Harming High Performers: a Social Comparison Perspective on Interpersonal Harming in Work Teams

Summary and Commentary by Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Interpersonal harming within the work environment is behavior that contradicts the interests of another person within the organization. These type of behaviors can include disturbing others while they are working, starting arguments, and gossiping about coworkers. Social comparisons (comparing one's performance to another individuals as either better or worse) may be cause of interpersonal harming. A upward comparison is when an individual views him/herself as better than others and is self-affirming. A downward comparison (viewing oneself as inferior to another) may be perceived as threatening and therefore the individual may compensate by doing emotional harm to others. When a downward comparison is negative, conducting interpersonal harm may negatively affect the target's job performance and therefore reduce any threats perceived by the harmer.

Two independent studies were conducted, one with student teams from a university and another with work teams within a corporation. Study 1 collected data from students at a university in Macau, China with a final data set of 141 students and 30 teams. Students were working in teams of three to seven to complete a group project. Data was collected at two different time periods. Time 1 occured 1.5 month after the team has been working together and Time 2 was conducted one month later.Study 2 collected data from sales associates in a state-owned telecommunications company in China. Teams consisted of four to five members. All members in the team were of the similar seniority. The final data set included 128 individuals from 31 teams.

Two items from Lockwood et. al. (2002) were used to measure  interpersonal social comparisons. Respondents were also asked to compare their performance to their team members on a 9 point scale. Respondents were then asked "how likely is it that you will perform like this member?" This question was also measured on a 9 point scale.  Three items from Tjosvold et. al. (2004) were used to assessed cooperative goals within the team based on a 5 point scale. Interpersonal harming  was measured using peer ratings developed by Cohen-Charash & Muelle (2007), which distinguishes between six types of harmful behaviors. In study 2, supervisors were asked to evaluate each team's performance.

Researchers found a three-way interaction between social comparison, anticipated future performance, an cooperative team goals with statistical significance in Study 1 (B = .07, p<.01) and Study 2 (B = .06, p<.001). This suggests that teams with less cooperative goals and an individual exhibiting a upward comparison was positively related to the possibility harming a target when the expected future performance was considered low to the target.  However, when expected future performance was high, there was no relationship to social comparison. Furthermore, when highly cooperative team goals were established,  then there was no relationship with interpersonal harming and/or social comparison.

Results revealed that harmful behavior was positively correlated with upward comparison and negatively related to expected future performance. However, these results were only applicable to Study 1 and not Study 2. In both studies, it was found that interpersonal harming and cooperative team goals were negatively correlated. Results continued to show that team members were more likely to to harm others when there was an upward performance comparison accompanied with low expectations of future performance.

Results of this study suggest that establishing team goals is crucial to reduce the likelihood of toxic behaviors occurring. When goals are not established or agreed, individuals are more likely to compare themselves to others and possibly cause interpersonal harm. Therefore, to increase the chance of team success, teams should establish goals from the start and ensure that everyone agrees with them. This will reduce the possibility of team members comparing themselves to one another and instead create a sense of community, in which the perceived success of the individual depends on the success of the team.

The study has several apparent limitations. First, it was studied in China and therefore may not be applicable to all cultures. Future studies should examine multiple cultures to determine if it can be considered a variable. Second, the sample n Study 2 was only from one organization within a specific industry. This makes it difficult to generalize to the population. In future research, the researchers should be sure to include several companies of different industries to ensure it can be generalized to the public.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS
For organizations that require employees to work in teams (i.e. consulting, marketing, etc.), this study brings some valuable perspective. It suggests that by establishing cooperative team goals, it can create a positive dynamic between team members and encourage them to work as one.

Therefore,  there are several things that can be done to encourage success among teams. When teams are about to start projects, the project lead should hold a "kick off session". Within this session, the lead explains the project and what the work will entail. Then the team can work together to establish goals that can be applied to the project. Most often, the project lead will establish the goals without consulting with the the team members. In this case, team members feel as if they have no voice and are more likely to create a competitive environment. When goals are established and agreed by everyone on the team, it creates a sense of unity that can be reinforced throughout the project.

How can human resources professionals encourage this practice? Its rather simple. HR professionals can hold a one hour training session for project leads on how to establish team goals and how to facilitate the brainstorming process. Project leaders should be educated on the benefits of this practice and provided tools that can help them facilitate a goal-setting session with their team. If these individuals are not provided with training, there is a greater chance that they will create the goals independently or not even bother to establish goals.

Overall, success within teams thrives on establishing the message that the teams success means success for all team members. An individual can not be successful independently unless the team succeeds as well.



Work Cited
Lam, C.K., Van der Vegt, G.S., Walter, F., and Huang, X. (2010). Harming high performers: a social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of applied psychology, 96 (3), 588-601.

Seeking Work-Life Balance: Employees' Requests, Supervisors' Responses and Organizational Barriers

Summary and Commentary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Work-life balance has become a sensitive topic for many employees. Daily needs, such as child care and elder care, require a significant amount of time and technology (such as blackberries and e-mail) have made it difficult to "leave work at work. Previous research on this topic has focused on the consequences of work-family conflict and the benefits of successfully managing the two. The balance is also important to employers as successful work-life balance is positively correlated with job satisfaction, life satisfaction, productivity, and attendance. Lauzun, Morganson, Major and Green (2010) set out to examine work-life balance in the context of company policies and organizational support.


425 supervisors [from a Fortune 500 company producing consumer goods] were asked to respond to 5 questions for each employee supervised. A total of 1,150 requests were reported. Figure 1 elaborates on the type of employees evaluated. Supervisors were ask the following questions when an employee made a request for work-life balance:

1. Please provide the specifics of each employee's request.
2. Did you accommodate the request?
3. If you answered YES, how did you accommodate the employee's request?
4. If you answered NO, why did you not accommodate the request? (Lauzun et. al., 2010)

The results were analyzed using a deductive open-coding approach and a codebook was developed to identify reoccurring trends. Two coauthors examined the data with the codebook and a high level of interrater reliability was established. 

In total, 1,150 work-life requests were received from employees. 752 of these requests were accommodated and 326 provided reasons for not approving the requested. 72 responses did not include data from the supervisor or the researcher could not properly code the data. The most frequent type of request for schedule changes or time to be off-site (n = 523). There was a high demand for work schedule flexibility (n = 265). Some employees even asked for the possibility to telecommute (n = 46). 

The second most common type of request focused on an employee's daily workload (n = 33). Many individuals felt that a collection of their meetings were not a valuable use of time. Previous research has found that meeting frequency is linked to daily fatigue and subjective workload (Luong & Rogelerg, 2005 as cited in Lauzun et. al., 2010). There were also requests to improve operating procedures.

The third most reoccurring requests were for resources to better assist the work-life balance (n = 230). This could include technology or additional staffing needs. 

A collection of employees requested social support and emotional support that did not fit into the other themes (n = 64), such as emotional support, compensation or on-site amenities. 

Figure two demonstrates the frequencies for the amount of requests and their themes. 

When responding to the requests, 58% of supervisors accommodated employees that expressed interest in schedule changes (n = 523) or accommodations (n = 301). 81% of requests for work resources were also approved, with 230 requests for resources and 186 accommodations. Solutions included coaching, training, increased/reallocation of staff and additional tools/equipment. 333 requests were made to change one's daily work but only 46% (n = 146) were approved. For an overview of results, please refer to Figure 3.

When examining requests for emotional and instrumental support, 119 accommodations were made when there were only 64 requests. Several reasons were identified for this difference: (1) supervisor communicated with employees when work/life balance requests were made and (2) supervisors provided support when they were unable to satisfy requests in an instrumental matter. 

Further analysis of the data revealed several barriers that overpowered a supervisors ability to grant requests. A total of 326 were identified and sorted into 6 categories: authority, seeking resolution, policy/culture, insufficient resources, job requirements, and multiple involvement. 109 requests were denied because the supervisor lacked the authority to authorize the request. It was also found that 40 requests were not approved because the appropriate staffing or funding was not available (Resources). Several requests were denied because of organizational policy or norms (n = 18) and and others were denied because the job requirements (n = 18) forbid such a requests. Supervisors were unable to approve all the requests and some needed the involvement of other parties (n = 18). Although many requests were denied, there were 91 instances where a supervisor continued to pursue the request for his/her employee. Pleasure refer to Figure 4 for a visual layout of the results.

This study produced several findings. Flexibility in work time and location seems to be the greatest in demand for work-life balance. Telecommuting can also benefit employers as it can reduce building and maintenance costs. It was also found that adjusting work responsibilities and providing additional resources could assist in work-life balance.

A variety of limitations exist in this study. First and foremost, the study was based upon self-report data and therefore the data is vulnerable to recall bias. Additionally, subordinates may be hesitant to make requests to their supervisor in fear of negative consequences. Another vital limitation is that the study focused on one organization and therefore cannot be applied to the population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN RESOURCES
As one of the few qualitative studies to examine work-life balance, this study produces some interesting findings. However, it also suggests valuable information for human resources. One key point is that human resources professionals should empower managers to control the schedules of their employees. There should be no need for managers to obtain input from others or to seek alternative resolutions. This can discourage employees from making future requests and create anxiety as they wait to hear if their request is approved. Supervisors should have a general understanding of the needs of their departments and thus have no need to check with others. If this were my company, I would likely investigate why input is needed from others. It is possible that this manager needs assistance in managing resources.

Flex-time was identified as one of the most common requests among employees. Given today's technology and globalization, it is sometimes in a company's best interest to allow employees to telecommute. As mentioned by the researchers, it can reduce costs of upkeep and properties. It also makes it easier to find the most suitable candidates for open positions, as a company does not need to limit their search to local candidates. There are incidents when telecommuting is not possible or it does not align with the company culture. A company must weigh the benefits and draw-backs to determine if telecommuting is compatible with the organization's needs.

It is reassuring to see that managers are likely to provide emotional support when requests are not approved. However, managers should always be emotionally supportive of their team. Support fosters trust, and an employee that trusts his/her manager is more likely to be committed to the job. Managers do not need to be best friends with their employees but they should be able to talk to employees when they notice unusual behavior. For instance, after taking a call, my co-worker becomes immediately withdrawn. After noticing this, my managers takes her to the parking lot to talk. She later hands her the keys and says,"if you need to go home, I will understand". That is support and it strengthened the relationship between my coworker and my manager. Heck! It made me view my manager in a whole different light!








Source: Lauzun, H.M., Morganson, V.J., Major, D.A., & Green, A.P. (2010). Seeking work-life balance: Employees' requests, supervisors' responses, and organizational barriers. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13 (3), 184-205.

Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces?

Summary and commentary by Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Personal control is defined as the perceived control an individual has over various characteristics of his/her environment, which includes: (1) the organization of one's workspace; (2) personalizing one's workspace; (3) control over social contact; and (4) control over temperature, lighting and the work process (Lee & Brand, 2009). Distraction is the extent to which an individual feels diverted, disturbed or annoyed by an unwanted stimulus in the work environment.

Little consensus has been achieved on  on control in the workplace, therefore much of the information was obtained from previous studies to create the control construct for this study. 9 items were developed to measure control using a 7-point likeart scale. Statements were collected from a previous study conducted by Weisman (1986) which measured concentration and noise level. 8 statements were extracted and utilized a 7-point likeart scale. Finally, one's judgement on his/her performance was collected based on Oldham's (1988) aspects of quality, quantity and creativity. These items were scored on a 5-point scale.

A sample population was collected utilizing three manufacturing companies based in Michigan. A total of 384 surveys were analyzed. Information about the physical aspect of each building was also collected, including, year constructed, facility size, renovation history, distribution method of HVAC systems and workspace specifications.

Demographics include the following:

• 62% male; 38% female
• 28% worked in engineering; 12.8% worked in marketing; 58% were employed in engineer/technical/ professional positions; 24% were managers; 13% were clerical/support and 4.2% considered themselves as other
• 74% worked in an open office  with high dividers
• Office type varied based on job category (i.e. clerical personnel were more likely to work in a cubicle and a professional is more likely to have an office

The analysis methodology was unclear and questionable. It is possible that I may not have a background in this methodology but there was no p-value to designate the significance of the results. However, the authors state that perceived control over the physical environment environment mediated the negative effects of distraction on one's performance.  Therefore, the negative effects of distracting noise can be decreased by providing employee's control of their personal work place. 

Results need to be interpreted delicately as they were collected based on self-report. Clearly self-report surveys are vulnerable to biases. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

While the topic requires further research, it does reveal some helpful information. First and foremost, private offices are the ideal workspace for any employee, as it dramatically reduces the possibility of distractions. However, private offices for every individual employee is not always feasible and therefore, companies often resort to a public work environment.

When a public work environment is needed, employers should try to eliminate distractions as much as possible. One popular method is to use cubicle walls to provide employees with privacy. Some companies choose to avoid cubicles due to the stigma it can create. Even with cubicles, distractions, such as noise, are impossible to avoid. This article suggest increasing an employee's sense of personal control can assist them in blocking external distractions. Simple yet effective methods can be used, such as: 

Believe it or not, it is possible to get cubicles with doors

• Instead of using overhead fluorescent lights, give employees lamps with a dimming feature
• Allow employees to layout furniture
• Encourage employee's to decorate their desk with pictures of their liking
• Allow employees to which desk they want to sit at (if possible)
• Enclose a cubicle and give employees the right to have a door

Source: Lee, S.Y., & Brand, J.L. (2010). Can personal control over the physical environment ease distractions in office workplaces? Ergonomics, 53 (3), 324-335.

The Significance of Task Significance

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow

Task significance is defined as the perception that one's job has a positive impact on other people. Research on task significance has been limited because many studies focuses on cross-sectional designs that were unsuccessful in proving task significance impacted job performance. Job performance is perceived effectiveness of one's behavior that work strive to achieve organization initiatives. In addition, there are limited studies that manipulate task significance with other job characteristics. Grant (2008) sets out to determine if relational mechanisms (specifically: perceived social impact & perceived social worth)  and boundary conditions (specifically: conscientiousness and pro-social values) mediates task significance using three experiments.

Grant (2008) utilized a university fundraising organization as his first sample. 33 callers were split into 3 conditions that include: (1)a task significant condition where participants read 2 stories on how their job can impact others, (2) a personal benefit condition where participants read 2 stories about how the job benefitted the individual and (3) a control group with no manipulation. The data that was collected was measured pre-intervention and post-intervention. The results were quite promising. Results found that callers in the task significant condition increased the amount of pledges earned significantly, t(11) = 4.60, p = .001. The control group and personal benefit group showed no significant improvement in the post-implementation. The  task significant group continued to shine as they showed an increase in the amount of money earned following the intervention, t(11) = 4.51, p =.001. Once again, no significant improvement was present for the control group and the personal benefit group. Grant's initial study was a success in proving that task significance may actually positively impact job performance.

The researcher and his assistants return to the same fundraising organization, which had already experienced a full turnover of all staff. Before the intervention, all participants completed a self-assessment measuring conscientiousness and prosocial values (one's value of protecting and promoting the welfare of others). In addition, data regarding job performance was collected.Participants were split into two groups: control and task significance. Upon intervention, participants in the control group were asked to read about the organization's policies, while the task significance group read two stories portraying how the job has helped other people. Results show that [once again] the task significance group obtained more pledges than the control group, t(32) = 2.03, p = .05.  A OLS regression indicated that individuals with high prosocial values had a strong effect when they encountered the task significance condition. Again, Grant (2008) has demonstrated that task significance can have a positive impact on job performance.

You may be thinking that this study is limited because it was conducted with the same organization. In fact, Grant (2008) conducted a similar study with lifeguards at public pools. In this study there was no control group, but a personal benefit group and task significance group. He found that lifeguards in the task significance group committed more hours to their job, were more likely to help, and experienced an increase in one's perceived social worth  and social impact. Therefore, this study can be applied to a diverse population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS
This study can make valuable contributions to training managers for performance evaluations. HR professionals can coach managers on utilizing a task significant outlook when addressing areas for improvement (for an individual employee). According to this study, if a manager informs an employee how their improved performance could help others, the employee is likely to understand the value of the specific task. To be most effective, the manager must provide this logic for each individual task (instead of the overall position) that requires improvement.

As humans, we want to know that we are valuable. Therefore, by providing feedback based on task significance, one can see how their performance can positively impact the organization and its stakeholders.






Reference: Grant, A.M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 198-124.