Love Me or Hate Me: Exploring Controversial Sociometric Status
- 513 Downloads
Research on sociometric status among youth and adolescents offers a new framework within which to explore outcomes for individuals who are at the center of conflict in the groups and organizations to which they belong. In particular, individuals who are both well-liked and disliked—so-called controversials—may occupy a unique and previously unrecognized role in organizational life. In this chapter, we explore controversial sociometric status. Drawing mainly upon psychological and organizational research, we consider personality, behavioral, and structural antecedents that may contribute to the formation and maintenance of controversial sociometric status and advance propositions regarding socioemotional and performance-related outcomes for individuals with controversial sociometric status. Lastly, we report and reflect upon insights gained through a series of interviews we conducted among 15 executives.
KeywordsManagement Journal Social Preference Organizational Life High Performer Sociometric Status
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Borowski, S., Zeman, J., Thrash, T., Carboni, I., & Gilman, R. (in press). Adolescent controversial status brokers: A double-edged sword (working paper).Google Scholar
- Cairns, R.B. (1983). Sociometry, psychometry, and social structure: A commentary on six recent studies of popular, rejected, and neglected children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 429–438.Google Scholar
- Cillessen, A.H.N., & Marks, P.E.L. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In A.H.N. Cillessen, D.A. Schwartz, & L. Mayeux (Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–55). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Cillessen, A.H.N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). Sociometric status and peer group behavior: Previous findings and current directions. In J.B. Kupersmidt & K.A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From development to intervention, Vol. 5 (pp. 3–20). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Homans, G. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
- Marineau, J., Kane, G., & Labianca, G. (2013). Direct and indirect negative ties and individual performance. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Pickett, C.L., & Brewer, M.B. (2005). The role of exclusion in maintaining ingroup inclusion. In D. Abrams, M.A. Hogg, & J.M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 89–111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Ridgeway, C.L., & Walker, H.A. (1995). Status structures. In K.S. Cook, G.A. Fine, & J.S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Rodkin, P.C., & Hodges, E.V. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384–400.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J.W., and Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
- Yuan, Y.C., Carboni, I., & Ehrlich, K. (2010). The impact of awareness and accessibility on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 700–714.Google Scholar