This study examined the relationship between status allocation and job performance of professionals. On the basis of Berger’s status characteristics model, it was hypothesized that individual-linked and team-level status allocation would positively affect compliance and contextual job performance. Survey data of 845 faculty members of a Dutch university were used to test these hypotheses. Multilevel analyses showed that contextual performance is affected by individual-linked and, to a lesser degree, team-level status allocation. Compliance was only associated with individual-linked status allocation and not with team-level status allocation. The results of the present study provide ample evidence of the effect of individual-linked status allocation on job performance. However, less evidence was found to support the notion that compliance and contextual performance are encouraged by team-level status allocation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arvey, R. D. , & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
2.
Barker, V. E. , Abrams, J. R., Tiyaamornwong, V., Seibold, D. R., Duggan, A., Sun Park, H., et al. (2000). New contexts for relational communication in groups. Small Group Research, 31(4), 547-573.
3.
Bateman, T. S. , & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.”Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
4.
Berger, J. , Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241-255.
5.
Berger, J. , Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479-508.
6.
Bowers, C. A. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305-327.
7.
Buzaglo, G. , & Wheelan, S. A. (1999). Facilitating work team effectiveness: Case studies from Central America. Small Group Research, 30(1), 108-129.
8.
Caligiuri, P. M. , & Day, D. V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual, and assignment-specific performance. Group & Organization Management, 25(2), 154-174.
9.
Carless, S. A. , & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71-88.
10.
Carletta, J. , & Garrod, S. (1998). Placement of authority and communication patterns in workplace groups. Small Group Research, 29(5), 531-559.
11.
Cohen, B. P. , & Zhou, X. (1991). Status processes in enduring work groups. American Sociological Review, 56(2), 179-188.
12.
Farh, J. , Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1991). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16(4), 705-721.
13.
Ferdi, A. F. , & Wheelan, S. A. (1992). Developmental patterns in same-sex and mixed-sex groups. Small Group Research, 23(3), 356-378.
14.
Freidson, E. (1984). The changing nature of professional control. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 1-20.
15.
Hare, L. R. , & O’Neill, K. (2000). Effectiveness and efficiency in small academic peer groups: A case study. Small Group Research, 31(1), 24-53.
16.
Henry, K. B. , & Arrow, H. (1999). A tripartite model of group identification. Small Group Research, 30(5), 558-581.
17.
Ledford, G. E. (1999). Happiness and productivity revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 25-30.
18.
Lee, M. T. , & Ofshe, R. (1981). The impact of behavioral style and status characteristics on social influence: A test of two competing theories. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(2), 73-82.
19.
Lovaglia, M. J. (1995). Power and status. Small Group Research, 26(3), 400-426.
20.
MacKenzie, S. B. , & Podsakoff, P. M. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 70-80.
21.
Miller, G. A. (1967). Professionals in bureaucracy: Alienation among industrial scientists and engineers. American Sociological Review, 32(5), 755-768.
22.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. London: Prentice Hall.
23.
Morrison, E. W. , & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-420.
24.
Motowidlo, S. J. , & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
25.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
26.
Organ, D. W. , & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-803.
27.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Boston: Pitman.
28.
Pierce, J. L. , Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
29.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied, 132(3), 277-291.
30.
Smith, C. A. , Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1984). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
31.
Snijders, T. , & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling. London: Sage.
32.
Stata Corporation . (1999). Stata reference manual. College Station, TX: Author.
33.
Stryker, S. , & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
34.
Tyler, T. R. (1998). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 201-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
