Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 297–310 | Cite as

Popularity Procurement and Pay Off: Antecedents and Consequences of Popularity in the Workplace

  • Rebecca Garden
  • Xiaoxiao Hu
  • Yujie Zhan
  • Xiang Yao
Original Paper
  • 323 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study examines agreeableness and work knowledge as predictors of employees’ popularity above and beyond core self-evaluation (CSE), and the moderating role of these constructs on the CSE–popularity relationship. We also investigate popularity’s effects on supervisor-rated task performance and promotion potential, and the conditional indirect effects of CSE on these outcomes via popularity.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Multi-source data were collected from 213 employees, their coworkers, and direct supervisors in a Chinese mine trading company.

Findings

Agreeableness predicted popularity above and beyond CSE and moderated the CSE–popularity relationship, although the direct and moderating effects of work knowledge were nonsignificant. Popularity positively influenced performance ratings but not promotion potential. Results also supported conditional indirect effects of CSE on performance ratings via popularity.

Implications

The current findings underscore the importance of examining workplace popularity. Discovering agreeableness as an additional predictor of popularity and its moderation effects on the CSE–popularity link suggests that communal qualities are important for employees’ attainment of popularity. The discussion also focuses on expanding the scope of workplace popularity to include performance-related outcomes. Lastly, this study considers how employee characteristics connect to performance ratings through popularity.

Originality/Value

Workplace popularity is relatively unexplored but has tremendous organizational implications. This research advances the understanding of how to attain workplace popularity and the boundary conditions for the relationship between CSE and popularity. It also extends consequences associated with workplace popularity beyond interpersonal outcomes and assesses the role of popularity, a construct rooted in collective perception, in explaining links between employee characteristics and performance-related outcomes.

Keywords

Popularity Core self-evaluation Agreeableness Work knowledge Task performance ratings Promotability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 31671121.

References

  1. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 751–763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2013). The big two in social judgment and behavior. Social Psychology, 44, 61–62. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bass, B. M. (1962). Further evidence on the dynamic character of criteria. Personnel Psychology, 15, 93–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01850.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. doi: 10.2307/257068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhal, K. T., Bhaskar, A. U., & Ratnam, C. V. (2009). Employee reactions to M&A: Role of LMX and leader communication. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30, 604–624. doi: 10.1108/01437730910991637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 5–18. doi: 10.1002/per.481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brambilla, M., Rusconi, P., Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. (2011). Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 135–143. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brislin, R. W. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction (Vol. 94). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. (2006). The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butovskaya, M. L., Timentschik, V. M., & Burkova, V. N. (2007). Aggression, conflict resolution, popularity, and attitude to school in Russian adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 170–183. doi: 10.1002/ab.20197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Butt, A., & Choi, J. (2006). The effects of cognitive appraisal and emotion on social motive and negotiation behavior: The critical role of agency of negotiator emotion. Human Performance, 19, 305–325. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1904_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and peer relationships in Chinese and Canadian children: A cross-cultural study. Child Development, 63, 1336–1343. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01698.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 1–21. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00062-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102–105. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cislak, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Agency and communion are inferred from actions serving interests of self or others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1103–1110. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Creed, P. A., Lehmann, K., & Hood, M. (2009). The relationship between core self-evaluations, employment commitment and well-being in the unemployed. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 310–315. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cuddy, A., Fiske, S., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Bruin, E. N. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). Impression formation and cooperative behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 305–328. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<305::AID-EJSP929>3.0.CO;2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Bruin, E. N. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2000). What people look for in others: Influences of the perceiver and the perceived on information selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 206–219. doi: 10.1177/0146167200264007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Estrada, M., Brown, J., & Lee, F. (1995). Who gets the credit? Perceptions of idiosyncrasy credit in work groups. Small Group Research, 26, 56–76. doi: 10.1177/1046496495261003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferris, G. R., Perrewé, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skills at work. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 25–37. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00007-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from the perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. French, D. C., Niu, L., & Purwono, U. (2015). Popularity of Indonesian adolescents: Do the findings from the USA generalize to a Muslim majority developing country? Social Development, 25, 405–421. doi: 10.1111/sode.12148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grant, A. M., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grant, A. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). I won’t let you down… or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 108–121. doi: 10.1037/a0017974.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (2006). An examination of temporal variables and relationship quality on promotability ratings. Group & Organization Management, 31, 677–699. doi: 10.1177/1059601106286889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127. doi: 10.1037/h0042501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hollander, E. P. (2006). Influence processes in leadership-followership: Inclusion and the idiosyncrasy credit model. In D. A. Hantula (Ed.), Advances in social & organizational psychology: A tribute to Ralph Rosnow (pp. 293–312). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  35. Ilmarinen, V. J., Vainikainen, M. P., Verkasalo, M., & Lönnqvist, J. E. (2015). Why are extraverts more popular? Oral fluency mediates the effect of extraversion on popularity in middle childhood. European Journal of Personality, 29, 138–151. doi: 10.1002/per.1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r wg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): Relationship of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 849–863. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.849.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Happiness as a societal value. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 30–41. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2011.59198447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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, pp. 151–188). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2013). Work in the 21 st century, binder ready version: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  44. Lansu, T. A., & Cillessen, A. H. (2012). Peer status in emerging adulthood: Associations of popularity and preference with social roles and behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 132–150. doi: 10.1177/0743558411402341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li, Y., Xie, H., & Shi, J. (2012). Chinese and American children’s perceptions of popularity determinants: Cultural differences and behavioral correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 420–429. doi: 10.1177/0165025412446393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van der Linden, D., Scholte, R. H. J., Cillessen, A. H. N., Nijenhuis, J. T., & Segers, E. (2010). Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the big five and the general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 669–672. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. New York: Guilford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitchell, T. R., & Liden, R. C. (1982). The effects of the social context on performance evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 241–256. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(82)90258-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Riggio, R. (2013). The “hard” science of studying and developing “soft” leader skills. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott, B. A. (2013). A conceptual framework for the study of popularity in the workplace. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 161–186. doi: 10.1177/2041386612464092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 20–33. doi: 10.1037/a0012951.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org/.
  58. Shapiro, D. L., Boss, A. D., Salas, S., Tangirala, S., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2011). When are transgressing leaders punitively judged? An empirical test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 412–422. doi: 10.1037/a0021442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Shi, J., Johnson, R. E., Liu, Y., & Wang, M. (2013). Linking subordinate political skill to supervisor dependence and reward recommendations: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 374–384. doi: 10.1037/a0031129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit knowledge in work and at school. In J.M. Puckett, H.W. Reese (Eds.), Mechanisms of everyday cognition (pp. 205–227). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Stopfer, J. M., Egloff, B., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). Being popular in online social networks: How agentic, communal, and creativity traits relate to judgments of status and liking. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 592–598. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Zelst, R. H. (1951). Worker popularity and job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 4, 405–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1951.tb00981.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.16928408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 711–718. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.6.711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wojciszke, B., & Szymków, A. (2003). Emotions related to others’ competence and morality. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 34, 135–142.Google Scholar
  67. Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1245–1257. doi: 10.1177/01461672982412001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental HealthPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations