Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams.

Abstract

This study developed a multilevel model of the interpersonal harming behavior associated with social comparison processes in work teams. We tested this model using temporally lagged data from a sample of student teams (Study 1) and cross-sectional data from a sample of work teams in a telecommunication services company (Study 2). In both studies, social relations analyses revealed that in teams with less cooperative goals, comparison to a higher performing team member was positively associated with interpersonal harming behavior, but only when expectations of future performance similarity to that member were low. The interactive relationship of social comparison and expected future performance similarity with interpersonal harming was buffered, however, in teams with more cooperative goals.

Inspired by Hope, Motivated by Envy: Comparing the Effects of Discrete Emotions in the Process of Social Comparison to Media Figures

“…Yet, emotional arousal alone is less interesting than the role that emotional arousal may play in mediating subsequent behavior. Although the studies described above did not link discussion of emotion to overt behavior, the psychology literature generally does suggest that social comparisons can lead to specific behavioral outcomes in both children (Santrock, Smith, & Bourbeau, 1976;Steinbeis & Singer, 2013;Toda, Shinotsuka, McClintock, & Stech, 1978) and adults (Darley, 1966;Johnson & Stapel, 2007;Karlsson, Garling, Dellgran, & Klingander, 2005;Klein, 2003;Lam, Van der Vegt, Walter, & Huang, 2011;Shipley, 2008;Williams & Geller, 2000). But how, if at all, are behavioral outcomes mediated by discrete emotions evoked through social comparison processes?…”

Examining the interpersonal process and consequence of leader–member exchange comparison: The role of procedural justice climate

“…The negative effect of an unfavorable comparison outcome on the individual, however, depends on whether the individual contrasts or assimilates himself or herself with the coworker (Lam et al, ; Mussweiler et al, ). Contrastive effects arise if the individual focuses on distinguishing relational features in the individual–coworker relationship, such as if the individual does not expect to obtain a favorable LMX standing that is comparable with that of the coworker and/or does not see the coworker's advantages as being deserved.…”

“…We used six items (α = .93) adapted from Cohen‐Charash and Mueller () and subsequently used by Lam et al () to capture participants' behavioral tendencies to harm the coworker (Pat). Sample items included “I will create coalitions against Pat” and “I will interfere with Pat's performance.” The participants responded to the items by using a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely , 7 = very likely ), and the responses were averaged to create a harming score in which higher values represent stronger intentions to behaviorally harm Pat.…”

“…Group variance arises from group membership, which is influenced by group norms (see Kenny, ; Kenny & La Voie, ). Such an application of SRM has been used in prior research examining dyadic relationships within work teams (e.g., Lam et al, ; Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Oosterhof, ), and it produces estimates of both random and fixed effects.…”

Harnessing members' positive mood for team-directed learning behaviour and team innovation: The moderating role of perceived team feedback

“…5 Although these statistics demonstrate that aggregation is justified, the ICC 1 value also shows that 80% of the variance in individuals' team-directed learning behaviour ratings cannot be explained by their membership in a specific team (i.e., 1 -ICC 1 ; Bliese, 2000). Hence, the initial, individual-level perspective used in developing and testing Hypothesis 1 is also justified and useful to account for this variance (see, for examples of similar approaches, Lam, van der Vegt, Walter, & Huang, 2011;Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008).…”