Social Contagion and Multiplexity Communication Networks as Predictors of Commitment and Role Ambiguity

Abstract

This research compares two contrasting perspectives of social contagion processes associated with the organizational outcome variables of commitment and role ambiguity in organizations. The two perspectives are structural equivalence (which focuses on the positions of individuals in social networks) and cohesion (which focuses on an individual's direct communication contacts). It was hypothesized that structural equivalence would be more associated with role ambiguity and that commitment would be more associated with cohesion. The relationship between these variables and multiplex content networks was also studied. It was hypothesized that commitment was a much more broadly based concept in the sense that a number offunctionalcontent networks systematically relate to it. On the other hand, role ambiguity was hypothesized to be more closely associated with uniplex networks, especially those related to job duties and organizational goals. While there were exceptions, generally the research results supported the hypotheses relating to multiplexity. The hypotheses that structural equivalence was more associated with role ambiguity and that commitment was more associated with cohesion also were supported in this research.

The social construction of fairness: social influence and sense making in organizations

“…Previous work in the organizational justice literature has employed experimental or other interventions to examine the social in¯uence of management-initiated communications and persuasion on perceptions of fairness (e.g., Bies and Shapiro, 1988;Greenberg, 1993;Konovsky and Folger, 1991). However, people are in¯uenced not just by managers but also more generally by peers with whom they interact on an every-day basis in the organizational context (Hartman and Johnson, 1989;Meyer, 1994;Johanson, 2000). In addition, social in¯uence is associated not just with direct persuasion and overt impression management but also with sense-making in response to social cues and social comparison (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978;Turner, 1991).…”

“…Research suggests that informal communication channels among peers are primary routes through which social comparisons and social cues may affect sense making (Hartman and Johnson, 1989;Johanson, 2000). Employees look to peers with whom they are involved in meaningful relationships for information about organizational norms and the decisions made by its agents (Kilduff, 1990;Shah, 1998).…”

“…As employees attempt to understand the meaning of organizational events, norms and institutions that affect justice perceptions, they interpret the meaning of information about these phenomena in reference to others to whom they are socially close (Hartman and Johnson, 1989;Meyer, 1994), whom they esteem (Johanson, 2000;Meyer, 1994), who are members of valued social groups (Lind and Tyler, 1988), or who represent legitimate authorities (Greenberg, 1993). The social processes involved may be direct or indirect: (1) individuals directly compare their understanding of fairness to that of a signi®cant other (Krackhardt and Kilduff, 1990;Meyer, 1994); (2) they indirectly construe the fairness of their experiences by consulting with a signi®cant other in reference to the opinions and information of mutual friends or other third parties with whom both interact in important ways (Burt and Knez, 1995;Erickson, 1988;Johanson, 2000;Krackhardt, 1999); and (3) they may impute fairness through a mixture of direct comparison and indirect identi®cation with the social in-group symbolized by signi®cant others (Lind and Tyler, 1988).…”

Co-workers' Justice Judgments, own Justice Judgments and Employee Commitment: A multi-foci approach

“…Specifically, our assumption is that an employee's perceptions of procedural justice should be affected by his/her co-workers' judgments of procedural justice, whereas the co-workers' judgments of interactional justice should be a potent predictor of his/her interactional justice perceptions. We thus suggest that informal communication channels among colleagues (i.e., among people who interact on an everyday basis in the organisational context) are primary routes through which social comparisons and social cues may affect the formation of a meaningful interpretation of organisational events and institutions, especially formal rules and norms of interpersonal treatment (Hartman & Johnson, 1989;Johanson, 2000;Lamertz, 2002).…”

Understanding the dynamics of MOOC discussion forums with simulation investigation for empirical network analysis (SIENA)

“…(dyadic level) A transitive relationship, in which A connects to B, B connects to C, and A also connects to C, may be more conducive to social learning, as participants are more likely to receive stimuli from multiple peers as the desired information diffuses through a network (Centola, 2010;Todo, Matous, & Mojo, 2015). Linking to different clusters is expected to support information transmission, as these clusters might serve to provide an individual with a variety of information sources (Hartman & Johnson, 1989). To support social learning, relations in a network should generally be characterized by a high tendency for reciprocity and transitivity, which leads to network cohesiveness.…”