Corporate Reputation Review

Volume 14 Number 3

Understanding Your Standing: Multiple Indicators of Status and Their Influence on Employee Attachment Brian W. Swider Department of Management, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA Ryan D. Zimmerman Department of Management, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA Wendy R. Boswell Department of Management, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA Andy T. Hinrichs Department of Management, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS: commitment; job search; reputation;

We investigate the joint effects of employees’ perceptions of their organization’s reputation (or status) and their own status within the organization (ie, autonomy and impact) on their commitment to the organization and job search behavior. Results of a field study of managers show that for organizational commitment and job search behavior, autonomy has a stronger effect on the outcomes when individuals perceive that they work for a highstatus organization. However, consistent with the idea of free-riding, results show that individuals experiencing low impact in a highstatus organization have higher organizational commitment and are least likely to search for other jobs. Thus, managers concerned with increasing employee attachment should focus on increasing the organization’s reputation as well as their employees’ perceptions of their standing in the organization. Corporate Reputation Review (2011) 14, 159–174. doi:10.1057/crr.2011.14

status

INTRODUCTION

Employee attachment is a general term used to describe the extent to which employees identify, are linked to, and seek to remain with their organizations (Koch and Steers, 1978). Two variables that are often used to address these employees’ attitudes and behavior are organizational commitment and job search behavior. While a host of research studies have investigated dispositional predictors of these two attachmentrelated variables, others have focused on elements of the job that make commitment and job search more/less likely (Kanfer et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2002). In this study, we focus on two elements of employees’ job status – the organization’s status (or reputation) and the employee’s status within the organization (ie, autonomy and impact) – to

www.palgrave-journals.com/crr/

Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 159–174 © 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 1363-3589

Understanding Your Standing

predict employee attachment. Previous research suggests that employees who perceive they work for highly reputable organizations are more likely to identify with that organization (Dutton et al., 1994; Smidts et al., 2001; Herrbach et al., 2004). Also, researchers have linked the level of employees’ autonomy and impact at work, as reflective of an employee’s status, to heightened organizational commitment and reduced turnover cognitions (Avolio et al., 2004; Lichtenstein et al., 2004). Although these results indicate that employees use various perceptions of status to understand and respond to their work environment, studies have frequently focused on the effects of only one type of status. Yet, the relationships with employee attachment may not be so straightforward, as people are often forced to reconcile multiple, even divergent, perceptions of status in the workplace (Drazin et al., 1999). Extant research cannot speak to the issue of multiple perceptions of status, as single-foci studies preclude researchers from discussing the possible effects of interactions and inconsistencies of status perceptions on employees’ attachment. We attempt to improve upon current research by investigating various status perceptions (ie, organizational reputation, job autonomy and impact) and their joint effects on attachment constructs. We expect that employees who are able to control the work they do (high autonomy) for a high-status organization will display the highest levels of attachment to the organization. Conversely, we expect to see a ‘free-rider effect’ for employees working for a high-status organization who do not see themselves as contributing to the organization (low impact). We expect this to occur as those employees will seek to remain attached to a high-status organization, and garner the advantages (eg, increased self-worth), while sustaining few costs. This study contributes to the literatures on organizational reputation and employee

160

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

status, by clarifying how they relate to employee attachment. First, we investigate how status of and status within an organization jointly impact employees’ organizational commitment and job search behavior. In addition, with the majority of research focused on the positive effects of organizational status on employee attachment (cf. Carmeli et al., 2006; Dutton et al., 1994), an important contribution of this paper is to show that this may not always be the case. Consistent with research in other areas showing the potential harmful as well as beneficial effects of situational factors (eg, feedback interventions; Kluger and Denisi, 1996), we highlight the potential negative and positive outcomes of high levels of organizational status in an attempt to develop a more complete understanding of the complex effects of this construct. Finally, examining divergent moderating effects for organizational status (ie, organizational status×autonomy and organizational status×impact), we highlight the importance of multiple indicators of status within an organization, adding insight into the complex relationships between these variables. Our goal is that this research will increase our understanding of how employee attachment is influenced by different indicators of status of and within an organization. Employee Attachment

Employee attachment is defined as ‘an individual’s psychological and behavioral involvement in a social group or unit of which he or she is a member’ (Tsui et al., 1992: 554). While an employee can be attached to an occupation or work group (Riketta and Van Dick, 2005), researchers usually focus on employees’ psychological attachment to their organization in general. Simply put, employee attachment is the psychological tie connecting the individual and the organization (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Through social identification, individuals perceive themselves as psychologically intertwined

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Swider, Zimmerman, Boswell and Hinrichs

with their organizations’ successes and failures (Ashforth and Mael, 1989) and derive positive self-evaluations from their membership. As levels of identification and emotional attachment to the organization increase, employees are expected to become more committed to their organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Conversely, researchers have also addressed attachment as individuals’ unwillingness to leave the firm (Koch and Steers, 1978). Employees who are more attached to an organization are expected to have more links, perceive a better fit and would have to make a greater sacrifice if they left the organization (Lee et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2001). While often used to describe the behavior and attitudes of individual employees, employee attachment across the entire organization may also have a significant influence on organizational performance. Specifically, organizations that are able to induce employee attachment by utilizing high-involvement work practices have been shown to generate higher levels of sales, increase productivity levels and reduce organizational turnover (Batt, 2002; Huselid, 1995). Organizational commitment is a critical component of employees’ attachment as it reflects employees’ affective attachment to the organization’s values and goals (Buchanan, 1974) and is defined as the strength of employees’ involvement and identification with an organization (Mowday et al., 1979). Employees who are highly committed are expected to be more psychologically attached to the organization, as they adopt the perspective or values of the organization (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). In return, more committed employees are expected to be more likely to receive both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards associated with their job (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). While there are certainly benefits to the individual for being a highly committed employee, research also indicates that organizations can generate favorable outcomes from having highly

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

committed employees. A meta-analysis found commitment to be positively related to both job performance and organizational citizenship behavior as well as negatively related to withdrawal cognitions and absences (Meyer et al., 2002). Interestingly, Meyer et al. also investigated a host of antecedents of employee commitment and found that the relationships were strongest when using work/organizational characteristics as predictors. Another construct that has garnered research attention from scholars investigating employee attachment is job search behavior (Boswell et al., 2004). Job search is defined as gathering information and evaluating possible alternative employment opportunities (Schwab et al., 1987). While individuals in all stages of the employment life cycle perform job search behavior (ie, unemployed individuals), attachment researchers are primarily interested in job searchers that are seeking alternative jobs even though they are currently employed (Kanfer et al., 2001). It is argued that employees who are dissatisfied with their current employment situations should become less attached, develop withdrawal cognitions and search for alternative employment opportunities before making turnover decisions (Mobley, 1977; Lee and Mitchell, 1994). Not surprisingly, meta-analytic research indicates that employed job searchers are more likely to turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000), and this relationship may be stronger when employees are less attached to the organization (Swider et al., 2011). In fact, job search behavior has been shown to be a more proximal predictor of turnover than organizational commitment (cf. Kopelman et al., 1992), highlighting the need for its inclusion in studies of employee attachment. Together, organizational commitment and job search behavior represent attitudes and behavior that are critical to employees’ attachment to the organization. The importance of these variables is even greater for managers

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

Corporate Reputation Review

161

Understanding Your Standing

because of the critical role their attachment has on organizational outcomes (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991), as well as the valuable segment of an organization’s workforce they represent (Pennings et al., 1998). Not surprisingly, prior work has sought to explain how organizational characteristics can influence employee attachment to an organization (Gioia and Thomas, 1996). One specific set of perceptions, or cues, that individuals use to make sense of the work environment and their experiences are based on status. Status is defined as one’s ‘standing in the hierarchy of a group based on the prestige, honor, and deference accorded to [the referent] by other members’ (Lovaglia and Houser, 1996: 868). Tyler and Blader (2003) argued that the status of an individual’s group and his/her position within the group would influence a host of attitudes and behavior including organizational attachment. Motivated by self-enhancement needs (ie, the basic desire to think favorably of themselves), employees want to remain attached to prestigious organizations and maintain high status within the organization in an effort to increase their self-esteem and overall self-worth (Shrauger, 1975; Tyler, 1999; Fuller et al., 2006). Indicators of Status

Researchers have uncovered various status characteristics, such as organizational reputation, job characteristics, gender, tenure and salary, that exist concurrently, indicate one’s standing in the hierarchy and can influence employee attitudes and behavior (Drazin et al., 1999). One major status characteristic used by employees to make sense of their work environment is their organization’s reputation. Employees’ perceptions of their organization, including perceptions of organizational reputation, are based on both outsiders and self-perceptions of the organization (Dhalla, 2007; Gioia and Thomas, 1996; Illia, 2010; Walker, 2010), and may be used by employees to make sense of their

162

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

own standing in social hierarchies. For example, research suggests that the reputation of an organization can be used by employees to assess their self-worth as their self-concept is derived, in part, from various aspects of their relationships with the organization (Smith and Tyler, 1997). Job characteristics are also status indicators, conferring both honor and privileges to those who experience them. Prior research examining status within a group has noted that features of a job, such as the roles where individuals can have more influence or performance opportunities, are meaningful status characteristics that influence inter-group reactions (Lovaglia and Houser, 1996). That is, high-status employees within an organization are often given more opportunities to perform and have more influence than low-status employees (Drazin et al., 1999; Hambrick and Cannella, 1993). However, previous research has shown that autonomy and impact, as indicators of status, may have differential relationships with outcome variables (eg, work satisfaction; Spreitzer et al., 1997). We argue that both the status of an individual’s group (in this case, the organization) and his/her position within the group should influence attachment-focused attitudes and behavior (ie, organizational commitment and job search). It is also important to look at how the two within-organization status characteristics may differentially interact with organizational status to predict employee attachment to that organization (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Interaction between Perceived Organizational Status and Autonomy

Spreitzer and colleagues (Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997) have offered empirical evidence supporting autonomy, as a distinct indicator of one’s status, as being a highly valued work characteristic. Specifically, employees who believe they have more freedom to control how they work (ie, higher autonomy) are more likely to experience

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Swider, Zimmerman, Boswell and Hinrichs

intrinsic rewards from work, as well as fulfill possible psychological needs (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Prior work has linked autonomy to heightened organizational commitment at the individual (Liden et al., 2000) and team level (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999) as employees are likely to value opportunities to control how their work is completed. We also expect autonomy to associate negatively with one’s interest in leaving an organization. Employees who perceive greater control over their work are more likely to feel connected to the organization and its goals (Spreitzer and Mishra, 2002), ultimately experience greater loyalty (Fulford and Enz, 1995), and are less likely to seek alternative employment (Blau, 1993). Although individuals who have higher levels of autonomy should have higher levels of attachment to an organization (Koch and Steers, 1978), in this study we focus specifically on how varying indicators of status may work in concert to predict individuals’ commitment and job search behavior. In particular, we expect autonomy will be a stronger predictor of these variables when individuals also perceive that they work for a high-status organization. Such individuals are able to initiate and control the method, pace and effort of their actions on behalf of the high-status employer (Spreitzer, 1995). Owing to the higher levels of psychological benefits, we would expect an employee to feel greater attachment to the organization and a lesser need to search for alternative employment opportunities. Yet, while individuals with high levels of control over their work in an organization with lower status are able to garner meaningful privileges, such as increased self-worth perceptions, from those within the group, their selfworth perceptions are less likely to be enhanced based on the reputation of the organization. That is, although they have control over their actions within the organization, such self-initiated actions are performed within a low-status organization.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Therefore, we argue that the relationship between autonomy and positive attachment variables (ie, higher commitment and lower job search behavior) will be stronger for individuals who perceive that they work for a higher status organization than for those individuals who perceive that they work for a lower status organization. Thus, we propose: H1a: Perceived organizational status will moderate the positive relationship between autonomy and organizational commitment such that the positive relationship will be stronger when organizational status is high. H1b: Perceived organizational status will moderate the negative relationship between autonomy and job search behavior such that the negative relationship will be stronger when organizational status is high.

Interaction between Perceived Organizational Status and Impact

Much like autonomy, existing research indicates that individuals who perceive they have an impact on organizational performance are more likely to experience a number of positive work outcomes than employees with low impact (Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997). In terms of attitudes directed toward the organization, Liden et al. (2003) described how employees appreciate organizations that provide them with opportunities to control how their work is completed and their contribution toward their organizations’ success, and thus reciprocate by being more committed. Sparrowe (1994) found that perceived impact was negatively related to employees’ desire to leave their organization, as those feeling they make a difference should be less likely to leave a job with desirable characteristics.

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

Corporate Reputation Review

163

Understanding Your Standing

Yet, Spreitzer et al. (1997) noted that individuals who experience low impact, and thus believe they make little difference to organizational outcomes, will be less motivated to work hard. This description parallels the concept of ‘free-riding’ of organizational members (Kidwell and Bennett, 1993). Free-riding occurs when a member of a group or organization obtains benefits from one’s membership but does not bear a proportional share of the costs of providing those benefits (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1985). Simply put, individuals believe they can let others do the work and still receive the same outcomes. In free-riding situations, individuals may fail to contribute when any indivisible public ‘goods’ are involved, such as the glory and self-worth derived from working for a prestigious organization. Free-riding can be reduced if the specific contributions of an individual to collective performance can be observed (Williams et al., 1981). However, individuals who perceive that they are less able to have an impact on organizational outcomes are still able to benefit from working for an organization with high status because of the relatively indivisible nature of organizational reputation (cf. Gioia and Thomas, 1996; Smidts et al., 2001). Fuller et al. (2006) specifically noted that the benefit of increased self-worth is available to any employee who is able to identify with the organization. Thus, individuals who perceive they have little impact yet believe that they work for a high-status organization are not necessarily uncommitted to the organization nor will they seek to leave it. In fact, as suggested by Albanese and Van Fleet, ‘group members may decide to free ride even though all are enthused about the group and are committed to its common purpose’ (1985: 245). Individuals who perceive these status characteristics should experience a favorable rational cost-benefit analysis of the situation (Kidwell and Bennett, 1993), recognizing the relatively low contribution they must make in order to receive great value (in terms

164

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

of working for a high-status organization). Accordingly, we expect that individuals will be particularly committed to and not seek to leave the organization when that organization is perceived as high-status yet they do little to add value (ie, have low impact). Conversely, individuals with high impact at lowstatus organizations will recognize their ability to meaningfully contribute to organizational outcomes and possibly improve the status quo (Ellemers et al., 1993). While initially these individuals will not receive the benefits of working for a high-status organization, they should be more attached to the organization than those with low impact in a low-status organization. Therefore, we expect that when the organization is not perceived as high-status, individuals will be more committed to and not seek to leave the organization if they perceive they add value (ie, have high impact). We also note that while individuals who believe that they have low impact in a highstatus organization will be more committed and less likely to job search compared with individuals who believe that they have high impact in a high-status organization, we also recognize that the latter individuals will still be more committed and less likely to job search compared with individuals (whether they have high or low impact) who believe they work for a low-status organization. Thus, we suggest: H2a: Perceived organizational status will moderate the relationship between impact and organizational commitment such that there will be a negative relationship between impact and commitment when perceived organizational status is high, but a positive relationship between impact and commitment when organizational status is low. H2b: Perceived organizational status will moderate the relationship between impact and job search behavior such that there

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Swider, Zimmerman, Boswell and Hinrichs

will be a positive relationship between impact and job search behavior when perceived organizational status is high, but a negative relationship between impact and job search behavior when organizational status is low.

METHOD Participants and Procedures

The sample consisted of non-academic managers employed at a large university located in the southern United States. E-mails were sent to 553 individuals asking them to participate in a survey sponsored by the university. In total, 221 surveys were completed, representing a response rate of 40 percent with full data on 193 surveys (35 percent response rate). The demographic composition of respondents was 55 percent male, an average of 52 years old, and 91 percent Caucasian, 4.1 percent Hispanic, 4.6 percent African-American, and 1 percent other races. The average annual compensation for the participants was slightly more than $106,000. Respondents did not vary in any meaningful way from non-respondents on the demographic variables collected. Measures

Below are the scales used in this study. All of the self-report measures used response anchors that ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). A complete listing of all items for each measure used in this study is included in the Appendix. Perceived organizational status

Perceived organizational status was measured with a combination of two scales: a six-item scale from Riordan et al., (1997) and a three-item scale from Cable and Turban (2003). Combining these scales allowed us to more fully capture the overall status (or reputation) of the organization as the scale used by Riordan et al. (1997)

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

focuses on an individual’s beliefs of how others perceive the organization, while the scale used by Cable and Turban (2003) focuses on the individual’s own view of the organization and its reputation. Simply put, using both scales allows us to capture the degree to which the institution is wellregarded by oneself and others (Dhalla, 2007; Illia, 2010, Walker, 2010). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the nine items indicated that a one-factor model comprising all nine items was a better fit than a two-factor model with items loading on their respective scales. Specifically, the NFI, RFI, GFI and RMR for the one-factor model (0.90, 0.88, 1.00 and 0.10, respectively) were better than those of the two-factor model (0.89, 0.87, 0.99 and 0.13). Parsimony indices also supported the one-factor model as the best fitting model. The parsimony indices for the onefactor model versus the two-factor model were: PNFI 0.64 versus 0.60; PGFI 0.60 versus 0.58. Therefore, in addition to more fully capturing the broader construct of perceived organizational status, one overall scale measuring organizational status was supported empirically. The coefficient alpha () was 0.92. Autonomy and impact

Autonomy and impact were measured using the respective empowerment subscales developed by Spreitzer (1995). Each scale contained three items. Both the autonomy and impact scale showed good reliability ( = 0.90 and 0.87, respectively). Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment was measured using the affective organizational commitment scale from Meyer and Allen (1991). The scale contained eight items ( = 0.86). Job search behavior

Job search behavior was measured using the general effort job search scale from Blau (1993). The scale contained four items ( = 0.91).

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

Corporate Reputation Review

165

Understanding Your Standing

Control variables

We controlled for a number of other variables that have been shown in prior research to confer status (eg, Drazin et al., 1999) and thus rule out alternative explanations for the specific relationships of focus here. Specifically, we controlled for hierarchical level (1–7 scale based on job responsibilities), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race (0 = white, 1 = non-white), tenure in the current job, tenure in the organization and annual salary.

RESULTS

Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, coefficients alpha and zero-order correlations among the variables. Because of the cross-sectional survey design, we conducted CFAs to test whether there were in fact five empirically distinct constructs represented by our three antecedent variables and two outcome variables. This technique is recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) as a way to address possible common method bias issues. A well-fitting model of the expected number of distinct constructs indicates that a single factor, presumably driven by common method bias, does not account for all the covariance among measures. We ran three separate sets of CFAs to determine the factor structure of the antecedents, outcomes and all selfreport variables combined. For the antecedents, a three-factor model with perceived organizational status, autonomy and impact as separate constructs was the best fit (2 = 554.11, 87 d.f.; SRMR = 0.08; RMSEA = 0.17; CFI = 0.92) out of all possible factor combinations (next best fitting model was the one that combined autonomy and impact into one factor, 2 = 774.39, 89 d.f.; SRMR = 0.11; RMSEA = 0.20; CFI = 0.87). For the outcome variables, the two-factor model with organizational commitment and job search as separate constructs was the best fit (2 = 97.80, 53 d.f.; SRMR = 0.06;

166

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.98) compared to a one-factor model (2 = 781.22, 54 d.f.; SRMR = 0.15; RMSEA = 0.27; CFI = 0.76). For the CFA including all five variables, the five-factor model fit the data the best (2 = 1029.03, 314 d.f.; SRMR = 0.08; RMSEA = 0.09; CFI = 0.95) with the next best fitting model being the one that combined organizational status and commitment into one factor (2 = 1183.70, 318 d.f.; SRMR = 0.10; RMSEA = 0.12; CFI = 0.92). In sum, results of the CFAs indicate that each variable is an empirically distinct construct and attenuates concerns that common method bias are driving the results of this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Finally, as noted by other researchers (eg, OlsonBuchanan and Boswell, 2002), any inflation in the relationships between self-reported variables would be unlikely to account for interaction effects. In order to test the unique variance explained by organizational status, autonomy and impact, as well as test for the hypothesized moderator effects, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression with the control variables (race, gender, job level, job tenure, organizational tenure and salary) included in Step 1; organizational status, autonomy and impact added in Step 2; and the organizational status × autonomy interaction and the organizational status×impact interaction added in Step 3. We centered the variables included in the interactions. Table 2 presents the results for these analyses. The three predictors explained significant incremental variance in both organizational commitment and job search behavior beyond the control variables. The changes in R-squared were 0.48 and 0.15 for organizational commitment and job search, respectively. However, only organizational status had a significant beta in relation to organizational commitment, while only organizational status and autonomy were significant in relation to job search behavior.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

*p  0.05 N=193 Note: Coefficient alphas are shown on the diagonal

Race 0.10 0.30 — Gender 0.45 0.50 0.02 — Salary 106,344 52,428 0.05 − 0.28* — Job Level 2.92 1.48 0.14 − 0.13 0.69* — Job Tenure 6.20 6.10 − 0.14 − 0.10 0.16* 0.09 — Organization Tenure 15.73 10.36 − 0.21* − 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.47* — Organizational Status 5.04 0.71 − 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.03 (0.92) Autonomy 5.07 .82 − 0.09 − 0.10 0.18* 0.24* 0.15* 0.16* 0.28* (0.90) Impact 4.63 1.13 − 0.08 − 0.14* 0.34* 0.30* − 0.03 0.02 0.36* 0.55* (0.87) Organizational 4.47 0.93 − 0.03 − 0.07 0.20* 0.19* 0.07 0.18* 0.71* 0.30* 0.36* (0.86) Commitment 11. Job Search Behavior 1.80 1.08 − 0.01 0.08 − 0.17* − 0.20* − 0.11 − 0.16* − 0.28* − 0.38* − 0.31* − 0.41*

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Variables

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-correlations and Reliabilities

(0.91)

11

Swider, Zimmerman, Boswell and Hinrichs

Corporate Reputation Review

167

Understanding Your Standing

Table 2: Results of Regression Analyses

Step

Independent Variable

Dependent Variable Organizational Commitment

Job Search Behavior

1.

Race Gender Salary Job Level Job Tenure Organizational Tenure R2 (R)

− 0.02 − 0.01 0.13† 0.09 − 0.05 0.17* 0.07* (0.27*)

− 0.01 0.04 − 0.03 − 0.15† − 0.03 − 0.12† 0.06* (0.25*)

2.

Autonomy Impact Organizational Status R2 (R) R2 from Step 1 to 2

0.03 0.08 0.67* 0.55* (0.74*) 0.48*

− 0.25* − 0.08 − 0.18* 0.21* (0.46*) 0.15*

3.

Org Status × Autonomy Org Status × Impact R2 (R) R2 from Step 2 to 3

0.10† − 0.12* 0.56* (0.75*) 0.01

− 0.23* 0.19* 0.23* (0.48*) 0.02*

*p0.05; †p0.10 N=193 Note: Standardized beta weights are reported

H1a proposed that perceived organizational status would moderate the relationship between autonomy and organizational commitment. This hypothesis was partially supported. The organizational status × autonomy interaction was significant at the 0.10 level for organizational commitment. Consistent with suggestions from McClelland and Judd (1993), we utilized an alpha level of 0.10 as an indicator of partial support for the hypothesis because of the difficulty in detecting moderator effects in the typical field study involving individual survey-respondents. The organizational status × autonomy interaction was significant at the 0.05 level for job search, thus supporting H1b. As can be seen in Figures 1a and 1b, the relationship between autonomy and the two dependent variables is stronger when organizational status is high (one SD above the mean), than when status is low (one SD below the mean).

168

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

H2a was supported, as organizational status moderated the relationship between impact and organizational commitment at the 0.05 level. H1b was also fully supported with organizational status moderating the relationship between impact and job search at the 0.05 level. As stated in H2a and H2b, and shown in Figures 2a and 2b, higher impact had a deleterious effect when organizational status was high. That is, when employees perceived that they had little impact on their jobs yet perceived the organization as high in status, they were actually less likely to search for new jobs and be more committed to the organization. DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that the interaction between perceived organizational status and an employee’s status, as reflected by autonomy and impact, influence employee attachment, but with differing

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Swider, Zimmerman, Boswell and Hinrichs

4.5 4 3.5 Low Status High Status

3 Low Autonomy

Job Search Behavior

b

Organizational Commitment

a

5

Low Status High Status

2.5

2

1.5

4.5

4

3.5 Low Status High Status

3

High Autonomy

3

5

Low Impact

b

3

Job Search Behavior

Organizational Commitment

a

2.5

High Impact

2

1.5 Low Status

1

High Status

Low Autonomy

High Autonomy

1 Low Impact

Figures 1: Graphs of interactions between perceived organizational status and autonomy on (a) organizational commitment and (b) job search behavior

effects. Specifically, when employees perceive their organizations as high in status, autonomy had a stronger negative relationship with job search and stronger positive relationship with organizational commitment. However, the relationship operated differently for the organizational status × impact relationship such that people working for, but not having an impact on, high-status organizations were less likely to search for alternative employment and indicated greater organizational commitment. Individuals having less impact on their high-status organizations may feel attached to, and wish to remain with, the organization in an attempt to bask in their reflected glory garnered by those who actually do impactful work (Cialdini et al., 1976). Individuals, who are in a sense ‘free-riding’ on the success of others,

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

High Impact

Figures 2: Graphs of interactions between perceived organizational status and impact on (a) organizational commitment and (b) job search behavior

realizing the positive self-perceptions derived from working for a reputable company, will want to remain with the organization as long as they are experiencing a positive cost-benefit analysis of the situation (Kidwell and Bennett, 1993). As far as we know, this is one of the first studies to investigate the circumstances under which a positive reputation may bring about potentially negative outcomes for an organization. This study adds to the literature on how employees make sense of the work environment, relying on cues regarding both the perceived status of the organization and one’s own status within that organization. While the findings from this research support the importance and positive role of high organizational status on employees, the nature of the interaction effects proposed

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

Corporate Reputation Review

169

Understanding Your Standing

and supported shows that the role of this variable is quite complex. Our findings imply that positive effects derived from more ‘public’ influences (ie, the reputation of the organization) can ‘override’ or offset the negative effects of less visible sources or cues (ie, not having an impact on the organizations’ success). Researchers should continue to extend work on the positive influences of employees’ attachment by integrating theories (eg, free-ridership) that explain how employees recognize and assimilate divergent cues in their organizations and the consequences for organizations (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1985). Similar to past research, our results show that perceiving one works for a high-status organization was associated with higher organizational commitment and lower job search, thus indicating the importance of organizational reputation to employee attachment. Therefore, managerial attempts to improve organizational status should focus not just on outsiders, but also on the organization’s own employees (Dhalla, 2007). For example, upper-level managers or human resource departments can develop externally or internally focused communication campaigns to help promote positive reputational perceptions among employees (Friedman, 2009; Price and Gioia, 2008; Smidts et al., 2001). Managers of lower status organizations can attempt to focus their employees’ attention on the positive aspects of their organizations or possibly change the processes and actions of the organizations to improve perceptions of the organization (Chong, 2007; Dortok, 2006). Importantly, however, in addition to attending to employees’ pride in being members of a high-status organization, employers should also seek to raise employees’ perceptions of autonomy in their jobs and impact on the organization. Indeed, simply improving employee perceptions of working for a reputable organization may have unintended consequences. Managers

170

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

must recognize the potential for free-riding may be greater within high-status organizations. While there are clear benefits for an organization to have employees not seeking external employment, there is some value to certain employees seeking employment elsewhere. In organizations where employees hold positive perceptions of the organization’s reputation, employers would benefit from also fostering a sense of impact and autonomy. This would help to limit the amount of free-riding by ensuring that each person has an impact on the firm’s success. One approach would be for organizations to influence employees’ perceptions of impact by increasing the ‘line of sight’ between the employees’ own behaviors/ performance and organizational outcomes (Boswell, 2006). Because of the nature of managerial positions studied here, including the potential for a strong influence over important organizational outcomes, keeping this level of employee committed and attached is critical to organizational success. On the other hand, organizations that allow for the opportunity and occurrence of freeriding may unintentionally encourage such high-level employees who are not making an impact to remain with the organization. This may in turn cause high-level employees who are making a more meaningful impact to become disengaged and/or withhold contributions (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1985), possibly hurting the long-term success of their organization. Limitations and Future Research

Because our sample consisted of managers, our findings may not generalize to lower-level employees. As noted by Dutton et al., (1994), managers are more likely to have higher visibility to individuals both outside and within their organizations. Because of this, the importance of status of, and status within, an organization may be more salient to this type of employee and have a greater impact on attitudes and behavior. Additionally,

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Swider, Zimmerman, Boswell and Hinrichs

our sample was taken from managers in one organization. While this may also limit generalizability and restrict variance on perceived organizational status, we believe these concerns are somewhat assuaged given that individuals within the same organization are not expected to have uniform perceptions of their organization’s reputation (Drazin et al., 1999; Tourish and Robson, 2006). Variance was also sufficient to yield significant results in support of our hypotheses. Yet future research should also seek to replicate our findings among employees at lower hierarchical levels and other organizations. Also, although less of an issue with interactions than with main effects, our variables of interest were all collected from selfreports at the same point in time. Common method variance can inflate the observed relationships for such variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future research would benefit from collecting data from a variety of sources, perhaps employees’ managers who would be in a position to evaluate their subordinates’ autonomy and impact. Longitudinal research would also be valuable to assess the process by which status perceptions influence an employee’s attachment to an organization. Conclusion

Our findings indicate an important and complex role of various status perceptions on organizational commitment and job search behavior. To our knowledge this study is the first to address the interaction between differing frames of status perceptions and how such perceptions influence attachment-related variables. The results show that organizational reputation moderates the autonomy- and impact-outcome relationships in different ways. This study furthers our understanding of how managers assimilate various, even antagonistic, perceptions of their work environment and the related behavioral and attitudinal

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

outcomes. We hope that our unique findings will inspire scholars to continue developing these relationships by investigating other possible contingency variables and outcomes as related to an organization’s status and an individual ’s status within that organization. REFERENCES Albanese, R. and Van Fleet, D.D. (1985) ‘Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency’, Academy of Management Review, 10, 244–255. Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) ‘Social identity theory and the organization’, Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Avolio, B.J., Weichun, Z., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004) ‘Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951–968. Batt, R. (2002) ‘Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth’, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 587–597. Blau, G. (1993) ‘Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individual turnover’, Personnel Psychology, 46, 313–330. Boswell, W.R. (2006) ‘Aligning employees with the organizations strategic objectives: Out of ‘line of sight,’ out of mind, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1489–1511. Boswell, W.R., Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and LePine, M.A. (2004) ‘Relations between stress and work outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 165–181. Buchanan, B. (1974) ‘Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533–546. Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2003) ‘The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A brand-equity perspective’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2244–2266. Carmeli, A., Gilat, G. and Weisberg, J. (2006) ‘Perceived external prestige, organizational identification and affective commitment: A stakeholder approach’, Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 92–104. Chong, M. (2007) ‘The role of internal communication and training in infusing corporate values and delivering brand promise: Singapore airlines experience’, Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 201–212.

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

Corporate Reputation Review

171

Understanding Your Standing

Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.R., Freeman, S. and Sloan, L.R. (1976) ‘Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–375. Dhalla, R. (2007) ‘The construction of organizational identity: Key contributing external and intraorganizational factors’, Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 245–260. Dortok, A. (2006) ‘A managerial look at the interaction between internal communication and corporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 322–338. Drazin, R., Glynn, M.A. and Kazanjian, R.K. (1999) ‘Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307. Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994) ‘Organizational images and member identification’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H. and van Knippenberg, A. (1993) ‘Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778. Friedman, B.A. (2009) ‘Human resource management role: Implications for corporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 229–244. Fulford, M.D. and Enz, C.A. (1995) ‘The impact of empowerment on service employees’, Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 161–175. Fuller, J.B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C. and Beu, D. (2006) ‘Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process’, Human Relations, 59, 815–846. Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K.R. (1991) ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448. Gioia, D.A. and Thomas, J.B. (1996) ‘identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403. Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaertner, S. (2000) ‘A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium’, Journal of Management, 26, 463–488. Hambrick, D.C. and Cannella, A.A. (1993) ‘Relative standing: A frame-work for understanding departures of acquired executives’, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 733–762. Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K. and Gatignon, A.L. (2004) ‘Exploring the role of perceived external

172

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

prestige in managers’ turnover intentions’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1390–1407. Huselid, M.A. (1995) ‘The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672. Illia, L. (2010) ‘How business disciplines discuss multiple identities in organizations’, Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 327–344. Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C.R. and Kantrowitz, T.M. (2001) ‘Job search and employment: A personalitymotivational analysis and meta-analytic review’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837–855. Kidwell, R. and Bennett, N. (1993) ‘Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research’, Academy of Management Review, 18, 429–456. Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999) ‘Beyond selfmanagement: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment’, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74. Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996) ‘Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory’, Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Koch, J.L. and Steers, R.M. (1978) ‘Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector employees’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 119–128. Kopelman, R.E., Rovenpor, J.L. and Millsap, R.E. (1992) ‘Rationale and construct validity evidence for the job search behavior index: Because intentions (and new year’s resolutions) often come to naught’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 269–287. Lee, T.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (1994) ‘An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover’, Academy of Management Review, 19, 51–89. Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P. and Holtom, B.C. (2004) ‘The effects of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover’, Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711–722. Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J.A., McCarthy, J.F. and Wells, R. (2004) ‘Status differences in cross-functional teams: Effects on individual member participation, job satisfaction, and intent to quit’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior. Special Issue: Inequality, Socioeconomic Status and Health, 45, 322–335. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Kraimer, M.L. and Sparrowe, R. (2003) ‘The dual commitments of contingent workers: An examination of contingents’ commitment to the agency and the organization’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 609–625.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Swider, Zimmerman, Boswell and Hinrichs

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000) ‘An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407–416. Lovaglia, M.J. and Houser, J.A. (1996) ‘Emotional reactions and status in groups’, American Sociological Review, 61, 867–883. Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990) ‘A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment’, Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. McClelland, G.H. and Judd, C.M. (1993) ‘Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects’, Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991) ‘A three-component conceptualization of organizational attachment’, Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89. Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002) ‘Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A metaanalysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Syblynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001) ‘Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover’, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121. Mobley, W.H. (1977) ‘Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979) ‘The measurement of organizational commitment’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Boswell, W.R. (2002) ‘The role of employee loyalty and formality in voicing discontent’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1167–1174. O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J. (1986) ‘Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. Pennings, J.M., Lee, K. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998) ‘Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution’, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 425–440. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003) ‘Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Price, K. and Gioia, D.A. (2008) ‘The self-monitoring organization: Minimizing discrepancies among differing images of organizational identity’, Corporate

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

Reputation Review. Special Issue: Organizational Identity, 11, 208–221. Riketta, M. and Van Dick, R. (2005) ‘Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490–510. Riordan, C., Gatewood, R. and Bill, J. (1997) ‘Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance’, Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 401–412. Schwab, D.P., Rynes, S.L. and Aldag, R.J. (1987) ‘Theories and research on job search and choice’, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5, 129–166. Shrauger, J.S. (1975) ‘Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions’, Psychological Bulletin, 82, 581–596. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H. and van Riel, C.B.M. (2001) ‘The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification’, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051–1062. Smith, H.J. and Tyler, T.R. (1997) ‘Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146–170. Sparrowe, R.T. (1994) ‘Empowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of antecedents and outcomes’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 17, 51–73. Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) ‘Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997) ‘A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain’, Journal of Management, 23, 679–704. Spreitzer, G.M. and Mishra, A.K. (2002) ‘To stay or to go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 707–729. Swider, B.W., Boswell, W.R. and Zimmerman, R.D. (2011) ‘Examining the job search–turnover relationship: The role of embeddedness, job satisfaction, and available alternatives’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 432–441. Tourish, D. and Robson, P. (2006) ‘Sensemaking and the distortion of critical upward communication in organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 711–730. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1992) ‘Being different: Relational demography and

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

Corporate Reputation Review

173

Understanding Your Standing

organizational attachment’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579. Tyler, T.R. (1999) ‘Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective’, in R.I. Sutton and B.M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2003) ‘The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior’, Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361. Walker, K. (2010) ‘A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition, measurement, and theory’, Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 357–387. Williams, K.D., Hawkins, S. and Latane, B. (1981) ‘Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.

2. I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work. 3. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job. Impact ( = 0.87; Spreitzer, 1995) 1. My impact on what happens in my organization is great. 2. I have a great deal of control over what happens in my organization. 3. I have significant influence over what happens in my organization. Organizational Commitment ( = 0.86; Meyer and Allen, 1991)

APPENDIX

Perceived organizational status ( = 0.92; Riordan et al., 1997; Cable and Turban, 2003) 1. Generally I think the organization has a good reputation in the community. 2. Generally I think the organization has a good reputation relative to other researchintensive universities. 3. Generally I think the organization is actively involved in the community. 4. Generally I think the organization has a good overall image. 5. Generally I think the organization is known as a good place to work. 6. Generally I think the organization has a good reputation among its external constituents. 7. I am proud to be a member of the organization. 8. I am proud to tell others that I work for the organization. 9. I am proud to identify myself with the organization. Autonomy ( = 0.90; Spreitzer, 1995) 1. I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.

174

Corporate Reputation Review

Vol. 14, 3, 159–174

1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with the organization. 2. I enjoy discussing the organization with people outside it. 3. I really feel the organization problems are my own. 4. I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to the organization. (r) 5. I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at the organization. (r) 6. I do not feel emotionally attached to the organization. (r) 7. The organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me. 8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to the organization. (r) Job Search Behavior ( = 0.91; Blau, 1993) 1. I spent a lot of time looking for an alternative job in the last six months. 2. I devoted much effort to looking for other jobs in the last six months. 3. I focused my time and effort on job search activities in the last six months. 4. I gave my best effort to find a new job in the last six months.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589