In accordance with refe rent-shift consensus models (Chan, 1998), coworkers were instructed to consider how the focal participant is perceived by his/her coworkers in the focal employee’s immediate workgroup. In all, I obtained 331 coworker surveys. Although the primary purpose of Study 1 was to examine the construct validity of the popularity scale, I also had participants complete the antecedent and outcome measures in order to examine convergence with the results of St udy 2. Thus, once the coworker surveys were completed, participants were instructed to complete an online survey assessing perceived distributive, procedural, informati onal, and interpersonal justice, the extent to which they receive OCB and CWB from their coworkers, and person ality characteristics (i.e., humor expression, extraversion, agreeableness, and core self-evalua tions). Given that I was unable to collect data from every coworker in each focal participant’ s workgroup, I did not assess network centrality in this Study 1. In addition, I assessed p hysical attractiveness only in Study 2.

PAGE 55

55 Data collection took place during the spri ng, summer, and fall semesters of 2006. Given that all three samples were from the same population (i.e., undergraduate students), it is theoretically justifiable to combine the samples in order to increase sta tistical power. However, before doing so, I examined whether the mean levels of variables focal to the study differed significantly among the three samples. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in mean levels of agreeableness across the three samples ( F [2, 119] = 3.32, p = .04). Follow-up independent-sample t-tests demonstrated that the mean level of agreeableness was higher in the fall semester sample than the summer semester sample ( Mfall semester = 4.1 vs. Msummer semester = 3.7; t [1, 43] = 2.30, p = .03). However, considering the small difference between the two agreeableness means, as well as the non-significa nt differences for all other variables, I combined the three samples into one. Both participants and coworkers were assure d that their responses would be confidential and that only the researcher would have access to their responses. I compared Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to ensure that participants di d not simply complete the coworker surveys themselves. Each computer has a unique IP address, and thus different IP addresses for each survey provide some evidence that the surveys were completed by different individuals, though it is possible for individuals to share a computer in some cases (e.g., a group of servers using a single terminal in a restaurant). Ten participants had IP addresse s that matched the IP addresses of their coworker surveys; however, excluding these individuals did not affect the significance of the findings in any way, and thus I retained them in the analyses.

PAGE 56

56 Measures Employee Popularity I generated nine item s tapping the proposed de finition of employee popularity. These nine items are listed in the Appendix. Items 1, 4, and 7 assess the degree to wh ich the focal individual is collectively liked or admired by his/her peers; items 2, 5, and 8 assess the degree to which the focal individual is socially visible among hi s/her peers, and item s 3, 6, and 9 assess the popularity of the focal employee directly. Each coworker was asked to “consider how the person who gave you this survey is perceived by his/he r coworkers. Considering the perceptions of coworkers only in this person's immediate work group (those people, including yourself, who report to the same supervisor), please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.” Participants re sponded to each item using a five-point Likert scale with anchors 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Coefficient alpha for the popularity scale was = .92. The average corrected item-total correlation for the scale was .71. Convergent Validity Measures In order to assess convergent va lidity with alternative measures of the same concept, I included two existing measures of popularity. First, cowo rkers completed sociometric nominations based on the Coie et al. (1982) method, which asks individuals to nominate peers who they “like the most” and peers who they “l ike the least” and then calculates popularity scores by subtracting the number of liked-leas t nominations from the number of liked-most nominations. “Peers” were defined as those empl oyees working under the same supervisor as the focal participant. Instructions to coworkers stated that the focal participant did not have to be included in the peer nominations, allowing cowo rkers to nominate whom ever they preferred. Second, I included a direct, peer-perceived meas ure of popularity (Kosir & Pecjak, 2005) by asking coworkers to nominate the most popular and least popular peer s in their workgroup.

PAGE 57

57 Again, coworkers were instructed that they could nominate whomever they desired. All sociometric nominations were unlimited in or der to decrease measurement error (Holland & Leinhardt, 1973). I also included a measure of interpersonal liking in order to asse ss the degree to which popularity (a collective concept) converges with liking (an individual concept). For liking, coworkers responded to the four items develope d by Wayne and Ferris (1990), which are listed in the Appendix. All items were measured on a five -point Likert scale. Anchors for the first item ranged from 1 = I don’t like this person at all to 5 = I like this person very much, while anchors for the remaining items ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Coefficient alpha for this scale was = .95. Discriminant Validity Measures In order to assess discrim inant validity, I included measures of constructs identified above as potentially related to the concept of popularity: reputation and charisma. To assess broad, personal reputation, I us ed the twelve-item scale developed by Hochwarter, Arnell, Ferris, and James (2006), adap ted to a coworker pers pective rather than a self perspective. Coworkers were asked to indi cate the extent to which they agreed with each item using a five-point Likert scale with anchors 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. These items are listed in the Appendix. Coefficient alpha for this scale was = .97. For charisma, coworkers rated their extent of agreement with the eight idealized influence items from the MLQ 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1998) using a five-point Likert scale with anchors 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Items are listed in the Appendix. Coefficient alpha for this scale was = .90.

PAGE 58

58 Antecedent Measures To m easure the hypothesized antecedents of popularity (humor expr ession, extraversion, agreeableness, and core self-evalu ations), I used existing scales (see the Appendix). Participants responded to the items in each measure using a five-point Likert scale with anchors 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Humor expres sion was measured using the five adjectives reported in Saucier and Goldberg (1998), who demonstrated that th ese items were distinct from the broader five-factor model of personality. Coefficient alpha for this scale was = .87. For extraversion and agreeableness, I used the Bi g Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). Coefficient alpha was = .89 for extraversion and = .81 for agreeableness. Core selfevaluations was measured usi ng the scale developed by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoreson (2003). Coefficient alpha for this scale was = .82. Although not hypothesized, I measured the remaining Big Five personality traits (conscientiousness [ = .87], neuroticism [ = .77], and openness to experience [ = .87]), using the Big Five inve ntory, for exploratory purposes. Outcome Measures To m easure the hypothesized outcomes of popu larity (organizationa l justice, received OCB, and received CWB), I also used existing s cales. Organizational justice was measured using the scales developed by Colquitt (2001). Thes e scales assess distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal justice (see the Appendix). Participants we re asked to indicate their extent of agreement with ea ch item using a five-point Likert scale with anchors 1 = to a very small extent to 5 = to a very large extent. Fo r distributive justice, pa rticipants were referred to outcomes they receive such as pay, evaluations, promotions, and rewards ( = .97). For procedural justice, participants were referred to the procedures used by their supervisor when making decisions about outcomes such as pa y, evaluations, promotions, and rewards ( = .87).

PAGE 59

59 For informational justice, participants were re ferred to the explanations and communications received from their supervisor during decision-making procedures ( = .86). For interpersonal justice, participants were referred to the trea tment they receive from their supervisor during decision-making procedures ( = .88). Received OCB and CWB were measured by adapting existing scales of OCB (Lee & Allen, 2002) and CWB (Porath, Pearson, & Shapiro, 1999) to reflect receiv ing these behaviors rather than engaging in these behaviors (see the Appendix). For both behavior s, participants were asked to indicate how often their coworkers in their immediate work group engage in each of the behaviors toward them using a five-point Likert scale wi th anchors 1 = almost never to 5 = very often. Coefficient alpha was = .88 for the OCB scale and = .92 for the CWB scale. Analyses As discussed above, popularity is a collective perception held toward an individual by m embers of that individual’s gr oup. In contrast to other collec tive constructs, which typically have a single score assigned to the group af ter aggregation (climate, Zohar, 1980), popularity scores remain at the individual level, even though they result from the aggregation of others’ responses. However, the concept of popularity is still collective because the scores are derived from multiple raters. According to Chan (1998), for referent-shift consensus models, with in-group agreement is required to justify aggregation. A ccordingly, I first computed indice s of interrater agreement to determine the extent to which group members ag reed on the popularity of the target individual. In order to justify aggregation, I used the following statistics: rwg(j) (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; 1993), and ICC(1) a nd ICC(2) (Bartko, 1976; James, 1982). The rwg(j) is a measure of within-group agreement and compares the amount of observed within-group variance to an

PAGE 60

60 expected random variance. Both ICC(1) and I CC(2) utilize withina nd between-group variance by comparing the amount of between-group variance to the total varian ce. While ICC(1) is interpreted as the reliability associated with a single assessment of the unit mean, ICC(2) is the reliability associated with all assessme nts of the unit mean (James, 1982). For rwg(j) and ICC(2), acceptable levels are .70 and above; however, ICC(1) values tend to be much less than one, typically ranging from .0 5 to .20 (Bliese, 2000). Following aggregation, I examined the factor structure of the popularity scale using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Given that the popularity measure contains collective liking items, social visibility items, and direct, perceived popularity items, it is possible that a multidimensional structure bests re presents the concept of popularity. However, given the tendency for the definitional components (i.e., collective liking and social visibility) to be strongly related to each other (Babad, 2001; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998), popularity may be unidimensional. Thus, using confirmatory factor analysis, I compared the fit of a three-factor model to a one-factor model. As stated above, the primary purpose of Study 1 wa s to assess the construct validity of the popularity scale. Although construc t validation is an ongoing proce ss and is not likely to be demonstrated by any single study, evidence of co nstruct validity can be provided by examining convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity (Edwards , 2003). In the current study, convergent validity would be demonstrated if the developed measure of popularity correlated highly with existing measures of popularity, while discriminant validity would be demonstrated if the developed measure of popularity was not to o highly correlated with existing measures of related yet conceptually distinct concepts (i .e., reputation and charisma) (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Of course, judgments of discriminant valid ity using correlations can be subjective; thus, I

PAGE 61

61 also inspected discriminant validity by conducting confirmatory factor analyses comparing the fit of two a-priori factor struct ures: a three-factor model se parating popularity, charisma, and reputation and a one-factor model combining the three variables. I then tested the proposed antecedents and consequences of popularity using ordinary least squares regression. I controlled for the focal employee’s age, gender, race, and tenu re, as these variables tend to reflect status in general (Pfeffer, 1981). Finally, I examined the incremental validity of popularity in predicting the outcomes over and above reputation and char isma. According to Hunsley and Meyer (2003) demonstrating incremental validity “presents a rather stringent test of vali dity, as it requires not only that the prediction of an outcome with a test be better than that obta ined by chance but also that the test demonstrate its value in comparison with other relevant sour ces of information” (pp. 446-447).

PAGE 62

62 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS: STUDY 1 Support for Aggregation The average rwg(j) for the popularity ratings was .95, which indicates that coworkers tended to agree on the popularity ratings of employees w hom they rated. A one-way ANOVA by rater revealed a significant amount of betw een-rater variance in popularity ratings ( F [96, 214] = 3.11, p < .001). ICC(1) and ICC(2), which take into consideration both the amount of betweenrater and within-rater variance in popularity ratings, were .39 and .68, respectively. Based on these results, I aggregated the popularity items across raters for each focal participant. Given that the measures of interpersona l liking, reputation, and charisma also were completed by multiple coworkers for each participant, I computed indices of interrater agreement to justify aggregation of those ratings. The average rwg(j) for each variable was as follows: interpersonal liking (.95), re putation (.97), and charisma (.96). A one-way ANOVA by rater revealed a significant amount of between-r ater variance in interpersonal liking ( F [96, 214] = 1.58, p < .01), reputation ( F [96, 214] = 2.89, p < .001), and charisma ( F [96, 214] = 2.34, p < .001). ICC(1) values were as follows: interperso nal liking (.15), reputation (.37), and charisma (.29). ICC(2) values were as follows: interperso nal liking (.37), reputation (.65), and charisma (.57). Based on these results, I aggregated the interpersonal liking, reputation, and charisma scores across raters. Interesti ngly, the level of inte rrater agreement was higher for the popularity ratings than for the interpersonal liking ratings, suggesting that coworkers could identify popular employees yet either like or dislike those employees on an interpersonal level.

PAGE 63

63 Factor Structure Exploratory Factor Analysis I then subm itted the nine aggregated popularity items to an explorat ory factor analysis using principal components as the extraction method. I used a factor loading of .40 as a minimum cutoff to ensure that each item re flected the underlying construct (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Two factors emerged with ei genvalues of 6.10 and 1.12. The first factor explained 67.79% of the variance in the items, while the second factor explained 12.48% of the variance in the items. The rotate d component matrix is shown in the left half of Table 5-1. Inspection of the factor loadings revealed that it em 5 (“Is often the cente r of attention”) was the only item that loaded solely on the second factor. In hindsight, it could be that participants interpreted item 5 in a negative light (i.e., “Thi s person likes to be the center of attention”), which resulted in the lower factor loading. Based on these results, I eliminated item five and conducted a second exploratory factor analysis using the remaining items. A single factor emerged explaining 73.12% of the variance in th e eight items (eigenvalue = 5.85). The average factor loading was .85, and the co mponent matrix is shown in th e right half of Table 5-1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis, I conducted a conf irmatory factor analysis to validate the fit of a one-factor model using the refine d eight-item scale. I entered the covariance matrix of the items, aggregated acro ss raters, into LISREL 8.50 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996). In order to evaluate model fit, I utilized the Comparative F it Index (CFI) and the Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR). According to Kline (2005), CFI values above .90 and SRMR values below .10 are favorable. I also report chi-square ( 2), although the value of this statistic is very sensitive to sample size. Fit statistics for the one-factor model were as follows: 2 (20, N = 110) = 90.09, p < .001; CFI = .94; SRMR = .06. Factor loadings for the

PAGE 64

64 one-factor model all were stat istically significant and are shown in Figure 5-1. Although I attempted to compare the hypothesized one-factor model to a three factor model separating the popularity scale into its definitional components (c ollective liking, social visibility, and direct, perceived popularity items), the solution encountered convergence problems. Specifically, correlations among the three latent variables exceeded unity, resul ting in negative error variances and a covariance matrix that was not positive definite. Kline (2005) stated that extreme multicollinearity may cause results to be statistica lly unstable. Thus, based on the above results, I averaged the eight popularity items into a sing le factor in order to test my hypotheses. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Convergent Validity As stated above, I exam ined convergent vali dity by including alte rnative measures of popularity in the form of sociometric nominati ons of liking and popularity (Coie et al., 1982; Babad, 2001), as well as a measure of interpersonal liking (Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Correlations among the variables are shown in Table 5-2. Th e developed measure of employee popularity was moderately correlated with soci ometric liking nominations (r = .46, p < .01), which represent the difference between the number of liked-most nominations and the number of liked-least nominations a focal employee received (Coi e et al., 1982). Employee popularity also was moderately correlated with direct, per ceived nominations of popularity (r = .30, p < .01). In contrast, employee popularity was strongly correlated with interpersonal liking (r = .77, p < .01). Discriminant Validity I exam ined discriminant validity by including meas ures of related yet co nceptually distinct concepts (i.e., reputation and ch arisma). Correlations among the va riables are shown in Table 52. Popularity was strongly correlated with both reputation (r = .73, p < .01) and charisma (r = .71, p < .01).

PAGE 65

65 Although ideally the convergent validities between the popularity measure and the sociometric nominations of lik ing and popularity would be str onger than the discriminant validities between the popularity measure and the measures of reputation and charisma, it is important to note that reputation and charisma were measured using the same method (i.e., multiple items rated on a five-point Likert scal e) as the developed measure of popularity. In contrast, the sociometric measur es were obtained by having participants type the names of nominated individuals. Thus, the difference in methods may be a contributing factor to the disparate results. Nevertheless, the discriminant validities were relatively high. Edwards (2003) stated that one drawback of using zero-orde r correlations to eval uate convergent and discriminant validity is that it often is diffi cult to draw unambiguous conclusions and instead recommended the use of confirmatory factor anal ysis. Thus, I proceeded to confirmatory factor analyses to further evaluate the discrimi nant validity of the popularity measure. I compared the fit of two models: a onefactor model indicated by the popularity, reputation, and charisma items, and a three-fact or model allowing the popu larity, reputation, and charisma items to load only on their respective c onstruct. Fit statistics for the one-factor model were as follows: 2 (350, N = 110) = 1631.98, p < .001; CFI = .90; SRMR = .10. Fit statistics for the three-factor model were as follows: 2 (347, N = 110) = 1373.46, p < .001; CFI = .92; SRMR = .09. A chi-square difference test revealed that the three-factor model f it the data significantly better than the one-factor model ( 2 diff [3] = 258.52, p < .001), which provides evidence of discriminant validity. Based on these results, I proceeded to hypothesis testing using the eightitem scale of popularity.

PAGE 66

66 Tests of Hypotheses Correlations am ong popularity and its hypothesized antecede nts and consequences are shown in Table 5-3. In terms of antecedents, popularity exhibited significant zero-order relationships with humor expression (r = .34, p < .01), extrav ersion (r = .24, p < .05), agreeableness (r = .29, p < .01), and core self-evaluations (r = .25, p < .01). As stated above, I examined on an exploratory basis whether popula rity was related to the remaining Big Five personality traits (conscientiousness, neurotic ism, and openness to experience); no significant correlations emerged. In terms of outcomes, popularity displayed si gnificant zero-order relationships with pro cedural justice (r = .21, p < .05), OCBs received from coworkers (r = .44, p < .01), and CWBs received from coworkers (r = -.39, p < .01). In contrast, distributive, informational, and interpersonal justice were not significantly associat ed with popularity, though the correlations were in the hypothesized direc tion. For the remaining co rrelations in Table 5-3, of note is the zero-or der correlation between OCB and CWB (r = -.34, p < .01), which is similar to the meta-analytic correlation reported by Da lal (2005). Also of note are the correlations among the justice dimensions (average r = .52), wh ich are similar to the meta-analytic findings of Colquitt et al. (2001). I tested my hypotheses using hierarchical regression. In all regressions, the control variables (age, gender, race, and tenure) were ente red in the first step of the equation. Table 5-4 shows the results of regressing popularity on th e hypothesized personality antecedents (humor expression, extraversion, agreeableness, and core self-evaluations). Humor expression ( = .31, p < .01) and agreeableness ( = .24, p < .05) were positively related to employee popularity, supporting Hypotheses 2 and 4, respectively. In contrast, neit her extraversion ( = .07) nor core self-evaluations ( = -.00) was related to popularity. Thus, the results failed to support

PAGE 67

67 Hypotheses 3 and 5. Given that I di d not assess physical attractiv eness or network centrality in Study 1, I was unable to test Hypothe ses 1 and 6 in this sample. Table 5-5 shows the results of regres sing employee popularity on the hypothesized supervisor-originating outcomes (i .e., distributive, procedural, in formational, and interpersonal justice) of popularity. Contra ry to Hypotheses 7, 8, 9, and 10, employee popularity was not significantly related to the four organizational justice dimensions. Table 5-6 shows the results of regres sing employee popularity on the hypothesized coworker-originating outcomes (i.e., OCBs and CWBs directed at the focal employee) of popularity. Results of these regressions reveal th at employee popularity was positively associated with receiving interpersonal OCBs from work colleagues ( = .44, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 11. In addition, employee popularity was negatively related to receiving interpersonal CWBs from work colleagues ( = -.37, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 12. Although the results of the confirmatory fact or analysis supporti ng the separation of employee popularity from reputation and charisma provide evidence of discriminant validity, I sought to provide further evidence by examini ng the incremental validity of popularity. If the empirical overlap between popularity and related concepts such as reputation and charisma is too great, then popularity likely w ould not predict outcomes over a nd above these concepts, and the relative usefulness of popularity wo uld be called into question. Thus, I examined the incremental validity of popularity by entering re putation and charisma in the st ep of the regression equation preceding popularity. In addition, I included the meas ure of interpersonal liking in the same step as reputation and charis ma. Although the definition of popularity includes being perceived as collectively liked, in a strict sense, this is different conceptually from interpersonal, dyadic liking. Specifically, one may percei ve another to be popular yet ma y or may not necessarily like

PAGE 68

68 that person. Accordingly, although I included the measure of interpersonal liking primarily to demonstrate convergent validity, given the relati vely strong correlation between popularity and interpersonal liking and consider ing the above conceptual differe nces, it is important to show that popularity is not merely a reproduction of interpersonal liking. Given the non-significant findings between popularity and organizationa l justice, I limited tests of incremental validity to the coworke r-originating outcomes (i.e., OCBs and CWBs directed at the focal employee). Table 5-7 shows th e results of these regressions and reveals that reputation, charisma, and interpersonal liking were not significantly rela ted to OCBs and CWBs directed at the focal employee. The final step of the regressions displays the results for popularity. Popularity was significantly related to both received OCBs ( = .34, p < .05) and received CWBs ( = -.47, p < .01), explaining an additional 3.6% of the variance in OCB and 7.0% of the variance in CWB over and above re putation, charisma, and interpersonal liking. These results provide strong evidence for the usef ulness of popularity in pr edicting the receipt of OCBs and CWBs from coworkers relative to related constructs and suggest that popularity can be distinguished not only conceptually but al so empirically from reputation, charisma, and interpersonal, dyadic liking. Summary The prim ary purpose of Study 1 was to provide evidence of construct validity for a scale of employee popularity. The process of construct validation subsumes content validation as well as reliability, convergen t validity, discriminant validity, and predictive validity (Edwards, 2003; Nunnally, 1978; Schwab, 1999). In Study 1, I attempte d to ensure content validity by developing items reflective of the definition of popularity as well as previous research on the concept. The developed scale of employee popularity exhibite d relatively high internal consistency, and

PAGE 69

69 coworkers tended to agree on their ratings of a focal employee’s popularity. Results of exploratory and confirmatory fact or analyses supported the unidim ensionality of the scale. The popularity measure converged moderately with a lternative measures of the concept and was shown to be distinct from rela ted concepts such as reputation and charisma. Finally, predictive validity was demonstrated via si gnificant relationships between popularity and the receipt of OCBs and CWBs from work colleagues. Importa ntly, popularity predicted these outcomes over and above reputation, charisma , and interpersonal liking. Taken together, these results support the c onstruct validity of the popularity scale. However, as Edwards (2003, p. 330) noted, “construct validation is an ongoing process, such that each application of an instrument provides furt her evidence regarding th e construct validity of the instrument and the measures it generates. ” Accordingly, in Study 2, I examined employee popularity in a sample of full-time employees in order to show further evidence of construct validity.

PAGE 70

70 Table 5-1. Principal components factor anal ysis of employee popular ity scale (Study 1) Factor loadings (9-item scale) Factor loadings (8-item scale) Popularity item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 1. Is liked .92 .89 2. Is socially visible .56 .72 .85 3. Is popular .71 .57 .90 4. Is generally admired .80 .88 5. Is often the center of attention .92 --6. Is quite accepted .88 .85 7. Is viewed fondly .88 .86 8. Is well-known .50 .74 .80 9. Is not popular .72 .80 Eigenvalue 6.10 1.12 5.85 % variance explained 67.79 12.48 73.12 Factor loadings below .40 were suppressed. Table 5-2. Descriptive statistic s and convergent and discrimi nant validities (Study 1) Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Employee popularity 4.12 0.58 (.92) 2. Liking nominations 0.56 0.42 .46**--3. Popularity nominations 0.59 0.36 .30**.51**--4. Interpersonal liking 4.36 0.56 .77**.43**.22* (.95) 5. Reputation 4.12 0.55 .73**.46**.32**.68** (.97) 6. Charisma 3.87 0.50 .71**.34**.28**.68** .80** (.90) n = 110 after listwise deletion of missing data. Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed.

PAGE 71

71Table 5-3. Descriptive statistics and corre lations among employee popularity and its ant ecedents and consequences (Study 1) Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Employee popularity 4.120.58 (.92) 2. Humor expression 3.860.63.34**(.87) 3. Extraversion 3.690.69.24* .31** (.89) 4. Agreeableness 3.890.55.29**.12 .18 (.81) 5. Core self-evaluations 3.880.52.25**.29**.35* .53**(.82) 6. Distributive justice 3.301.14.18 .13 .15 .20* .13 (.97) 7. Procedural justice 3.360.79.21* .06 .05 .14 -.02 .52** (.87) 8. Informational justice 3.500.79.01 .10 .08 .19 .13 .46**.59** (.86) 9. Interpersonal justice 4.070.82.06 .13 .06 .13 .07 .37**.52**.66** (.88) 10. Citizenship behavior 3.760.70.44**.27**.19* .36**.24* .31**.28**.28* .24* (.88) 11. Counterproductive behavior 1.550.62-.39**-.30**-.09 -.29**-.29** -.16 -.17 -.18 -.11 -.34** (.92) n = 110 after listwise deletion of missing data. Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed.

PAGE 72

72 Table 5-4. Employee popularity regressed on hypot hesized personality antecedents (Study 1) Employee popularity Regression step R2 R2 1. Age .04 .04 .08 Gender .09 Race .07 Tenure .09 2. Humor expression .22** .18** .31** Extraversion .07 Agreeableness .24* Core self-evaluations -.00 n = 106 after listwise deletion. Gender is coded 1 = female, 0 = male. Race is coded 1 if Caucasian, 0 if otherwise. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed.

PAGE 73

73Table 5-5. Organizational justice regre ssed on employee popularity (Study 1) Distributive justice Procedural justice In formational justice Interpersonal justice Regression step R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 1. Age .06 .06 -.10 .02 .02 .06 .03 .03 -.03 .03 .03 -.01 Gender .03 .01 .04 .10 Race -.18 -.12 -.16 -.13 Tenure .23 .05 .11 -.01 2. Employee popularity .09 .03 .17 .06 .04 .19 .03 .00 .02 .03 .00 .06 n = 108 after listwise deletion. Gender is c oded 1 = female, 0 = male. Race is code d 1 if Caucasian, 0 if otherwise.

PAGE 74

74 Table 5-6. Organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive behaviors directed at employee regressed on employee popularity (Study 1) OCBs directed at employee CWBs directed at employee Regression step R2 R2 R2 R2 1. Age .04 .04 .05 .03 .03 -.10 Gender .17 -.07 Race -.09 .03 Tenure .02 -.07 2. Employee popularity .22** .18** .44** .16** .14** -.37** n = 108 after listwise deletion. Gender is coded 1 = female, 0 = male. Race is coded 1 if Caucasian, 0 if otherwise. R2 totals may not sum exactly to R2 totals due to rounding error. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed. Table 5-7. Incremental validity of employ ee popularity in predicting OCBs and CWBs directed at employee over and above employee reputation, charisma, and interpersonal liking (Study 1) OCBs directed at employee CWBs directed at employee Regression step R2 R2 R2 R2 1. Age .04 .04 .05 .03 .03 -.10 Gender .17 -.07 Race -.09 .03 Tenure .02 -.07 2. Reputation .19** .15** .21 .10 .07 -.07 Charisma -.01 -.06 Interpersonal liking .24 -.17 3. Employee popularity .23** .04* .34* .16* .07** -.47** n = 108 after listwise deletion. Gender is coded 1 = female, 0 = male. Race is coded 1 if Caucasian, 0 if otherwise. R2 totals may not sum exactly to R2 totals due to rounding error. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed.

PAGE 75

75 Figure 5-1. Popularity s cale for Study 1: Confirmatory factor analysis results . 86 P2 Employee Popularity P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P1 .69 .82.82.86.75.71 .85 . 26 . 52 . 28 . 34 . 32 . 27 . 43 . 50

PAGE 76

76 CHAPTER 6 MATERIALS AND METHODS: STUDY 2 Participants Participants were 148 healthcare em ployees fr om 22 groups of a large hospital located in the southeastern United States. All participants worked full-time and performed much of their work in groups, providing a good setting in whic h to study social interaction and employee popularity. Participants represented a wide variety of jobs, including administrative, technological, and clinical. The sample include d 49 males and 99 females. Reported ethnicities were as follows: African American (9.5%), Asian American/Pacific Islander (2.7%), Hispanic/Latino (3.4%), White (NonHispanic) (80.4%), and Othe r (3.4%). One respondent did not report his/her ethnicity. The average age of the sample was 37.6 years (SD = 10.4), and participants had worked an average of 4.0 years in their current position (SD = 3.6). Procedure Participants were recruited vi a various contacts within the organization. The contacts were not of higher organizational status to ensure th at participants would not feel unfairly obligated to participate. Intact groups of employees of simila r hierarchical status we re identified and asked whether they would like to participate in a vol untary study of how empl oyees are perceived and treated by their coworkers and s upervisors. Those who wished to participate were contacted by the author, who then emailed detailed instruct ions on the study requirements. As with Study 1, data were collected online using Surv eyMonkey.com (www.surveymonkey.com). After reading the complete instructions and the informed consent, participants first were asked to have every coworker within their immediate work group complete a survey on their behalf. Thus, in contrast to Study 1, where pa rticipants chose which coworkers to ask to complete the coworker survey, Study 2 consisted of intact work groups, and every coworker

PAGE 77

77 within the focal employee’s immediate work grou p was asked to complete the coworker survey. Participants gave each coworker the web addr ess for the online survey, which the coworkers completed after viewing an informed consent page. This survey included the measure of popularity developed for this study (see the Appendix). Once again, in accordance with referentshift consensus models (Chan, 1998), instructions for the popularity scale asked coworkers to consider how the focal employee is perceived by members of his/her particular work group. Groups were defined naturally within the organiza tion, which facilitated c onsistent referents for each coworker. For example, the “Occupationa l Therapist” group consisted solely of occupational therapists who worked together on a regular basis, and coworkers within that group were asked to consider how the focal employee was perceived by that group’s members only. In all, I obtained 908 coworker surveys. Following completion of the coworker surveys, pa rticipants were instructed to complete a survey themselves. The primary purpose of Study 2 was to test the hypothes ized antecedents and outcomes of employee popularity in a sample of full-time employees using intact groups. Accordingly, the focal participant survey asse ssed personality characte ristics (i.e., sense of humor, extraversion, agreeableness, and core self-e valuations), perceptions of the group’s formal and informal networks, perceive d distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal justice, and the extent to which participants receive OCB and CWB from their coworkers. Measures within the surveys we re counterbalanced in order to avoid potential order confounds. Finally, I obtained a digital photograph of each participant in order to measure physical attractiveness. Again, both participants and coworkers were assured that their responses would be confidential and that only the re searcher would have access to their responses. A comparison of

PAGE 78

78 Internet Protocol (IP) addresse s provided evidence that participants did not complete the coworker surveys themselves. One participant completed multiple coworker surveys for himself, and thus I excluded these coworker surveys from the analyses. Measures Employee Popularity The m easure of employee popularity was identical to the measure included in Study 1 (see the Appendix). Coefficient alpha for this scale was ( = .92). The average corrected item-total correlation for the scale was .71. Antecedent Measures The m easures of humor expression, extraversion , agreeableness, and core self-evaluations also were identical to those us ed in Study 1 (see the Appendix) . Coefficient alphas were as follows: humor expression ( = .91), extraversion ( = .90), agreeableness ( = .87), and coreself evaluations ( = .87). As in Study 1, I also assessed th e remaining Big Five personality traits for exploratory purposes, and coefficient al phas were as follows: conscientiousness ( = .83), neuroticism, ( = .90), and openness to experience ( = .86). To measure physical attractiveness, I obtained a digital photograph of each participant. Photographs were face-only and were taken agai nst a standard background. Importantly, research has shown that people generally agree, both with in and between cultures, on ratings of physical attractiveness (Feingold, 1992; Langl ois et al., 2000). Accordingly, the photographs were rated by independent observers (two graduate students [one male, one female] unfamiliar with the purpose of the study) on physical attractiveness following the procedure used by Franzoi et al. (1994). Using independent observers is advantag eous because ratings made by individuals who personally know the target (coworkers in the present study) may be contaminated by attitudes

PAGE 79

79 already formed on the basis of othe r attributes such as personality or prior treatment. The digital photographs were randomly ordered for each rater, and each rater viewed the photos one-by-one on a computer. Raters responded to the following item: “How physically attractive is this individual?” using a five-point Likert scale with anchors 1 = very unattractive to 5 = very attractive (see the Appendix). Indices of in terrater agreement were as follows: rwg(j) = .84, ICC(1) = .59, and ICC(2) = .74. Based on these indices, I a ggregated the independen t ratings of physical attractiveness into a single sc ore for each participant. For network centrality, given that research has distinguished between formal (instrumental) and informal (friendship) networks (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993), I assessed both types using the item developed by Brass and Burkhardt (1993) a nd the item developed by Ibarra (1993), respectively. Although I measured friendship networks, I limited hypothesis testing to instrumental networks, as predicting popularity w ith centrality indices computed from friendship networks may be tautological. In contrast, instrumental networks attempt to assess work-related communication patterns among grou p members and should be less infused by affect compared to friendship networks. To measure bot h networks, participants were pr esented with a roster of their coworkers in their immediate workgroup to faci litate recall and to limit measurement error (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). For the instrumental network, participants were asked to check the names of individuals with whom they “communicat e as part of the job during a typical week” (see the Appendix). For the friendship network, part icipants were asked to check the names of individuals “who are very good fr iends of yours, people who you see socially outside of work” (see the Appendix). Given the differences in group sizes, I com puted normed in-degree centrality scores for each participant (Freeman, 1979). In-degree centrality represents the number of sociometric

PAGE 80

80 choices received by an individual; normed in-deg ree centrality scores ar e calculated by dividing the number of choices received by the total number of possible choices (i.e., group size minus one). Thus, normed in-degree centrality scores range from zero to one, where zero represents an individual who receives no choi ces, while one represents an i ndividual who is chosen by every other group member. In the context of instrument al networks, higher in-degree centrality scores indicate an individual with wh om many others communicate as pa rt of the job during a typical week (i.e., a “central” individual in the group’s communication lines and work interactions). To assess the reliability of the network data, I cal culated the proportion of reciprocal choices (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). A reciprocal choice occurs when person A chooses person B, and person B chooses person A. The reliability of th e instrumental network was .79 (i.e., 79% of the sociometric choices were reciproc ated), and the reliability of the friendship network was .87 (i.e., 87% of the sociometric choi ces were reciprocated). Outcome Measures The m easures of distributive, procedural, inte rpersonal, and informational justice, as well as the measures of received OCBs and CWBs, we re identical to those used in Study 1 (see the Appendix). Instructions for the measures of receiv ed OCBs and CWBs were modified slightly to refer the participant to colleagues within his or her particular work group (e.g., the “Patient Financial Services Group”). Coefficient alphas were as follows: distributive justice ( = .96), procedural justice ( = .95), informational justice ( = .94), interpersonal justice ( = .95), received OCBs ( = .92), and received CWBs ( = .90). Analyses Although the central purpose of Study 2 was to test the hypothesized antecedents and consequences of employee popularity, I first com puted indices of interrater agreement and

PAGE 81

81 examined the factor structure of the popularity scale in order to assess whether the results of Study 1 would replicate. I then tested the propos ed antecedents and consequences of popularity using ordinary least squares regression. I include d the same control variables (age, gender, race, and tenure) as in Study 1.

PAGE 82

82 CHAPTER 7 RESULTS: STUDY 2 Support for Aggregation The average rwg(j) for the popularity ratings was .94, which was very similar to the average rwg(j) reported in Study 1. A one-way ANOVA by rate r revealed a significant amount of betweenrater variance in the popularity ratings ( F [156, 743] = 4.18, p < .001). ICC(1) and ICC(2) were .35 and .76, respectively. Based on these results, I aggregated th e popularity items across raters for each focal participant. Factor Structure Exploratory Factor Analysis I replicated the explorato ry factor analysis from Study 1 by submitting the nine aggregated popularity items to a principal components analysis and using a factor loading of .40 as a minimum cutoff. Two factors emerged with eigenvalues of 6.32 and 1.25. The first factor explained 70.20% of the variance in the items, while the second factor explained 13.84% of the variance in the items. The rotate d component matrix is shown in the left half of Table 7-1. Similar to the results of Study 1, item 5 (“Is ofte n the center of attention” ) exhibited a relatively high loading on the second factor. Once again, afte r eliminating item 5, a single factor emerged explaining 75.07% of the varian ce in the eight items (eigenva lue = 6.01). The average factor loading was .87, and the component matrix is shown in the right half of Table 7-1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis I then conducted a confirm atory factor anal ysis using the eight-item scale, aggregated across raters, following the procedure outlined in Study 1. Fit statistics for the one-factor model were as follows: 2 (20, N = 148) = 188.30, p < .001; CFI = .92; SRMR = .07. Factor loadings for the one-factor model all were statistically significant and are shown in Figure 7-1. Based on

PAGE 83

83 the above results, I averaged th e eight popularity items into a si ngle factor before testing my hypotheses. Taken together, results of the expl oratory and confirmato ry factor analyses converged across Study 1 and Study 2. Tests of Hypotheses Correlations am ong popularity and its hypothesized antecede nts and consequences are shown in Table 7-2. In terms of antecedents, popularity displayed si gnificant zero-order relationships with agreeableness (r = .23, p < .01) and core self-evaluations (r = .27, p < .01). In contrast, popularity was not signifi cantly correlated with physical attractiveness (r = .15), humor expression (r = .16), or extraver sion (r = .14), though the correlations were in the hypothesized direction. Exploratory analyses of the remaining Big Five traits revealed that conscientiousness was positively related to popularity (r = .17, p < .05); however, neither neuroticism nor openness to experience was significantly associated with popularity. Regarding the hypothesized outcomes, popularity was significantly corr elated with distributive justice (r = .20, p < .05), procedural justice (r = .18, p < .05), OCBs received from coworkers (r = .23, p < .01), and CWBs received from coworkers (r = -.17, p < .05). Neither informati onal justice (r = .02) nor interpersonal justice (r = .00) ju stice was significantly correlated with pop ularity. OCB and CWB were moderately correlated (r = -.40, p < .01), and the correlations among the justice dimensions averaged r = .63. I followed the same procedure as Study 1 to te st my hypotheses. Thus, I first entered the control variables (age, gender, race, and tenure) in the first step of the hierarchical regression equation. Given that 113 partic ipants out of 147 consented to having their digital photograph obtained, I conducted a separate regression to test the proposed relationship between physical attractiveness and popularity. Contro lling for the demographic variab les as well as the remaining hypothesized antecedents of popularity, physical at tractiveness was not significantly associated

PAGE 84

84 with popularity ( = .04). Table 7-3 shows the resu lts of regressing popularity on the hypothesized personal and situ ational antecedents of popularity (excluding physical attractiveness). Of the control variables, gender was significantly related to popularity such that females tended to be more popular than males ( = .16, p < .05). Of the hypothesized personal antecedents of popularity, only core self-evaluations was signifi cantly related to popularity ( = .26, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 5. Humor expression ( = .11), extraversion ( = -.03), and agreeableness ( = .14) were not significantly associ ated with popularity, failing to support Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, respectivel y. Supporting Hypothesis 6, networ k centrality was positively related to popularity ( = .23, p < .01). Table 7-4 shows the results of regres sing employee popularity on the hypothesized supervisor-originating outcomes (i .e., distributive, procedural, in formational, and interpersonal justice) of popularity. Contra ry to Hypotheses 7, 8, 9, and 10, employee popularity was not significantly related to the four organizational justice dimensions. Table 7-5 shows the results of regres sing employee popularity on the hypothesized coworker-originating outcomes (i.e., OCBs and CWBs directed at the focal employee) of popularity. Several of the control variables were significantly associated with receiving OCBs from coworkers. Specifically, age was negati vely associated with receiving OCBs ( = -.19, p < .05), females received more OCBs than males ( = .22, p < .01), and Caucasians received more OCBs than non-Caucasians ( = .17, p < .05). For received CWBs, age was the only control variable that was related to the outcome ( = -.22, p < .05), though the overall regression equation at this step was not si gnificant. In terms of the hypothese s, results of the regressions revealed that employee popularity was positively a ssociated with receivi ng interpersonal OCBs from coworkers ( = .24, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 11. In addition, employee popularity

PAGE 85

85 was negatively related to receiving in terpersonal CWBs from coworkers ( = -.22, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 12. Additional Analyses As stated ab ove, I also measured each group’s friendship network by asking participants to indicate the coworkers with whom they interact socially outside of wo rk. On an exploratory basis, I computed normed in-deg ree centrality scores for each pa rticipant and examined whether friendship network centrality was associated with employee popularity. Controlling for the demographic variables, the hypothesized personal antecedents of popularity, and instrumental network centrality, friendship network central ity was positively associated with employee popularity ( = .32, p < .01). In contrast, the coefficient fo r instrumental network centrality was nonsignificant ( = .14). Thus, the relationship between friendship network centrality and popularity was stronger than the relationship between instrumental network centrality and popularity, as would be expected. The results of Study 1 showed that employ ee popularity predicted receiving OCBs and CWBs from work colleagues over and above in terpersonal liking. I also collected data on interpersonal liking in Study 2 in order to repli cate the findings of Study 1 using the single item from Wayne and Ferris (1990). Participants were presented with a roster of their work group members and were asked to indicate the extent to which they like each person using a five-point Likert scale with anchors 1 = I dislike this person very much to 5 = I like this person very much. Responses were then aggregated across raters (rwg(j) = .70, ICC[1] = .14, ICC[2] = .52). Similar to the findings of Study 1, controlling for interpersonal liki ng, employee popularity was significantly associated w ith both received OCBs ( = .29, p < .05) and received CWBs ( = -

PAGE 86

86 .25, p < .05), explaining an additional 4.2% of the variance in OCB a nd 3.3% of the variance in CWB over and above interpersonal liking. Although the above analysis provides evid ence that popularity predicts outcomes controlling for interpersonal liking, an individual ’s similarity to his/her workgroup as a whole not only may impact treatment from work coll eagues but also may affect popularity. Relational demography refers to the degree to which an in dividual’s demographic makeup is similar to the demographic makeup of that i ndividual’s workgroup (Riordan, 2000; Riordan & Shore, 1997). According to the similarity-att raction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), de mographic similarity leads to liking. Thus, relational demography may provide an alternative explanation to the above findings between popularity and its ante cedents and consequences. To explore the above possibility, I computed demographic similarity scores for each participant’s age, gender, race, and tenure following the procedure outlined by Riordan and Shore (1997). Specifically, I computed a product term by multiplying an individual’s score on a given demographic variable by his/her group’s scor e on that same variable (e.g., an individual’s age multiplied by his/her group’s age). Using hier archical regression, I entered the product terms in the step following the separate individua l and group demographic components. The focal predictors of interest (i.e., popul arity, the antecedents of popularity) were entered in the final step of the regression equation. A significant produc t term indicates an effect of relational demography on the outcome beyond that of the separate individual and group demographic components. Results controlling for relational de mography remained the same and were virtually identical to those shown in Tables 7-3, 7-4, a nd 7-5. Thus, it appears th at the relationships between popularity and its ante cedents and consequences were not affected by demographic similarity.

PAGE 87

87 Given that the participants in Study 2 were em ployees nested in int act work groups, there exists the possibility that indi vidual observations are nonindepe ndent, which may affect standard error estimates used to determine statistical significance (Bliese & Ha nges, 2004; Kenny & Judd, 1986). Bliese and Hanges (2004) showed that, when examining relationships at the same level of analysis (i.e., the individual level of analys is), ignoring nonindependenc e may inflate standard errors, leading to a loss of sta tistical power. Accordi ngly, I computed intraclass correlations for the dependent variables of interest using each participant’s team as the grouping variable. Interestingly, the ICC(1) value for empl oyee popularity was .02 (ICC[2] = .11), which demonstrates that individual popular ity scores varied as much within groups as between groups. Intraclass correlations for the remaining variables were as follows: distri butive justice (ICC[1] = .11, ICC[2] = .45), procedural just ice (ICC[1] = .18, ICC[2] = .59), informational justice (ICC[1] = .17, ICC[2] = .58), interpersona l justice (ICC[1] = .21, ICC[2] = .65), OCBs directed at employee (ICC[1] = .06, ICC[2] = .31), and CWBs directed at employee (I CC[1] = .09, ICC[2] = .40). Of these, the dimensions of organizational justice clustered most by work group and thus may be problematic. Consequently, I reanalyzed the data using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Byrk & Raudenbush, 1992). HLM separates the variance of a given variable into between-group and within-gr oup components and takes into account the degree of nonindependence in the data. Following the r ecommendation of Hofmann and Gavin, (1998) I group-mean centered all predictors ; thus scores on each independent variable represent an individual’s deviat ion from his/her group’s mean on that vari able. Each level-1 (individual-level) dependent variable was regressed on the control variables (age, gender, race , and tenure) as well as the hypothesized predicto r(s), also at level-1.

PAGE 88

88 The HLM regression of employee popularity on its hypothesized antecedents revealed results similar to those obtained from the OLS regression described abov e. Replicating the OLS results, network centrality ( = .68, p < .01) was positively related to popularity, and humor expression ( = -.03) and extraversion ( = .08) were not significantl y associated with popularity. In contrast to the OLS results, the relationship between core se lf-evaluations and popularity was marginally significant ( = .21, p = .07), and agreeableness was posit ively related to popularity ( = .13, p < .05). For physical attractiven ess, I conducted a separate HLM regression given the smaller effective sample size with this vari able. The control variab les and the remaining predictors were entered as level-1 predictors along with physical a ttractiveness. In contrast to the OLS regression results, the HLM re gression results revealed that physical attractiveness was positively related to popularity ( = .07, p < .05), which suggests that relative, rather than absolute, physical attractiveness was relevant to popularity. Put simply, physical attractiveness in comparison to the physical attractiveness of one’s group members matters to popularity. The HLM regressions of the justice dimensions and r eceived OCBs and CWBs on employee popularity also revealed results sim ilar to those obtained using OLS regression. Specifically, popularity was positively re lated to distributive justice ( = .60, p < .05). The relationship between popularity and procedur al justice was marginally significant ( = .39, p = .06), and popularity was not significantly related to either informational ( = .15) or interpersonal ( = .11) justice. Popularity was positively re lated to receiving OCBs from coworkers ( = .44, p < .01); however, the relationship between popular ity and receiving CWBs from coworkers was nonsignificant ( = -.22).

PAGE 89

89 Summary The primary purpose of Study 2 was to te st the hypothesized antecedents and consequences of employee popularity in a field se tting using a sample of employees from intact work groups. In addition, I sought to replicate some of the critical findings of Study 1 in order to provide further evidence of c onstruct validity and predictive validity. Overall, the results of Study 2 were quite convergent with those of St udy 1. The internal consistency of the developed popularity scale was identical to Study 1, and indices of interrater agreement again were relatively high. Thus, coworkers tended to agre e on the popularity of a given employee within their workgroup. In addition, the unidimensional f actor structure of th e popularity scale was replicated in Study 2. Regarding hypothesis testing, results of Study 2 showed that popularity again was positively associated with receiving OCBs and negatively associated with receiving CWBs from work colleagues. Moreover, popular ity predicted these outcomes over and above interpersonal liking. As in Study 1, relationships between popularity and th e four dimensions of organizational justice were relati vely weak. In contrast, the re sults of the hypothesized personal and situational antecedents of popularity were not convergent with those of Study 1. Specifically, the strongest predictor of popularity was core se lf-evaluations, followed by network centrality. Physical attractiveness, humor expression, extrav ersion, and agreeableness were not significantly associated with popularity in the sample of hea lthcare employees. Taken t ogether, the results of Study 2 lend further support for the construct validity of the developed scale of popularity and illuminate some of its antecedents and workplace outcomes.

PAGE 90

90 Table 7-1. Principal components factor anal ysis of employee popular ity scale (Study 2) Popularity item Factor loadings (9-item scale) Factor loadings (8-item scale) Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 1. Is liked .90 .90 2. Is socially visible .45 .79 .80 3. Is popular .73 .61 .94 4. Is generally admired .87 .89 5. Is often the center of attention .93 --6. Is quite accepted .90 .95 7. Is viewed fondly .92 .89 8. Is well-known .79 .74 9. Is not popular .74 .81 Eigenvalue 6.32 1.25 6.01 % variance explained 70.20 13.84 75.07 Factor loadings below .40 were suppressed.

PAGE 91

91 Table 7-2. Descriptive statistics and corre lations among employee popularity and its an tecedents and consequences (Study 2) Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Employee popularity 3.940.51(.92) 2. Physical attractiveness 3.070.76.15 --3. Humor expression 3.610.78.16 .17 (.91) 4. Extraversion 3.440.78.14 .11 .47**(.90) 5. Agreeableness 4.120.63.23**.16 .04 .18* (.87) 6. Core self-evaluations 3.790.59.27**.26**.08 .31** .48**(.87) 7. Centrality (degree) 0.680.25.25**.07 .12 .05 -.07 -.10 --8. Distributive justice 3.501.08.20* .18 .02 -.06 .22* .37**-.05 (.96) 9. Procedural justice 3.520.99.18* .16 .04 -.02 .17* .43**-.13 .76**(.95) 10. Informational justice 3.651.08.02 .15 -.06 .03 .18* .39**-.09 .56**.71**(.94) 11. Interpersonal justice 4.280.89.00 .03 -.14 -.02 .11 .31**-.06 .42**.60**.71** 12. Citizenship behavior 3.830.80.23**.09 -.03 .07 .24* .36**.05 .35**.43**.38** 13. Counterproductive behavior 1.340.53-.17* -.17 .05 .09 -.33**-.29**-.00 -.33**-.28**-.29** n = 147 after listwise deletion of missing data . Correlations with physical attractiven ess are based on n = 113. Coefficient alphas are presented along the diagonal. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed.

PAGE 92

92 Table 7-2. Continued Variable 11 12 13 1. Employee popularity 2. Physical attractiveness 3. Humor expression 4. Extraversion 5. Agreeableness 6. Core self-evaluations 7. Centrality (degree) 8. Distributive justice 9. Procedural justice 10. Informational justice 11. Interpersonal justice (.95) 12. Citizenship behavior .40**(.92) 13. Counterproductive beha vior -.31**-.40** (.90)

PAGE 93

93 Table 7-3. Employee popularity regressed on hypothe sized personal and situational antecedents (Study 2) Employee popularity Regression step R2 R2 1. Age .07* .07* -.15 Gender .16* Race -.11 Tenure -.03 2. Humor expression .23** .16** .11 Extraversion -.03 Agreeableness .14 Core self-evaluations .26** Degree centrality .23** n = 145 after listwise deletion. Gender is coded 1 = female, 0 = male. Race is coded 1 if Caucasian, 0 if otherwise. R2 totals may not sum exactly to R2 totals due to rounding error. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed.

PAGE 94

94Table 7-4. Organizational justice regre ssed on employee popularity (Study 2) Distributive justice Procedural justice In formational justice Interpersonal justice Regression step R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 1. Age .02 .02 -.00 .01 .01 -.03 .02 .02 -.06 .06 .06 .07 Gender .03 .01 -.03 .01 Race .05 .03 -.05 -.09 Tenure -.11 -.08 .09 .23 2. Employee popularity .06 .04 .21 .04 .03 .18 .02 .00 .02 .06 .00 .00 n = 146 after listwise deletion. Gender is c oded 1 = female, 0 = male. Race is coded 1 if Caucasian, 0 if otherwise.

PAGE 95

95 Table 7-5. Organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive behaviors directed at employee regressed on employee popularity (Study 2) OCBs directed at employee CWBs directed at employee Regression step R2 R2 R2 R2 1. Age .09** .09** -.19* .06 .06 -.22 Gender .22** -.12 Race .17* .04 Tenure .08 .02 2. Employee popularity .15** .05** .24** .11** .05** -.22** n = 146 after listwise deletion. Gender is coded 1 = female, 0 = male. Race is coded 1 if Caucasian, 0 if otherwise. R2 totals may not sum exactly to R2 totals due to rounding error. * p < .05, ** p < .01, two-tailed.

PAGE 96

96 Figure 7-1. Popularity s cale for Study 2: Confirmatory factor analysis results . 91 P2 Employee Popularity P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P1 .72 .90.96.91.66.78 .89 . 17 . 49 . 21 . 20 . 08 . 18 . 57 . 40

PAGE 97

97 CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION Despite the abundance of research on the popular ity of children and adolescents, very few studies have exam ined the popularity of adults in a work context. Considering the importance of popularity during the school-age years, it seems unlik ely that this importance diminishes entirely once individuals reach adulthood and join organizations. In two studies, I sought to address this void in the literature by i nvestigating employee popularity in the workplace and linking popularity to both personal and s ituational antecedents as well as workplace outcomes in the form of behaviors directed toward popular employees by their supervisors and coworkers. Study 1 examined popularity in a sample of working undergraduate students, while Study 2 examined popularity in a sample of healthcare employees, working full-time in intact groups. The clear story that emerges from these two studies is that popularity impacts how individuals are treated in the workplace and is predictable by both personal and situational characteristics. Results were relatively consistent across both samples, and I summarize th ese findings below. Drawing from existing research on popularity (Adler & Adler, 1998; Babad, 2001; Coie et al., 1982; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998) as well as on dictionary definitions of the concept, I defined employee popularity as the state or situati on of being popular; that is, of being socially visible and collectively liked or admired by one’s peers. This definition of popularity includes two primary components: social visibility, which encompasses salience, prominence, and conspicuousness within a given workgroup, and soci al preference, which encompasses perceived collective liking and admiration. I developed a multi-item scale of employee popularity reflective of this definition and examined the scale’s construct validity. Results from both samples showed that the developed scale of employee popular ity demonstrated relatively high internal consistency reliability as well as a unidimensional factor structure. In addition, coworkers agreed

PAGE 98

98 on the popularity of a given employee, which co incides with the notion of popularity as a collective perception. In contrast , the level of interra ter agreement for coworker ratings of interpersonal liking was c onsiderably lower, which would be expected given that popularity is a collective perception whereas interpersonal liking is dyadic. Such results contribute to the increasing wo rk on multilevel constructs by revealing that individuals distinguish their ow n perceptions from those of the groups to which they belong (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The finding that popularity (a collective perception) possesses a uniqueness vis--vis dyadic liking (an individual perception) emphasizes the importance of accurately specifying a construct’s le vel of analysis. The popularity scale also was found to converge with alte rnative measures of th e concept (i.e., sociometric nominations) and to be distinct from, yet associat ed with, related concepts (i.e., reputation, and charisma). In addition to providing evidence of construct validity for the employee popularity scale, I tested several antecedents and outcomes of popularity. Regarding antecedents, popularity was found to be predicted by both pers onal and situational factors – findings which are in accordance with person/situation perspectives of behavior (Flees on, 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1999). Although the lack of physical attractiveness and network centrality measures in Study 1 precluded the comparison of these antecedents across the two samples, comparison of the remaining personal antecedents revealed mixe d results: humorous employees and agreeable employees tended to be more popular in Study 1, while employees high in core self-evaluations tended to be more popular in Study 2. Employ ees who were central in their group’s communication network tended to be more popular than employees on the periphery of their group’s network.

PAGE 99

99 It may be that personal antecedents of em ployee popularity, such as physical attractiveness and personality, are dependent upon group norms, such that only those char acteristics that are valued by the group are predictive of popularity. It also may be th at personal antecedents are predictive of popularity in a relative sense; that is, in comparison to the remaining group members. The HLM results of Study 2 demonstr ating that physical at tractiveness, network centrality, and agreeableness pred icted popularity may shed light on this issue. For example, physical attractiveness was positively related to popularity when attractiv eness was considered relative to the remaining group members. Howeve r, when considered on an absolute basis, physical attractiveness was not sign ificantly related to popularity. The results of the hypothesized outcomes of employee popular ity were quite convergent across the two samples. In both samples, popular employees reported receiving more interpersonal OCBs and fewer interpersona l CWBs from their coworkers than unpopular employees. Indeed, popularity predic ted the receipt of these behavi ors over and above reputation, charisma, and interpersonal liking, demonstratin g the robustness of the relationships. Thus, it appears that popular employees are the benefi ciaries of more positive and fewer negative behaviors from their peers compared to unpopular employees. Regarding supervisor treatment, popularity either was weakly relate d or unrelated to the dimensi ons of organizational justice. Interestingly, in both samples, popularity was mo re strongly associated with distributive and procedural justice than informational and interper sonal justice. It may be that popular employees are able to exert more influence over thei r supervisors during procedures than unpopular employees, resulting in greater voice and, ultimately, outcomes, incr easing perceptions of procedural and distributive ju stice, respectively (Folger, 1977; Shapiro & Brett, 2005).

PAGE 100

100 Taken together, the results from Studies 1 and 2 contribute to the literature on organizational behavior in several ways. Firs t, the findings demonstr ate the importance of popularity to the workplace. That a concept typically associated with elementary school and high school is relevant to organiza tions is somewhat surprising, especially considering that organizations once were touted as enclaves of rationality (Fayol, 1949; Taylor, 1911). The finding that popularity may impact employees in a similar manner as children and adolescents supports Mumby and Putnam’s (1992) notion of organizational behavior as “bounded emotionality” (p. 466). Second, the results c ontribute by revealing how differences among employees of similar hierarchical status emerge and affect collective perceptions. The relatively stable qualities that individuals bring with them to their work groups, as well as their situational position, in part influence subjec tively agreed-upon favorable or unfavorable estimations of social rank. Finally, the results show that the way in which employees are perceived by their coworkers impacts the treatment they receive. With the increasing reliance on teams in organizations (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), unders tanding factors that influence positive and negative contextual behaviors directed toward group members can shed further light on team processes. Theoretical Implications The results of Studies 1 and 2 also have im portant implications for theory. Regarding the outcomes examined, research on organizational justice has tended to examine the various ways in which employees respond attitudinally and beha viorally to just or unjust treatment, while research on OCB and CWB has tended to identify f actors that lead employees to engage in these contextual behaviors. In contra st, much less attention has been devoted, both theoretically and empirically, to examining employee characteristics that make the receipt of these behaviors from

PAGE 101

101 supervisors and subordinates more or less lik ely (Colquitt & Greenbe rg, 2003; Dalal, 2005; Korsgaard, Roberson, & Rymph, 1998). The findings reported here add to recent studies examining characteristics that predict the receipt of behaviors from others. For example, Korsgaard et al. (1998) found some support for their prediction that subordinate assertivene ss would be associated with the receipt of informational justice, and Scott, Colquitt, and Zapata-Phelan (in press) found that subordinate charisma predicted the receipt of interpersonal, but not informational, justice. Bowler and Brass (2006) reported that friendship ties predicted th e receipt of interpersona l citizenship behaviors. Given that popularity also predicted receiving OCBs and CWBs in the current study, a common thread running through these employee characteris tics appears to be influence. That is, assertiveness, charisma, friends hip, and popularity all may allow one to exert some degree of power and influence over the be haviors one receives from peer s (French & Raven, 1959; Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994). Theories of power and infl uence may be extended by incorporating such characteristics as popularity as a means of soci al influence in organi zations. From a social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), be nefits such as “basking in the reflected glory” (Cialdini et al., 1976) of another may be used as resources by popular employees that influence others to reciprocate in some positive fashion. In addition, the results have implications fo r theories of the self and self-evaluation. According to the sociometer theory of self-e steem (Leary & Baumeister , 2000), individuals have a predisposed need to belong and be accepted. The self-esteem system func tions as a monitor, informing individuals on the qual ity of their interpersonal relationships and motivating them to engage in actions that will faci litate a desired level of social acceptance within a given group. An employee’s popularity within the work group al so should serve as a signal indicating

PAGE 102

102 belongingness. Unpopular employees may realize th eir lack of standing within the group, and such knowledge may hinder their self-esteem. In contrast, popular employees who realize their standing may benefit from increased self-esteem . The increased negative behaviors directed toward unpopular employees from coworkers ma y further damage estimates of self-worth, resulting in a downward self-e steem spiral, while the increased positive behaviors directed toward popular employees may amplify self-esteem, resulting in an upward spiral (Lindsley & Brass, 1995). Practical Implications The above results also have several practic al im plications. Perhaps the most simple recommendation is for employees and managers to be aware of the differences in the popularity of individuals with whom they work and the su bsequent differences in treatment toward those individuals. Beyond this recommendation, the pract ical implications of the findings depend in part on the goals of the organization and its employees. One goal may be for unpopular employees to attempt to increase their standing. In this case, individuals who wish to increase their popularity may benefit from using influenc e tactics such as humor expression (Cooper, 2005) and impression management (Wayne & Ferris, 1990) to impact collec tive liking and social visibility. The results for network centrality suggest that employees low in traits such as humor expression and agreeableness may increase their popul arity by striving to become more central within the group’s communication lines, a nd managers could help unpopular employees accomplish this through work restructuring. Unpopular employees also may benefit from engaging in more helpful behaviors toward gr oup members (Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo, 2002). In contrast, if the goal is to optimize interp ersonal relationships and cohesion within work groups, then it may not be desirable for manage rs to target unpopular employees and try to

PAGE 103

103 increase their standing. According to models of team composition, group harmony often is optimized when groups are comprised of individu als similar to one another on characteristics such as personality traits a nd values (Kozlowski & Bell, 200 3). Findings on team composition suggest that managers may want to avoid plac ing or keeping a person who is very unpopular with a given group in that group in order to achieve optimal fit. Managers who prefer a more passive approach may find that fit will be achieved naturally over time. According to the attraction-selectionattrition model (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995), individuals who do not fit with the organi zation’s members in terms of shared values, personality, and other attributes ar e likely to be selected out eith er voluntarily or involuntarily, leading over time to a more homogeneous workforce within the firm. From this perspective, an employee who is very unpopular within a given work group would be predicted to eventually leave that work group. The degree to which th is outcome would be desired by management likely would depend on the performance of the unpopular employee. Managers may attempt to transfer an unpopular yet producti ve employee to another team to increase that employee’s satisfaction and likelihood of remaining with the organization. Alternatively, managers may prefer an unpopular and unproductive employee to be selected out of the organization entirely, through either active or passive means. Limitations Som e limitations of Study 1 and Study 2 should be noted. A limitation of both studies is that the data were cross-sectional, which raises concerns about the casual direction of some of relationships. By their inherent nature, many of the variables examined support the hypothesized causal direction with employee popularity. For example, it is more likely that physical attractiveness leads to popular ity than popularity leads to phys ical attractiveness because physical attractiveness is a rela tively predisposed and stable ch aracteristic. However, other

PAGE 104

104 variables, such as network cen trality, are more causally ambiguous , as popularity could result from the possession of high network centrality or could eventually lead to the possession of higher centrality over time. Although I eliminat ed issues of temporal precedence by having participants complete the outcome measures of received organizationa l justice, OCBs, and CWBs after the coworker surveys of popularity we re completed, the use of cross-sectional data precludes the establishment of in ternal validity. Future studies in which longitudinal data are collected can help avoid this limitation and il luminate the causal direction of the examined relationships. In addition, the discriminant validity co rrelations in Study 1 among popularity, reputation and charisma were relatively high. Such correlati ons raise concerns about the construct validity of the popularity scale, especially considering that the convergent validities we re, in most cases, lower than the discriminant validities. There are several issues worth noti ng in this regard. The discriminant validities were based on aggregated data, and the variables were assessed from the source and with the same method – factors whic h tend to inflate correlations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Watson & Tellegen, 2002). In contrast, the convergent validities were based on data assessed with a different method (i.e., multi-item scales vs. sociometric nominations). Such method factor s may have affected the convergent and discriminant validities. Despite the magnitude of the discriminant validities, a confirmatory factor analysis supported the separation of popular ity, reputation, and charisma, and the results of the regressions predicting received OCBs and CWBs demonstrated the incremental validity of employee popularity over and above these exis ting, yet related, constructs. Although these results provide support for the di stinctiveness and usefulness of popularity, future research should continue to explore the construc t validity of the popularity measure.

PAGE 105

105 A number of participants in Study 2 declin ed to provide a photograph, which lowered the effective sample size for the relationship betwee n physical attractiveness and popularity. It could be that individuals who believe they are physically unattractive were more unwilling to provide a photograph compared to individual s who believe they are attractiv e; however, I could not test this possibility. Even so, the average physical attractiveness rating on a one-to-five point scale was 3.03, and the variance in the scores was no le ss than the variance of the other variables examined. Considered separately, there are additional lim itations of each study that are offset by the other study. For example, one potential drawback of Study 1 is that participants chose who to give their coworker surveys to, and participan ts may have asked only those coworkers with whom they have a friendly relationship. Although th is method raises the possi bility of restriction of range, the strength of the results of Study 1 suggest otherwise. Moreover, this limitation was avoided in Study 2 because each participant was asked to have every coworker within the participant’s workgroup complete the coworker survey. Additionally, one potential limitation of Study 2 is that participants we re nested in groups, and thus their observations were not independent. However, this limitation was not present in Study 1 because each participant was from a separate group. Finally, the sample size fo r each study was not large. Small sample sizes raise two primary concerns: low statistical power may increase Type II errors (where one falsely concludes that a relationship doe s not exist when in fact it does), and second-order sampling error may reduce generalizability (Hunter & Sc hmidt, 2004). However, the results from each sample were relatively strong (with the exception of the relationships between popularity and the dimensions of organizational justice), and the results were fairly convergent across the two samples.

PAGE 106

106 The above limitations are buoyed by a number of strengths. Both studies relied on multiple ratings of a focal employee’s popularity, and the relatively high level of agreement in the ratings supports the viability of the concept. The studies util ized a variety of methods (e.g., coworker reports, self reports, photographs), and all tests of hypotheses were free of same-source bias. A variety of controls (e.g., demographics that predict status , relational demography) were included to eliminate alternative explanations . Perhaps most importantly, findings across two diverse samples converged to a large extent, for bo th the examination of th e construct validity of the popularity scale and for the hypotheses test s. Such convergence gives confidence in the results and encourages further research on employee popularity. Suggestions for Future Research Given that the application of popularity to the w orkplace is in its relative infancy, there are myriad directions for future research. One initia l direction would be to identify mediators of the relationships found here. I proposed that coworker s direct beneficial be haviors toward popular employees for both affective and cognitive reasons. Specifically, I suggested that popular employees are rewarding to interact with becau se they generate positive emotions and suppress negative emotions in others; however, I did not measure emotions felt toward popular employees. Thus, future research should measure these emotions directly to determine whether affective states mediate the relationship be tween popularity and rece ived OCBs and CWBs. Researchers attempting to do so would benefit from utilizing experience-sampling designs (Reis & Gable, 2000) whereby individu als are signaled to respond on a momentary (e.g., daily) basis. Such designs also would afford examination of both interindividual and in traindividual variation in popularity. Likewise, future research could measure non-a ffective variables of t hose interacting with popular employees, such as ingratiation (Liden & Mitchell, 1998), poli ticking (Ferris et al.,

PAGE 107

107 1995), and impression management (Bolino, 1999) as mediators. Alternatively, it may be that popular employees develop higher quality cowork er exchanges (Sherony & Green, 2002) with their colleagues, which in turn drives the recei pt of more OCBs and fewer CWBs. In a similar fashion, popular employees may develop higher qua lity leader-member exchange relationships with their supervisors (Graen, 1976; for a meta-analysis, see Gerstner & Day, 1997), which in part may be responsible for the relationship between popularity and organizational justice found in Study 2. Another preliminary direction for future re search would be to identify the boundary conditions of the relationships found in Studies 1 and 2. The differential importance of the personal characteristics in predicting employee popularity across the two samples suggests that these relationships may be moderated by other variables. One likely moderator may be group norms (Hackman, 1992). Group norms are informally agreed-upon guidelines that specify appropriate and inappropriate be haviors by group members (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). The degree to which a personality trait predicts popularity may depend on whether that trait corresponds favorably with the group’s norms. For example, a group with a strong performance norm should value traits that uphold that norm, such as c onscientiousness, and consequently conscientious individuals should tend to be mo re popular than unconscientious individuals. In contrast, conscientiousness may be negatively related to popularity in groups where high performance is considered unacceptable to the group’s interests. In addition to group norms, the influence of personality traits on popularity may be mode rated by task interdependence (Wageman, 2001). Highly interdependent tasks require extensive in teraction and coordination from team members; thus, an individual’s characteristic behavioral patterns should be observe d more readily by team

PAGE 108

108 members, influencing group perceptions and amp lifying the effects of personality traits on popularity. In addition to determining mediators and m oderators, future research could expand the current findings and investigate other work-rela ted correlates of popular ity. Although I examined behaviors directed toward popular employees by supervisors and coworkers, future research could examine behaviors engaged in by popular employees. The beneficial treatment that popular employees receive from others may have implications for behaviors such as job performance, turnover, and wit hdrawal. Regarding job performan ce, it could be that subjective supervisor ratings of job performance are more affected by popularity than objective ratings (e.g., sales). The popularity of a given employee may increase halo errors, biasing performance evaluations (Cooper, 1981). A lternatively, popular employees may have greater access to organizational support and resources, which w ould facilitate the achievement of objective performance standards. In addition to behaviors, future research should examine the job attitudes of popular and unpopular employees. Based on the resu lts of this study, to th e extent that popular employees receive more OCBs and fewer CWBs from their coworkers, attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990), and perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) may be positively affected. An issue that arises when examining the behaviors and attitudes of popular employees is causal direction. For example, one could envi sion an employee becoming more popular as a result of performing well or performing well as a result of being popular. Thus, an additional direction for future research would be to examine popularity over time using longitudinal designs. Such designs not only would help to addr ess issues of causal dir ection, but also afford the examination of other relevant questions. For example, do popular employees emerge as

PAGE 109

109 leaders over time? What events increase a nd decrease one’s popular ity? How stable is popularity? Regarding the latter ques tion, the results showing personal ity traits as predictors of popularity suggest a certain stabil ity to being popular; however, th e results for ne twork centrality suggest that popularity is somewhat malleable. Studies that examine the inter-exchange of employees between workgroups could illuminate such issues. Future studies also could take the concept of popularity to a higher le vel of analysis by examining group popularity – especially the pop ularity of subgroups. Such “cliques” may increase the social power of the popular group, affecting the incl usion and exclusion of other organizational members (Adler & Adler, 1995). Finally, future research should examine the potential downsides to popularity. Though the studies reported here found popularity to be beneficial via its impact on rece ived behaviors from work colleague s, it is likely that there are some drawbacks to being popular. For example, it could be that popular employees are the targets of more gossip than unpopular employees . According to Kurland and Pelled’s (2000) model of workplace gossip, a functio n of gossip is to increase bases of power for the gossiper. If the gossip is negative and credible, then the popular ity of the gossip recipient may degrade. Such gossip may be the result of negative emotions felt toward the popular person, as research on children has indicated that unpopul ar individuals tend to experi ence resent and envy toward popular individuals (Eder, 1985). Conclusion Developm ental psychologists and educational sociologists have st udied popularity for decades, yet very little research has extended the concept of popularity to the workplace. The results of two studies demonstr ate that popularity is a phenome non not confined to childhood and adolescence. Instead, employees can readily identify who is popular and who is not. Though perhaps less overt in organizational contexts th an in school contexts, popularity continues to

PAGE 110

110 have an impact on the way employees are perceive d and treated by their work colleagues. It has been stated that “the workplace is not a popularity contest” (Joyce, 2006). Although the workplace may not be a popularity contest per se, cl early there are winners and losers. It is the author’s hope that the studies presented here stimulate further research on popularity in the workplace.

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX MEASURES USED IN STUDY 1 AND/OR STUDY 2 Employee Popularity The person f or whom I am completing this survey: 1. Is liked. 2. Is socially visible. 3. Is popular. 4. Is generally admired. 5. Is often the center of attention. 6. Is quite accepted. 7. Is viewed fondly. 8. Is well-known. 9. Is not popular. Convergent Validity Measures Sociometric liking nominations (Coie et al., 1982) Direct popularity nominations (Babad, 2001) Liking (Wayne & Ferris, 1990) 1. How much do you like this person? 2. I get along well with this person. 3. Working with this employee is a pleasure. 4. I think this person would make a good friend. Discriminant Validity Measures Personal Reputation (Hochwarter et al., 2006) The person for whom I am completing this survey: 1. Is regarded highly by others. 2. Has a good reputation. 3. Has the respect of his/her colleagues and associates. 4. Is trusted by his/her colleagues. 5. Is seen by his/her colleagues as a person of high integrity. 6. Is regarded by others as so meone who gets things done. 7. Has a reputation for producing results. 8. Is expected to consistently dem onstrate the highest performance. 9. Is known to produce only high quality results. 10. Is counted on to consistently produ ce the highest quality performance. 11. Has the reputation of producing th e highest quality performance. 12. Is asked to do things by peopl e who want them done right. Charisma (Bass & Avolio, 1998) The person f or whom I am completing this survey: 1. Instills pride in being associated with him/her.

PAGE 112

112 2. Goes beyond his/her own self-interest for the good of our group. 3. His/her actions build my respect for him/her. 4. Displays a sense of power and confidence. 5. Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs. 6. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 7. Considers the moral and ethical cons equences of his/her decisions. 8. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. Antecedents of Employee Popularity Humor expression (Saucier & Goldberg, 1998) 1. Amusing 2. Comical 3. Hilarious 4. Humorous 5. Witty Extraversion (John et al., 1991) 1. I am outgoing and sociable. 2. I am talkative. 3. I have an assertive personality. 4. I generate a lot of enthusiasm. 5. I am full of energy. 6. I am often reserved. 7. I am sometimes shy or inhibited. 8. I tend to be quiet. Agreeableness (John et al., 1991) 1. I am kind to almost everyone. 2. I like to cooperate with others. 3. I am helpful and unselfish with others. 4. I have a forgiving nature. 5. I am generally trusting. 6. I tend to find fault with others. 7. I start quarrels with others. 8. I can be cold and aloof. 9. I am sometimes rude to others. Core Self-evaluations (Judge et al., 2003) (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree ) 1. I am confident I get the success I deserve in life. 2. Sometimes I feel depressed. 3. When I try, I generally succeed. 4. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. 5. I complete tasks successfully. 6. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work.

PAGE 113

113 7. Overall, I am satisfied with myself. 8. I am filled with doubts about my competence. 9. I determine what will happen in my life. 10. I do not feel in control of my success in my career. 11. I am capable of coping with most of my problems. 12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. Physical Attractiveness (Franzoi et al., 1994) 1. How physically attractive is this individual? Network Centrality From the attached roster of employees: 1. Check the names of people with whom you communicate as part of the job during a typical week. (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993) 2. Check the names of people who are very good friends of yours, people who you see socially outside of work (Ibarra, 1993). Outcomes of Employee Popularity Distributive Justice (Colquitt, 2001) 1. Do those outcomes reflect the effo rt you have put into your work? 2. Are those outcomes appropriate for the work you have completed? 3. Do those outcomes reflect what you have contributed to your work? 4. Are those outcomes justified, given your performance? Procedural Justice (Colquitt, 2001) 1. Are you able to express your views a nd feelings during those procedures? 2. Do you have influence over the decisi ons arrived at by those procedures? 3. Are those procedures applied consistently? 4. Are those procedures free of bias? 5. Are those procedures based on accurate information? 6. Are you able to appeal the outcome arrived at by those procedures? 7. Do those procedures uphold ethical and moral standards? Informational Justice (Colquitt, 2001) 1. Is your supervisor candid in communications with you? 2. Does your supervisor explain de cision procedures thoroughly? 3. Are your supervisor’s explanations regarding decisi on procedures reasonable? 4. Does your supervisor communicate details in a timely manner? 5. Does your supervisor seem to tailor communications to your specific needs? Interpersonal Justice (Colquitt, 2001) 1. Does your supervisor treat you in a polite manner? 2. Does your supervisor treat you with dignity? 3. Does your supervisor treat you with respect? 4. Does your supervisor refrain from improper remarks or comments?

PAGE 114

114 Received Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviors (Lee & Allen, 2002) My coworkers: 1. Help me when I had been absent. 2. Adjust their work schedules to accomm odate my requests for time off. 3. Willingly give their time to help me when I have work-related problems. 4. Go out of the way to make me feel welcome in the work group. 5. Show genuine concern and courtesy toward me, even under the most trying business or personal situations. 6. Give up time to help me with work or nonwork problems. 7. Assist me with my duties. 8. Share personal property with me to help my work. Received Interpersonal Counterproductive Behaviors (Porath et al. 1999) How often do your coworkers engage in the following behaviors toward you? 1. Belittle you. 2. Insult you. 3. Flaunt status at you. 4. Withhold information from you. 5. Try to avoid being in the same location as you. 6. Spread negative rumors about you. 7. Avoid talking with you. 8. Treat you insensitively. Treat you rudely.

PAGE 115

115 LIST OF REFERENCES Ada ms, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 145-162. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescen t culture and identity . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurem ent and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. American Heritage Dictionary (2000). The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529-550. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implic it personality theory: Toward a cognitive-social psychological conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5, 219-248. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 245-252. Ausubel, D. P., Schiff, H. M., & Gasser, E. B. (1952). A preliminary study of developmental trends in socioempathy: Accuracy of percep tion of own and others ’ sociometric status. Child Development, 23, 111-128. Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 219-227. Babad, E. (2001). On the conception and measur ement of popularity: More facts and some straight conclusions. School Psychology of Education, 5, 3-30. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.

PAGE 116

116 Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personali ty and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motiv ation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51. Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intracla ss correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762-765. Bass, B. M. (1962). Further evidence on the dynamic character of criteria. Personnel Psychology, 15, 93-97. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1998). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Beninger, R. J. (1991). Receptor subtype-spe cific dopamine agonist s and antagonists and conditioned behavior. In P. Wien er & J. Scheel-Kruger (Eds.), The mesolimbic dopamine system: From motivation to action (pp. 273-300). New York: Wiley. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Develo pment of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The pa st, present and future of workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: Th e state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional ju stice: Communication criter ia of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organi zations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Franci sco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and t oo conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as t hough they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400-417. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impressi on management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impressi on management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98.

PAGE 117

117 Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The advi ce and influence networks of transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1306-1314. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evalua tions: A review of the tr ait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, S5-S18. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 19681987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289. Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 70-82. Bozarth, M. A. (1991). The mesolimbic dopamine system as a model reward system. In P. Willner & J. Scheel-Kruger (Eds.), The mesolimbic dopamine system: From motivation to action (pp. 301-330). New York: Wiley. Bradney, P. (1957). The joki ng relationship in industry. Human Relations, 10, 179-187. Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in organization. Administrative Scienc e Quarterly, 29, 518-539. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Manageme nt Journal, 36, 441-470. Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity a nd friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. Berndt & G. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 15-45). New York: Wiley. Burt, R. S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. New York: Academic Press. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buss, D. M. (1998). The psychology of human mate selection: Expl oring the complexity of the strategic process. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 405-430). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Byrk, A. A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear mode ls: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D., & Neuman, J. H. (1992). The implications of attraction research for organizational issues. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 29-70). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

PAGE 118

118 Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent a nd discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Carnevale, P. J. D., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive aff ect and visual access on the discovery of integrative so lutions in bila teral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-13. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among construc ts in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246. Chapman, A. J., & Foot, H. C. (1976). Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications. London: Wiley. Chen, C. C., & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The constructi on of leadership images in the popular press: The case of Donald Burr and People Express. Administrative Scie nce Quarterly, 36, 521551. Chen, Y., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Wh en is it a pleasure to do business with you? The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Huma n Decision Processes, 92, 1-21. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Wa lker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Soci al influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151). New York: McGraw-Hill. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102-105. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (198 2). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-571. Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. (1990). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society . New York: Free Press.

PAGE 119

119 Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-d isclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Po rter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 425-445. Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizati onal justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior : The state of the science (pp. 165-210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is or ganizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Gree nberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cooper, C. D. (2002). No laughing matter: The impact of su pervisor humor on leader-member exchange quality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Cooper, C. D. (2005). Just joking around? Em ployee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior. Academy of Management Review, 30, 765-776. Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218-244. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An in terdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900. Cusick, P. (1973). Inside high school . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between orga nizational citizenship behavior and counterpro ductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12411255. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1995). Discriminative pa rental solicitude and the relevance of evolutionary models to the an alysis of motivational systems. In M. S. Gassaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1269-1286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine facilitation of incentive mo tivation and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491-569. De Raad, B., & Hoskens, M. ( 1990). Personality-descriptive nouns. European Journal of Personality, 4, 131-146.

PAGE 120

120 Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality , and need: What determines whic h value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149. Dimberg, U. (1982). Facial reacti ons to facial expressions. Psychophysiology, 26, 643-647. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral ant ecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 54, 13861399. Dodge, K. A, & Price, J. M. (1994). On the re lation between social in formation processing and socially competent behavior in early school-aged children. Child Development, 65, 13851397. Dong, Q., Weisfeld, G. Boardway, R. H., & She n, J. (1996). Correlates of social status among Chinese adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 476-493. Downs, A. C., & Harrison, S. K. (1985). Embarra ssing age spots or just plain ugly? Physical attractiveness stereotyping as an instrument of sexism on American television commercials. Sex Roles, 13, 9-19. Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1990). Humor and work: Applications of joking behavior to management. Journal of Management, 16, 255-278. Dunnington, M. H. (1957). Behavior al differences in sociometric status groups in a nursery school. Child Development, 28, 103-111. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but : A meta-analytic review of resear ch on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128. Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interp ersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154-165. Eder, D., & Kinney, D. A. (1995). The effect of middle school extracurr icular activities on adolescents’ popularity and peer status. Youth & Society, 26, 298-324. Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Hu man Decision Processes, 58, 51100. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 265287.

PAGE 121

121 Edwards, J. R. (2003). Construct validity in organizational behavior research. In. J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: Th e state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 327-371). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach -avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82, 804-818. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizati onal identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442-476. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of co re self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86, 1270-1279. Farmer, T. W., & Farmer, E. M. Z. (1996). Social relationships of student s with exceptionalities in mainstream classrooms: So cial networks and homophily. Exceptional Children, 62, 431450. Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social positions: The social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5, 174-188. Fayol, H. (1949 trans.). General and industrial management. London: Pitman (first published in 1919). Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking pe ople are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304-341. Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 231-252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R, Douglas, C., Kol odinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2003). Personal reputation in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 216-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferris G. R., Fedor D. B., King T. R. (1994). A political conceptualiz ation of managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 1-34. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

PAGE 122

122 Flap, H., & Volker, B. (2001). Goal specific so cial capital and job sati sfaction: Effects of different types of networks on instru mental and social aspects of work. Social Networks, 23, 297-320. Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83-87. Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 539-553. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as 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. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35, 108-119. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics : Morally managing people and processes (pp. 13-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215-245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fowles, D. C. (1987). Application of a behavioral theory of motivation to the concepts of anxiety and impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 417-435. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and or ganizational justice: Some medi ator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309. Franzoi, S. L., Davis, M. H., & Vasquez-Su son, K. A. (1994). Two social worlds: Social correlates and stability of adolescent status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 462-473. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in soci al networks: Concep tual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.

PAGE 123

123 Frijda, N. H. (1994). Varieties of affect: Emoti ons and episodes, moods, and sentiments. In P. Ekman and R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion (pp. 59-67). New York: Oxford University Press. Giacolone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 107-116. George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptu al analysis of the mood at work-organizationa l spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310329. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analy tic review of leader-m ember exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827. Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, soci al network centrality, a nd sociometric status. Child Development, 10, 23-40. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “descr iption of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59, 1216-1229. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of ma rkers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. Goodchilds, J. D. (1959). Effects of being witty on position in the social structure of a small group. Sociometry, 22, 261-271. Gordon, C. W. (1957). The social side of high school. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of r eciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiologica l basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8, 249-266. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.

PAGE 124

124 Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. E. (1997). Agr eeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795-824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersona l and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace : Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justic e, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235-256). New York: Springer-Verlag. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on indivi duals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and or ganizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 199). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1973). The stru ctural implications of measurement error in sociometry. Journal of Math Sociology, 3, 85-111. Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-w orth: A life span perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligan Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 6797). New Haven: Yale University Press. Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, D. J. (1989). Soci al contagion and multiplexity: Communication networks as predictors of co mmitment and role ambiguity. Human Communication Research, 15, 523-548. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. (1992). Primitive emotional contagion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psyc hology: Emotion and social behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 151-177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion . New York: Cambridge University Press. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hayward, M. L. A., Rindova, V. P., & Pollock, T. G. (2004). Believing one’s own press: The causes and consequences of CEO celebrity. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 637-655. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of inte rpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hochwarter, W.A., Arnell, B., Ferris, G.R., Zinko, R., & James, M. (2006). Reputation as a moderator of the political behavior-wo rk outcomes relationship: A two-study investigation with c onvergent results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

PAGE 125

125 Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centeri ng decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623-641. Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integrati on of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146-163. Hollander, E. P. (1965). Validity of peer nomin ations in predicting a distant performance criterion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 434-438. Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of phys ical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431-462. http://www.surveymonkey.com Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). T he incr emental validity of ps ychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446-455. Hymel, S. (1986). Interpretations of peer behavi or: Affective bias in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 57, 431-455. Hymel, S., Wagner, E., & Butler, L. J. (1989). Reputational bias: View from the peer group. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood. (pp. 156-186). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, a nd commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.) Handbook of industrial and or ganizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 445-506). Palo-Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Hulin, C. L. (2002). Lessons from industrial a nd organizational psychology. In J. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research (pp. 322). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power and innovation management: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471-501. Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, so cial influence, and se nse making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277-303.

PAGE 126

126 Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561-575. Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122-1131. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229. James, L. R., Demaree, R. J., & Wolf, G. (1984) . Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98. James, L. R., Demaree, R. J., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of w ithin-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Pe rsonality and Social Research. Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liki ng and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviors, and raters’ reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 808-815. Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority's fairness reputation on reactions to subsequent treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 363-372. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide . Chicago: Scientific Software International. Joyce, A. (2006, March 5). Able versus amiable. The Washington Post, p. F01. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evalu ations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self -concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257-268. Judge, T. A., & Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology , 56, 303-331.

PAGE 127

127 Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core-evaluations approach. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, 151-188). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126-138. Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 296-309. Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1984). Frustration in organizations: Relations hips to role stress, climate, and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 57-65. Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422-431. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt. Kilduff, M. & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for re putation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87-108. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of st ructural equation modeling . New York: Guilford Press. Knoke, D., & Burt, R. S. (1983). Prominence. In R. S. Burt and M. J. Miner (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A me thodological introduction (pp. 195-222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Koehly, L. M., & Shivy, V. A. (1998). So cial network analysis: A new methodology for counseling research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 3-17. Konner, M. (1975). Relations among infants and j uveniles in comparative perspective. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), Friendship and peer relations (pp. 100-130). New York: Wiley. Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers’ interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 731-744. Kosir, K., & Pecjak, S. (2005). Sociometry as a method for investigating peer relationships: What does it actually measure? Educational Research, 47, 127-144.

PAGE 128

128 Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, and R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A mu ltilevel approach to theory and research in organizations. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations , extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369. Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25, 428-438. LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. ( 1998). The nature of children's stereotypes of popularity. Social Development, 7, 301-320. LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. ( 1999). Children’s interpersonal perceptions as a function of sociometric a nd peer-perceived popularity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, 225-242. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390-423. Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Cropanzano, R. S. (1987). Cognitive operations associated with individual differences in affect intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 767-774. Lazarus, R. S. (1994). Appraisal: The long and s hort of it. In P. Ekman and R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion (pp. 208-215). New York: Oxford University Press. Leary, M. R., & Baumesiter, R. F. (2000). The na ture and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 251). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lease, A. M., Kennedy, C. A., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Children’s soci al constructions of popularity. Social Development, 11, 87-109. Lease, A. M., Musgrove, K. T., & Axelrod, J. L. (2002). Dimensions of social status in preadolescent peer groups: Likability, pe rceived popularity, and social dominance. Social Development, 11, 508-533. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational c itizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 , 131-142.

PAGE 129

129 Lefkowitz, J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affec tive regard in supe rvisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 67-85. Lemann, T. B., & Solomon, R. L. (1952). Group ch aracteristics as reve aled in sociometric patterns and personality. Sociometry, 15, 7-90. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., Johnson, D. E. (2002). The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer respon ses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of work groups. Academy of Management Review, 26, 67-84. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of re wards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-131). New York: Academic Press. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done w ith equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relati onships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingrat iatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572-587. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice . New York: Plenum. Lindsley, D. H., & Brass, D. J. (1995). Efficacy-p erformance spirals: A multi-level perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645-678. Locke, E. A. (2003). Good definitions: the episte mological foundation of scientific progress. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: Th e state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 415444). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Locke, E. A., McClear, K., & Knight, D. (1996). Self-esteem and work. International Review of Industrial/Organizational Psychology , 11, 1-32. Lodahl, T. M., & Porter, L. W. (1961). Psychomet ric score patterns, social characteristics, and productivity of small industrial work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 73-79. Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of th e Big Five personality factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 431-453.

PAGE 130

130 Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452-468. Lundqvist, L. O., & Dimberg, U. (1995). Facial expressions are contagious. Journal of Psychophysiology, 9, 203-211. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1989). Th e structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Scien ce Quarterly, 30, 78-102. Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Integrating di spositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personality: The cognitive-affective personality system. In L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 197-218). New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, T. R., & Liden, R. C. (1982). The eff ects of social context on performance evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 241-256. Moreno, J. (1934). Who Shall Survive? NY: Beacon House. Morrow, P. C. (1990). Physical attrac tiveness and selection decision making. Journal of Management, 16, 45-60. Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henaga n, S. C. (2005). A relational perspective on turnover: Examining structural, attitu dinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 607-618. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994) . Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from cont extual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480. Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The politi cs of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17, 465-486. Murphy, K. R., Jako, R. A., & Anhalt, R. L. (1993) . Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 218-225. Nelson, D., & Crick, N. (1999). Rose-colored gl asses: Examining the social information processing of prosocial young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 17-38.

PAGE 131

131 Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. P. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A metaanalytic review of popular, rejected, neglec ted, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justic e as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organi zational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal , 36, 527-556. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Organ, D. W. (1990). Organizatio nal citizenship behavior and the good soldier. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Wallace, & J. H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 53-67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Oxford English Dictionary. (2005). Popularity. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125-144. Pastor, J. C., Meindl, J. R., & Mayo, M. C. (2002). A network effects model of charisma attributions. Academy of Manageme nt Journal, 45, 410-420. Peery, C. J. (1979). Popular, amiable, isolated, rejected: a reconceptua lization of sociometric status in preschool children. Child Development, 50, 1231-1234. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Phillips, A. G., Blaha, C. D., Pfaus, J. G., & Blackburn, J. R. (1992). Neurobiological correlates of positive emotional states: Dopamine, anticipa tion and reward. In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 2, pp. 31-49). New York: Wiley. Phillips, A. G., Pfaus, J. G., & Blaha, C. D. (1991). Dopamine and motivated behavior: Insights provided by in vivo analysis. In P. Willner & J. Scheel-Kruger (Eds.), The mesolimbic dopamine system: From motivation to action (pp. 199-224). New York: Wiley. Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Relati onships and resources: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673-693. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the liter ature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

PAGE 132

132 Porath, C., Pearson, C., & Shapiro, D. L. (1999). Turning the other cheek or an eye or an eye: Targets’ responses to incivility. Paper presented at the annua l meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Porter, L. W., & Ghiselli, E. E. (1960). A self-description scale measur ing sociometric popularity among manual workers. Personnel Psychology, 13, 141-146. Raub, W., & Weesie, J. (1990). Reputation and effici ency in social intera ctions: An example of network effects. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 626-654. Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Ayalon, H., & Raviv, A. ( 1980). Perception of giving and receiving help by group members. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 11, 140-151. Reis, H. T. Gable, S. L. (2000). Even t-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190-222). New York: Cambridge University Press. Rice, L. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1973). Structural determinants of individual behavior in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 56-70. Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 19, pp. 131-174). New York: JAI Press. Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demogr aphic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relationa l demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342-358. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant wor kplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572. Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Va n Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys:Antisocial and prosocial configurations . Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs : General and Applied , 80, 1-27. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The re lative importance of ta sk, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 , 66-80.

PAGE 133

133 Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (19 98). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 619-700). New York: Wiley. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counter productive behaviors at wo rk. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salk, J. E., & Brannen, M. Y. (2000). National cu lture, networks, and individual influence in a multinational management team. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 191-202. Saucier, J., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495-524. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The attraction, se lection, and attrition framework: An update: Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773. Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 294309. Schoenewolf, G. (1990). Emotional contagion: Be havioral induction in individuals and groups. Modern Psychoanalysis, 15, 49-61. Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organi zational behavior. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwarz, N. & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive func tions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523. Schwarz, N. & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings a nd phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins and A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433-465). New York: Guilford. Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (in press). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interp ersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology. Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). What is the role of control in organi zational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 155-177). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 134

134 Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542-548. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 416-425. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational ci tizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Sorokin, P. A. (1927). Social mobility. New York: Harper & Row. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-cen tered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproduc tive behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269-292. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. ( 1998). Development of four self-re port measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367. Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480. Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorm ing groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-718. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper. Tharenou, P. (1979). Employee self-est eem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15 , 316-346. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice : A psychological analysis . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29. Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., & Fombrun, C. (1974). Social network analys is for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 4, 507-519. Tourangeau, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1979). The ro le of facial response in the experience of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1519-1531. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1958). Stability of personality trait rati ng factors obtained under diverse conditions. USAF WADC technical report, no . 61-97.

PAGE 135

135 Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational m odel of authority in gr oups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional cl arity (A bridge over muddied wa ters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helpi ng and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119. Van Zelst, R. H. (1951). Worker popularity and job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 4, 405412. Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 197-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawr ence Erlbaum and Associates. Washington, M., Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status ev olution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Review, 48, 282-296. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Me thods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Watson, D. (2000) Mood and temperament . New York: Guilford Press. Watson, D., & Tellgen, A. (2002). Aggregation, acquiescence, and the assessment of trait affectivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 589-597. Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499. Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232-260. Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferri s, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979-1006. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1921). Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connoll y, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and stat us differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124-1151.

PAGE 136

136 Weisfeld, G. E., Bloch, S. A., & Ivers, J. W. (1983). A factor analytic study of peer-perceived dominance in adolescent boys. Adolescence, 18, 229-243. Weisfeld, G. E., Bloch, S. A., & Ivers, J. W. (1984). Possible determinants of social dominance among adolescent girls. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 144, 115-129. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412. Wiggins, J. S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 265-294). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citiz enship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and or ganizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133, 656-668. Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 59-63. Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E., II. (1992). A theory of humor elicitation. Psychological Review, 99, 663-688. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudina l effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9 (2, Pt. 2), 1-27. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industr ial organizations: Theo retical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96-102.

PAGE 137

137 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Brent A. Scott is a doctoral s tudent in the Depa rtment of Management at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business. He received a BA in psychology from Miami University (OH) in May, 2000. He began the Ph.D . program in August, 2002 after working for two years at Enterprise Rent-a-Car. Upon comple tion of the program, Bren t will join the faculty of Michigan State University as an Assistant Professor of Management. His research interests include mood and emotion, organizationa l justice, personality, and popularity.