Job satisfaction has been shown to be directly linked to positive work outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors. Although it is relatively stable over time, a person’s job satisfaction does vary on a day-to-day basis. One key aspect that influences a person’s daily job satisfaction is the perception of justice in the organization. Continue reading →

When someone mentions the term “popularity” it often brings back memories of high school dances and Friday night football games – a concept from the past. However, the concept may not be so distant. “Popularity contests” are occurring in many organizations today, where the “winners” are rewarded immeasurably and the “losers” are simply overlooked.

What Is Popularity?

The term popular can be defined as “being generally accepted by one’s peers.” This concept is markedly different from liking someone, as you can develop a strong interpersonal relationship with someone, and they may not necessarily be popular. Conversely, you could generally dislike an individual; however, this individual could still be viewed as “popular” because of his or her group status. Popularity can be a result of a variety of factors including the individual’s personality and position in the overall communication network.

What Individual Characteristics Contribute to Popularity?

Individuals who are popular among coworkers often have a high core self-evaluation. This means the individual is more likely to have high self-esteem, be positive, confident, successful, and emotionally stable.  Popular individuals also tend to attribute success to their skills and abilities, rather than outside situational factors. For example, if a popular individual successfully completes a work project he may attribute this success to his knowledge of the project and the skills and abilities he used to complete the project, rather than the outside organizational factors, like guidelines for successful project completion, that aided in his success. These characteristics will often lead the individual to develop positive relationships with other individuals in the organization.

What Situational Characteristics Contribute to Popularity?

Situational factors may also play a role in how popular the individual is. It has been found that individuals who are central to the communication network in their organization are often viewed as more popular than their counterparts. This could be caused, in part, by the fact that mere exposure aids in increasing popularity. The frequent exposure to the individual could make interactions automatic and familiar. An example of this could be a secretary in the office who interacts with many employees on a daily basis.

It is important to note that these factors do not operate in isolation. A secretary whom many employees are exposed to on a daily basis could be unpopular because he lacks a high core self-evaluation. Additionally, an individual could have a high core self-evaluation; however, if she never interacts with other co-workers she may not be popular.

Impact of Popularity on Success

Popular individuals in the workplace are not only viewed differently from their unpopular counterparts, they are treated differently. Popular employees are:

• Often the recipients of more positive acts (e.g., receiving help from other employees on a project, helping when the employee is absent, etc.).
• Less susceptible to negative acts by other coworkers (e.g., harsh comments, interpersonal threats, hindering the individual’s ability to work, etc.).

Practical Implications

Organization’s Role. Organizations should recognize it is highly probable a popularity contest is occurring, to some degree, in their workplace. Steps should be taken to ensure marginalized (“unpopular”) employees are being recognized and rewarded for their contributions to the organization in a way that is consistent with their popular counterparts, as popularity can strongly influence how individuals are treated. This can help to create a sense of fairness in the organization.

Individual’s Role. “Unpopular” employees should realize there are actions that can be taken to increase popularity such as increasing communication with other employees and helping others in an altruistic way. However, being popular is not the only way to be successful. Employees should ensure that their contributions are visible and add to the overall success of the organization in order to make certain popularity status is not affecting their perceived effectiveness to the organization.

Popularity is prevalent and influential in the workplace. Therefore, it is important organizations not only understand why some individuals may be considered more popular than others (high core self-evaluation and network centrality) but also attempt to mitigate the negative effects on marginalized employees.

Interpretation by:

Elizabeth Allen

The DeGarmo Group

This was a summary of the research and practice implications from: Scott, B. & Judge, T. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 20-33.

Employee silence kills. According to published reports, nearly 98,000 Americans die each year due to avoidable medical errors; more than the total number of U.S. fatalities resulting from motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer or AIDS.  Sadly, many of these errors may result from employees choosing to withhold important information such as suggestions, questions or concerns.

Often though, employee silence does not have such grave consequences as human mortality, but still may profoundly impact the functioning of an organization.

The balance of this article examines the phenomenon of employee silence, the conditions under which it is more prevalent, and the steps organizations can take to encourage effective communication among employees.

What is Employee Silence?

Employee silence is characterized by the intentional withholding of important information. Specifically, this type of noncommunication results from one’s conscious decisions not to share information, and is not represented by unintentionally failing to provide, or otherwise overlooking information.

One survey reported that as many as 85% of respondents remained silent on some of their work concerns. Because the phenomenon of employee silence is internal and unobservable, it is difficult to recognize or measure. That is, it isn’t always possible to know whether one is remaining silent on important issues intentionally, or simply because they don’t have anything to say.

Depending on the situation, one may be silent regarding a particular topic (e.g., methods for evaluating job performance, internal or external pay equity, fairness in promotional opportunities, etc.), when speaking to a certain actor (entry-level employee, supervisor, director, or executive), or with a particular target (employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, etc.).

Without question employee silence is a multifaceted construct. We’ll now spend some time exploring potential moderators of silence behavior.

What Influences Employee Silence Behavior?

Research has uncovered at least four influences on employee silence behavior: workgroup identification, professional commitment, justice perceptions, and supervisory status.

One is said to have a high level of identification with their workgroup when they experience (or perceive) a sense of oneness or belongingness with the group, such that the group’s successes and failures are personalized. Thus, those employees who experience higher levels of workgroup identification are less likely to remain silent.

Similarly, the more committed one is to their profession (e.g., social work, teaching, etc.,) the less likely they are to remain silent regarding important work issues. They are likely to experience positive emotions and feelings about their work, and report greater levels of attachment to their work. People with higher levels of professional commitment are often compelled by feelings of morality and personal responsibility to speak up when necessary.

One feels a sense of procedural justice when they perceive the decisions made by the organization to be consistent, accurate, correctable and free from bias. When perceptions of procedural justice are higher, levels of employee silence behavior are likely to be lower. That is, employees believe their concerns will be addressed ethically and without bias, lowering fears of blame and victimization.

Finally, employees who believe their supervisor has considerable status in the organization (i.e., influence, authority, support, etc.,) are more likely to remain silent. That is, when supervisor status is high, so is employee silence. One might argue that employees’ fears regarding the potential for negative consequences from communicating outweigh the potential benefits for doing so. Interestingly, while a supervisor with high status could theoretically help one’s career as much they could hinder it, employees tend to focus on avoiding negative interactions more so than seeking positive ones.

Group Level Moderating Effects

To this point we’ve illustrated how employee silence behavior is influenced by an individual’s perceptions of workgroup identification, professional commitment, justice perceptions, and supervisory status. However, individuals commonly behave in ways that are consistent with group expectations, or are otherwise supported by a larger group of people. So how might these relationships change given group opinions?

Research exploring the effect of group level perceptions of procedural justice, referred to as procedural justice climate, has found effects for employee silence behavior. Specifically, when procedural justice climate is high, the effects found for workgroup identification and professional commitment on employee silence behavior were strengthened. Stated alternatively, when members of a group believe an organization’s actions to be consistent, accurate, correctable and free from bias, there is a greater likelihood that employees will speak up regarding relevant issues, more so than when an individual holds these perceptions alone.

Implications for Practice

Clearly there are organizational benefits for limiting employee silence behavior, particularly when the consequences of silence deal with issues of human mortality. So what steps can organizations take to encourage their employees to speak up?

Organizational leaders should work to create environments where procedural justice perceptions will be high.  We know of no published research stating that processes which are consistent, accurate, correctable and free from bias have negative consequences on valued organizational outcomes.

Of course, this may be easier said than done. Leaders must examine at a macro level the organization’s values, policies, mission, goals, operating procedures and communication mechanisms, and then determine how these are implemented, enforced, operationalized – and most importantly – perceived by its employees. Only then will it be possible to know where the procedural justice strengths and weaknesses lie.

Operationally, leaders can encourage employees to avoid silence behavior by being more participative in decision making, allowing them to share their concerns in a “consequence free” way, and by building cohesive workgroups. It also is important to value employees’ opinions and suggestions and to build a network of open communication. Again, with a greater sense of belonging and oneness with a group come higher levels of organizational commitment and less employee silence behavior.

For those leaders who may be perceived as having high “status” in the organization, make attempts to delegate activities or decision making on a more frequent basis to connect with the workgroup. Also, rather than only encouraging employees to approach leadership with suggestions, questions, comments or concerns, high status leaders should actively seek out this information from employees. This will help to create the network of open communication, and demonstrate to employees that leadership is interested in their thoughts, opinions and contributions.

Finally, try to tie employees’ efforts back to the general mission, goals and values of the organization. When employees see how their efforts contribute to the functioning of the organization, they are more likely to be engaged and committed to their work, and less likely to remain silent on critical issues.

Interpretation by:

Anthony Adorno

The DeGarmo Group

This was a summary of the research and practice implications from Subrahmaniam, T. and Rangaraj, R. (2008). Employee Silence on Critical Work Issues: The Cross Level Effects of Procedural Justice Climate, Personnel Psychology, 61, 37-68.