Reputation As Information

Reputation as Information:

A Multilevel Approach to Reputation in Organizations

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Erin Elizabeth Coyne

Graduate Program in Labor and Human Resources

The Ohio State University

2010

Dissertation Committee:

Steffanie L. Wilk, Advisor

David B. Greenberger

Roy J. Lewicki

Erin E. Coyne

2010

Abstract

Research on reputation has taken a variety of disparate approaches that has created conceptual confusion. This dissertation attempts to disentangle and clarify the reputation construct by elucidating the definition, introducing a theoretical framing, establishing a new level of analysis and investigating interactive effects. A multilevel approach of studying reputation is introduced and serves as a guide for the dissertation in directing the focus on the three main purposes of this study. First, the theoretical foundations of similarity among multiple levels of reputation are established through the development of a “Reputation as Information” framework. Second, a new proximal contextual construct of unit level of reputation is introduced and explored. As such, this study describes the antecedents and outcomes associated with the more proximal level of unit reputation. Third, cross-level effects of the “big fish in the little pond” and the “little fish in the big pond” (personal and unit level reputation) on individual outcomes are investigated.

The procedures used to study these issues included gathering organizational data in a field study using employee surveys, supervisor surveys, and obtaining archival information from the company. These data were analyzed using multiple regression, hierarchical linear modeling, and multiple mediation models. Results establish the unit level of reputation as a construct of interest for organizational studies because of its influences on important outcomes such as satisfaction, organizational citizenship ii behaviors, and motivation. The results also indicate the cross-level effects of having a high or low personal reputation in a group with either a high or low unit reputation. In particular, the results demonstrate that the interaction of personal and unit reputation can influence how engaged employees are in their work role as well as the amount that employees identify with a group. Engagement and identity further relate to important employee outcomes including performance and mobility.

iii

Dedication

This document is dedicated to my family, including my parents John and Cynthia Coyne,

my siblings John, Eric, and Jim,

and my husband Jordan Makarius.

Acknowledgments

I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to everyone who has helped make this project a success. First, I have been blessed with wonderful family and friends whose patience, support, and understanding have been invaluable. I extend my deepest expression of thanks and love to all of them. In particular, my father who is a writer and my mother who is a teacher have encouraged and guided me to make the right decisions, to have high expectations, and to have persistence and dedication in reaching my goals. I also sincerely appreciate my husband, Jordan Makarius, who not only serves as my beacon in the lighthouse of knowledge, but who has endured countless nights of work and worry and who has supported me throughout it all. I greatly look forward to starting our life together as we take these next steps into the future.

I would like to sincerely thank my dissertation chair and advisor, Professor

Steffanie Wilk. Professor Wilk has been an invaluable mentor whose passion for research has inspired me. Her ability to find and work with companies by building relationships and answering important and interesting research questions is amazing. She is always ready to discuss a draft of a paper, going through iteration after iteration until we get it just right. She also seems to know when encouragement is needed and does an excellent job of guiding individuals in the right direction. I truly aspire to one day have the knowledge, professionalism, and enthusiasm in which Professor Wilk approaches her

v work. Professor David Greenberger has been a vital resource in both my research, teaching, and development throughout the Ph.D. program. Whether it was a conceptual discussion about how to frame a particular paper, an impromptu discussion of how to deal with an issue in the classroom, or words of advice in navigating the job market, he always had an open door and valuable wisdom to share. Professor Roy Lewicki was most insightful in asking questions that I had not previously considered, offering books and articles that were relevant to my research, and discussing ideas that integrated interests in reputation, trust, and social networks.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the other members of the Department of Management and Human Resources at the Fisher College of Business. First, I would like to thank Heidi Dugger and Joan Evans for providing support, assistance, and advice throughout my years in the program. I greatly appreciate the time and energy they offered in answering questions and lending a hand when it was needed. I could not have survived the first few years of the program if it were not for the encouragement and support from two of the best officemates I could ever have – Charlie Stevens and Joe

Cooper. Our days of taking seminars, going to brown bags, making presentations, doing stats homework, discussing research ideas, and taking time to relax by working out or doing social activities made life enjoyable. Charlie also helped show me the world, literally, by accompanying me on trips to China, Switzerland, and Italy. I look forward to our reunions at conferences in the future, particularly if they involve international destinations. Susan Young has also been a friend throughout our time together. Last but certainly not least, the “newbies” also deserve special mention as collaborators and

vi friends. I have enjoyed our happy hours and lunches discussing the Ph.D. program and life. In particular, Ali Dachner and Beth Polin have demonstrated that colleagues can be close friends. I deeply value having them around as we engaged in similar life experiences and I look forward to continuing those relationships and working together in the future.

vii

Vita

2004...... B.S.B.A. Management & Marketing, Magna

...... Cum Laude, John Carroll University

2005...... M.B.A. Management. Summa Cum Laude,

...... John Carroll University

2005 to present ...... Graduate Teaching and Research Associate,

Department of Management and Human

Resources, The Ohio State University

Publications

Heneman, R., & Coyne, E. (2007). Implementing total reward strategies. SHRM

Foundation Effective Practice Guidelines.

Lewicki, R., Greenberger, D., & Coyne, E. (2007). Pockets of resistance in sub-cultures

and their effects on organizations. In J. Langan-Fox, C. Cooper, and R. Klimoski

(Eds.), Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management

Challenges and Symptoms.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Labor and Human Resouces viii

Table of Contents

Reputation as Information: A Multilevel Approach to Reputation in Organizations ...... 1

DISSERTATION ...... 1

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgments...... v

Vita ...... viii

Publications ...... viii

Fields of Study ...... viii

Table of Contents ...... ix

List of Tables ...... xii

List of Figures ...... xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview ...... 1

Chapter 2: Clarifying the Construct ...... 5

Differentiating Reputation from Other Constructs...... 5

Focus on Target rather than Observer ...... 10

Chapter 3: Identifying Similarities among the Levels ...... 13 ix

Reputation as Information ...... 16

Current Literature Fit in the Reputation as Information Framework ...... 20

Target Information Sources ...... 21

Environmental Information Sources ...... 27

Interpersonal Information Sources ...... 30

Observer Information Sources ...... 33

Organizational Reputation Outcomes ...... 37

Personal Reputation Outcomes ...... 38

Summary of the “Reputation as Information” Framework ...... 39

Chapter 4: Establishing the Unit Level of Reputation ...... 41

Favorability Signals of Reflected Unit Reputation ...... 49

Agreement Shared Cognition of Reflected Unit Reputation ...... 58

Reflected Unit Reputation and Social Exchange Outcomes ...... 62

Internal States and Strength as Moderators ...... 66

Summary of the Unit Level of Reputation ...... 69

Chapter 5: Cross-Level Reputation Effects ...... 70

Interactional Approach in Studying Reputation ...... 72

Influence on Performance and Mobility Outcomes ...... 82

Chapter 6: Methods ...... 87

Sample and Procedure...... 87

Measures...... 88

Chapter 7: Analyses and Results...... 99

Analyses...... 99

Tests of the Hypotheses...... 102

What predicts reflected unit reputation quality? ...... 115

What outcomes are associated with reflected unit reputation?...... 118

What moderates reflected unit reputation quality and outcomes? ...... 120

HLM Model and Cross-Level results ...... 122

Summary of Methods and Analyses ...... 141

Theoretical and Empirical Significance ...... 145

Limitations and Future Research...... 161

Conclusion ...... 166

References ...... 167

Appendix A: Survey Recruitment Email and Participation Request ...... 201

Appendix B: Survey Reminder Email ...... 204

Appendix C: Employee Survey Instrument ...... 206

Appendix D: Supervisor Survey Instrument ...... 218

List of Tables

Table 1: Differences in Reputation Viewpoints ...... 12

Table 2: Descriptives and Correlations ...... 103

Table 3: Regression Results of Reflected Unit Reputation Quality on Favorability Signals

...... 116

Table 4: Regression Results of Reflected Unit Reputation Strength on Shared Cognition

Signals ...... 118

Table 5: Regression Results of Group Outcomes on Reflected Unit Reputation Quality

...... 119

Table 6: Results of Internal States Moderated Regression of Favorability Information

Signals on Reflected Unit Reptuation Quality ...... 120

Table 7: Results of Regression Strength Moderated Regression of Collective Outcomes on Reflected Unit Repuation Quality ...... 121

Table 8: Results of Cross-Level HLM Reputation Effects of Employee Engagement and

Identity with Group ...... 125

Table 9: Engagement as a Mediator between Reflected Reputation and Performance .. 130

Table 10: Results of Analyses of Three-Path Multi-Mediated Model of Reflected

Reputation, Engagement, and Performance ...... 132

xii

Table 11: Results of HLM Analyses of Engagement as a Mediator between Reflected

Reputation and Performance ...... 134

Table 12: Results of Meditation Analyses of Reflected Reputation, Identity, and Mobility

...... 135

Table 13: Results of Three-Path Multi-Mediation Model between Reflected Reputation,

Identity, and Mobility ...... 138

Table 14: Results of HLM Analyses of Identity as Mediator between Reflected

Reputation and Mobility ...... 140

Table 16: Summary of Hypotheses and Findings ...... 142

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Organization of Dissertation ...... 4

Figure 2: "Reputation as Information" Framework ...... 20

Figure 3: Model of Reflected Unit Reputation ...... 49

Figure 4: Cross-Level Model of Reputation Effects ...... 73

Figure 5: Reflected Reputation Strength as a Moderator of Reflected Unit Reputation

Quality and Collective Extra-Role Organizational Citizenship Behaviors ...... 122

Figure 6: Big Fish in Little Pond Effects - Interaction between Personal and Unit

Reflected Reputation on Employee Engagement ...... 127

Figure 7: Little Fish in Big Pond Effects - Interaction between Personal and Unit

Reflected Reputation on Identity with Group ...... 128

xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview

A recent article in the Journal of Management stated that “reputation is perhaps one of the most important strategic resources” (Boyd, Bergh, & Ketchen, 2010, p. 589;

Flanagan & Shaughnessy, 2005). Although the authors were referring to the reputation of an organization, reputation is important for all entities including industries, departments, groups and teams, and even individuals. Reputation matters because it represents a distinguishing feature of an entity that modifies the principles of uncertainty by providing knowledge before experience and acting as a source of information that can be used as a heuristic in processing the world around us. Reputation can best be understood using a broader theoretical context of information processing theory.

According to information processing theory, the human mind is like a computer in that it processes information by applying logical rules and strategies (Miller, 1956).

Similar to a computer, the mind has a limited capacity for the amount and nature of the information it can process. At the firm level, this is referred to as absorptive capacity and describes the quantity of information that a firm can absorb or transfer (Cohen &

Levinthal, 1990). Reputation offers a means of helping entities process information by serving as a heuristic, or intuitive judgment and time-saving mechanism that offers a simplified way of handling information from the environment. Reputation can be based on hearsay or knowledge gained through others, and does not necessarily require 1 experience with an entity. Moreover, the Internet has made it easier than ever for reputation to quickly spread through online visibility, social networking sites, and personal opinion blogs. Since it is a source of knowledge or information, reputation can often reduce uncertainty in interactions.

Although it may seem evident that reputation is therefore significant to the organizational literature, research in this area is quite limited. The main limitations of research on reputation are that it is conceptually muddled, it is highly focused on the organization and individual as the level of analysis, it does not consider cross-level effects of interacting levels of reputation, and it has mostly been restricted to the perspectives and effects on observers rather than the targets who are being perceived.

The goal of this dissertation is to address these limitations in the following way.

First, the conceptual muddling will be addressed by clarifying and defining common elements that exist among all levels of reputation and differentiating it from other constructs such as impression management, identity, climate, and legitimacy.

Major players in the reputation literature suggest that “there is a need for further conceptual development regarding reputation” (Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, & Bergh, 2010, p.

622). Second, the extensive focus on the organizational and individual levels of analysis will be extended by introducing a new level of unit reputation. Unit reputation represents a more proximal element including group and team perceptions that allows the contextual elements of reputation to be examined within the boundary of the firm. Moreover, research indicates an abundance of studies that investigate information that influences judgments of individuals but relatively few studies that examine information that

2 influences judgments of groups (Dasgupta, Banaji, & Abelson, 1999). Indeed, recent research has stated that reputation has been conceptualized as a firm and industry level factor yet research examining its multilevel nature is needed (Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, &

Bergh, 2010). Third, cross-level effects will be considered by investigating the interaction between unit and personal reputation, exploring if reputational spillover or cross-level effects influence important outcomes in the organization. In particular, the interaction of the “big fish in the little pond” (an individual with a high personal reputation in a group with a low unit reputation) and the “little fish in the big pond” (an individual with a low personal reputation in a group with a high unit reputation) on performance and mobility will be examined. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, all of these issues will be studied by taking the target into consideration. That is, research on reputation typically involves two parties – the observer(s), or entity making the judgment of reputation, and the target that is being perceived. The effects of the observer‟s evaluation of a target on the observer themselves is the most common viewpoint. This dissertation will elaborate upon another viewpoint in which the target considers the observer evaluations of the target and how those influence the target‟s own attitudes and behaviors.

The implications of this dissertation are established through one theoretical and two empirical contributions. The primary theoretical contribution is conveyed through the conceptual clarity provided by using information processing theory to distinguish reputation as a source of information used to help people make decisions and determine how to feel and act. The first empirical contribution is the proposal and analysis of

important antecedents and outcomes of the unit level of reputation. This is an essential

contribution in developing a contextual and proximal form of reputation that has not

otherwise been considered. The unit is likely to be the most salient context for

employees as it includes the people that individuals interact with and the activities done

on a daily basis. Second, this dissertation will contribute empirically by testing a multi-

level model of personal and unit reputation. The interaction between the two levels is

important in analyzing the effects of individual comparisons to groups on employee

performance and mobility. A diagram detailing the organization of the dissertation is

displayed below. The reputation construct will first be clarified by defining what

reputation is and distinguishing it from other constructs. Then, the similarities among

reputation at all levels of analysis will be identified. Next, the antecedents and outcomes

of the unit level will be established. After that, the cross-levels reputation effects will be

discussed. The methods section will follow with an explanation of the sample, procedure,

measures, and intended analyses. Given the multiple levels of analyses used in the

dissertation, aggregation and hierarchical linear modeling will be used to analyze the

data. The results will be described after the methods. A discussion section will conclude

the dissertation by providing an overview of the results, applications, and future research

suggestions. Methods, Introduction Clarifying Identifying Establishing and the Similarities the Unit Cross- Results, Overview Construct among the Level of Level and levels Reputation Effects Discussion

(Chapter (Chapter (Chapter (Chapter (Chapter (Chapters

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6, 7, & 8)

Figure 1 : Organization of Dissertation

Chapter 2: Clarifying the Construct

Current research related to reputation represents a wide assortment of approaches that differ conceptually and methodology from one another. A plethora of definitions in the literature confuse what reputation is with what reputation is not. Scholars struggle to define reputation by providing dictionary descriptions (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001), popular press examples (Bromley, 2001), specific disciplinary applications (Mahon, 2002) and lists of characteristics that seem to combine antecedents and outcomes of the construct

(Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003). The most basic definition that seems to hold across disciplines and levels analysis and will be used in this study describes reputation as an overall estimation (either positive or negative) in which an entity is held that persists over time (Bromley, 1993).

Differentiating Reputation from Other Constructs

The lack of conceptual precision in the definition of reputation perpetuates because of confusion among terminology such as image, impression management, identity, celebrity status, climate, legitimacy, and credibility. For example, often confused with reputation are attempts to control or convey a certain reputation. Generally these are referred to as reputation management strategies (Fombrun, 1996). Organizational attempts to convey reputation to stakeholders through corporate communications, logos, and architectures are called brand or organizational image (Dutton, Dukerich, &

Harquail, 1994). Brands may also attempt to direct images internally to employees 5 suggesting that they live the brand (Schultz & Hatch, 2003). Image is “what organizational agents want external stakeholders to understand… about their organization” (Whetten & Mackey, 2002, p. 401). It is what is projected to stakeholders and controlled by organizations. Individuals can also project and control their own image.

Individual attempts to control reputations or perceptions through self-presentation strategies such as ingratiation or intimidation are referred to as impression management tactics (Goffman, 1959; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Impression management includes goal-directed attempts to influence perceptions. These reputation management strategies are important but represent active efforts to control perceptions of reputation rather than reputation itself.

Another related but distinct construct in which reputation is often considered equivalent is identity. Identity represents what an organization or who an individual is

(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Foreman & Whetten, 2002) whereas reputation relates to how an organization or individual is perceived. For example, individuals might identify themselves as a professor, but whether they are viewed as good or bad pertains to their reputation. In a study of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Dutton and

Dukerich (1991) found that the organization had a strong engineering identity, but a poor reputation with the public.

Celebrity status is related but different from reputation as well. The concept of status includes firms and individuals that attract a lot of attention and fame (Rindova,

Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005). Celebrity is typically tied to particular events and often lacks the predictability that is associated with reputation (Rindova, Pollock, &

Hayward, 2006) Status may be unrelated to past performance or performance potential whereas reputation typically takes performance into account (Washington & Zajac,

2005). Celebrity status focuses on being well known and appearing often in the media.

Some entities may have good reputations but are not well known (Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd,

& Bergh, 2010) Climate is another construct to be distinguished from reputation. The organizational climate construct refers to employee interpretations of relevant policies, procedures, and policies (Koslowski & Klein, 2000). Policies include strategic goals and means to attain them, procedures provide tactical guidelines for actions, and practices relate to the implementation of these policies and procedures (Zohar & Luria, 2005).

Thus climate refers to interpretations of these policies whereas reputation relates to overall perceptions of an entity (e.g. – person, group, organization, industry).

Other constructs that seem to get muddled with reputation are legitimacy and credibility. Legitimacy is concerned with the assumption that the actions of an entity are proper within a socially constructed system of norms, values, and beliefs (Suchman,

1995). Although it involves perceptions, legitimacy is different than reputation because it is specific in regards to whether an action of an organization or individual is appropriate and accepted according to norms. Credibility refers to the believability of a source or message (Rieh & Danielson, 2007). It might be influenced by reputation, but is different than perceptions or evaluations of an entity. It is associated with the likelihood of something happening. Thus, although similar to, reputation is distinct from image, impression management, identity, celebrity, legitimacy, or credibility in that it focuses on the actual perceptions and evaluations of an entity.

Global Reputation versus Reputation for What

Further confusion in the construct of reputation exists because of the multiple perspectives in which reputation has been defined. Some research refers to reputation as an overall global assessment (the institutional perspective) whereas other research considers the components of reputation, or a reputation for something in particular (the economic perspective). The institutional perspective suggests collective awareness, knowledge, perception and recognition of a target, and the economic perspective suggests reputation is specific assessments of relevant attributes (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova,

& Sever, 2005). Much of the existing literature on reputation focuses on the institutional perspective. The institutional perspective suggests reputation can be defined as either a single or collective impressions of members of a social group (Bromley, 1993). A social group is comprised of individuals who often share similar impressions of an entity.

Research on perceptions suggests that impressions are typically formed of entire entities

(Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Asch, 1946). Observers strive for complete overview and consistency in their evaluation of an entity. Perceptions of an entity assume a tendency to expand upon available information and move toward a general understanding of a more complete and unified conception of the target entity (Anderson, 1981). That is, observers have a tendency to make evaluative judgments that summarize overall reactions to a target. Even with limited information, observers aggregate what little knowledge they do have to evaluate a target in an overall positive or negative manner. It is important to note that various groups of observers, or stakeholders, may have different opinions of a target‟s reputation. However, the opinions of these groups still tend to be overall

8 evaluations that range from strongly negative to strongly positive. As such, this dissertation concentrates on the institutional perspective of a general global reputation.

The economic perspective that focuses on the attributes in which reputation is typically assessed (i.e. – reputation for what) has also been discussed in the literature.

The economic perspective suggests that dimensions of reputation should be explored in addition to global reputation assessment. For example, reputation may be multidimensional and focus on attributes such as product quality, financial soundness, and management integrity. One study indicates that product reputation seems more important than financial soundness or management integrity when selecting another company for a joint venture (Dollinger, Golden, & Saxton, 1997). This is surprising given that in an analysis of the Fortune reputation dimensions, Fryxell and Wang (1994) found that the dominant factor underlying the data was financial and this influenced other ratings of the firm. Other factors considered in assessing the reputation of the firm, according to Fortune, are long-term investment value, financial soundness, wise use of corporate assets, quality of management, quality of products and services, innovativeness, ability to attract, develop, and keep talented people, and community and environmental responsibility. Cognitive competence and affective sympathy dimensions of reputation have also been proposed (Schwaiger, 2004). Fombrun (2001) however, suggests that because a firm serves several constituents, its reputation differs depending on emotional appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, social responsibility, financial performance, and workplace environment. Fombrun, Gardberg, and Server (2000)

9 created an index called the Reputation Quotient that sums perceptions of companies on these attributes.

The economic perspective of personal reputation has also spurred a variety of attributes important to reputation such as trust (Pompitakpan, 2004), dependability

(Pompitakpan, 2003), sociability (Wynn, 1987), and helpfulness (Liu & Issamy, 2004).

Reputations for negative attributes have been examined such as a reputation for antagonism (Ferris, Perrewe, Zinko, Stoner, Brouer, & Laird, 2007), or for being a poor worker (Becker & Martin, 1995). Although this research suggests that considering the dimension in which reputation is assessed is useful, it can further cloud the definition of reputation in the importance and meaning of some of these attributes. Moreover, halo theory suggests that one or two of these key attributes are typically used to form aggregate judgments (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). That is, observers tend not to think of targets in mixed terms, but as roughly good or roughly bad across all categories of measurement (Thorndike, 1920). Thus, the global or overall evaluation suggested by the institutional perspective seems to be more appropriate for the focus of this dissertation.

Focus on Target rather than Observer

As mentioned in the contributions of this dissertation, most research explores reputation from the perspective of the observer(s), or entity that is making the judgment of reputation, rather than that of the target, or entity that is being perceived. The first viewpoint involving reputation is the most common and defines reputation as an observer‟s evaluation of a target. The observer is usually a collection of stakeholders such as customers, executives, companies, or employees. In this viewpoint, the 10 perceptual evaluation process of a target‟s reputation is occurring inside the mind of the observer. The goal of the reputation evaluation process from this viewpoint is for the observer to gain information and obtain a more reliable judgment of that target. On an organizational level, the observer may be outsiders, or individual‟s external to the organization, and the evaluation is usually referred to as market, corporate, or company reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). The observation made by insiders, such as employees‟ direct thoughts and view of the organization is often called employer reputation, pride, or perceived organizational identity (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail,

1994). On an individual level, personal reputation tends to focus on individual observer‟s perceptions of a target (Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003).

Combining these levels and various terminologies, the overall evaluation that an observer has of a target will be referred to in this dissertation as “perceived reputation”.

The second viewpoint on reputation is the target‟s view of the observer‟s evaluation of the target. This interpreted reputation of what employees believe or perceive about what outsiders‟ think of the organization has been referred to as construed external image

(Dutton & Dukerich, 1991) or perceived external prestige (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Perceived internal respect is an employee‟s evaluation of their own status within the organization, or how they perceive others view them (Fuller, Hester, Barnett, Frey,

Relyea, & Beu, 2006). In order to incorporate the terminology that have been suggested at each level of analysis, the process of evaluating what others think occurs in the mind of the target and will be referred to as the “reflected reputation” in this dissertation to represent the target‟s perception of their reputation from the view of others. Reflected

11 reputation as studied in the past is usually based on a single perception rather than a collective. That is, it has been explored as an individual perception of how others view their organization or themselves rather than an aggregate construct. The goal of the reflected reputation process is a more reliable view on how the target is seen. The outcomes associated with reflected reputation differ from those of perceived reputation because they influence the target rather than the observer evaluating the target. The differences between the perceived reputation and reflected reputation viewpoints are summarized in the table below:

Table 1: Differences in Reputation Viewpoints

Viewpoint: PERCEIVED REPUTATION REFLECTED REPUTATION

Definition: Observer evaluation of target Target‟s view of observer evaluation of target Stakeholder: Collective Individual

Process: Occurring inside the mind of the Occurring inside the mind of the target observer Goal: More reliable judgment of target More reliable view of how others see target Outcomes: Reputation of target influences Reflected reputation of target observer attitudes and behaviors influences target attitudes and behaviors

Chapter 3: Identifying Similarities among the Levels

In addition to the lack of clarity of the reputation construct is a lack of integration that includes disparate literature at various levels of analysis. As previously mentioned as the motivation for this study, the management literature tends to focus almost exclusively on organizational reputation (Bromley, 1993; Cable & Turban, 2003; Fombrun, 2001;

Fulmer, Gerhart, & Scott, 1987; Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993; Rindova,

Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005; Riordan, Gatewood, & Bill, 1997). Recently studies have emerged that take personal reputation into consideration (Ferris, Blass,

Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003; Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinko, Amell, & James,

2007; Zinko, Ferris, Blass, & Laird, 2007). However, organizational reputation studies overlook individual differences and personal reputation studies tend not to pay as much attention to the environment. For example, research on organizational reputation does not consider the individual employees that work within the firm and likely contribute to how the organization is perceived by observers. On the other hand, personal reputation focuses on the psychological micro elements about perception while tending to ignore the context in which reputation is developed and enacted. These two literatures have been developed in parallel with little thought to whether they may converge or diverge. Since organizations and individuals are so far apart conceptually, it is difficult to identify whether and how reputation at each level relates. What is missing is a more proximal or 13 contextual element that considers the psychology of individuals and the context in which they work. The study of unit or group reputation may help bridge the gap in the literature by examining elements that relate to all levels of analysis. The meso-level of unit reputation perceptions is important since employees selectively attend to information regarding their direct environment and the unit is the most proximal element of an individual‟s environment and includes individual differences of employees within the group (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995).

Thus, a significant step in clarifying the construct of reputation is developing a multilevel approach that discusses the relationships among organization, unit, and individual reputation. Multilevel theory helps establish patterns of relationships across levels and draws attention to the composition or meaning of constructs (Rousseau, 1985).

These theories should be built with description of the levels to which generalization or similarities exist, and the ways in which they differ. In addition, the functional relations underlying each construct must be specified. Systems theory helps explicate the benefits of a multilevel approach to reputation in organizations. Patterns of exchange between the individual and the collective organization as well as relationships between the individual and the team within the contextual environment are the underlying components of general systems theory (Boulding, 1956). Behavior of individuals in an organization is contingent upon the social field of forces in which it occurs and must be understood in terms of the interactions within that field (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Open systems theory suggests that studying social behavior patterns includes an analysis of the different levels of a system and their interrelationships. Therefore, systems theory would suggest

14 studying any construct, including reputation, cannot be fully understood without taking a multilevel approach into account that considers individual members and the social system in which they operate.

Chen and Kanfer (2006) propose three requirements for developing a true multilevel theory. First, the processes and themes that underlie all levels of the construct must be identified. The identification of parallel themes and processes can help generalize and recognize the commonalities among the levels. Second, the differences among the levels should be examined to determine unique antecedents and outcomes.

Lastly, cross-level influences in the form of interactions among the levels and their affects on important outcomes should be considered. These three requirements guide the layout of the remainder of this dissertation in developing a multilevel approach of studying reputation. First, the components that similarly underlie all levels of reputation are described in detail through the introduction of a “Reputation as Information” framework. A review of the literature discussing how the existing research on organizational and personal reputation fits into this framework will be integrated into this section. The review of organizational and individual reputation is not meant to be exhaustive, but to draw attention to significant research on reputation and how that can help in building a multilevel paradigm. Then, the differences among the levels will be investigated by distinguishing the unit level of reputation. A model of antecedents and outcomes associated with unit reputation will be proposed and empirically analyzed.

Lastly, cross-level effects in the relationship between the unit and individual level of the reputation construct will be investigated. Cross-level relationships between the levels of

15 reputation, performance, and mobility are elaborated upon and are then empirically tested, demonstrating support for the importance of unit reputation in the analysis of the multi-level model of organizational reputation.

Reputation as Information

The underlying similarities of reputation across all levels of analysis can best be described using information processing theory. As mentioned in the opening of this dissertation, information processing refers to the gathering, interpreting, and synthesis of information and entities limited capacity for this information. Reputation can be used as a heuristic or schema in processing information from the world around us. A schema is essentially a cognitive framework in which knowledge is organized and retained (Harris,

1994). Schemas involve mental structures that include categorical rules or scripts that are used to process and summarize information (Anderson, 1984). Reputation perceptions are based on snippets of information. Thus, similar to a heuristic, reputation is an intuitive judgment that saves time and helps entities process a combination of information from the environment. The combination of this information, or reputation schema, is not complete information but is used as a mental model for making decisions, determining attitudes, and shaping behaviors. Since it is based on limited information, reputation schemas are inherently biased and often stereotypical. Thus, reputation at all levels of analysis can be thought of as a form of cognitive frame, or knowledge structure that facilitates the organizing of information and structuring of expectations about people

(DeWulf, et al., 2009). The specific frame in which reputation as information can be used is referred to as a characterization frame, or shorthand way of describing

16 individuals, groups, or organizations and making judgments about them (Lewicki, Gray,

& Elliott, 2003). It is a means of simplifying judgment about targets.

By providing information, reputation at all levels of analysis can act as knowledge before experience that influences expectations. Research demonstrates that knowledge that comes before experience has a greater influence on expectations than knowledge that comes after experience. For example, Lee, Frederick, and Ariely (2006) conducted an experiment with regular beer and a MIT brew that was mixed with vinegar to see which participants preferred. When provided the information before the drinking experience that the MIT brew was mixed with vinegar, the participants overwhelmingly preferred the regular beer. However, when provided the information after trying the beverages, participants preferred the MIT brew just as much as they would had they had no information at all. The information provided before the tasting experience greatly influenced attitudes and decisions because of the expectations associated with that knowledge. Reputation as knowledge that is typically accrued before experience with a target can therefore greatly influence expectations that shape attitudes and behaviors.

In addition to providing information and knowledge before experience, a similarity among all levels of reputation is its relationship with time. As mentioned in the definition of reputation, it is relatively enduring over time. That is, reputation is not just an instantaneous judgment, but a consistent perception that is difficult to change

(Fombrun, 1996). In this regard, entities with positive reputations may use this as a source of goodwill, or a buffer to get through tough times or crisis events (Jones, Jones,

& Little, 1998; Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997). On the other hand, entities with a

17 negative reputation may find it hard to improve because of the lasting effects of reputation. Thus, an important common element underlying all levels of reputation is its persistence over time.

Also, because reputation acts as a source of information, it reduces uncertainty.

Uncertainty is a fact of complex and dynamic organizational life (Lipshitz & Strauss,

1997). Uncertainty may stem from environmental instability or from within organization issues dealing with problem solving and coordination. In dealing with this uncertainty, organizations and individuals must facilitate the collection, gathering, and processing of information (Tushman & Nadler, 1978). Reputation is one means to gain this information and therefore can help an entity deal with uncertainty. Thus, reputation schemas produce a lower level of uncertainty that can reduce transaction costs (Glucker

& Armbruster, 2003) and facilitate activities among actors (Kim, 2009). Reputation reduces anxiety in making choices. When we feel as though we know more about an entity through its reputation, then we feel less uncertain or anxious in interactions.

Another common characteristic among organizational, unit, and individual levels of reputation is that it is a perception that is highly subjective in nature. Ferris et al.

(2003) suggest that reputation is a socially constructed reality rather than an objective one. It is a relational construct that determine how entities know and relate to one another thereby suggesting what can be expected. For this reason, an entity known as something in one social setting can also be known as something else in another setting.

This characterization is not a personal trait in the way we think of individual difference, but rather a relational one that depends on the context. For example, at work an

18 individual might be known as a strict and unforgiving manager whereas at home the same individual is known as a kind and caring parent. Since this dissertation is concerned with the organizational setting, reputation at work will be the focus for each level of analysis.

Thus, commonalities among reputation at all levels of analysis include reputation as a source of information, as knowledge before experience that guides expectations, enduring over time, as a means to reduce uncertainty in organizational life, and as a highly subjective perception. These similarities guide the “Reputation as Information” framework. The “Reputation as Information” framework suggests common sources of information that are used in forming the mental model of reputation at all levels of analysis. The information from these sources is combined to form expectations and perceptions of the target. Over time, the validity and accuracy of the reputation schema is increased as more information is gathered. This is associated with an increase in predictability, formed expectations, and a reduction of uncertainty. Thus, reputation schema reflects this combined information and is used to make decisions and determine attitudes and behaviors.

A snapshot of the information sources used in determining reputation schema is presented in the “Reputation as Information” framework in Figure 2. The “Reputation as

Information” framework combines the perceived reputation and reflected reputation viewpoints. First, in the traditional view of reputation, information about the target is used along with observer, interpersonal, and environmental information to influence the observers‟ perception of the target‟s reputation (or perceived reputation). These perceptions affect the attitudes and behaviors of the observer. Integrating the less

common viewpoint of reputation, the observer attitudes and behaviors along with the

target internal states, the target themselves, the environment, and interpersonal

information serves as feedback to the target, influencing their own perception of the

observer‟s view of their reputation. This reflected reputation then influences the attitudes

and behaviors of the target rather than the observer.

Target Information: Target

Subjective Internal Characteristics State Target Target’s Objective Attitudes Reflected and Characteristics Reputation

Behavior Environmental Information:

Cultural Factors Perceived Observer Contextual Factors Reputation Attitudes (Observer and Interpersonal view of Behaviors Information: Target) Third Party Target-Observer Interaction

Observer Information: Observer Characteristics Observer Bias

Figure 2: "Reputation as Information" Framework

Current Literature Fit in the Reputation as Information Framework

The “Reputation as Information” framework was developed by carefully

examining the current literature on reputation to determine similar sources of 20 information. This disconnected research was integrated by identifying commonalities among all levels. As previously mentioned the primary focus of this literature was on the organizational and individual levels of analysis and predominantly concentrated on perceived reputation, or observers‟ evaluation of a target. A target could be any entity that is being evaluated including an individual, group, organization, or industry. As such, the following section identifies the keys findings and themes from the perceived organizational and personal reputation literature that relate to each particular source of information (target, environment, interpersonal, observer). In the next chapter, the portions of the framework that have not yet been examined (reflected reputation at the unit level of analysis) will be investigated in detail.

Target Information Sources

The first information source expected to influence schema and perceptions of target reputation are subjective and objective characteristics of the target themselves.

Subjective characteristics are perceived attributes of the target while objective characteristics are verifiable attributes inherent to the target. For example, when evaluating a personal reputation of a target at work, an observer might consider what they subjectively believe the target‟s personality to be as well as objective information such as the number of years the target has worked at the company. Observable behaviors enacted by the target are another type of objective target information. These behaviors are discernible actions that can provide meaningful information about the target. Observable behaviors are salient to others and aid in forming impressions. It is important to note the difference between visibility and observability. Visibility refers to actions performed by

21 the target whereas observability is what others actually see (Merton, 1968). In other words, visibility refers to actual behaviors and observability refers to those visible behaviors that are witnessed by others. For example, Taylor and Fiske (1978) conducted an experiment in which participants watched a conversation between two actors. One of the actors was more observable to the participant than the other. Results demonstrated that the participant formed stronger impressions about the actor whose behaviors they could see directly. Observable behaviors combined with subjective and objective target characteristics are incorporated into the observer schema and lead to perceptions about the reputation of the target.

Organizational Target Information

Objective information relevant to the development of organizational reputation may include past achievements and history. Past achievements such as financial performance and success in achieving goals lead to the development of a reputation for a company

(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; March & Simon, 1958). Observers become aware of a company for these achievements and use these as a basis for evaluation. History of an organization also acts as target information that influences organizational reputation.

History is information about the company such as its age in years. It was determined in a verbal protocol analysis to be relevant to perceptions of an organization‟s reputation

(Cable & Graham, 2000).

Familiarity, developmental opportunities, and culture are types of subjective information regarding the organizational target. Subjective information such as familiarity can be assessed through knowledge and observability. Gatewood, Gowan,

22 and Lautenschlauger (1993) demonstrate that familiarity with the organization in the form of knowledge of someone working there or knowledge of company products is related to reputation perceptions. As previously mentioned, observability is the extent to which something is known in a social system (Merton, 1968). Aggressive advertisements and public relations campaigns may make a company more familiar to stakeholders based on their observability. In their study of job seeker reputation perceptions, Cable and

Graham (2000) find that the perception of opportunities that a firm provides for employee development is a source of organizational information that affects firm reputation perceptions. Corporate culture, or the shared belief systems and values in an organization, may also shape organizational reputation perceptions (Cable & Graham,

2000). In particular, cultures that support social responsibility (Turban & Greening, 1997) and organizational justice (Tyler & Blader, 2003) are suggested to predict organizational reputation assessments. It is important to note the difference between this and regional culture. Regional culture is a type of external environment information while corporate culture is internal and a characteristic of the target organization itself. Subjective characteristics such as corporate culture, perceived developmental opportunities, and familiarity combined with objective characteristics such as past achievements and history provide information about the organizational target that influences reputation schemas.

Individual Target Information

Objective individual target information expected to influence observer perceptions of personal reputation are past behaviors and job-related factors. Past behaviors can include achievements, experiences, or a history of events that have occurred. Even

23 though there is some variation, average levels of behavior across situations is highly consistent and systematic and can be used as a basis for reputation evaluations (Diener &

Larsen, 1984; Fleeson, 2004). Moreover, individuals that observe a target„s behavior spread information about this to others in a community (Flynn, 2003), making past behavior known. Anderson and Shikaro (2008) conducted a study of individual reputation for cooperation in a negotiation context. They found that individuals who had a history for working together and observing past behaviors developed a reputation for cooperation. Job-related factors that may influence personal reputation in organizations include position title or role in the organization and expertise. An individual with a title sounding prestigious or perceived to be higher up in the company may have a better reputation. Expertise is typically gained or assumed when an individual excels in a particular area and is therefore known for having knowledge and information of that subject (Littlepage, Robinson, & Reddington, 1997). Individuals known to have a prestigious title or particular expertise are perceived to develop a reputation based on these factors.

Subjective perceptions of individual differences such as personality, cognitive ability, affect, and social effectiveness can be predictors of personal reputation. Core self-evaluations, a higher order construct, has been suggested to be one of the main personality determinants of individual reputations (Zinko, 2007). Core self-evaluations consist of the personality traits of self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). Individuals that are perceived to have greater amounts of these traits tend to project themselves more positively and thus

24 are expected develop a more positive reputation than those with low core self- evaluations. Related to this, individuals who are perceived as high self-monitors are expected to have more positive reputations as well. High self-monitors are able to observe and adapt their behavior to fit different situations (Snyder, 1974), and would thus be more likely to know how to portray themselves to be seen more positively. Extraverts tend to be more visible in an organization (Eysenck, 1967; Funder & Dobroth, 1987) and therefore should be more likely to be known by others. What is interesting about the relationship between personality and reputation, however, is that since reputation is an evaluation made by observers, ratings for these personality characteristics should be made by others (Hogan, 1991).

Individuals who are perceived to have greater cognitive ability are likely to be sought out by others leading to a positive reputation. Individuals with perceived high mental ability are likely to be known to others because of expectations for advice and knowledge. Additionally, according to Tsui (1984), effectiveness at work is likely to be related to personal reputation. Social effectiveness has also been proposed to influence perceptions of personal reputation (Zinko, 2007). Socially effective individuals are able to adapt to their environment and understand what others expect of them. They are better able to change their behavior to match these expectations. These findings suggest reputation is judged less upon who you are and more upon how you act. Since Tsui

(1984) suggests that meeting expectations is a major component of a reputation, individuals high in social effectiveness are more likely to have a positive personal reputation.

In addition, subjective information about the target is expected to increase favorability of personal reputation through perceived membership affiliations.

Membership affiliations refer to the assessment bestowed upon an individual based on the groups in which they are perceived to be affiliated. It is important to note that these affiliations do not have to be accurate. Kilduff and Krackhardt (1994) initially demonstrate this effect by finding that being perceived to have a prominent friend in an organization boosted an individual‟s reputation as a good employee even though actually having a prominent friend had no effect. Thus, perceptions of affiliations with other groups or individuals are what matters for reputation. These connections can include stereotyped groups, educational institutions, prior companies, community organizations, or other individuals within or external to the organization. Individuals may bask in the reflected glory of perceived affiliations that are held in high regard (Cialdini, Borden,

Thome, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976) through the transfer of positive evaluation from one social object to the next. They may also be evaluated negatively due to associations that are held in lower regard. For example, an individual who attended a prestigious graduate institution may automatically be looked upon more favorably due to this association. On the other hand, an individual that previously worked for an organization that engaged in ethically questionable behavior may have a lower reputation.

Research suggests individuals form first impressions through stereotypes based on an early category cued, and typically do not defer making judgments until they have more complete information (Bargh, 1999). Therefore, perceptions of membership affiliations are likely to provide information about a target‟s reputation.

Environmental Information Sources

Environmental information is another source that is expected to predict the reputation of a target in the “Reputation as Information” framework. Environmental information includes attributes of larger groups or contexts in which the target belongs.

For an organization, it might refer to the industry, economy, or culture in which that company is embedded. Lower levels of reputation are more likely to be informed by environmental information such as the policies and practices of the organization, contextual factors, or norms of the group. Attributes or characteristics of the larger context in which a target belongs invoke schemas in the minds of observers. For example, if a company is in a manufacturing industry, then the stereotypes and scripts associated with the observers‟ schema for that industry will be activated. These schemas may directly influence observer perception of the target‟s reputation.

Organizational Environmental Information

Organizational environmental information includes factors external to the organization that play a role in how that company is known and perceived. External environmental information significant in the formation of organizational reputation perceptions are the industry a firm operates in, strategic groups the firm is associated with, and the economy and culture of the region in which the organization is located.

Cable and Graham (2000) demonstrate in a multi-method study the importance of industry, or the area of a company‟s primary products, in forming job seekers‟ reputation perceptions. A verbal protocol, policy capturing, and field study analysis revealed industry as one of the most important factors that potential job seekers discussed in

27 relation to their reputation perceptions of a company. Trends and schema evoked when a company is associated with a particular industry leads to perceptions by observers of that organization‟s reputation.

In addition, strategic groups can serve as external information about the environment. Strategic groups are companies within an industry with similar business models and strategies (Porter, 1980). Strategic groups can develop their own reputation based on mobility barriers and past performance (Ferguson, Deephouse, & Ferguson,

2000). Organizations within strategic groups with a positive reputation may bask in the reflected glory of this association. The economic environment in which an organization is located might also influence reputation perceptions. The growth, inflation, labor market features, and unemployment rates in certain areas have been known to affect attitudes such as commitment (Cappelli, 1999). Perceptions of the company overall and how they are known might be influenced by information from the economic environment in the area. Another external environmental information source could be the culture of the region or area that the organization is located. The importance of the organizational reputation in some cultures may be more or less valued. In addition, depending on the stakeholder observers from one culture may view a company from another culture less favorably, which is similar to research on country of origin (Peterson & Jolibert, 1995).

These observations suggest that external environmental information such as the industry, strategic group, economy, and culture in which an organization is operating will influence the schema that leads to observer perceptions of the reputation of an organizational target.

Individual Environmental Information 28

Much of the literature on personal reputation does not explicitly consider the role of higher-level context on individual level processes. Individuals, however, do not exist in isolation. A contextual fallacy may occur when the effects that social or physical settings have on the relationship between variables are not specified (Rousseau, 1985).

Contextual factors within the internal environment that may provide information to influence schemas and an observer‟s perception of an individual target‟s reputation include reward systems, human resource policies, psychological climate, and norms of the group.

Reward systems that compensate based on individual contributions such as performance-based-pay motivate individuals to work harder (Lazear, 2000). The increase in effort is likely to make some individuals stand out more than others, thus leading to observer perceptions of a greater reputation for that target in the organization. Network- building human resource policies such as mentoring, promotion incentives, opportunities for training, and performance appraisals encourage the development of business relationships (Collins & Clark, 2003). These policies that stimulate relationship building allow individuals to be known to more people throughout the organization. These policies and practices are therefore likely to increase the scale, or widespread knowledge, of personal reputation in the organization. Thus, the schema becomes based more on actual interactions and the view of reputation becomes more consistent. Psychological climate is an individual‟s perception of their work environment (Parker, et al., 2003).

Individuals that perceive a more positive psychological climate tend to be motivated to change attitudes and behaviors such as in-role and extra-role performance as well as

29 turnover and withdrawal. These positive behaviors are expected to provide information to others that enhances that individual‟s reputation. The norms of the group might also act as internal information about the environment that influences the reputation of an individual. Some scholars believe that reputations are gained by acting in accordance with the established norms of the group (Tsui, 1984) while others argue that it is the deviation from these norms that leads to the development of a reputation (Zinko, 2007).

Regardless, the norms of the group are expected to play a role in the reputation that an individual develops in addition to other internal environmental information such as reward systems, human resource policies, and psychological climate.

Interpersonal Information Sources

As interactions between the observer and the target increase, information about the target is spread and incorporated into the perceptions of target reputation. This is referred to in the “Reputation as Information” framework as interpersonal information and can be gained through third party interaction or through direct interaction between the observer and the target. These interactions serve to update information and perceptions of target reputation. Third party interaction involves communication or relations between the observer and outside sources regarding the target. The contact between the observer and third party does not need to be direct. It could be that the observer read or heard about the third party perceptions, attitudes, and/or behaviors towards the target. In early laboratory studies on impression formation, participants acquired information to form an impression of a target just by reading a description of their behavior (Bromley, 1993).

Third party interactions also occur through communications in a social network.

Opinions or descriptions of behavior regarding a target can be spread through the social network. Direct interaction between the observer and the target will also influence the schema that combines information sources and affects observer perceptions of the target reputation.

Organizational Interpersonal Information

Information obtained from macro interpersonal interactions may also play a role in perceptions of organizational reputation. Macro interpersonal interactions are relationships that companies have with others. The “Reputation as Information” framework suggests that interpersonal information may be based on third party interactions or direct interactions. When dealing with organizations, third party interactions can include institutional intermediaries and affiliate reputations. Institutional intermediaries are entities that provide information or rankings about organizations

(Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005). These may include general information such as media rankings, or more specific certifications from expert intermediaries.

Affiliate reputations are another type of interpersonal information related to perceptions of organizational reputation. Affiliate reputations are perceptions of other organizations or groups with whom a firm may be working. It might include, for example, reputations of business partners, investors, or suppliers to the focal firm. In this manner, a firm is known by the company it keeps, and can „borrow‟ the reputation of its affiliations

(Deutsch & Ross, 2003). This type of interpersonal information is particularly influential for new ventures and organizations first establishing their reputation. Interpersonal information may also be provided through executive networks. Executive networks can

31 be thought of as direct interactions with the organization that provide interpersonal information. Networks may include affiliation with high status actors through experience with that organization (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005) or those that serve as an outside director for a firm (Deutsch & Ross, 2003). The relative position of an organization in a complex network of ties between its members and individuals in other organizations (Schrum & Wuthnow, 1988) might also influence the reputation of the corporation. Thus, executive networks, affiliates, and intermediaries may all serve as interpersonal information sources that play a role in organizational reputation perceptions.

Individual Interpersonal Information

Micro interpersonal information such as social networks, pressure, and support are also suggested to provide information to influence individual target reputation perceptions. Social systems affect a wide range of individual opinions and behaviors

(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Since familiarity and visibility are important predictors of personal reputation, individuals with a large network that spans boundaries within and outside of the firm are likely to have better known reputations. Managers that involve themselves in boundary-spanning activities with consumers, investors, and society at large not only spread the company name (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990), but also build awareness and become known for themselves. Patterns of communication and interaction in a social network determine the extent to which information and influence are disseminated within and between groups (Bromley, 1993). Most people express their opinions and are influenced by word of mouth through a network of social relationships.

Therefore, having a larger social network and greater betweenness in connecting groups is likely to influence the information known about an individual. This information affects the observers‟ schema and consistency in perceptions of that target‟s reputation.

Social pressure may also play a role in reputation perceptions. Reputations are built upon word of mouth (Bromley, 1993). If a particularly influential individual has an opinion about an entity, then they can persuade others to believe the same thing. This spread of opinion, or gossip, can serve as information influencing the reputation of that entity. Social support facilitates reputation information in a similar manner. Supportive individuals may act as an advocate for an entity, spreading positive information and getting their name out in the workplace. The entity may then be known more to others and a greater widespread reputation. For example, research on mental illnesses demonstrates that social support modifies perceived stigmatization during the initial years after a diagnosis (Mueller, Nordt, Lauber, Rueesch, Meyer, & Roessler, 2006). This suggests that support from others provides information that influences perceptions of these individuals. Therefore, interpersonal information in the form of networks, pressure, and support are expected to have a relationship to personal reputation.

Observer Information Sources

Research on reputation has not typically considered information about the entity making the judgment, otherwise known as the observer. The observer could be one person, a group of people, an organization, or a group of organizations. Entities making evaluations about the reputation of a target have certain characteristics and biases that influence their perceptions. Observer information sources consist of observer 33 characteristics and observer bias. Observer characteristics are attributes of the observer that serve as information sources for perceptions of a reputation. Characteristics of observers may range from individual values and personality to organizational standards and cultures. The similarities or differences between the observer‟s own characteristics and perceived characteristics of the target will play a role in reputation perceptions at all levels of analysis. A sense of the reputation of the target and how it fits into the overall schema will be influenced by the observer‟s own interpersonal style and behavioral tendencies. For instance, if the observer of an organization‟s reputation is a customer, then the attributes of that customer such as their conscientiousness as well as their personal values such as concern for social responsibility will affect the schema that is activated when evaluating the target organization. That schema then influences observer perceptions of the target‟s reputation. Observer biases are tendencies or preferences toward particular ways of thinking. These tendencies often interfere with the observer‟s ability to be impartial or objective when making judgments about a target. Observer biases include cognitive patterns of deviation in judgment (Kahneman, Slovic, &

Tversky, 1982). These biases may be related to decision making, social beliefs, and probabilities. Essentially, these biases can distort information by focusing on certain factors or processes that activate particular schema. These biases influence the manner in which information fits into the overall schema and affects perceptions of the target‟s reputation.

Several biases may influence the schema and perceptions of observers in regards to a target‟s reputation. Common biases may be related to decision making, social beliefs,

34 and probability errors. Decision making biases may include bandwagon effects, confirmation biases, contrast effects, and mere exposure effects. Bandwagon effects are the tendency to believe things because many other people believe the same. For example, in Asch‟s (1955) conformity experiments, participants agreed with others about the wrong size of a line even though they knew the correct answer. In making evaluations of a target‟s reputation, observers may believe what others believe due to the bandwagon effect. Confirmation biases are tendencies to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms preconceived notions (Nickerson, 1998). When an observer forms perceptions of a target‟s reputation, confirmation biases affect how the schema and information is organized. Information that fits with an observer‟s preconceived notion of a target is retained while other information may be discounted or ignored. Contrast effects may occur in perception when a target is compared with another target (Schwarz

& Bless, 1992). A target may appear more appealing when compared and contrasted with a target of less appeal. Mere exposure effects, or the familiarity principle, is another type of observer bias based on the number of interactions and suggests that the more familiar an observer is with a target, the more positive perceptions they will have of that entity (Zajonc, 1968). Increased interactions with a target should build familiarity and may influence perceptions of that target‟s reputation.

Social beliefs acting as observer biases to influence perceptions of a target‟s reputation could include halo effects and ingroup biases while probability errors might include anchoring and stereotyping. Halo effects occur when an overall perception of an entity is used to make evaluations of individual attributes (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).

Typically this information positively influences the judgment which is why it is referred to as a halo effect. Information that negatively influences the judgment is typically described as the horns effect. General perceptions of a target‟s reputation may influence attributes associated with that target. Ingroup biases occur when observers view targets that are in the same group as them more favorably than those in other groups (Tajfel,

1982). In evaluating a target‟s reputation, ingroup biases may be a form of observer information that influences those perceptions. Anchoring is a type of bias that reveals the tendency to concentrate or put too much weight on one piece of information when forming an evaluation (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). This information is used as a reference point or anchor and affects perceptions. In reputation perceptions, a single event or observed behavior could form the basis for the overall reputation evaluation.

Stereotyping is a category based bias in which characteristics of the target are generalized based on the group or category in which they belong (Steele, 1997). Stereotypes can be positive or negative and are a bias that is often used by observers when making perceptions of a target‟s reputation. Although stereotypes and reputation are conceptually similar in that they are both based on schemas and are difficult to change, stereotypes are used to generalize groups of people (Macrae, Stangor, & Hewstone, 1996) whereas reputation is used to evaluate a single entity (whether it be a person, unit, organization, or industry). . Stereotypes include a set of assumptions about the traits, interests, and characteristics of social groups typically based on physical characteristics that are sometimes used to form impressions of individual entities (Brewer, 1996; Fiske,

2004). As such, stereotypes may be used initially as a source of information that

36 combined with other factors helps determine an entity‟s reputation. Stereotypes act as a form of knowledge before experience. The less information an observer has about an entity, the more likely they are to use stereotypes and other biases as a basis for reputation evaluations. It is expected that the more information that is known about an entity, the less important stereotypes are as a form of information in shaping reputation perceptions. pFor example, the generalized stereotype that Mexicans are lazy may lead observers to believe a Mexican individual has a negative reputation. However, after getting to know the Mexican individual, an observer is likely to use more individualized information as the basis for making a positive or negative reputation evaluation. Thus, stereotypes are an observer bias source of information that are predicted to initially influence perceptions of a target‟s reputation.

Organizational Reputation Outcomes

In addition to the organizational target, external environment, and macro interpersonal information source antecedents, certain outcomes are associated with the organizational level of reputation analysis. Organizations with positive reputations experience competitive advantage outcomes such as better applicant attraction, premium prices, higher attraction of investors and partnerships, enhanced access to capital markets, and performance. Turban and Cable (1997) demonstrated that a higher quantity and better quality of applicants (in the form of a higher GPA) were attracted to companies with a positive reputation than organizations with lower reputations. In fact, individuals were willing to accept 7% lower wages to join a firm with a positive reputation (Cable &

Turban, 2003). Customers of organizations with a reputation for superior product quality

37 are willing to pay greater prices for products from those firms (DeJong, Forsyth, &

Lundholm, 1985; Klein & Leffler, 1981). Investors were found to be more loyal to companies with positive corporate reputations (Helm, 2007). In addition, organizations with reputations for industry expertise and business integrity are more likely to be selected as partners (Jensen & Roy, 2008). Investment bankers who enforce the underpricing equilibrium to protect their reputational capital are able to have greater access to capital markets (Beatty & Ritter, 1986). Finally, corporate reputation has been demonstrated to influence financial performance (Roberts & Dowling, 2002). Companies on the 100 Best Companies to work for list with a reputation for being a great place to work also enjoy highly positive workforce attitudes and performance advantages over other companies in the broad market (Fulmer, Gerhart, & Scott, 1987). These outcomes related to positive corporate reputations suggest that organizational reputation can indeed be an intangible asset to a company and influence attitudes and behaviors.

Personal Reputation Outcomes

Just as organizational reputation can act as an intangible asset for a company, personal reputation can be an asset for an individual and affect various individual level outcomes. Personal reputation is developed in an environment of imperfect information and is difficult to imitate (Zinko, Ferris, Blass, & Laird, 2007). Observers that perceive an individual to have a positive reputation are more likely to provide decision autonomy and monitor those individuals less than those with an unfavorable reputation (Hall, Blass,

Ferris, & Massengale, 2004). Milinski, Semmann and Krambeck (2002) suggest that observers are likely to be more cooperative with reputable employees as well. Observers

38 tend to give individuals with a favorable reputation a greater benefit of the doubt in their actions and decisions (Ferris, Fedor, & King, 1994). Gaining information about an individual target from the sources described allows the observer to have decreased uncertainty in their interactions with that individual (Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinko, Amell, &

James, 2007). Favorable personal reputations that are widespread and highly agreed upon also increase trust in relationships between observers and targets (Dunn, 2008).

Moreover, personal reputation can influence observer perceptions of power such as autonomy, decision latitude (Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003) and legitimacy (Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinko, Amell, & James, 2007). For example, in a study of managers Gioia and Sims (1983) demonstrated that reputation predicted perceptions of legitimate, referent, and expert power. Observers such as supervisors also provided higher performance ratings for those individuals perceived to have a more favorable reputation in the work group (Hall, Blass, Ferris, & Massengale, 2004). Therefore, a positive personal reputation can be considered an intangible asset for an individual that results in a variety of outcomes.

Summary of the “Reputation as Information” Framework

The target, environmental, interpersonal, and observer are all used as sources of information gathered when perceptions are formed about the reputation of an entity. This reputation is then used as a schema that guides decisions and influences attitude and behavioral outcomes such as those reviewed for organizational and personal reputation.

Although this framework of ”Reputation as Information” has not explicitly been introduced or discussed in the organizational literature, much of the previous research in

39 the reputation area fits into this structure. The present chapter details the literature on organizational and personal perceived reputation that fits into this framework. Again, research on reputation has focused on these levels of analysis (organizational and personal) and on how observers view targets (perceived).The next chapter will distinguish the unit level of reflected reputation by identifying the differences in sources of information and outcomes associated with this meso level. In particular, I will examine what target, environmental, and interpersonal information group members may use to understand the unit‟s reflected reputation. Although it would be interesting to consider in the future, this study does not investigate the process in which a target seeks feedback or knowledge from others through subtle cues or direct feedback. Thus, the next chapter will empirically test the “Reputation as Information” framework by considering the target, environmental, and interpersonal information sources that predict reflected unit reputation, and how reflected unit reputation influences target attitudes and behaviors. Future research will be necessary to examine the remainder of the

“Reputation as Information” framework, including the observer information that influences observers‟ perceived reputation of a target as well as the observer attitudes and behaviors that affect a target‟s reflected reputation.

Chapter 4: Establishing the Unit Level of Reputation

The study of reputation in the organizational sciences to date has overwhelmingly focused on the corporate level (Bromley, 1993; Cable & Turban, 2003; Fombrun, 2001;

Fombrun, 1996; Boyd, Bergh, & Ketchen, 2010). The nature and study of personal reputation has recently emerged and become a topic of interest. Although there are many similarities to the other levels, the construct of unit reputation has not been clearly defined or analyzed. The purpose of this section is to distinguish the concept of unit reputation from the organizational and individual levels of analysis in the study of reputation by providing and analyzing potential antecedents and outcomes of this construct.

The “Reputation as Information” framework has provided a useful background to explain the multilevel model of reputation. Up until this point, the focus of the reputation literature has mostly been on perceived reputation from the perspective of the observer or observer. The following discussion on unit reputation will concentrate on reflected reputation from the perspective of the target. That is, the construct of interest in the remainder of this study is reflected unit reputation, or the interpreted reputation or beliefs that employees perceive of how outsiders view their unit. This construct is similar to perceived external prestige (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) in that it is a reputation based on

41 employee interpretations about what others think. The measurement of reflected unit reputation however differs from perceived external prestige in two ways. First, it focuses on perceptions of what employees believe others think about the group level rather than the organization. In addition, it is an aggregate of those perceptions making it a unit rather than individual-level construct. That is, reflected unit reputation is a collective perception of how group members believe they are seen by others both inside and outside the organization. Reflected unit reputation is expected to be important because it is employees own perceptions of how others view their group that affects their behavior. In processing reflected unit reputation, individuals in the group must act as both targets and observers at the same time. They are targets in the sense that they are members of the group that is being evaluated but they also are observers in that they form their own perceptions of what they believe others think about the reputation of their unit. This is important because it is their own perception that influences important attitudes and behaviors.

The unit is an important level of analysis that is often overlooked in management studies. The role of perceptions of the unit in guiding and influencing decisions and behavior is essential to understand in organizations. Organizational units are composed of distinct subsets of individuals who operate within the broader organization. Work units may include business divisions, departments, and groups which represent part of the context in which interpersonal relationships and employee interactions are embedded

(Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004). The perception of the reputation of the unit in which an individual works is important because it is often the most salient context for

42 an employee. Because of their immediacy and feelings direct accountability within work groups, these reference groups may be most significant to employees (Nippert-Eng,

1996). Employees can derive value and emotional significance from membership in groups (Shanley & Correa, 1992). Individuals use categorization to define themselves in terms of their group and differentiate that group from other groups (Ashforth & Mael,

1989). Because employees are more likely to encounter members of other subgroups in the organization rather than members of other organizations, they tend to use groups rather than organizations as a basis of categorization (Kramer, 1991; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). In a work unit environment, physical proximity and regular interactions with the team suggest that the group is more psychologically salient to the individual than the organization. The proximal argument suggests that smaller, more immediate groups are likely to exert more of an influence on employees than are larger, less immediate groups (Latane, 1981). Since more proximal elements are suggested to have a greater influence on employees than distal ones (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000), unit reputation is an important construct to consider.

Reputational variation can exist across divisions and groups. Unit reputation can be partially built up from the sum of individual parts (Fombrun, 1996), but goes beyond the personal reputations of group members. The reputation of a unit is expected to be relatively enduring, lasting through changes in membership and to some extent changes to the reputation of the organization. The maintenance of consistency in reputation across an organization can be very difficult. Divisions, departments, regions, and groups do not always experience the same organizational reality the same way. For example, a

43 university‟s overall reputation may be different from the reputation of its constituent departments. Members of constituent groups may not share a common understanding of the reputation of the parent organization, and there may not be a strong corporate reputation (Bromley, 2001). Within an organization, unit reputations can determine the allocation of resources and other important decisions. Outside an organization, firms and customers may be more familiar with and form perceptions of certain units more so than others. For instance, when an outsider observer is deciding where to obtain their MBA, the reputation of business schools may matter more than perceptions of the reputation of the university as a whole. Thus, unit reputation perceptions matter to stakeholders both internal and external to the organization.

As an aggregate construct, reflected unit reputation has two primary components. The first is quality, or the favorability of perceptions about the group. A group that believes their unit is seen very positively has favorable reflected reputation quality whereas a group with average aggregate perceptions that are more negative would tend to have unfavorable reflected reputation quality. Thus, reflected unit reputation quality refers to the proximity of the group average to the positive end of the response scale. The second component is the strength, or amount of agreement among group members regarding the reflected reputation of the unit. When reflected unit reputation strength is high, members have similar perceptions about how others view their group.

The concept of strength comes from the climate literature and is operationalized in terms of within-group variability in reputation perceptions (Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats,

2002). Strength regarding reputation can influence important outcomes. Dunn (2008)

44 suggests, for instance, that agreement about personal reputations could either increase or decrease trust in a target individual entity. Strength differs from quality in that it focuses on agreement while quality concentrates on favorability of reputation. Although aggregation of a construct is sometimes justified by using a minimum standard of agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), the degree of shared perception as a focal construct is different in that it indicates variability on strength of a measure (Chan, 1998;

Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). An example would be if everyone in the group

(agreement) believes their unit is evaluated negatively (unfavorable) by others, then the unit would have high reflected reputation strength and low reflected reputation quality.

Since one component focuses on favorability and the other on agreement regarding the unit reputation, it is predicted that the antecedents for reflected unit reputation quality will differ than those for reflected unit reputation strength.

In this section, a model will be specified in which the information source predictors and outcomes of reflected unit reputation quality and reflected unit reputation strength are described in detail. Since perceptions of reflected unit reputation come from employees in the group, the focus is on information that may be considered important to these individuals as part of the target being evaluated. That is, the information described in this section includes characteristics that may be salient to employees in the group rather than perceptions by outside observers or individuals external to the unit. The

“Reputation as Information” framework will continue to be used as a guide in describing the elements of a unit‟s reflected reputation quality and strength. Information sources similar to those described for organizational and personal reputations will be described in

45 relation to these unit reputation components. Target, interpersonal, and environmental information sources are expected to influence group members‟ perception of the quality and strength of reflected reputation of their group. Some of these information sources will be used as signals predicting the quality of reflected reputation whereas others will represent shared cognition that influences agreement about that reputation.

An employee is likely to believe that key characteristics act as signals about the reputation of the group to constituents within and outside the organization. Signaling theory suggests that two actors convey meaningful information to one another (Spence,

1973). It is based on the idea that some transactions do not involve perfect information.

One way to resolve this issue is for one entity to send a signal indicating relevant information to another entity. Typically, research on signaling theory focuses on potential employees‟ use of signals to indicate that they are worthy of selection to employers (Rosenbaum, Kariya, Settersten, & Maier, 1990). For example, applicants typically further their education as a signal of their future performance and potential success in the organization (Spence, 1974). Thus, the focus has been on the influence a signal that one actor (target) conveys has on the other actor (observer). Extending this, the observer‟s reaction to that signal conveys information back to the target. That is, observer attitudes and behaviors toward the target transmit information back to the target.

Thus, employees may believe that characteristics of the unit act as signals to convey information to others who use those perceived signals as a means of evaluating the reputation of the unit. The reflected reputation quality in turn, may influence expectations about job attributes and whether or not it is a quality place to work thus affecting attitudes

46 and behaviors during an employee‟s existence in that unit. In other words, individuals in a unit perceive that signals are sent to others that indicate the reputation of that group.

These signals are typically group target, environment, and interpersonal information perceived by the individual in the target unit to be important to observers. Information signals may influence the reflected unit reputation quality, or what the target believes others think regarding the positive or negative favorability of reputation of the unit.

Individuals may further reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviors in exchange for working in a unit with what they believe to have a positive reflected reputation quality.

Thus, signaling theory helps explain the quality predictors of a reflected unit reputation.

Group members may believe that certain information sources are more observable than others and thus are more likely to act as signals indicating how others could perceive the unit.

Strength regarding agreement about a unit‟s reflected reputation can best be understood using shared cognition theory. Shared cognition refers to the collective socially agreed meaning held in common by group members (Thompson & Fine, 1999).

According to this perspective, shared cognition is not bound by individual thought about social objects but created through the social interchange among group members. Shared cognition can include aspects of situations that lead group members to have similar perceptions and expectations. Thus, agreement regarding a unit‟s reflected reputation will occur when a group has shared cognition. Information that leads to shared cognition is different than the information signals that can predict the quality of reputation. That is, some information will serve as a signal influencing the favorability of reflected unit

47 reputation whereas other information will play a role in shared cognition that shapes the strength of agreement among group members of reflected unit reputation perceptions.

Figure 3 demonstrates the signaling information sources of favorability that influence reflected unit reputation quality and the shared cognition information sources that shape reflected unit reputation strength. The organizational climate literature demonstrates that agreement in a group can have an effect on attitudes and behaviors

(Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). As such, reflected unit reputation strength is expected to moderate the relationship between reflected unit reputation quality and important attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction, extra-role behaviors, and motivation. In addition, taking individual thought into consideration along with shared cognition, internal states of group members might also moderate the relationship between information signals of favorability and quality of reflected unit reputation perceptions.

The social exchange outcomes of reflected unit reputation quality are expected to relate to attitudes, behavior, and effort of employees in the group.

Figure 3: Model of Reflected Unit Reputation

Favorability Signals of Reflected Unit Reputation

Signaling theory suggests the process in which a quality reputation develops for a unit within an organization. Signaling theory proposes that characteristics of an entity convey potentially useful and uncertainty-reducing information to individuals (Spence,

1973; 2002). It is rooted in the economic idea of asymmetric information, which suggests that inequalities exist in access to information in the exchange of goods and services. Spence (1973) proposed that the problem of asymmetric information could be mitigated by having one entity send a signal that would reveal relevant information to the other entity. That entity would then interpret the signal and adjust their decisions 49 accordingly. Signaling theory research has focused on the way in which employers gather information about potential employees rather than the way individuals gather information, make decisions, and form opinions about their employer and more specifically the department or group. It is proposed that group members may perceive that certain target, environmental, and interpersonal information act as signals to potential members or outsiders of the group indicating the favorability of the unit‟s reputation as a quality place to work. The key information sources that may act as signals group members believe others will use to distinguish the favorability of the reputation of a unit are the human capital, environmental contextual factors, elements of social comparison, and leadership quality of the group. These information sources represent the target, environmental, and interpersonal antecedents in the “Reputation as Information” framework. Human capital in the form of education of group members is an objective target information source whereas leadership quality in the form of trust and support is a subjective information source. Environmental contextual information is provided through location in the form of proximity to headquarters. Interpersonal social comparison information includes comparing business functions across groups. In addition, these information sources are observable forms of useful information that help facilitate judgment of a group. Research has demonstrated that factors that are more observable tend to have a stronger influence on impressions (Merton, 1968; Taylor &

Fiske, 1978). Observable factors also serve as a means to differentiate one group from another.

First, the collection of human capital in a group is expected to act as a signal and influence the favorability of the reflected unit reputation. Zinko et al. (2007) propose that individual human capital will be significant to the development of personal reputation.

They suggest that individual education levels, experience, expertise, and demographic characteristics can enhance personal reputation. An aggregate of the education and experience in the unit, or collective human capital, is expected to positively affect the favorability of the reputation for that department or group. According to human capital theory, the knowledge and skills gained by the group generate higher worth or value of that unit (Becker, 1993). This builds the credibility of the group leading to more positive perceptions. Group members may perceive that human capital information is used as a signal by others to predict expectations and future performance of that unit. Collective human capital also allows groups to take advantage of strategic opportunities to create value (Lei, Hitt, & Bettis, 1996). The combination of human capital resources provides opportunities for new services, clients, and resources. These opportunities can help a group obtain a competitive advantage and lead group members to believe that the unit is seen more positively by others (Hitt, Bierman, Shimizu, & Kochhar, 2001). The greater the level of combined human capital, the more positive the perceived judgment made about that unit. That is, the greater a teams combined level of education, the better its reflected unit reputation quality.

Hypothesis 1a: Human capital information such as greater amounts of education

will be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality.

Information from the environment may also act as a signal and influence the quality of reflected unit reputation perceptions held by group members. Environmental information in a unit may be associated with work attributes such as location. Work attributes have been demonstrated to be associated with reputation perceptions in past research (Cable & Turban, 2003). Certain work attributes provide information about the environment that may influence expectations and perceptions of reflected reputation.

Lievens (2007) discusses various levels of expectations that employees experience and how they relate to work attributes. Some expectations are instrumental and include objective, physical, and tangible attributes such as rewarding jobs, high salaries, job security and career opportunities. Others are symbolic expectations such as emotions, pride, purpose, integrity, and innovation. Signals gleamed from the characteristics of the group and contextual influences of the environment affect the expectations of individuals.

Research on corporate image demonstrates that symbolic expectations or beliefs account for more when considering the attractiveness of the organization than instrumental expectations or beliefs (Lievens & Highhouse, 2003). However, in investigating the reflected reputation of a unit, it is predicted that instrumental expectations will play a larger role than symbolic expectations to employees because they are useful in differentiating groups and departments to individuals outside of the group. Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that individuals have a need for assimilation, which is met by being a member of a group, and for differentiation, which is met by comparing that group to other groups in the organization (Brewer, 1991). That is, instrumental attributes

52 of the environment such as location will influence perceptions of the favorability of the reflected reputation of that unit by differentiating it from other units.

Some geographic locations are seen more positively or more negatively than others.

According to the country-of-origin literature, organizations and products are evaluated based on their location (Bilkey & Ness, 1982). Literature on call centers suggests geographic location may influence expectations (Roggeveen, Bharadwaj, & Hover,

2007). Location can demonstrate the value or importance of the unit. Employees that work in units located close to the corporate headquarters are likely to believe they are seen as more important. Spatial proximity in location is the physical distance in which groups and group members are located from one another. It facilitates interactions and knowledge sharing (Boschma, 2005). Research suggests that proximity, such as in a network of relationships, can influence employee perceptions (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993).

Closer geographic location provides more opportunities for individuals to advance internally (Batt, Hunter, & Wilk, 2003). Thus, it is suggested that the closeness of a group is to the corporate headquarters acts as a positive environmental information signal that influences reflected unit reputation favorability perceptions.

Hypothesis 1b: Positive environmental information such as a location closer to

corporate headquarters will be positively related to reflected unit reputation

quality.

Social comparisons may be another type of information signal that says something about the status of the group vis-à-vis other groups. Social comparison theory suggests that the assessment of one‟s own reputation is dependent on the group with whom one compares oneself (Festinger, 1954). Social comparisons can provide useful information about where one stands. Social comparisons can be upward or downward. Upward social comparisons occur when entities compare themselves to someone who is better off, whereas downward social comparison is a comparison to someone who is worse off

(Wood, 1996). Certain contextual factors within the workplace motivate the direction of social comparisons (Kay, Wheeler, Bargh, & Ross, 2004). In evaluating the favorability of a unit‟s reflected reputation in comparison to other units, contextual information including the business function of the group is expected to influence whether group members make upward or downward social comparisons as they evaluate the quality of their reputation.

The business function of the unit is one interesting social comparison factor that could act as an informational signal of the quality of the reflected reputation of a unit and influence the direction of social comparison. Organizations are typically structured around occupational specialties based on the business function including the type of goods and services produced or the type of tasks performed in that unit (Van Maanen &

Barley, 1985). Group members may believe that some types of goods or services they provide may be perceived a certain way in comparison to other types of goods and services provided. For example, some departments of a university may be seen more positively than others based on their area of study. Within an organization, some

54 functions of departments or groups are seen as more prestigious or better places to work.

This partially stems from occupational prestige (Zhou, 2005), or the status of the work done in that unit. Groups of individuals who perform a task that is distinct from other groups in the organization often develop a reputation. Information that is salient due to its inconsistency with the greater context tends to receive more attention (Taylor & Fiske,

1978). Moreover, a group that performs „dirty work‟ may develop a negative reputation associated with the function of those tasks (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007).

Dirty work is tasks performed by groups that are thought of as physically, socially, or morally tainted. The tasks or business function of a group may lead others to perceive it in a manner in which leads to a more positive reputation in comparison to other groups.

The business functions that are likely to activate a schema leading to more positive reputation perceptions are what Porter (1985) refers to as primary activities within the value chain of an organization. These may include logistics, operations, marketing, and sales functions. Supportive functions include administrative, human resources, technology, research & design, and procurement. Supportive business functions may be perceived as less valuable and therefore have a less favorable reputation. Even within a department, members of units or groups may believe their groups are perceived differently based on their business function or the type of work performed. For example, call center unit‟s whose business function is customer service may be perceived as a having a social taint. Social taints occur when a worker appears to have a servile relationship to others (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Often, outsiders remain distant from others who do that type of work, glad that it is someone else handling these kinds of

55 issues. Groups whose business function is focused on sales or personal relationships with clients are likely to be held in a higher esteem. Therefore, in a comparison among the two types of groups, those whose business function relate to primary functions such as sales are more likely to engage in downward social comparison than units whose business function relate supportive functions such as customer service.

Hypothesis 1c: Downward social comparison information such as having a primary

business function will be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality.

Another source of information that may act as a signal and lead to a more favorable evaluation of a unit‟s reflected reputation is the leadership quality of the group.

Leadership quality refers to the support and trust provided by supervisors of a unit

(Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhodes, 2002). Leaders act as representatives of the group. The greater quality the group perceives a leader to be, the more likely they are to believe that other‟s view the reputation of their unit as favorable.

Employees that believe they have a quality leader that supports them and that they can trust think that their supervisor is highly valued by the organization as well (Eisenberger,

Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhodes, 2002). The support and trust associated with quality leadership is expected to be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality.

Perceived social support from supervisors is a form of leadership quality that influences reputation favorability perceptions. Research on organizational climate suggests that relationships with supervisors shape group members perceptions of their unit (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989). Perceived supervisor support concerns the degree to 56 which employees feel supervisors value their contributions and care about their well- being. Studies have demonstrated that perceived supervisor support is associated with status in the organization (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, &

Rhodes, 2002). Employees who believe their supervisor values their opinions are likely to have positive evaluations of their supervisor and believe others in the organization view the supervisor favorably as well. Since supervisors are often seen as representatives of the group (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, &

Rhodes, 2002), employees that think their supervisors are viewed favorability may also think the group is viewed positively by others.

Trust in supervisors also reflects leadership quality in the group. Trust refers to a psychological state encompassing the intention of group members to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations (Rousseau, Sitkins, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Trust in leadership is associated with anticipations of greater benefits than risks in the group and is therefore related to less uncertainty (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1995). Group members have less fear of exploitation in a unit where they trust their leader. They are more likely to believe outsiders receive positive information about the unit and view it in a more favorable light. Trust in leaders is related to positive attitudes such as job satisfaction in the group as well (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Thus, employees who trust the leader are more likely to evaluate the group in a positive manner. Because of the support and trust associated with quality leaders, the higher the perception of leadership quality in the group, the more likely the group members will believe others view their unit reputation positively.

Hypothesis 1d: Leadership quality in the form of trust and support will be positively

related to reflected unit reputation quality.

Agreement Shared Cognition of Reflected Unit Reputation

Although human capital, environment, social comparison, and leadership quality can all act as information signals predicting the favorability of reflected unit reputation, other sources of information are important to the strength of consensus among group members regarding the shared cognition about reflected unit reputation. Reflected unit reputation strength represents similarity of opinion regarding the reputation and status of the group. It is known as a focal dispersion construct among Chan‟s (1998) composition models since it measures the variability (or lack thereof) of perceptions regarding a concept such as reputation (Gonzalez-Roma', Peiro', & Tordera, 2002). High agreement portrays similarities in common patterns of assigning meaning to an environment (Joyce

& Slocum, 1984). Information sources expected to influence the shared cognition and thus agreement among group members regarding the reflected unit reputation include unit history, size, interdependence, and social network density. These sources are likely to facilitate shared opinions that lead to greater strength in reflected unit reputation.

Unit history includes the tenure of a department or group and is expected to provide information that influences reflected unit reputation strength. The longer a unit has been in existence, the more time observers will have to gain information about it, thus increasing consistency of reputation perceptions. Observers including members of the unit build perceptions of that department or group by gathering information about its existence. Greater tenure means less uncertainty of the actions and performance of a unit 58 and more similarity among opinions of group members (Milbourn, 2003). Moreover, the longer a group has been existence, the more likely members will see things in a similar way (Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). In a study on academic paradigms,

Pfeffer and Moore (1980) find that higher collective tenure is related to higher consensus about theory, methods, and administration in academic departments. Research has also suggested that tenure of top management teams influences their agreement on political strategy and public policy (Ozer, 2009). Thus, it is expected that the longer the unit history in terms of tenure in the organization, the more group members will agree about the unit‟s reflected reputation.

Hypothesis 2a: Unit history in terms of longer collective tenure of team members

will be positively related to reflected unit reputation strength.

The size of a unit is also expected to play a role in the shared cognition process that leads to reflected unit reputation strength. A larger department or group is likely to have subgroups within the unit that may think differently about how others perceive their group (Brewer, 1991). Communications among all group members is less likely in larger groups which limit the consensus among group members (Moreland, 1999).

Additionally, research on group performance suggests that group size is negatively related to member consensus in problem solving (Manners, 1975). When looking at the strength regarding reputation perceptions, group members may not know how others think when the group is large. Large groups may include a variety of opinions and thus lower strength of agreement regarding reflected unit reputation perceptions.

Hypothesis 2b: Unit size will be negatively related to reflected unit reputation 59

strength.

Research at the unit level of analysis that does not consider the interdependence of unit members has been suggested to have limited value for building knowledge about teams (Koslowski & Bell, 2003). Interdependence is another information source in which group members may believe acts as a source of shared cognition of the group and thus influences the strength of agreement regarding reflected unit reputation. Group interdependence refers to the degree of interaction among team members (Shea & Guzzo,

1987). The interdependence of the unit can also facilitate the sharing of knowledge and information (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997). Interdependence of work tasks within units creates incentives for achieving goals and facilitating relationships (Cabrera & Cabrera,

2005). These interactions may act as a means of information sharing in that the group that leads to similarity in perceptions. Research has demonstrated that groups with higher levels of task interdependence tend to cooperate more, think more alike, and have greater cohesiveness than groups with low task interdependence (Wageman, 1995). In the interdependent context of cohesive teams, situational variables such as the group norms and climate are intensified (Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Group members with strong affective bonds are more likely to agree and think similarly to one another. Thus, the consensus strength of reflected unit reputation in a highly interdependent group is likely to be greater than a group that has lower interdependence.

Hypothesis 2c: Unit interdependence will be positively related to reflected unit

reputation strength.

Similar to how interpersonal information is used when observers make judgments of a target‟s reputation, sources of interpersonal information are important in reflected reputation strength as well. The main interpersonal information source is social networks within the unit. The accumulation of social connections through networks may predict the unit member consensus strength of their reflected reputation. The social network density, or connections to other individuals within the unit (Wasserman & Foust, 1994) increase awareness of perceptions of that unit. Interactions among group members allow them to communicate about their work environment and develop shared interpretations of the context (Ashforth, 1985). Social network density represents relationships among members of a network and may lead to greater cooperation and information sharing among group members (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). When an individual has to interpret ambiguous stimuli, individuals use social interaction as part of the sense-making process (Zalesny & Ford, 1990). Thus, interaction among a social network of work group is likely to determine agreement about the reputation of a unit.

Social network density within a unit serves as a means of conveying information about the group to others within it through relationships and associations. That interpersonal information is used in forming stronger agreement of reflected reputation.

Hypothesis 2d: Social network density will be positively related to reflected

unit reputation strength.

Reflected Unit Reputation and Social Exchange Outcomes

Referring back to the “Reputation as Information” framework, it demonstrates how the target characteristics, interpersonal interactions, and environment serve as informational source signals that combine with the observer attitudes and behaviors toward the target indicate the target‟s reflected reputation. This reflected reputation then acts as a schema to provide a conglomerate of information that influences target attitudes, behaviors, and other outcomes. Unit perceptions of reflected reputation as a quality place to work can act as an exchange resource for group members during their existence in that unit. Individuals seek association with an entity with a positive reflected reputation not only because such an entity is likely to possess or have access to extrinsic rewards, but also because the status of group members tends to be conferred on those who associate with that entity (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Group members can gain status by being associated with a unit that is held in high esteem. Social exchange theory can help predict the aggregate outcomes that will be influenced by belonging to a unit that is perceived to have a positive reputation.

Relationships are often established to acquire valuable resources (Cropanzano &

Mitchell, 2005; Foa & Foa, 1980). A resource is anything transacted in an interpersonal situation. It is any item, concrete or symbolic, which can become the object of exchange among people. These resources can provide economic and social goods. Only social exchange, however, tends to engender feelings of personal obligations, gratitude, and trust whereas purely economic exchange does not. Social exchange theory posits the six resources commonly exchanged including love, information, money, goods, services, and

62 status (Foa & Foa, 1980). The norms of reciprocity suggest that the recipients of these valued resources repay the entity that provided those benefits (Fuller et al., 2006).

Moreover, the probability of resource exchange may vary depending on the resource and the size of the group (Foa & Foa, 1980). Resources such as love and status are more likely to be exchanged in smaller groups whereas economic exchanges such as money tend to occur in larger groups. Status is often described as the resource associated with positive reputation (Flynn, 2003; Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997). Therefore, the assessment of reflected unit reputation as a quality place to work can be thought of as an indirect exchange resource provided to employees in the form of status. Since the unit is a smaller, more proximal entity than the organization overall, it is more likely that the group members will feel the need to repay the exchange party that provided those benefits in return for the resource of status. This is similar to Cohen and Bradford‟s

(1989; 2006) description of „currencies‟ that are exchanged in organizations. They list reputation and the status associated with it as position-related currency that enhances the way an entity is seen and suggest that those who receive this currency want to return the favor in some manner.

Social exchange theory suggests rules typically related to the exchange of resources (Foa & Foa, 1980). One rule proposes that resources close to each other in the

“exchange circle” of the six major resources are more likely to be substitutable. Liking and status are next to each other in the resource exchange circle (Foa & Foa, 1980). In the case of unit reputation, receiving status from the department or group is likely to influence group members to provide love, or positive attitudes and liking of the job in the

63 form of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is described as an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favor (Brief, 1998). Positive attitudes have been demonstrated as a form of “repayment” in indirect exchange relationships such that resources provided by the organization are linked to greater job satisfaction. For example, Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen (2002) predicted the positive relationship between procedural justice provided by the organization and job satisfaction of employees. Therefore, it is expected that the status conferred through unit reputation will be related to collective job satisfaction of the group.

Hypothesis 3: Reflected unit reputation quality will positively relate to job

attitudes such as collective job satisfaction.

Another rule of social exchange theory is that one resource accompanies another.

Social exchange theory posits that those who receive symbolic resources such as love, money, or status are more likely to exhibit helping behaviors (Foa & Foa, 1980).

Organizational citizenship behaviors are those voluntary actions that go beyond the formal job requirements such as helping others in the organization (Wright, George,

Farnsworth, & McMahan, 1993). Studies have indicated that these extra-role behaviors are often related to indirect exchanges in organizations (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff,

1998). Collective extra-role or citizenship behaviors are likely to be a mode of reciprocation for status exchange because they are typically more easily controlled by group members. For example, citizenship behaviors might include helping co-workers, going above and beyond in the job, volunteering, or supporting organizational objectives.

Thus, receiving the resource of status from a unit with a positive reflected reputation is likely to relate to aggregate extra-role or organizational citizenship behaviors in the group.

Hypothesis 4: Reflected unit reputation quality will positively relate to collective

organizational citizenship behaviors.

Furthermore, social exchange theory suggests that services constituting labor or effort are another resource that is often exchanged. The rule proposes that the nearer two resources are in the structure of resource classes, the more likely they are to be exchanged with one another (Foa & Foa, 1980). Status and services are quite proximal to one another in the configuration of resource classes. Thus, providing status in the form of unit reputation to individuals is likely to be reciprocated with services of effort such as motivation. Motivation can be described as a set of energetic forces that can originate beyond an individual‟s being and can initiate and determine the direction, intensity, and duration of work behavior (Pinder, 1998). Research has suggested that relatively little work has considered the issue of motivation in teams and that the team level should be incorporated when studying motivation (Koslowski & Bell, 2003). Chen and Kanfer

(2006) propose that team-level variables be considered when accounting for motivation in teams. They propose that certain team level variables, such as group norms for example, can affect motivation of the team. They describe ambient inputs, or team- oriented stimuli that exert influence on team-level motivation. Generally, the effects of ambient inputs are expected to be positive in relation to motivation. Positive unit reputation can be considered an ambient input that serves as a status resource provided by

65 the group. Service resources in the form of motivational effort are expected to be reciprocated by the group and positively related to the reflected reputation of the unit.

Hypothesis 5: Reflected unit reputation quality will positively relate to employee

effort demonstrated through collective motivation.

Internal States and Strength as Moderators

Individual thoughts and shared cognition can have an influence on the relationship between favorability information signals, reflected unit reputation quality, and attitudinal and behavioral outcome. That is, internal states of group members can have an effect on how favorable or unfavorable certain information signals are perceived, thus influencing perceptions of the quality of the unit‟s reputation. Moreover, the strength of the mental model of the group is likely to influence the uniformity of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Internal states of the members of a group may serve as information that influences perceptions of reflected unit reputation. The internal states of target unit members may play a role in how they perceive outsiders evaluate the reputation of that group. In other words, these internal states affect how targets believe their group is seen by others. One type of internal state that is expected to influence reflected reputation quality is individual burnout levels. Burnout occurs when group members perceive their environment and jobs to be too much to handle (Lansisalmi, Peiro, & Kivimaki, 2000). Burnout can emerge in a unit when group members face time constraints, constant fluctuation, continuously changing customer needs, or work overload. These stressors influence the internal state of group members negatively such that they project these feelings to

66 outsiders and believe others would also evaluate the group negatively, despite information signals that might suggest otherwise. The three dimensions of burnout are exhaustion or fatigue, cynicism or indifference, and professional inefficacy (Maslach,

Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). If individuals are experiencing the internal state of burnout due to overwhelming stress on the job, then they are likely to have different perceptions of information signals that might otherwise be viewed positively. As such, burnout is expected to moderate the relationship between favorability information signals and reflected unit reputation quality perceptions.

Hypothesis 6: Internal states will moderate the relationship between reputation

favorability information (a. Human Capital, b. Location, c. Business function, and

d. Leadership Quality) and reflected unit reputation quality such that the more

negative internal states, the more likely the information sources lead to an

less favorable reflected unit reputation.

Agreement among group members regarding the unit‟s reflected reputation suggests that they perceive signals in a similar manner and have higher unanimity regarding the reputation of the unit. The effect of reflected reputation quality on attitudinal (job satisfaction), behavioral (OCBs), and effort (motivation) outcomes is likely to be more consistent when there is higher reflected unit reputation strength. That is, greater strength regarding how the unit is viewed by others will lead to greater continuity in member attitudes and behaviors. This is based off the concept of situational strength (Mischel, 1976). Strong situations occur when employees perceive something the same way, which often leads them to respond in similar ways and produce uniform

67 behavior (Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). On the other hand, when agreement about the reputation of the group is low, the quality of the reflected unit reputation is less likely to influence important outcomes consistently. Strength means group members are likely have similar beliefs regarding the reflected unit reputation. Strong situations lead individuals to develop expectations that influence the way they feel and act (Schneider,

Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). Essentially, when the quality of the reflected reputation is positive and the strength of agreement regarding the reputation of a group is high, group members are more likely to act in positive ways that protect that reputation. When the reflected reputation is negative and the consensus regarding that reputation is strong, group members are more likely to respond negatively. This is consistent with the climate literature which has demonstrated that climate strength (agreement) moderates the relationship between mean climate levels and outcomes (Colquitt, Hollenbeck, Ilgen,

LePine, & Sheppard, 2002; Gonzalez-Roma', Peiro', & Tordera, 2002; Dickson, Resick,

& Hanges, 2006). Thus, it is predicted that the interaction of reputation quality and reputation strength produces a more consistent effect on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Hypothesis 7: Reflected unit reputation strength will moderate the relationship

between reflected unit reputation quality and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes

(a. job satisfaction, b. OCBs, and c. motivation) such that the greater the reflected

unit reputation strength, the more consistent the relationship between reputation

quality and collective outcomes.

Summary of the Unit Level of Reputation

The purpose of this section of the dissertation was to describe the antecedents and outcomes associated with reflected unit reputation quality and strength. Signaling theory is used as a theoretical basis for the plethora of information sources group members may believe serve as signals of the unit‟s reputation to outsiders. Shared cognition provides theoretical support for information sources that can increase the strength of reflected unit reputation perceptions. In addition, social exchange theory helps explain the attitudinal, behavioral, and effort related outcomes associated with a positive reflected reputation quality. Reflected unit reputations can be an asset for organizations because of their influence on the unit overall and the attitudes and behaviors of individuals working within those units who act as both targets and observers of the reputation perceptions.

The next section of the dissertation will explore the third requirement suggested by Chen and Kanfer (2006) for multilevel models which are the cross-level effects. The interaction of reflected unit reputation with personal reputation in determining the cross- level reputational influences on mobility and performance will be explored.

Chapter 5: Cross-Level Reputation Effects

Incorporating multiple levels of analysis into models is an emerging trend that continues to gain more ground in organizational science. Psychological or atomistic fallacies can occur when the study of a construct focuses on one level. Psychological fallacies exist when a study assumes that individual level outcomes can be explained exclusively in terms of individual level characteristics, and atomistic fallacies occur when lower level results are used to make inferences about variables at higher levels of analysis

(Diez-Roux, 1998). Therefore, the study of reputation should incorporate a multilevel approach that analyzes the relationships among personal, unit, and organizational reputation. The purpose of this section of the dissertation is to delineate the relationships among the levels of reputation. By doing so, this section meets the third of Chen and

Kanfer‟s (2006) requirements of building a multilevel model.

Careful consideration of theory, measurement, and analysis is necessary when exploring the relationships between variables at different levels. There are three main approaches to take into account when examining the relationships among levels of a construct. The first is a bottoms-up approach in which processes emerge as one aggregates data up to the next level of analysis. Koslowski and Klein (2000) refer to bottoms-up approaches as emergent phenomena that originate in the cognition, affect, and behaviors or other characteristics of individuals, are amplified by their interactions, and manifests as a higher level collective phenomenon. The second approach to 70 exploring the relationships between levels of a construct is a top down approach that investigates the way in which higher level constructs affect lower level variables. In this approach, characteristics of the higher level construct seem to spillover onto lower levels.

The construct of a reputation has elements that suggest both the bottoms up and the top down approach in that unit reputations may emerge from individual reputations in the group and organizational reputations may spillover to group and individual reputations within the company. Moving from the individual to the group level would require higher levels of reputation to be at least partially a function of the reputations of multiple individuals within that particular group. Thus, reputation can be described as what

Weick (1979) refers to as a double interaction such that individual behaviors influence collective processes which in turn further influences individual processes and behavior.

Because both the bottoms up and top down approaches may apply to reputation in organizations, a third approach that investigates interactions among multiple levels of analysis seems to be the most appropriate tactic for studying reputation. Current research underlying reputation is greatly focused on either the macro or micro levels of analysis.

The advantage of this focus is detailed analyses of particular subject groups. The disadvantage of this focus, however, is that level-specific studies restrict the ability to see general patterns across social entities. What is missing from a focused perspective is an understanding of interactions that cross levels of analysis. Moreover, it is important to determine which employee behaviors are influenced by personal and unit reputation. In the interactive approach to investigating the relationships among the levels of a construct, the effects of the interface between various levels of reputation are explored.

Interactional Approach in Studying Reputation

Rousseau (1985) defined cross-level interactional models as those that specify “the effects phenomena at one level have on those of another” (page 15). In most organizational research, cross-level interactional models include an outcome variable at the individual level and predictors at both the individual and higher levels of analyses.

Although this is most common, there are actually four main paradigms of cross-level research in the organizational sciences (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). The first paradigm is described as incremental in that group variables add incremental prediction to individual level outcomes over and above individual level predictors. The second are moderational cross-level paradigms where the relationship between two individual level variables is moderated by a third group level variable. Next, the meditational paradigm suggests the influence of group level variables on individual outcomes is mediated by individual perceptions. Finally, separate paradigms can occur when models within groups and between groups are distinct. The focus of this section of research will be on moderational paradigms, in which unit reputation interacts with personal reputation to influence individual engagement and identity, and meditational paradigms, in which individual perception variables (engagement and identity) act as a mechanisms connecting reflected reputation to individual outcomes of performance and mobility.

Employee Engagement Performance

Reflected Reflected Unit Personal Reputation Reputation

Identity Employee Mobility

Figure 4: Cross-Level Model of Reputation Effects

Before exploring the cross-level relationships, the variables in Figure 4 are

described. Since the outcomes of interest for this study are related to the target, the

perspective of personal and unit reputation used will be that of reflected reputation. As

previously reviewed, much of the literature related to reputation looks at the antecedents

and formation of reputation. Previous research also focuses on the relationship between

reputation and attraction to an organization, group, or individual. This study goes further

and explores the effect reputation can have on employee‟s performance in a group as well

as whether or not they remain in a group. The relationship between reputation and

performance as well as the relationship between reputation and mobility are interesting to

consider because tensions in whether the relationship is positive or negative can be made

in both cases. The relationship between reputation and performance is complex in that

reputation could be positively related to performance such that individuals exchange the

status obtained by giving extra effort that leads to higher performance. A negative

relationship between reputation and performance could also exist where individuals are 73 content with their status and do just enough to get by thus having lower performance.

Moreover, status associated with positive reputations may either be used as a motive for remaining in the group or leverage for going elsewhere. These relationships between reputation, performance, and mobility are investigated in the following study.

Whether or not an employee will use their personal reflected reputation as a means for increasing performance or mobility depends in part on the context of their group environment. One important contextual element is the reflected reputation of the unit in which they are a member. When considering the unit reputation, the relationship between personal reputation and the outcomes of performance and mobility become more complex. The theoretical reasoning explaining the interaction between reflected personal reputation and reflected unit reputation on individual performance and mobility may differ because of the contextual effects produced through unit reputation.

The effects of the interaction between personal and unit reputation on the outcomes performance and mobility may be clarified by considering mechanisms that can help explain these relationships. Given that reflected reputation is a perception, it is expected that the mechanism by which it relates to employee performance is a psychological variable or state of mind. Employee engagement can be described as a psychological presence or focus on role activities by attending to and being absorbed in the role (Kahn, 1990). Engagement occurs when one immerses themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally in a role. It is suggested that employee engagement will play a more proximal role as an outcome of the interaction of personal and unit levels of reflected reputation. Thus, the cross-level interaction between personal and unit

74 reputation is expected to influence employee engagement which then has an effect on individual performance.

Social information processing theory may help clarify the relationship between reflected reputation and mobility. The social environment of a group may provide information concerning how the individual should weigh various characteristics (Salancik

& Pfeffer, 1978) such as reputation. The relationship between reflected reputation and mobility is likely to depend on the intensity of an individual‟s need for the resource being offered or in this case reputation. In other words, how important is reputation to that individual and how greatly do they value the status associated with a positive reputation.

One way to assess the importance of reputation to an individual is to investigate the identification that an employee has with a group. Identity relates to the degree employees incorporate characteristics attributed to the group to their own self-concept (Ashforth &

Mael, 1989). It is the value or significance placed on being a member of a particular group (Tajfel, 1982; 1978). Individuals with a higher need for self-enhancement are likely to value a positive reputation more than those with lower needs (Herrbach,

Mignonac, & Gatignon, 2004). Therefore, the cross-level interaction between reflected personal and unit reputation is expected to influence employee identity which may then have an effect on individual mobility.

Personal and Unit Reputation Interaction

The cross-level interaction between levels of reflected reputation on the outcomes of individual engagement and identity are interesting to consider. Intuitively, one might assume that higher reputations at both levels would lead to greater engagement and

75 identity. However, the big fish in a little pond paradigm and the alternative of a little fish in a big pond may suggest that this relationship is more complex than it seems. This section explores the moderational paradigm of cross-level research (Hofmann & Gavin,

1998) where the group reputational context influences the relationship between two individual level variables.

Reflected reputation may predict employee engagement because it relates to the three psychological conditions necessary for individuals to engage in a role. Reflected reputation can influence the meaningfulness, psychological safety, and availability conditions that shape engagement in roles (Kahn, 1990). The status obtained from a positive reputation can offer employees a sense of meaningfulness. For example, Kahn

(1990) demonstrated that role status served as an indicator to individuals of how needed or important they were to their organization. Roles perceived as unimportant led to feelings of meaningless for employees. Positive reflected reputations may bring about employee perceptions of importance to the organization thus increasing meaningfulness.

Psychological safety is associated with predictable elements of social situations. Since reputation by its nature leads to less uncertainty and greater predictability by providing information, being associated with a positive reputation is likely to be perceived as a psychologically safe environment. In his study of camp counselors, Kahn (1990) noted that an information status hierarchy was developed based on the skill or activity in which the counselor was associated. The status hierarchy influenced the psychological safety that counselors felt such that those with less glamorous activities felt less safe to fully engage in their role. Counselors that were associated with activities that were higher up

76 in the status hierarchy felt greater psychological safety in their role. Availability, the third condition of engagement, reflects a lack of distractions and greater resources to concentrate on the task at hand. Psychological availability is associated with how secure individuals feel about their work and their status (Kahn, 1990). Being secure in one‟s status allows individuals to focus on the task rather than anxieties and thus they are able to engage in the role. A positive reflected reputation provides these status resources that relate to less insecurity about one self. Thus, reflected reputation is likely to be related to employee engagement in a role.

Once again, however, the relationship between reputation and engagement is complicated when considering the effects of the contextual aspects of the unit. Research examining the big fish in a little pond or frog pond effects explores the self-conceptions of capable individuals who either attend a more prestigious or less prestigious school.

Results from these studies suggest that students who attend more prestigious schools have more negative self-conceptions (Marsh, 1987). The advice proposed from these results indicates that it is better to be a big fish in a little pond than a little fish in a big pond.

These effects seem to occur because individuals focus on their relative standing in a group rather than on the group‟s overall standing. Capable students attending a prestigious school felt lower academic potential than those attending a less prestigious school. In addition, individuals who are successful in relation to their group feel better about themselves even when the group is less prestigious (McFarland & Buehler, 1995).

Individuals respond more favorably with high positions in unsuccessful groups than in

77 low positions in successful groups. This research on the big fish in the little pond sheds light on the relationship between personal and unit reputation.

The same objective and subjective information may lead to disparate outcomes of employee engagement depending on the frame of reference or standards of comparison that individuals use in perceiving others‟ evaluation of them. In other words, outcomes associated with reflected reputation depend not only on what an individual believes others think of them but also the reputation of the group in which they are a member.

According to the big fish little pond effect, engagement will be affected by individual reputation combined with unit reputation. Individuals who view themselves as having a better reflected reputation than that of their group are likely to believe that they are more capable than others in the group and thus approach tasks with a sense of self-efficacy

(Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kuyper, 1999). This should in turn lead to greater attention and absorption, or engagement in their work role. On the other hand, if individuals evaluate their own personal reputation lower than the collective reflected group reputation, it may lower their self-image and result in decreased engagement. Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy (Eden, 1990) suggests that if employees perceive their reputation to be lower than the groups, their supervisors may in turn treat them as such, which may be associated with lower engagement in their work role. That is, reflected unit reputation will moderate the relationship between reflected personal reputation and employee engagement.

Hypothesis 8a: Unit reflected reputation is expected to moderate the relationship

between personal reflected reputation and individual engagement such that

individuals with positive reflected personal reputations in a group with a less

positive reflected reputation are more likely to be engaged in their work than

individuals with lower reflected personal reputations in a group with a more

positive reputation.

Similar to engagement, social information processing may offer another mechanism that helps explain the relationship between reputation and individual mobility. Social information processing refers to the factors that individual‟s value in the workplace and how those factors are evaluated in current situations (Griffin, 1983;

Griffin, Bateman, Wayne, & Head, 1987). Contextual factors influence individual behaviors and outcomes through the meanings that individuals attach to these variables

(Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). A reputation is a cognitive contextual factor that reveals perceived ranking in a field of other rivals. Some individuals will choose to use this to their advantage as an asset or leverage for future positions whereas others will use it to partially justify their decision to remain in that department or group. Social information processing suggests that the social context and previous actions can guide individual‟s attitudes and behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). The social context is likely to make some information more or less salient and provides the norms and expectations which constrain past actions and direct future actions. Individuals evaluate their environment in terms of personal relevance. The mechanism that is suggested to play a role in whether individuals use unit reputation as leverage to increase their mobility or as partial justification to remain in the group is social identity. That is, the influence of reputation on individual mobility operates through the value that an individual places on the social

79 context resource of reputation. This value is reflected in how much an individual identifies with a particular group.

Social identification refers to the process in which information about social groups is related to the self (Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam, 2004). In other words, it is the inclination of an individual to be perceived as representative of that group thus perceiving group characteristic features as self-descriptive. Identification occurs when members of a group adopt the characteristics of the unit as defining characteristics of themselves. To identify, an individual need only perceive him- or herself as psychologically intertwined with the fate of the group. Prior research has suggested that high-status or high-power of a group is related to individual‟s willingness to identify

(Chatman, Bell, & Staw, 1986; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; March & Simon,

1958). The distinctiveness of the group compared to other groups increases the tendency to identify with that unit. Individuals incorporate images of the organization or group into their own self assessment. This research suggests that when these images are positive, individuals are more likely to identify with that group or department.

Individuals strive to maintain a positive self-concept and therefore use the association with a unit with a positive reputation as a means to reflect themselves more favorably. In general, they are more likely to establish a “oneness” with that particular group (Ashforth

& Mael, 1989).

When considering the big fish in a little pond effects, however, high prestige or status of a group may not always lead to increased identification. Similar to the cross- level effects on employee engagement, perceptions of relative standing in comparison to

80 the group can influence levels of identity and mobility (Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, &

Kuyper, 1999). As mentioned, in prior literature it is assumed that the greater the prestige of the group, the more likely it is that individuals will identify with it (Ashforth

& Mael, 1989). Nevertheless, when individuals perceive that they have a lower reflected personal reputation than that of their group, they may be less likely to identify with their group. Social identity theory suggests that individuals compare themselves to evaluations of their group (Tajfel, 1978; 1982). The little fish in a big pond effect proposes that these individuals react poorly to that comparison if they believe the group is seen more positively. In the education literature, David (1996) demonstrates that students enrolled in highly selective colleges had lower self-esteem, grade point averages, and career aspirations. That is, a contrast effect exists such that being a little fish in a big pond has negative effects on employee attitudes and behaviors. In this case, individuals may compensate for this comparison by decreasing their identification with that group. They will no longer perceive an “oneness” with that group. Moreover, members who evaluate their personal reputation as better than the group are more likely to identify with that group. Thus, reflected unit reputation is expected to moderate the influence of personal reflected reputation on identity.

Hypothesis 8b: Unit reflected reputation is expected to moderate the relationship

between personal reflected reputation and individual identity with a group such

that individuals with lower personal reflected reputations in a unit with a more

positive reflected reputation are likely to have lower identity than individuals with

higher personal reflected reputations in a unit with a less positive reflected

reputation.

Influence on Performance and Mobility Outcomes

Engagement and identity are not only influenced by the interaction between personal and unit reflected reputation, but may also have an effect on the outcomes of performance and mobility. This section investigates the meditational paradigm underlying reputation, engagement, identity, performance, and mobility.

Social exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) suggests that individuals that receive benefits such as higher self-esteem because of a positive reputation are more likely to reciprocate. One way in which they might reciprocate is by putting forth greater effort and intensity in their work role which relates to higher job performance. This suggests that employee engagement mediates the relationship between reflected reputation and performance. Saks (2006) indicates that employees will choose to engage themselves to varying degrees in response to the resources provided by the organization. In other words, employees that receive resources such as reputation may reciprocate by demonstrating effort through immersion in their work. The attention component of engagement refers to time spent thinking about a role and can be thought of as a resource that can be distributed in many ways (Rothbard, 2001). The absorption component of engagement involves being intensely engrossed in a role and concentration on role activities. These components relate to the motivation to act. Reputation resources motivate individuals to act in return by becoming engaged in their work role. The better

82 the perceived benefits received from the other party, the more motivated individuals are to exert themselves (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001).

Engagement was demonstrated as an exchange resource when Saks (2006)found support for his proposition that employees who receive the resources of positive support and procedural justice from organizations are likely to reciprocate with greater levels of engagement in their job. Thus, providing the resource of status through reputation is expected to be related to service resources of effort through employee engagement.

Engagement is further predicted to influence work performance. The meaningfulness, psychological safety, and availability made available by working with a positive reputation will lead to greater engagement in the work role. Engagement in turn should positively affect performance through greater attention and absorption in their role. Attention to a role occurs when cognitive thoughts and orientation are focused on the task at hand (Gardner, Dunham, Cummings, & Pierce, 1989). Although attention capacities are limited, individuals have a high degree of control over where they place their attention. Working with a positive reputation may direct attention towards effective role performance in that individuals work to maintain those positive perceptions.

Individuals are thus more willing to target additional effort toward tasks that contribute to their role. When an individual knows that others value them, then the norms of reciprocity indicate that member is inclined to respond by putting forth greater effort

(Gouldner, 1960). Absorption is a sense of concentration where time seems to fly by and an individual is highly immersed in a role and impervious to distraction (Schaufeli,

Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The positive

83 perception allows employees to minimize worry about status and thereby concentrate on their job. When individuals are absorbed in their work, they become more effective.

Thus, the meaningfulness, safety, and availability provided by having a positive reputation is expected to lead to greater attention and absorption through employee engagement in the work role which will be associated with enhanced performance.

Hypothesis 9a: Employee engagement is expected to mediate the relationship

between reflected reputation and individual performance.

The relationship among the interaction of personal and unit reputation and employee identity is important to consider because of potential effects on individual mobility. Identity may mediate the relationship between unit reputation and mobility such that individuals who identify more with the unit due to its reputation are more likely to remain in the group. Experimental studies have indicated that individuals in groups with lower status attempt to leave their group and gain admission to a group with a higher status (Ellemers, Wilke, & Van Knippenberg, 1993). Once they are in the higher status group, however, it is unclear whether these individuals remain or use that status as a stepping stone or leverage to move into another group. Incorporating identity into the relationship between reputation and individual mobility helps clarify this issue. A favorable reflected reputation of a unit is likely to increase an individual‟s identification with that group unless the individual is a little fish in the big pond. As stated previously, individuals with a lower personal reputation in a group with a higher reflected reputation are likely to identify with that group less than individuals with more neutral or higher reputations. The lower the identification with the group, the more likely the individual

84 will take mobility attempts to leave the group. Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje (2002) indicated that individuals who identified more with the group had higher commitment and desire to collaborate as a group. In a unit with a positive reflected reputation, most employees believe their work contributes to a group which operates well and is valued.

Those employees that have a lower personal reflected reputation in a group with a positive reflected reputation, however, may feel as though they cannot contribute and thus desire to leave the group. Thus, striving for consistency in maintaining a positive self-concept and identity through association with a unit with a favorable reflected reputation is expected to be negatively related to employee mobility. That is, employees with a positive personal reputation in a group with a positive reputation are more likely to identify with the group, which leads to fewer attempts to leave the group. On the other hand, employees who believe they are the little fish in a big pond are likely to have lower identity and thus greater desire to leave the group.

Hypothesis 9b: Social identity is expected to mediate the relationship between

reflected reputation and individual mobility.

Summary of the Cross-Level Reputation Interaction Effects

The cross-level effects investigated in this section include the moderating paradigm of cross-level interactions that is explored by looking at the relationship between the interaction of reflected personal and reflected unit reputation and the outcomes of engagement and identity. In addition, the mediating paradigm of individual- levels of engagement and identity mechanisms that relate reflected reputation to individual performance and mobility respectively are also investigated. If supported,

85 these hypotheses will demonstrate the influence of contextual variables such as reflected unit reputation on outcome variables through the meanings that individuals attach to this contextual factor. Moreover, it expands the “Reputation as Information” framework by suggesting that higher level constructs must be considered as a source of information that affects relevant workplace outcomes.

Chapter 6: Methods

Sample and Procedure.

The sample for this study consists of customer service center employees from a financial institution in the Midwestern United States. Participants from this organization work at two sites of the customer service center located in different states. The response rate was 92% of 400 employees for a total sample size of 368 individuals. There were 26 teams represented in this sample. Within the overall customer service center, employees are organized into teams which range from 3 to 22 individuals. Teams are organized based on function or services provided and are relatively stable. Team members work in proximate locations where each team member could easily interact with other team members. The sample was 78% white and 70% female. Participants had an average age of 32 years and average tenure of 4.32 years. There were no significant differences between respondents and non-respondents in this sample.

The procedure involved the gathering of information from three sources including employee surveys, supervisor surveys, and archival data. Prior to the development of the employee and supervisor surveys, focus groups were held with employees to better understand the demands of their work. Focus group feedback was used to create the surveys. The surveys were then pretested with a handful of prior employees to ensure correct interpretation of the instrument. Changes to instructions and items were made when necessary after receiving the responses to the pre-test. Participants were notified of 87 the study by an email from a senior executive of the customer service center as well as an email from the researcher explaining the study and requesting participation (see

Appendix A). A direct link to the web-based survey was provided at the end of the researcher‟s email. Participants were informed that they would be entered into a drawing for ten $50 gift cards for completing the survey. The surveys were administered in company training rooms and time was allotted for each employee to complete the survey.

A reminder email was sent to non-respondents two weeks after the initial note was sent out (see Appendix B). Participation in the survey was voluntary and respondents were assured that their answers would be confidential. The researcher was on site and present at all times to answer questions and ensure that each survey was being completed independently. The survey was sent to approximately 400 employees and supervisors in the customer service center (see Appendix C and D respectively for the employee and supervisor survey instruments).

Measures.

Wherever possible, previously validated measures were used to assess focal variables. Respondents used Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree to respond to all items except where indicated. The unit or group-level constructs and relationships that were based on individual perceptual data necessitate aggregation

(George & James, 1993). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; (Shrout & Fliess,

1979) were used to estimate the appropriateness of such aggregation. Within-group interrater homogeneity (rwg) was also used as a means of determining the appropriateness

88 of aggregation. First, the aggregated group-level constructs are described, followed by an explanation of the individual-level constructs.

Group-Level Constructs

Reflected Unit Reputation. The measurement of reputation in past research has primarily focused on three methods. These include organizational ranking, perceived external reputation scales, and personal reputation measures. Organizational reputation is often measured using rankings of companies such as the Fortune 500 or 100 Best Places to Work (e.g. – Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). The validity of these measures has been criticized since the ratings were not originally designed for scientific research and the survey is limited to certain constituencies and populations within the United States

(Fryxell & Wang, 1994). More recently, the Harris Institute has developed a measure of organizational reputation called the Reputation Quotient. This measure sums a variety of stakeholder opinions and ranks companies on a collection of attributes including emotional appeal, products and services, financial performance, vision/leadership, workplace environment, and social responsibility (Fombrun, 2001). Perceived external reputation or prestige scales are measures that assess an individual‟s belief about how outsiders view their organization (Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001). Therefore, it is a measure of organizational reputation based on each individual‟s perception. Various scales of perceived external prestige exist including Riordan, Gatewood, and Bill‟s

(1997) six-item scale and Mael and Ashforth‟s (1992) eight item scale.

In this study, the construct of reflected unit reputation is a shared team property that is derived from common perceptions held by members of the team. Shared team 89 properties originate in experiences, attitudes, perceptions, values, cognitions, or behaviors commonly held by members of a team (Koslowski & Klein, 2000). Shared team properties are measured by gathering data from individual team members to assess the extent the construct is shared. If individual-level data reveal substantial within-group homogeneity, then it is aggregated to the team level of analysis to represent the shared team construct. Homogeneity among the members of a group is commonly considered a prerequisite for asserting that the construct in fact applies to that group (Klein,

Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). Team cohesion, team norms, team climate, and team mental models are some examples of shared team properties. The team is described as a distinguishable set of people who interact toward a common and valued goal and have specific functions (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). Ferris et al.

(2003) state that contemporary theory suggests that reputation is a collectively formed perception by others. Therefore, the measurement of reputation requires taking assessments within audiences of the extent to which entities are collectively regarded favorably or unfavorably. Fischer and Reuber (2007) suggest that scholars should identify qualities that are salient to each audience of interest and use them to measure beliefs about the entity. Organizational members tend to be the most neglected constituencies in studies on reputation even though they are probably more affected by construct of reputation than other stakeholder groups (Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997).

This study focuses on the audience of employees and concentrates on the quality of the department or group as a quality place to work. That is, the assessment will be made by employees of reflected unit reputation for quality employment.

The measure used to obtain reflected unit reputation quality perceptions was adapted from Mael & Ashforth‟s (1992) six-item perceived external prestige scale. Items were revised to reflect the unit level of analysis. Moreover, data from each unit was aggregated by taking the average of those in the unit to represent the group level construct. The measure of reflected unit reputation takes into account employee perceptions of the quality, or degree of positivity or negativity. Rather than treating the emergence of reputation as all or none, the degree of perception will indicate the extent to which the unit has a favorable reflected reputation (Brown, Kozlowski, & Hattrup, 1996).

The construct was measured such that it is the degree that a unit has a reflected reputation as a quality place to work. Sample items include “people at this organization think highly of my group” and “my group is considered to be among the best”. These items were measured using a scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

The reflected unit reputation strength about perceptions of the department or group as a quality place to work was defined as the amount of agreement regarding reputation perceptions. Reputation strength is treated as a focal construct in a dispersion model that indicates the degree of shared perception. It is different from direct consensus models of within group homogeneity that are simply used as standards of aggregation (Chan, 1998; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). Reflected unit reputation strength was operationalized as the reverse-sign standard deviation of employee perceptions of the unit reputation. The reverse-sign standard deviation was used rather than the rwg statistic because the rwg may result in values greater than one, overestimating the degree of agreement and complicating the interpretation of results

(Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). In addition, when calculating rwg, a clear null distribution for random variance is not evident. Therefore, in following the climate strength research method of determining agreement (Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats,

2002; Zohar & Luria, 2005), this dissertation uses the reverse-sign standard deviation values for measuring strength.

Favorability Signals. Human Capital is an additive composition model of the average education level in the group (Chan, 1998). Education level is commonly used as a proxy for human capital (Becker, 1993). Education is assessed with the question, “what is the highest level of education you have obtained?” Responses ranged on a scale from 1

(some high school) to 7 (master‟s degree or higher). Education level data was aggregated such that the human capital of the group will be reflected in the mean level of education.

The Environmental Information sources of location from corporate headquarters were measured as follows. Location information was obtained from archival data in the organization. Participants were located at two sites in different states. The primary location (closer to corporate headquarters) was dummy-coded 2 and the secondary location was dummy-coded 1. The location used for analysis was that in which the majority of team members worked.

Social Comparison Information was measured using business function. Business function reflects the functional lines of work in the customer service center. The comparison is among two types of jobs within the customer service center. Primary functional lines include personal bankers who focus on sales and personal relationships.

Supportive business functions include customer service associates who spend a majority 92 of their time responding to customer complaints. These functions were dummy coded in the data set. The business function used for the unit-level analyses was that in which the majority of team members identified.

Leadership Quality was measured using assessments of trust and social support.

Trust in Manager data was collected using a three item scale developed by Brockner et al. (1997). Items related to trusting people to do what is good, to make decisions in best interest, and to be treated fairly. Response choices ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree) for the trust measure. The Cronbach‟s alpha reliability coefficient for trust in manager was 0.95. Manager social support data was obtained in the employee survey with a six-item scale that asked respondents how accommodating and understanding their supervisors were in dealing with both work and family issues. This scale is derived from Caplan et al. (1980) who describe sources of support. Responses were indicated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The Cronbach‟s alpha reliability coefficient was 0.91 for manager support. Both trust in manager and manager social support were aggregated to the team level. Justification for aggregation is listed in the analysis section.

Agreement Information Sources. History or collective tenure of the unit was measured using a maximum of team member tenure. The years and months of tenure were reported in archival data provided by the organization. Since this measure will be used as a basis for the history of the group, maximum tenure, or the greatest length of time with the organization will be used for each group.

Size of the unit was measured using a count of the total number of individuals reporting to each supervisor.

Interdependence was measured using van der Vegt, Emans, and van de Vliert

(2000) scale of task interdependence. Five items were used to analyze the extent team members depended on one another. The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient for reliability was

0.79 for interdependence. Justification of aggregation for the interdependence scale is described in the analysis section.

Data on interpersonal information were collected from the customer service employee survey using the social network roster method (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass,

2001). Egocentric network, or an individual‟s unique set of social contacts was the focus of this method. Employees were asked to review an alphabetical list of individuals in the customer service center and select the individuals they went to for work and social interaction. Network data were analyzed using the network program UCINET VI

(Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1999). Social network density is measured by taking the total number of ties divided by the total number of possible ties. It is the ration of the number of links (L) compared to the maximum possible between individual nodes in the group (g). Social network density can be calculation using the following equation: 2L / g

(g - 1) (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In other words, the density of a network is the average number of connections in the group of all possible.

Attitudes. Employee attitudes were measured using three items from Edwards and

Rothbard‟s (1999) modified scale of job satisfaction. This modified scale included work satisfaction items drawn from Hackman and Oldham (1980) and Ironson, Smith, 94

Brannick, Gibson, and Paul (1989). The items were as follows: „In general, I am satisfied with my job‟; „All in all, the job I have is great‟; and „My job is very enjoyable‟.

The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient for reliability was 0.93 for job satisfaction.

Justification for aggregation of job satisfaction is provided in the analyses section.

Behaviors. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors were assessed using archival data provided by the organization of annual behavioral ratings. Supervisors were asked to rate their employees on their teamwork skills which included doing what was necessary to help others excel, assisting other associates in getting work completed, building trust, promoting collaboration and sharing resources, open to the ideas of others, and putting the good of the organization above own self-interests.

Effort. Motivation was assessed using a four item scale adapted from Deci & Ryan

(1985). These items are a sub-scale of the Situational Motivational Scale (Guay,

Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000). This scale measures the intrinsic motivation of participants, or the extent in which individuals derive pleasure and satisfaction from their work. The Cronbach‟s alpha reliability coefficient for motivation was 0.91. Justification of aggregation of the situational motivational scale is indicated in the analyses section.

Individual Level Constructs

Reflected Personal Reputation. Personal reputation is most often assessed using a

12-item scale developed by Hochwarter et al. (2007). Items on this scale reflect an individual‟s self-assessment of their personal reputation. Sample items include, “I am highly regarded by others” and “If people want things done right, they ask me to do it.”

The same scale can be reworded and used for others to assess the reputation of a focal person. Research has demonstrated high reliability for the other and self-assessments of personal reputation (Hochwarter, Ferris, Gavin, Perrewe', Hall, & Frink, 2007). The focus of this study will be the self-assessment of personal reputation. A condensed version of Hochwarter et al‟s (2007) scale was used that concentrates on global reputation rather than reputation related to performance. Sample items for this scale include “I am regarded highly by others” and “I have the respect of my colleagues at work”. The scale for perceived personal reputation ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The Cronbach‟s alpha measure of reliability was 0.89 for personal reputation.

Target internal states. Data on burnout were collected using four items adapted from Maslach and Jackson‟s (1981) measure of employee burnout. Items on the scale measured how often an individual experienced feelings of burnout. Scale responses ranged from 1 (once a month or less) to 5 (several times a day). The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient for reliability was 0.88 for employee burnout.

Engagement. Employee engagement was measured using Rothbard‟s (2001) scale. The scale assesses both attention and absorption in a work role. Eight items on the scale assess these components. Attention refers to the time spent thinking about and concentrating on the work role and absorption refers to the intensity of engrossment in the work role. The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient of reliability was 0.88 for employee engagement. As an additional check, supervisor ratings of employee engagement were measured using the same scale, but asking supervisors to rate their subordinates attention

96 and absorption in a work role. The Cronbach‟s alpha reliability coefficient was 0.90 for supervisor ratings of employee engagement.

Identity. Individual identity with unit was measured using a scale adapted from

Kane, Argote, and Levine (2005). Six items on the scale assessed the participant‟s identification with their group. Sample items included, “I feel strong ties to my group” and “I think of this group as part of who I am”. The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient of reliability was 0.78 for identity with group.

Performance. Performance data was collected on the supervisor survey. Direct reports were rated by their supervisors on in-role performance behaviors using three items from the scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). In-role performance items included „This person fulfills the responsibilities specified in the job description‟;

„This person adequately completes assigned duties‟; and „This person meets formal performance requirements‟. The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient for reliability was 0.84 for in-role performance.

Mobility. Individual mobility was assessed using perceived ease of movement, intent to turnover, and actual mobility data. These measures captured perceptions about mobility as well as behavior related to mobility. Perceived ease of movement was measured using a three-item scale adapted from Landau and Hammer (1986). Items were related to finding another job within the company if desired and perceived chances of promotion. The Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient of reliability was 0.87 for perceived ease of movement. Turnover intentions were measured using a modified version of scale of three items related to intentions to quit developed by Colarelli (1984). One item assessed

97 whether the employee was seriously thinking about quitting. Another assessed whether the employee was actively searching for a new job and the final item explored whether the employee would leave as soon as they found a better job. Intent to quit had a

Cronbach‟s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.93. Archival data from the company provided actual voluntary and involuntary turnover information. The data was dummy coded into three variables of actual turnover. The first assessed whether the employee remained with the organization or not (overall turnover). The next was coded 0 if the respondent remained and 1 if they voluntarily left the group, and the third assessed involuntary turnover.

Controls

To account for heterogeneity of the groups, differences in demographics were controlled for both the group and individual level analyses. Demographic information was provided by the organization. Age, sex, and race were the main archival demographic variables that were controlled in all analyses. Age was provided for each employee in the organization. Sex was dummy coded 0 for males and 1 for females.

Race was also coded into the categories of white (0or non-white (1). For the group-level analyses, the demographic variables were aggregated by using ratios of males to females and whites to other races and average age.

Chapter 7: Analyses and Results

Analyses.

Given the multiple levels of data used in this study, hierarchical linear modeling

(HLM) was used to test many of the hypotheses and determine how reflected unit reputation relates to various antecedents and outcomes. HLM is appropriate for analysis of data that includes observations that are nested and multi-level models (Raudenbush &

Bryk, 2002). Since the hypotheses in this study involved individuals nested within groups and cross-level analyses investigating the interaction between unit and individual reputation, the HLM program (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2004) was used to analyze cross-level relationships. A forward-stepping procedure (adding predictors to simpler models) was used rather than a backward stepping procedure

(starting with more complex models and deleting predictors), as suggested by multilevel experts (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). In addition, regression was used to test the effects of independent variables on dependent outcomes. The analysis of unit reputation as a moderator between personal reputation and the outcomes of engagement and identity will be conducted using moderated regression as suggested by Cohen, Cohen, West, and

Aiken (2003). The meditational paradigm suggested in the relationships between reputation, engagement, and performance as well as between reputation, identity, and

99 mobility will be analyzed in accordance with the suggestions of Preacher and Hayes

(2004).

Data Aggregation.

The aggregation of data collected from individuals is necessary since many of the variables of interest for this study are conceptualized at the unit or group level of analysis. Statistical justification is required when conceptual aggregation occurs (Klein,

Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). First, the homogeneity of reflected unit reputation for each group was evaluated. Homogeneity of reflected unit reputation perceptions was assessed with rwg (Bliese, 2000), resulting in an average rwg = 0.84 and a median rwg = 0.87. The calculation of rwg involves comparing an observed group variance to an expected random variance (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). Aggregation is deemed appropriate if the mean values are equal to or greater than 0.70 (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Thus, this data indicates homogeneity among employees within teams in the customer service center regarding reflected unit reputation. Next, aggregation was necessary for the signals of interdependence and leadership quality (measured through trust and support). The rwg for interdependence was an average of 0.94 and a median of 0.86. Leadership quality aggregation was justified with an average rwg of 0.80 and a median of 0.89 for trust in leader, and an average rwg of 0.74 and a median of 0.78 for leader support. The average rwg of satisfaction was an average of 0.73 and a median of 0.73, and the average rwg of motivation was 0.81 and a median of 0.83, thus supporting aggregation for these variables as well.

100

There are two multilevel reliability measures called ICC (1) and ICC (2), or intraclass correlations (Bliese, 2000; Shrout & Fliess, 1979; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992;

Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The variance between units of analysis (customer service center teams) to the variance within units of analysis is the ICC (1). It is the proportion of the total variance that can be explained by group membership or the degree of reliability associated with a single assessment of the group mean also known as an index of interrater reliability. The ICC (2) uses the average ratings of respondents within each unit (Bartko, 1985). It is an estimate of the reliability of group means (James, 1982).

The average ICC (1) value for reflected unit reputation was 0.64 and the average ICC (2) values was 0.88. The ICC (1) value indicates a large effect size, suggesting that reputation perceptions are influenced by team membership (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).

The ICC (2) value reveals that the mean ratings reliably distinguish the units. There are no set standards regarding acceptability for ICC (1) or ICC (2) values. However, the median for ICC (1) values in the organizational literature is 0.12 (James, 1982) and the cutoff for ICC (2) has been recommended to be 0.70 (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). The

ICC for the other aggregated variables were ICC (1) = 0.43 and ICC (2) = 0.79 for interdependence, ICC (1) = 0.84 and ICC (2) = 0.94 for trust in leader, ICC (1) = 0.62 and ICC (2) = 0.91 for leader support, ICC (1) = 0.82 and ICC (2) = 0.93 for job satisfaction, and ICC (1) = 0.73 and ICC (2) = 0.91 for motivation. According to these recommended levels, the values for aggregating reflected unit reputation, interdependence, leadership quality, satisfaction, and motivation are justified. Thus, the

101 theoretical and empirical justification for the aggregation of data to the unit level has been demonstrated.

Tests of the Hypotheses

Descriptive statistics and correlations of group and individual level data are presented in Table 2. Individual-level and collective aggregated variables are included.

As demonstrated in this table, personal and unit reputation measures are correlated (r =

.211, p < .00). Reflected unit reputation quality and strength were also correlated (r =

.132, p < .05). Reflected unit reputation is correlated with the collective outcomes of job satisfaction (r = .567, p < .00), extra-role behaviors (r = .361, p < .00), and intrinsic motivation (r = .530, p < .00).

102

Table 2: Descriptives and Correlations

Mean S.D. N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 32.30 10.78 415 1

2. Sex 0.70 0.46 420 .045 1

3. Race 1.41 0.94 415 -.072 .002 1

4. Reflected Unit Rep. Quality 3.54 0.83 318 .139* -.152** .071 1

5. Education 4.46 1.52 318 .006 -.277** .039 .022 1

6. Location 1.54 0.50 420 .111* -.160** .004 .165** .110* 1

7. Business Function 0.59 2.57 420 .204** -.099* -.048 .137* .116* .233** 1

- 8. Trust in Manager 4.25 0.88 320 -.014 -.104 -.032 .196** .024 .062 1 .164** 9. Manager Support 3.71 0.95 318 -.010 -.104 -.030 .273** -.008 .085 -.100 .729** 1

10. Reflected Unit Rep. 10 -0.71 0.17 375 .078 -.020 .032 .058 -.096 .217** .065 -.028 .087 1 Strength

11. Tenure 4.32 5.47 321 .523** .129* .030 .038 -.088 .081 .159** -.091 .018 -.019 - 12. Unit Size 15.94 4.60 420 .135** .094 .091 -.062 .006 -.104* .106 .088 .110* .709** 13. Interdependence 3.02 0.72 319 -.080 -.064 -.119* .092 .032 .104 -.078 .087 .159** .021 14. Network Density 21.93 14.78 370 .023 -.067 .031 .084 .061 .024 .019 .062 .034 .056 - 15. Job Satisfaction 3.32 0.90 316 .219** .040 -.002 .386** .166** .119** .319** .342** .004 .129* - 16. Extra-Role Behaviors 3.72 0.68 302 .101 .016 .010 -.022 .056 -.028 .306** .168** .159* .154** 17. Intrinsic Motivation 3.19 0.95 320 .250** .023 -.030 .360** -.071 .198** .095 .342** .360** -.032 - - - 18. Burnout 2.29 1.06 318 .057 .011 .208** -.065 .153** -.054 .041 .263** .309** .339** 19. Reflected Personal 4.02 0.49 321 -.051 -.060 -.054 .211** .075 .102 .002 .276** .262** .007 Reputation 20. Employee Engagement 3.28 0.68 319 .330** -.011 -.079 .247** .031 .146** .040 .251** .197** -.048 Rating

103

Table 2: Continued.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11. Tenure 1 12. Unit Size -.030 1 13. Interdependence -.101 -.001 1 14. Network Density .021 .041 -.013 1 15. Job Satisfaction .188** -.018 .048 .103 1 16. Extra-Role Behaviors .150* -.190** -.083 -.143* .143* 1 17. Intrinsic Motivation .154** -.022 .090 .122* .756** .132* 1 18. Burnout -.128* .043 .032 -.134* -.632** -.138* -.584** 1 19. Reflected Personal Reputation -.038 .038 .045 -.120* .092 .071 .130* -.094 1 20. Employee Engagement Rating .076 -.020 .023 .089 .447** .019 .577** -.475** .158** 1

Continued

104

Table 2: Continued.

Mean S.D. N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21. Supervisor Engagement 3.47 0.74 324 .062 -.060 -.012 .049 .017 - .105 .161** .130* .053 Rating .146** 22. Performance 3.82 0.78 324 -.039 -.030 -.016 .156** -.049 -.016 .086 .124* .138* .002 23. Identity with Group 3.51 0.68 320 .105 .096 -.057 .345** -.066 .117* -.063 .376** .413** -.047 24. Perceived Ease of 2.83 0.99 318 -.076 -.141* -.043 .342** -.036 .132* .004 .228** .275** .050 Movement 25. Quit Intentions 2.54 1.27 318 - -.058 .128* - .167** - -.038 - - -.057 .264** .277** .153** .330** .385** 26. Voluntary Turnover 0.18 0.38 420 - .019 .001 -.075 .175** .025 -.124* -.069 -.119* -.030 .139** 27. Involuntary Turnover 0.09 0.28 420 -.116* -.015 .062 -.073 -.137* -.101* -.064 -.014 -.048 .054 28. Turnover 0.35 0.64 420 - -.002 .056 -.109 -.019 -.075 - -.053 -.113* .029 .185** .132** 29. Collective Age 33.08 5.37 31 .424** -.049 .001 .285** .005 .264** .498** -.114* .009 .210** 30. Collective Sex 0.35 0.23 31 -.054 .390** .040 - - - - -.074 -.089 -.047 .192** .203** .403** .205** 31. Collective Race 0.78 0.14 31 .002 .055 .264** .134* .087 -.045 - .088 .088 .123* .197** 32. Collective Unit Rep Quality 3.63 0.53 26 .213** - .036 .535** .020 .353** .373** .055 .152** .132*

1 .139** 05 33. Collective Education 4.54 0.60 26 -.028 - .082 .027 .375** .161** .216** .044 .026 -.230** .200** 34. Collective Location 1.56 0.47 31 .113* - -.013 .179** .104 .972** .255** .067 .089 .220** .162** 35. Collective Business 0.32 0.46 31 .219** -.084 -.054 .142* .136* .257** .958** - -.112* .067 Function .176** 36. Collective Trust in Manager 4.26 0.48 26 -.129* -.083 .067 .076 .038 .069 - .403** .286** -.091 .372** 37. Collective Manager Support 3.74 0.43 26 -.013 -.110* .068 .230** .029 .160** - .326** .352** .208** .203** 38. Collective Unit Rep. -0.71 0.17 25 .078 -.020 .032 .058 -.096 .217** .065 -.028 .087 1.00** Consensus 39. Collective Tenure 5.11 3.78 26 .229** -.009 -.029 .188** -.005 .147** .513** -.103 .015 -.007 40. Collective Unit Size 13.55 5.79 31 - .094 .091 -.062 .006 -.104* - .106 .088 .110* .135** .709**

Continued

105

Continued Table 2: Continued.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. Supervisor Engagement Rating -.007 -.022 -.065 .019 .131** .266** .130** -.187** .069 .144** 22. Performance .076 -.042 -.045 -.037 .188** .372** .138* -.120* .113* .050 23. Identity with Group .119** .051 .141* .052 .437** .117 .489** -.308** .208** .258** 24. Perceived Ease of Movement -.106 -.057 .200** .098 .459** .105 .412** -.407** .186** .268** 25. Quit Intentions -.220** .034 -.126* -.098 -.749** -.148* -.652** .591** -.106 -.461** 26. Voluntary Turnover -.186** .075 .011 .009 -.173** -.100 -.091 .028 -.028 -.073 27. Involuntary Turnover -.164** .029 -.009 .007 -.125* -.176** -.074 .152** -.023 -.094 28. Turnover -.256** .071 -.001 .012 -.214** -.208** -.120* .152** -.037 -.127* 29. Collective Age .312** -.321** -.050 .035 .203** .179** .148** -.083 -.087 .101 30. Collective Sex .017 .242** -.043 -.022 -.078 -.090 -.026 .013 -.038 -.020 31. Collective Race .008 .347** -.041 -.045 .113* -.023 .071 -.063 .054 .080 32. Collective Unit Rep Quality .170** -.213** .026 .069 .233** .130* .202** -.112** .040 .167** 33. Collective Education -.006 -.012 .004 -.032 .004 .059 -.020 .021 .113* .003

06 34. Collective Location .074 -.108* .103 .045 .185** -.012 .214** -.166** .086 .152**

35. Collective Business Function .168** -.740** -.074 .001 .103 .284** .082 -.024 -.014 .015 36. Collective Trust in Manager -.123* .222** .048 -.076 .105 .014 .097 -.068 .182** .100 37. Collective Manager Support .021 .140** .023 .003 .142* -.002 .087 -.082 .136* .085 38. Collective Unit Rep. Strength -.019 .110* .021 .056 .004 -.154** -.032 .041 .007 -.048 39. Collective Tenure .477** -.269** -.013 .124* .245** .156** .189** -.153** -.036 .090 40. Collective Unit Size -.030 1.000** -.001 .041 -.018 -.190** -.022 .043 .038 -.020

Continued

106

Table 2: Continued.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 21. Supervisor Engagement Rating 1 22. Performance .608** 1 23. Identity with Group -.018 .123* 1 24. Perceived Ease of Movement .158** .151** .352** 1 25. Quit Intentions -.133* -.167** -.442** -.458** 1 26. Voluntary Turnover .009 -.021 -.038 .045 .148** 1 27. Involuntary Turnover -.186** -.241** -.038 -.065 .120* -.144** 1 28. Turnover -.159** -.226** -.057 -.031 .194** .471** .805** 1 29. Collective Age .007 .116* .163** .012 -.119* -.174** -.155** -.243** 1 30. Collective Sex -.012 -.085 .059 -.092 .002 -.005 .088 .076 -.129** 1 31. Collective Race .069 -.029 .061 .013 -.060 .021 -.003 .010 .002 .142** 32. Collective Unit Rep Quality .055 .163** .240** .142** -.193** -.112* -.139** -.192** .543** -.348** 33. Collective Education -.002 -.056 -.099 .001 .112* .100 -.013 .049 -.066 -.496** 34. Collective Location -.140* .012 .127* .131* -.167** .026 -.104** -.077 .272** -.414** 1

07 35. Collective Business Function .048 .039 -.097 -.011 -.002 -.127** -.070 -.139** .520** -.214**

36. Collective Trust in Manager -.021 .056 .168** .104 -.132* .055 .034 .064 -.340** -.208** 37. Collective Manager Support -.006 .092 .196** .123* -.183** .017 -.015 -.003 -.043 -.274** 38. Collective Unit Rep. Strength .053 .002 -.047 .050 -.057 -.030 .054 .029 .210** -.047 39. Collective Tenure -.084 .086 .182** .038 -.172** -.165** -.152** -.235** .604** -.025 40. Collective Unit Size -.022 -.042 .051 -.057 .034 .075 .029 .071 -.321** .242**

Continued

107

Table 2: Continued.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 31. Collective Race 1 32. Collective Unit Rep Quality .153** 1 33. Collective Education .316** -.027 1 34. Collective Location -.046 .361** .164** 1 35. Collective Business Function -.206** .384** .222** .266** 1 36. Collective Trust in Manager .277** .151** .161** .070 -.382** 1 37. Collective Manager Support .281** .426** .152** .163** -.208** .839** 1 38. Collective Unit Rep. Strength .123* .132* -.230** .220** .067 -.091 .208** 1 39. Collective Tenure -.119* .440** -.025 .151** .528** -.156** .125* -.007 1 40. Collective Unit Size .347** -.213** -.012 -.108* -.740** .222** .140** .110* -.269** 1

Continued

108

Table 2: Continued.

Mean S.D. N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 41. Collective 3.02 0.28 26 - -.064 .018 .046 .003 .145** - .062 .025 .043 Interdependence .107** .268** 42. Collective Network 21.27 6.08 27 .060 -.008 -.047 .129** -.040 .171** .020 -.088 .011 .160** Density 43. Collective Job 3.38 0.47 26 .151** -.088 .042 .296** .006 .370** .290** .098 .118* .029 Satisfaction 44. Collective Extra-Role 3.80 0.38 27 .180** -.097 -.018 .159** .086 .046 .675** -.023 -.045 -.460** Behaviors 45. Collective Intrinsic 3.25 0.54 26 .118* -.047 .020 .259** -.020 .418** .286** .087 .071 -.055 Motivation 46. Collective Burnout 2.24 0.42 26 -.055 .028 -.042 - .022 - -.044 -.073 -.077 .087 .159** .385** 47. Collective Personal 4.05 0.27 26 -.076 -.070 .031 .053 .109 .146** .094 .191** .123* -.004 Reputation 48. Collective Emp. Engage 3.28 0.31 26 .067 -.021 .060 .242** .002 .337** -.008 .106 .080 -.096 Rating 49. Collective Sup. Engage 3.49 0.34 26 .004 -.013 .051 .082 .000 - .058 -.016 -.002 .131*

1 Rating .356** 09 50. Collective Performance 3.86 0.42 26 .108* -.071 -.015 .221** -.053 .038 .072 .068 .087 .006

51. Collective Identity with 3.51 0.36 26 .133** .037 .018 .294** -.088 .278** -.053 .155** .158** -.079 Group 52. Collective Perceived 2.92 0.56 26 .001 -.111* .002 .225** .001 .245** .112* .123* .127* .153** Ease of Move 53. Collective Quit 2.50 0.64 26 -.079 .023 -.033 - .103 - -.056 -.128* -.159** -.150** Intentions .255** .331** 54. Collective Voluntary 0.15 0.14 31 - -.008 .016 - .098 .077 - .048 -.004 -.102* Turnover .225** .183** .371** 55. Collective Involuntary 0.07 0.09 31 - .107** .000 - -.066 - - .010 -.047 .167** Turnover .208** .223** .321** .213** 56. Collective Turnover 0.30 0.25 31 - .078 .009 - -.003 - - .033 -.041 .083 .281** .281** .205** .363**

Continued

109

Table 2: Continued.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 41. Collective Interdependence -.028 .032 .314** .060 .077 -.075 .103 -.075 .092 .090 42. Collective Network Density .213** .128* .052 .363** .151** -.133* .101 -.073 -.041 .025 43. Collective Job Satisfaction .273** -.118* .058 .110* .421** .143* .376** - -.006 .255** .307** 44. Collective Extra-Role Behaviors .140* - -.077 -.111* .132* .421** .136* -.074 -.015 .121* .478** 45. Collective Intrinsic Motivation .215** - .072 .067 .377** .162** .420** - .041 .311** .157** .316** 46. Collective Burnout - .109* -.063 -.064 - -.068 - .372** .043 - .192** .346** .357** .276** 47. Collective Personal Reputation -.047 -.058 .073 -.039 -.007 .089 .050 .044 .385** .053 48. Collective Emp. Engagment Rating .110* .001 .073 .022 .293** .125* .355** - .056 .368** .280** 49. Collective Sup. Engagement Rating -.105 -.020 -.121* -.034 -.090 .015 -.095 .090 -.021 -.045 50. Collective Performance .103 -.096 -.047 .032 .113* .003 .071 -.066 -.063 .026 51. Collective Identity with Group .192** .033 .100 .076 .290** .071 .311** - .066 .252** 11 .237**

52. Collective Perceived Ease of Move .049 - .152** .010 .254** .107 .260** - .059 .250** .217** .229** 53. Collective Quit Intentions - .118* -.083 -.087 - -.082 - .296** -.038 - .197** .354** .345** .279** 54. Collective Voluntary Turnover - .229** .054 -.089 - -.131* - .083 .086 -.071 .258** .187** .150** 55. Collective Involuntary Turnover - .093 .019 -.063 - -.104 -.118* .155** .080 -.055 .246** .230** 56. Collective Turnover - .195** .044 -.099 - - - .172** .112* -.083 .339** .288** .156** .176**

Continued

110

Table 2: Continued.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 41. Collective Interdependence -.144** -.076 .140* .165** -.109 .074 .060 .098 -.268** -.160** 42. Collective Network Density -.041 .050 .119* .018 -.116* -.092 -.073 -.120* .153** -.022 43. Collective Job Satisfaction -.085 .094 .300** .203** -.341** -.131* -.153** -.216** .396** -.223** 44. Collective Extra-Role Behaviors .010 .038 .040 .017 -.057 -.103* -.102* -.152** .490** -.272** 45. Collective Intrinsic Motivation -.085 .067 .320** .207** -.333** -.109* -.083 -.139** .308** -.118* 46. Collective Burnout .093 -.060 -.278** -.208** .323** .054 .114* .134** -.148** .074 47. Collective Personal Reputation -.025 -.074 .071 .050 -.039 .048 .056 .078 -.202** -.167** 48. Collective Emp. Engagment Rating -.051 .010 .296** .228** -.307** -.049 -.028 -.054 .175** -.054 49. Collective Sup. Engagement Rating .370** .229** -.109 -.060 .120* -.005 .045 .037 -.011 -.028 50. Collective Performance .211** .400** .072 .010 -.053 -.054 -.103* -.124* .263** -.178** 51. Collective Identity with Group -.095 .053 .434** .167** -.286** -.090 -.072 -.118* .341** .091 52. Collective Perceived Ease of Move -.073 -.007 .214** .337** -.281** .020 -.049 -.032 .004 -.278** 53. Collective Quit Intentions .115* -.038 -.304** -.234** .406** .084 .087 .128* -.210** .059 54. Collective Voluntary Turnover -.031 -.102 -.115* .054 .125* .328** .047 .238** -.531** -.015 55. Collective Involuntary Turnover .046 -.140* -.099 -.082 .140* .049 .315** .311** -.492** .279** 56. Collective Turnover .022 -.169** -.142* -.040 .181** .213** .267** .366** -.663** .206**

Continued

111

Table 2: Continued.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. Collective Interdependence .062 -.035 .224** .148** -.276** .267** .184** .043 -.033 .032 42. Collective Network Density -.182** .224** -.213** .175** .021 -.281** -.087 .160** .333** .128* 43. Collective Job Satisfaction .166** .567** -.001 .379** .299** .300** .381** .029 .628** -.118* 44. Collective Extra-Role Behaviors -.065 .361** .207** .048 .701** .031 .006 -.460** .438** -.478** 45. Collective Intrinsic Motivation .079 .530** -.050 .428** .294** .298** .306** -.055 .558** -.157** 46. Collective Burnout -.162** -.280** .002 -.394** -.045 -.241** -.270** .087 -.400** .109* 47. Collective Personal Reputation .122* .215** .273** .149** .097 .546** .472** -.004 .163** -.058 48. Collective Emp. Engagment Rating .230** .389** .010 .344** -.008 .301** .242** -.096 .234** .001 49. Collective Sup. Engagement Rating .208** .143** .025 -.364** .059 .033 .082 .131* -.228** -.020 50. Collective Performance -.040 .371** -.108* .039 .074 .128* .234** .006 .114* -.096 51. Collective Identity with Group .074 .587** -.270** .284** -.055 .396** .445** -.079 .466** .033 52. Collective Perceived Ease of Move .011 .440** .024 .251** .115* .414** .464** .153** .339** -.217**

2 53. Collective Quit Intentions -.132** -.467** .186** -.338** -.058 -.393** -.495** -.150** -.471** .118*

54. Collective Voluntary Turnover .065 -.371** .331** .078 -.388** .181** .057 -.102* -.544** .229** 55. Collective Involuntary Turnover -.008 -.429** -.039 -.330** -.223** .106* -.046 .167** -.470** .093 56. Collective Turnover .028 -.534** .138** -.211** -.379** .177** -.008 .083 -.655** .195**

Continued

112

Table 2: Continued.

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 41. Collective Interdependence 1 42. Collective Network Density .005 1 43. Collective Job Satisfaction .212** .291** 1 44. Collective Extra-Role Behave -.151** -.317** .410** 1 45. Collective Intrinsic Motivation .236** .173** .915** .432** 1 46. Collective Burnout -.278** -.139** -.806** -.240** -.812** 1 47. Collective Personal Reputation .311** -.172** .223** .178** .347** -.059 1 48. Collective Emp. Engage Rating .291** .064 .682** .356** .796** -.740** .253** 1 49. Collective Sup. Engage Rating -.319** -.126* -.239** -.012 -.231** .267** -.066 -.185** 1 50. Collective Performance -.226** .073 .114* .036 .056 -.069 -.199** -.114* .605** 1

11 Continued

113

Table 2: Continued.

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51. Collective Identity with Group .215** .251** .726** .192** .772** -.617** .318** .679** -.243** .051 52. Collective Perceived Ease of .451** -.016 .692** .275** .724** -.603** .456** .663** -.175** -.120* Move 53. Collective Quit Intentions -.329** -.198** -.856** -.247** -.840** .801** -.306** -.759** .304** .007 54. Collective Voluntary Turnover .246** -.298** -.434** -.325** -.360** .180** .158** -.161** -.017 -.180** 55. Collective Involuntary Turnover .185** -.228** -.472** -.325** -.255** .353** .172** -.086 .140** -.318** 56. Collective Turnover .274** -.338** -.600** -.437** -.388** .374** .218** -.151** .104* -.346**

51 52 53 54 55 56 51. Collective Identity with Group 1 52. Collective Perceived Ease of .586** 1

11 Move

4 53. Collective Quit Intentions -.714** -.744** 1

54. Collective Voluntary Turnover -.298** .066 .277** 1 55. Collective Involuntary Turnover -.222** -.152** .269** .150** 1 56. Collective Turnover -.330** -.088 .357** .651** .848** 1

114

What predicts reflected unit reputation quality?

Hypothesis 1 predicts the favorability information signals that are expected to influence perceptions of reflected unit reputation quality. The results for this hypothesis can be found in Table 3. Specifically, Hypothesis 1a predicts that human capital information such as collective higher education will be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality. Interestingly, the results demonstrate that although education is almost significantly related to reflected unit reputation quality, the relationship is negative (Column A, β = -.320, p < .100). That is, opposite from what is predicted, the lower the average education level in the group, the higher the perception of unit reputation. Thus, Hypothesis 1a is not supported. Hypothesis 1b proposes that environmental information such as proximity to headquarters is positively related to reflected unit reputation quality perceptions. Results do not indicate support for this hypothesis (see Column B. In Hypothesis 1c, it was predicted that downward social comparisons would positively relate to reflected unit reputation quality such that groups with a primary business function such as sales would perceive a more positive reflected unit reputation quality than groups with a secondary business function like customer service. The results do not demonstrate a relationship between business function and reflected unit reputation quality (see Column C). The last part of Hypothesis 1 suggests that leadership quality positive relates to reflected unit reputation quality. To test this hypothesis, collective trust in leader and collective perceptions of leader support variables were analyzed. Collective trust in leader and leader support were significantly and positively related to reflected unit reputation quality (Column D, β = .445, p < .050;

115

Column E, β = .466, p < .000, respectively). Thus, the only portion of Hypothesis 1 that was supported was that leadership quality in the form of trust in manager and managerial support act as favorability signals and are associated with a more positive reflected unit reputation quality.

Table 3: Regression Results of Reflected Unit Reputation Quality on Favorability Signals

Unit Level Variable Reflected Unit Reputation Quality

Controls A. B. C. D. E.

Average Age .454** .445* .350 .634** .500**

Sex Ratio .623** .464* .460* .329* .327*

Race Ratio -.166 -.103 -.114 -.062 -.044

Independent Variables

A. Human Capital Avg -.320†

B. Environmental Loc .024

C. Business Function .160

D. Trust in Leader .445*

E. Leader Support .466**

R2 .497 .422 .436 .562 .611

N 25 25 25 25 25

116

What predicts reflected unit reputation strength?

The second hypothesis specifies the shared cognition information sources expected to relate to reflected unit reputation strength. The results are presented in Table 4. First, unit history, measured by the average tenure of group members, was expected to positively relate to reflected unit reputation strength in Hypothesis 2a. Results demonstrate no effect (see Column A) and thus this portion of the hypothesis was not supported. Next, unit size was predicted to be negatively related to reflected unit reputation strength such that the more people in the group, the less likely they would reach an agreement regarding perceptions of their unit. A relationship between unit size and reflected unit reputation strength was not supported (see Column B). The amount of interdependence in the group was also expected to positively relate to agreement about unit reputation perceptions. Results indicate no relationship between unit interdependence and reflected unit reputation strength (see Column C). Lastly, the network density, or how well connected group members are with one another, was predicted to be associated with agreement on reputation perceptions. Hypothesis 2d was not supported as unit network density was not related to reflected unit reputation strength

(see Column D). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is not supported.

117

Table 4: Regression Results of Reflected Unit Reputation Strength on Shared Cognition Signals

Unit Level Variables Reflected Unit Reputation Strength

Controls A. B. C. D. Average Age .226 .212 .240 .076

Sex Ratio -.052 .035 -.074 -.038

Race Ratio -.376† -.377† -.389† -.520* Independent Variables

A. Unit History Tenure -.071

B. Unit Size .170

C. Unit Interdependence .174

D. Unit Network Density .323

R2 .196 .214 .218 .271

N 24 24 24 24

What outcomes are associated with reflected unit reputation?

Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 propose the outcomes associated with favorable reflected unit reputation quality are collective satisfaction, extra-role behaviors, and motivation..

Table 5 indicates the results to these hypotheses. First, the results for Hypothesis 3 demonstrate that reflected unit reputation quality is positively and significantly related to average job satisfaction in the unit (Column A, β = .510, p < .05). Hypothesis 4 results indicated that having a favorable reflected unit reputation quality was not related to extra- role organizational citizenship behaviors (Column B). Furthermore, higher reflected unit reputation quality was significantly and positively related to the collective intrinsic 118 motivation of team members (Column C, β = .572, p < .05), which supports Hypothesis

5. Results indicate that reflected unit reputation quality is positively related to the aggregate outcomes of satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

Table 5: Regression Results of Group Outcomes on Reflected Unit Reputation Quality

Variables Job Satisfaction Extra-Role Intrinsic Behaviors Motivation

Controls A B C Average Age .133 .418* .069 Sex Ratio .010 .117 -.210 Race Ratio .214 .339 .317† Independent Variables Reflected Unit Rep Quality .510* .271 .572* R2 .354 .419 .356 N 25 23 25

What moderates favorability signals and reflected unit reputation quality?

Hypothesis 6 refers to the moderating effects of target internal states on the relationship between favorability information signals and reflected unit reputation quality. This hypothesis predicted that the internal state of burnout would interact with favorability signals leading to lower perceptions of reflected unit reputation quality. The results are presented in Table 6. No significant interactions were found. Thus, hypothesis 6 is not supported.

119

Table 6: Results of Internal States Moderated Regression of Favorability Information Signals on Reflected Unit Reptuation Quality

Variables Reflected Unit Reputation Quality Controls A. B. C. D. E. Average Age .048* .055* .040 .063** .058** Sex Ratio 1.22** 1.04* .922* .655† .689* Race Ratio -.481 -.499 -.253 -.560 -.552 Independent Variables Burnout -2.38 -.087 -.353 2.57 2.58 A1. Human Cap. Avg -1.33 A2. HumanCap x .498 Burnout B1. Environmental .035 Location B2. Loc x Burnout -.074 C1. Business Function -.510

C2. B_Function x .260 Burnout D1. Trust in Leader 1.78 D2. TrustxBurnout -.626 E1. Leader Support 2.01† E2. SupportxBurnout -.701 R2 .534 .444 .456 .591 .646 N 26 26 26 26 26

What moderates reflected unit reputation quality and outcomes?

Hypothesis 7 suggests that reflected unit reputation strength will moderate the relationship between unit reputation quality and the aggregate outcomes of satisfaction, extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors, and motivation. That is, the stronger the agreement regarding the perceptions of the group, the more likely the quality of the reputation will consistently influence group attitudes, behaviors, and effort. Results in

Table 7 demonstrate that reflected unit reputation strength significantly moderates the relationship between reflected unit reputation quality and the collective outcome of extra- 120 role organizational citizenship behaviors (see Column B), but does not influence satisfaction or motivation. Figure 5 demonstrates that the greater the reputation consensus, the more likely reputation quality will have a positive influence on extra-role behaviors. Simple slopes analyses revealed that the high reflected reputation strength slope is significant such that the greater the consensus, the stronger the effect of reflected unit reputation quality on collective extra-role behaviors.

Table 7: Results of Regression Strength Moderated Regression of Collective Outcomes on Reflected Unit Repuation Quality

Variables Job Satisfaction Extra-Role Intrinsic Behaviors Motivation (PR Teamwork) Controls Age .020 .039** .020 Sex .113 .342 -.213 Race .013 -.301 .225 Independent Variables Reflected Unit Rep Quality -.165 .689 .215 Reflected Unit Rep Strength 1.71 -5.27* -.469 Reflected Rep QualxStrength -.519 1.28* .066 R2 .168 .648 .114 N 25 23 25

121

4.5 High Consensus 4

Moderate 3.5 Consensus

3 Low Consensus

2.5

2 Low Rep Quality High Rep Quality

Figure 5: Reflected Reputation Strength as a Moderator of Reflected Unit Reputation Quality and Collective Extra-Role Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

HLM Model and Cross-Level results

Do individual and unit reputation interact to affect outcomes?

The final sets of hypotheses were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling since they involved interactions across levels. Throughout this section, group and unit will be used interchangeably. According to suggestions made by Hofmann and Gavin, (1998) individual variables (Level 1) were group-mean centered and unit-level variables (Level

2) were not centered. First, the between-group variance in the individual outcome variables of performance and mobility were assessed by estimating an HLM model with no Level 1 or Level 2 predictors. Essentially, this model is a one-way analysis of variance where group membership is used as the independent variable. In this study, engagement, identity, performance and mobility were specified as the outcome variables and no predictors were included in the model. Engagement had a within-group variance

122 component of 0.44 and a between group variance component of 0.03. The ICC(1) can be calculated using these variance components by dividing the between group variance by the total variance, which equals 0.06 for engagement. This differed significantly from zero [χ2 (25) = 45.77, p < .007], which provides a basis for analyzing individual and group-level predictors of the within-group variance in performance (Gavin & Hofmann,

2002). Identity with group had a within-group variance component of 0.41 and a between-group variance component of 0.06. The ICC (1) was 0.13 for identity with group, which was significantly different from zero [χ2 (25) = 68.42, p < .000]. Results indicated that the within-group variance component was 0.74 and the between group variance component was 0.06 for in-role performance, with an ICC (1) of 0.08. In addition, this value was significantly different from zero [χ2 (22) = 42.87, p < .005]. For mobility, the within-group variance component was 0.80 and the between group variance component was 0.07. The ICC(1) for mobility was 0.08 and was significantly different from zero [χ2 (22) = 41.59, p < .007]. Thus, examining group and individual level predictors of mobility is justified as well. These analyses confirm that performance and mobility vary both within- and between-groups.

Hypothesis 8 suggests reflected unit reputation (UR) as a moderator of the relationships between reflected personal reputation (PR), engagement, and identity.

When testing moderation effects, the variables were group centered in the statistical model as suggested by Hofmann and Gavin (1998). When using a group-mean centered predictor, the intercept for each group represents the expected value for an observation

123

(employee) less the expected value for a group (unit). The HLM statistical model for testing Hypothesis 8 was as follows:

Level 1: Engagement (a), Identity (b) = β0j + β1jPR + eij,

Level 2: β0j = γ00 + γ01UR + ν0j

Level 2: β1j = γ10 + γ11UR + ν1j

where β0j refers to intercept, β1j refers to slope of PR, eij, refers to the within-group variance, γ00 refers to intercept of Level 2 regression predicting β0, γ01 refers to slope of

Level 2 regression (unit reputation UR predicting β0j, ν0j refers to the between class variance, γ10 refers to intercept of Level 2 regression predicting β1j, γ11 refers to slope of

Level 2 regression (UR) predicting β1j, and ν1j refers to the error term for Level 1 slope

(β1j ). Table 8 presents the results for Hypothesis 8. The table shows that reflected unit reputation resulted in main and interaction effects, suggesting both incremental prediction of unit reputation after controlling for personal reputation and an interactive effect. The interaction effects are bolded in Model 3a and 3b of the following table.

124

Table 8: Results of Cross-Level HLM Reputation Effects of Employee Engagement and Identity with Group

Variable Employee Engagement Identity with Group

Null Model Model Model Model Model Model Model 1a 2a 3a 1b 2b 3b Intercept 3.29** 3.29** 3.29** 3.50** 3.50** 3.50** Controls Age 0.02** 0.02** 0.02** 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sex -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.12 0.14† 0.15** Race -0.09 -0.10 -0.12 -0.13 -0.13† -0.12 Level 1 Variables Intercept 3.33** 3.41** Personal Reputation 0.23** 1.83** 0.30** -0.84† Level 2 Variables Intercept 2.36** 2.38** 2.0** 2.00** Unit Reputation 0.27* 0.26* 0.40** 0.40** Cross-Level Interactions Personal Reputation x Unit -0.46* 0.32* Reputation

Model 1 represents personal reflected reputation relationship with outcomes. Model 2 represents unit reflected reputation with outcomes. Model 3 represents the interaction between personal and unit reputation on outcomes.

125

The interaction between reflected personal and reflected unit reputation on employee engagement is demonstrated in Figure 6. Specifically, the first part of this hypothesis suggests that individuals who perceive themselves as having a high reflected personal reputation in a group with a lower reflected unit reputation will have higher engagement. Figure 6 demonstrates that this does occur for individuals with high reflected personal reputations in units with low or average reflected reputations.

Individuals with a low personal reflected reputation in groups with low unit reflected reputations are minimally engaged in their work role. Moreover, individuals in a high unit reputation group are more than moderately engaged regardless of their personal reputation. That is, personal reputation does not have an effect on engagement when an employee is in a unit with a high reflected reputation.

126

3.61 Low Unit Reputation Moderate Unit Reputation High Unit Reputation

3.44

3.27

3.10 Employee EngagementEmployee

2.93 -0.98 -0.50 -0.02 0.46 0.94 Personal Reputation

Figure 6: Big Fish in Little Pond Effects - Interaction between Personal and Unit Reflected Reputation on Employee Engagement

Figure 7 depicts the interactive effects of personal and unit reflected reputation on

identity with the group. This figure demonstrates that the “Little Fish in the Big Pond”,

or individuals with lower personal reflected reputations in groups with higher reflected

reputations tend to have lower identity with that group. Interestingly, the “big fish in the

little pond” also has lower identity with their group. The “big fish in the big pond”, or

individuals who have high personal reflected reputations in groups with high unit

reflected reputations tend to have the highest identity with their group. Thus, hypothesis

127

8b is supported.

3.95 Low Unit Reputation Moderate Unit Reputation High Unit Reputation

3.72

3.50

3.27 Employee Identification with Group with Identification Employee

3.04 -0.98 -0.50 -0.02 0.46 0.94 Personal Reputation

Figure 7: Little Fish in Big Pond Effects - Interaction between Personal and Unit Reflected Reputation on Identity with Group

The last hypothesis predicted that engagement and identity will serve as mediators

between reflected reputation and individual outcomes of performance and mobility

respectively. To test mediation, the bootstrapping procedure suggested by Preacher and

Hayes (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; 2008) was used. This procedure recommends using

5,000 bootstrap resamples of the data with replacement. This technique is suggested to

be more effective than other mediation techniques such as the Sobel test because there are

no assumptions underlying sample distributions and estimates are provided for the

128 indirect effects, standard errors, and bias-corrected accelerated confidence intervals

(Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The formal test for mediation involves computing confidence intervals around the product term. If zero falls outside of the 95 percent confidence interval, the indirect effect is significant, demonstrating that mediation has occurred.

Hypothesis 9a suggests that employee engagement will mediate the relationship between reflected reputation and employee performance. This analysis was not supported (see Table 9). The bolded confidence intervals in columns C (-.019 to .004) and F (-.084 to .025) indicate that the mediation is not significant since the confidence interval contains zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Although reflected reputation related to employee engagement, employee ratings of engagement did not significantly relate to performance.

129

Table 9: Engagement as a Mediator between Reflected Reputation and Performance

Variables Performance In-Role Performance Behaviors Controls A B C D E F Age .024* .006 .022† .024** .011 .022* Sex -.033 -.013 -.042 .033 .04 .022 Race -.069 -.084 -.064 -.013 -.001 -.021 Independent Variables Reflected P-Rep .192* .132† Reflected U-Rep .259* .257* Reflected P-Rep x U- -.021 -.021

Rep Mediators Engagement .018 .021 .040 S_Engagement .634** .634** .641** Indirect Effect (S.E.) .004 .006 -.002 .064 .079 -.0318 (.018) (.020) (.005) (.052) (.076) (.028) Confidence Interval -.031 to -.033 to -.018 to -.037 to -.061 to -.086 to .044 .050 .004 .169 .244 .023 R2 .028 .028 .015 .386 .389 .379 N 319 319 319 319 323 319

All mediation analyses used 5,000 bootstrap resamples of the data with replacement as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004; 2008). Mediation is significant if the confidence interval does not contain zero.

130

However, supplementary analyses investigated the role of supervisor ratings of employee engagement to determine whether one‟s engagement level must be noticed for it to influence performance ratings. Recent research suggests that employee and supervisor perceptions of engagement differentially influence performance (Rothbard &

Wilk, in progress). Thus, a three-path meditational model was analyzed using procedures recommended by Taylor, MacKinnon, & Tein (2008). A three-path meditational model can be used when two mediators intervene in a series between an independent and dependent variable. In this case, the path analyzed was as follows: reflected reputation -

> employee ratings of engagement -> supervisor ratings of engagement -> performance.

The results of this bootstrapping analysis can be found in Table 10. Three indirect effects are calculated including a specific indirect effect through M1 (employee ratings of engagement), a specific indirect effect through M2 (supervisor ratings of engagement), and a specific indirect effect through M1 and then through M2. These three specific indirect effects define the total indirect effect of X on Y, or 0.033 (for unit reputation) and 0.053 (for personal reputation). The total effect is equal to the sum of the direct effect plus all the indirect effects (Hayes, Preacher, & Myers, 2009) or 0.28 (unit reputation) and 0.18 (personal reputation). Since the confidence interval for the mediation of the specific indirect effect of M1 and M2 excludes zero (Table 9, column I, bolded), the multi-path mediation model is significant. This demonstrates that reflected reputation influences employee engagement which affects supervisor ratings of their engagement and further influencing performance.

131

Table 10: Results of Analyses of Three-Path Multi-Mediated Model of Reflected Reputation, Engagement, and Performance

Variables Engagement Supervisor Engage Performance Rating Rating Independent Vars A B C D E F G H I A. Reflected P_Rep .218** .071 .126† B. Reflected U_Rep .257** .040 .247** C. Reflected P_Rep x .134* .043 .019

Reflected U_Rep Mediators Engagement .149* .152* .154* -.057 -.070 -.043 S_Engagement .639** .639** .644** Indirect Effect (S.E.) -.013 -.018 .002 .045 .026 -.027 .021 .025 -.003 13 (.015) (.016) (.004) (.051) (.062) (.027) (.011) (.013) (.004)

Confidence Interval -.046 -.053 -.005 -.054 -.100 -.085 .003 to .004 to -.014 to to .015 to .014 to .010 to .149 to .142 to .024 .047 .056 -.004 N 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319

132

Since the model for engagement and supervisor engagement as multiple mediators was significant, follow-up analyses were conducted to verify whether a similar pattern of results would occur using HLM. Table 11 demonstrates that both reflected personal and unit reputation and their interaction significantly relate to self-engagement ratings

(Column A4, bold). Self-engagement further relates significantly to supervisor engagement ratings (Column B1-B4, bold), which positively and significantly relate to performance (Column C2-C5, bold). Thus, reflected reputation influences engagement which predicts supervisor engagement effects and has a further effect on employee performance.

133

Table 11: Results of HLM Analyses of Engagement as a Mediator between Reflected Reputation and Performance

Variable A. Self-Engagement B. Supervisor C. Performance Rating Rating Engagement Rating Null Model A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

Intercept 3.29** 3.29** 3.28** 3.29** 3.47** 3.47** 3.47** 3.47** 3.83** 3.83** 3.83** 3.83** 3.83**

Controls

Age 0.02** 0.02** 0.02** 0.02** 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.00 -0.01† -0.01* -0.01† -0.01

Sex -0.04 -0.02 -0.01† -0.01 -0.11 -0.11 0.11 -0.11 -0.05 0.10 0.11 -0.01 0.00

Race -0.11 -0.10 -0.10 -0.12 -0.16 -0.160 -0.16 -0.16 -0.15 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03

Level 1 Variables

4 Intercept 3.31** 2.39** 2.38** 2.38** 3.00** 2.90** 2.92** 2.93** 3.75** 3.78** 85** 3.00** 3.00**

Self-Engage 0.16* 0.17** 0.16* 0.16* -0.11* -0.08 -0.11* -0.10† Rating Sup Engage 0.66** 0.68** 0.66** 0.66** Rating Personal 0.23** 0.23** 1.83** 0.10 0.10 0.29 0.26** 0.20** 0.20** -0.15 Reputation Level 2 Variables

Unit Reputation 0.26* 0.26* 0.25* 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.24† 0.22† 0.22†

Interaction

-0.45* -0.06 0.10

Personal x Unit 1

1342 Rep 6

Hypothesis 9b proposes that identity with the group will mediate the relationship between reflected reputation and mobility. Several types of mobility were used to analyze this relationship. Results are indicated in Table 12. Identity significantly mediated the relationship between reflected reputation and the mobility outcomes of perceived ease of movement and quit intentions. Thus, the higher employees believed their reflected reputation to be, the more likely they were to identify with the group. The more individuals identified with the group, the more they perceive mobility opportunities and have lower intentions to quit.

Table 12: Results of Meditation Analyses of Reflected Reputation, Identity, and Mobility

Variables Mobility Intentions Controls PEMove Quit Intent Age -.010 -.024 -.014 -.020 -.010 -.022 Sex -.367** -.358** -.394** -.054 -.094 -.066 Race -.109 -.117 -.087 .190 .218 .211* Independent Variables Reflected P-Rep .364** -.322* Reflected U-Rep .393** -.608** Reflected P-Rep x .095 .115

U-Rep Mediators Identity w/Group .505** .517** .531** -.781** -.756** -.812** Indirect Effect (S.E.) .163 .198 .047 -.252 -.289 -.072 (.048) (.057) (.024) (.072) (.077) (.034) Confidence Interval .084 to .098 to .005 to -.402 to -.458 to -.148 to .271 .323 .100 -.120 -.158 -.009 R2 .169 .164 .161 .202 .210 .208 N 318 318 318 318 318 318

135

Table 12: Continued

Variables Mobility Turnover

Controls Voluntary Turnover Involuntary Turnover Turnover Age - -.046 -.064 - -.089 - - - - .070 .177* .179* .035 .022 .034* † * * ** * * Sex - -.286 -.227 .039 -.141 .027 - - -.031 .252 .035 .060 Race - -.481 -.535 .853† .968 .883 .077 .094 .076 .502 † Independent Vars Reflected - -.336 - P-Rep .211 .075 Reflected -.364 - .208 U-Rep 1.40 * † P-Rep x - .199 .012 U-Rep 0.07

6 Mediators

Grp - -.046 -.073 .083 .151 -.009 - .009 -.019 Identity .051 .004 Indirect - -.018 -.007 .027 .059 -.001 - .003 -.002 Effect (S.E.) .017 (.089 (.022 (.128 (.136 (.033 .001 (.02 (.006 (.07 ) ) ) ) ) (.01 2) ) 7) 9) Confidence - -.208 -.061 -.221 -.208 -.070 - - -.016

Interval .174 to to to to to .041 .040 to to .155 .033 .294 .338 .069 to to .007 .129 .037 .045 2 R .032 .033 .031 .083 .110 .084 .048 .059 .045 Continued N 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 Continued

These results indicate that identity did not significantly predict turnover (voluntary or involuntary). Research has suggested that intentions to turnover predict actual turnover 136

(Steel, 1984). Thus, supplementary analyses were conducted to explore the role of turnover intentions as a mediator between identity and turnover. A three-path meditational model was once again used based on procedures recommended by Taylor,

MacKinnon, & Tein (2008). The path analyzed was as follows: reflected reputation -> identity with group -> quit intentions-> turnover. The results of this bootstrapping analysis can be found in Table 13. The three indirect effects were calculated including a specific indirect effect through M1 (identity with group), a specific indirect effect through M2 (quit intentions), and a specific indirect effect through M1 and then through

M2. These three specific indirect effects define the total indirect effect of X on Y, or -

.0292 (for unit reputation) and -.0182 (for personal reputation). The total effect is 0.315

(unit reputation) and .0681 (personal reputation). Since the confidence interval for the mediation of the specific indirect effect of M1 and M2 excludes zero (see bold in column

I of Table 13), the multi-path mediation model is significant. This demonstrates that reflected reputation influences identity with group which affects quit intentions and further influences turnover.

137

Table 13: Results of Three-Path Multi-Mediation Model between Reflected Reputation, Identity, and Mobility

Variables Identity with Group Intent to Quit Turnover Independent Vars A B C D E F G H I Reflected P_Rep .287** -.039 -.050 Reflected U_Rep .365** -.269† -.286** Reflected P_Rep x .112** .096 -.012

U_Rep Mediators Identity w/ Group -.815** -.780** -.841** .034 .060 .032 Intent to Quit .102** .092** .103** Indirect Effect (S.E.) .010 .022 .004 -.004 -.025 .009 -.024 -.026 -.010 (.019) (.022) (.007) (.014) (.016) (.008) (.011) (.011) (.005) Confidence Interval -.024 -.020 -.011 -.034 to -.062 to -.003 to -.048 to -.052 to -.020 to to .052 to .068 to .018 .024 .001 .029 -.007 -.008 -.002

1 N 318 318 318 318 318 318 318 318 318

138

Since the model for identity and intent to quit as multiple mediators was significant, follow-up analyses were conducted to verify whether a similar pattern of results would occur using HLM. Table 14 demonstrates that both reflected personal and unit reputation significantly relate to identification with group (see bold in Column A5). Identity further relates significantly to quit intentions, which positively and significantly relate to turnover.

139

Table 14: Results of HLM Analyses of Identity as Mediator between Reflected Reputation and Mobility

Variable Identity with Group Intent to Quit Turnover Mobility A B C

Null Model A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Intercept 3.50** 3.50** 3.50** 3.50** 2.52** 2.52** 2.52** 2.52** 0.34** 0.34** 0.34** 0.34** 0.34** Controls

Age .000 .000 -0.00 0.00 0.03 -0.03** -0.03** -0.03** -0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 Sex .123 .144† .115† 0.15† -0.11 -0.09 -0.10 -0.16 -0.03 -0.07 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 Race -0.13 -0.13 -0.13 -0.12 0.18 0.18 -0.18 0.21 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 Level 1 Variables

Intercept 3.41** 2.00** 2.00** 2.00** 2.53** 4.26** 4.27** 4.26** 0.34** 1.34** 1.33** 1.33** 1.33**

0 -0.67** -0.68** -0.67** -0.68** 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07

Identity with Group Intent to Quit 0.08* 0.08* 0.08* 0.08* Personal Reputation .295** .297** -0.84† -0.11 -0.11 -2.33† -0.10 -0.10 0.06 Level 2 Variables Unit Reputation .397** .398** 0.40** -0.49* -0.49* -0.49* -0.03 -0.28** -0.28** -0.28** Interaction Personal x Unit Rep 0.32* 0.55† -0.05

140

Summary of Methods and Analyses

This chapter demonstrates the findings related to the antecedents and outcomes of reflected unit reputation as well as the cross-level analyses of reflected unit and personal reputation. Leadership quality appears to be the most important characteristic predicting the reflected unit reputation quality. Moreover, the reflected unit reputation quality influences important group outcomes like collective satisfaction and team motivation.

Although history, size, interdependence, and network density do not appear to predict group strength of reflected unit reputation, strength does seem to moderate the relationship between quality and collective outcomes such that greater agreement among group members about the unit reputation leads to stronger effects of reflected unit reputation quality on collective extra-role behaviors. Results also indicate big fish in the little pond effects of individuals with high personal reputations in units with lower reputations relates to greater engagement in work roles. Little fish in the big pond effects also exist where individuals with lower personal reputations in units with higher reputations tend to identify less with that group. Although engagement did not significantly mediate the relationship between reputation and performance as predicted, it does act as a component of a multi-mediated model in which self and supervisor ratings of engagement significantly mediate the relationship between reputation and performance. Similarly, identity with group does not by itself mediate the relationship between reputation and mobility, but does act as a component of a multi-mediated model in which reputation predicts identity which relates to quit intentions which further predicts turnover in the group. A summary of these findings is provided in the table

141 below. Thus, results demonstrate the importance of the unit level of reflected reputation by revealing what type of group characteristics predict its favorability, what type of collective outcomes it is related to, and how it interacts with reflected personal reputation to influence individual outcomes of performance and mobility.

Table 15: Summary of Hypotheses and Findings

Number Hypothesis Result

1. a. Human capital information such as greater amounts of education will be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality.

b. Positive environmental information such as a location closer to corporate headquarters will be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality. Partially

c. Downward social comparison information such as Supported having a primary business function will be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality.

d. Leadership quality in the form of trust and support will be positively related to reflected unit reputation quality.

142

Table 17: Continued.

Number Hypothesis Result

2. a. Unit history in terms of longer collective tenure of team members will be positively related to reflected unit reputation strength.

b. Unit size will be negatively related to reflected unit reputation strength.

Not Supported c. Unit interdependence will be positively related to reflected unit reputation strength.

d. Social network density will be positively related to reflected unit reputation strength.

3. Reflected unit reputation quality will positively relate to job attitudes such as collective job satisfaction. Supported

4. Reflected unit reputation quality will positively relate to collective organizational citizenship behaviors. Not Supported

5. Reflected unit reputation quality will positively relate to employee effort demonstrated through collective motivation. Supported

143

Table 17: Continued

Number Hypothesis Result

6. Internal states will moderate the relationship between reputation favorability information (a. Human Capital, b. Location, c. Not Business function, and d. Leadership Quality) and reflected unit reputation quality such that the more negative internal states, Supported the more likely the information sources lead to a less favorable reflected unit reputation. 7. Reflected unit reputation strength will moderate the relationship between reflected unit reputation quality and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (a. job satisfaction, b. OCBs, and c. Partially motivation) such that the greater the reflected unit reputation Supported strength, the more consistent the relationship between reputation quality and collective outcomes. 8. a. Unit reflected reputation will moderate the relationship between personal reflected reputation and individual engagement such that individuals with positive reflected personal reputations in a group with a less positive reflected reputation are more likely to be engaged in their work than individuals with lower reflected personal reputations in a group with a more positive reputation. Supported b. Unit reflected reputation will moderate the relationship between personal reflected reputation and individual identity with a group such that individuals with lower personal reflected reputations in a unit with a more positive reflected reputation are likely to have lower identity than individuals with higher personal reflected reputations in a unit with a less positive reflected reputation. 9a a. Employee engagement will mediate the relationship between reflected reputation and individual performance. (Employee engagement and supervisor engagement will act as Partially multiple mediators between reflected reputation and individual performance.) Supported b. Social identity will mediate the relationship between reflected reputation and individual mobility. (Social identity and intent to quit will act as multiple mediators between reflected reputation and individual mobility.) Continued.

144

Chapter 8: Discussion

Past research has established reputations as an important resource for organizations (Boyd, Bergh, & Ketchen, 2010; Fombrun, 2001) and individuals (Ferris,

Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003; Zinko, Ferris, Blass, & Laird, 2007) due to its impact on observer decisions such as whether to apply to an organization (Cable &

Turban, 2003), whether to build a joint venture (Dollinger, Golden, & Saxton, 1997), or whether to trust an individual (Dunn, 2008). The primary contribution of this dissertation is demonstrating the importance of the unit level of reputation and examining the impact of reputation on the target itself. That is, this study introduces a more proximal and contextual factor that extends beyond the psychological focus of personal reputation and the strategic overview of organizational reputation and influences the group overall as well as its incumbent members. .

Theoretical and Empirical Significance

In the introduction of this dissertation, a series of limitations of research on reputation were identified. The first issue was the conceptual muddling of the reputation construct. The “Reputation as Information” framework helped address this issue by providing common elements of reputation at all levels and establishing the theoretical significance of reputation by using information processing theory to suggest that reputation acts as a source of information that guides expectations, reduces uncertainty,

145 and determines observer and target attitudes and behaviors. Next, the limitation of reputation that focuses exclusively on either the organizational or individual level of analysis was addressed in two ways. First, the antecedents and outcomes of reflected unit reputation were identified by testing portions of the “Reputation as Information” framework. Second, the cross-level interaction effects of unit and personal reputation on performance and mobility were empirically analyzed. The last issue identified in the reputation literature and addressed in this dissertation is the limited perspective that considers the view and effects of reputation on observers rather than the targets that are being perceived. This issue is resolved by focusing on the effects of reflected reputation, or how target members believe their unit is perceived by others, on important group and individual outcomes.

Theoretical Framework - Similarities among the Levels

Conceptual clarity for the reputation construct was initially guided by information processing theory. Information processing theory suggests that individuals use cognitive shortcuts to gather, organize, and retain knowledge. This dissertation indicates that reputation can serve as a cognitive shortcut by taking snippets of information and using them to form a judgment. It is through this information that reputation provides a source of knowledge that can sometimes be gained before experience to influence expectations, attitudes, and behaviors. This information tends to be relatively enduring and difficult to change. Moreover, because reputation provides knowledge, it also tends to be associated with reduced uncertainty. Since reputation is based on snippets rather than full information, it is often considered a socially constructed reality that is highly subjective

146 in nature. These similarities are all based on the fact that reputation is a source of information.

Next, conceptual clarity was strengthened through the introduction of the

“Reputation as Information” framework. By developing the “Reputation as Information” framework, this research was able to address a gap in the literature by first identifying a more proximal and contextual element of unit reputation that links the psychological elements of personal reputation with the larger environmental factors related to organizational reputation, and second by establishing similar sources of information that influence reputation at all levels of analysis. This framework indicates common information sources including the observer, environment, target characteristics, and interpersonal interactions that influence the manner in which a target is seen by others

(perceived reputation) as well as the manner in which a target believes they are seen by others (reflected reputation). The reflected reputation is a unique contribution in that it considers how individuals believe they are perceived can influence the target‟s own actions and behaviors. This is different from the common view of reputation in which observer evaluations of a target influence an observer‟s decisions, attitudes, and behaviors.

Through examining the disparate literatures on organizational and personal reputation, a number of common information sources were identified as predictors of perceived reputation. Research on these sources of information and their relationship to perceived reputation was organized and reviewed in detail. These studies indicated that objective and subjective target information such as past achievements, history, culture,

147 and perceived opportunities influence perceived reputation evaluations at the organizational and individual levels (Anderson & Shirako, 2008; Cable & Graham, 2000;

Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Littlepage, Robinson, & Reddington, 1997). Interestingly, this study did not find support for education or history as predictors of reflected unit reputation quality or consensus respectively. This suggests that target information sources that shape perceived reputation perceptions may be different or less important than target information sources used by the target themselves to evaluate their reflected reputation. This is somewhat contrary to research on self-perception (Bem, 1972) that postulates that one‟s self-assessment is based on taking the role of an outside observer who relies on outward behaviors in self-evaluation. It is consistent, however, with research that demonstrates that self versus other judgments vary greatly (John & Robins,

1994; Yammarino & Atwater, 2006). Perhaps targets take objective and subjective sources of information for granted and instead use other sources of information in evaluating their reflected reputation.

Results from this study demonstrate that location and business function, or sources of environmental information, were also not used by targets in forming perceptions of their unit‟s reflected reputation. Since these are more observable information sources (Merton, 1968), they may be used by outside observers making perceived reputation evaluations. This study did indicate that interpersonal information such as leadership quality and relationships with supervisor were most significant in forming reflected unit reputation perceptions. Although this finding will be described in greater detail below, it is important to recognize the relevance this relational element has

148 in reflected reputation perceptions related to the “Reputation as Information” framework.

That is, interpersonal information was found to be more important than target or environmental information sources in influencing reflected unit reputation perceptions.

Although not empirically examined in this study, observer information sources including characteristics and biases that could influence the process in which an entity makes a reputation evaluation were described in the “Reputation as Information” framework. Observer information has not been taken into consideration for perceived or reputation studies at any level of analysis. Observer characteristics and biases are expected to be important because they can not only influence reputation perceptions themselves, but also affect the way information is processed. Since the results from this study indicate that observers and targets may use or place greater importance on different sources of information, it would be interesting to examine which biases play a role in each of their evaluations. For example, halo effects (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977) are more likely to occur when an observer evaluates a target (perceived reputation) because observers often have limited or less information than the target themselves. On the other hand, observer biases such as anchoring may be more pertinent to targets who are observing how others view them (reflected reputation). Anchoring involves putting too much weight on a single piece of information when forming perceptions (Tversky &

Kahneman, 1974). Targets may believe certain information stands out more than other and use it as a basis for their reflected reputation evaluations. Research that differentiates observer biases relevant for observers and targets in forming perceived and reflected reputation perceptions is an important next step of research in this area.

149

Thus, the conceptual clarity of the reputation construct was addressed by identifying the theoretical significance reputation as a mental schema that combines information and influences not only how observers evaluate a target, but also reflected reputation, or how entities think they are evaluated by others which influences their own attitudes and behaviors. Where we stand as a result of this dissertation includes having a

“Reputation as Information” framework that suggests that interpersonal information is more likely to influence reflected unit reputation perceptions than target or environmental information. This is important because it indicates that observers and targets place different levels of importance on various sources of information. It also suggests the relevance of relationships with others in forming reflected reputation perceptions. These findings will help guide future research that more directly compares the information source antecedents that predict perceived reputation to those that predict reflected reputation. It also indicates that future research should explore other interpersonal information sources such as network characteristics that may be significant in determining how targets believe others see them. Lastly, it further clarifies the need for extensive research that examines observer biases that determine the means in which targets and observers process information.

Unit Level of Reputation

Next, this dissertation addresses the issue of an exclusive focus on organizational and individual reputation by establishing the foundations of the unit level construct and empirically distinguishing the antecedents and outcomes of reflected unit reputation quality and strength. The unit level of analysis is important because it serves as a

150 proximal contextual factor that influences target attitudes and behaviors. It was hypothesized and demonstrated that various favorability information act as a signal of reflected unit reputation. Specifically, the leadership qualities of trust and support lead group members to believe that their unit is seen more positively than others. This indicates that leader quality is one of the most important antecedents to reflected unit reputation quality and demonstrates the significance of leaders. Research has examined the reputation of leaders themselves (Hall, Blass, Ferris, & Massengale, 2004; Mehra,

Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, 2006; Tsui, 1984) but has not considered the influence of leaders on the reputation of others such as group members and the group itself.

Relationships with leaders act as a significant source of interpersonal information that influences how the group believes they are seen by others. Group members use leader perceptions as a means to evaluate the overall quality of the group. If group members believe they have a good leader, then they are likely to think the group is seen more positively. This reputational spillover resulting from positive relationships with supervisors enhances how the group believes they are viewed by outsiders and results in beneficial outcomes including higher job satisfaction and greater motivation. These results suggest that supervisors act as an agent for a unit, serving as a representative for the group to others in the organization. A leader that is believed to be supportive and trusting is likely to be considered a positively distinguishing element when a group compares themselves to other groups (Ellemers, De Gilder, & Haslam, 2004).

Leadership as an interpersonal information source predicting reflected unit reputation indicates the significance of relational elements in forming reflected reputation

151 perceptions. It also points to the relevance of a single individual in shaping perceptions of the group as a whole. Future research is necessary that explores how token individuals with deviant reputations (very high or very low) can influence perceptions of the group overall.

Although education was approaching significance with reflected unit reputation quality, it was in the opposite direction than predicted such that the higher educated had lower perceptions of their group‟s overall reputation. This is contrary to signaling theory which indicates that observers such as employers often use education as a signal of ability and influences perceptions (Spence, 1974; 2002). One reason this could be the case is because targets that have higher education may have higher standards or expectations and think about education not in itself as a target information source, but combine it with environmental information such as industry. They may feel as though they are underemployed in a customer service center, and thus rate the reputation of the group lower since they may not prefer to work in that environment. In fact, a supplementary analyses revealed a negative and significant correlation (r = -.286) between skill utilization and education suggesting that the higher educated felt underutilized in the customer service center. Research on social comparison indicates that individuals compare themselves to others who are similar on attributes used to evaluate (Festinger,

1954; Goethals & Darley, 1977). If individuals select others that attended their educational institution as a basis for comparison and evaluate the industry in which they work, they may perceive that they could be working in a more optimal environment. In

152 this situation, education would act as an information source that combined with environment, leads to less positive reflected reputation perceptions for the target.

Location and business function did not relate to more favorable perceptions of reflected unit reputation quality in this data. This is also interesting since research used to develop the “Reputation as Information” framework indicates that economic and geographic environmental information sources relate to perceived personal (Parker, et al.,

2003) and organizational (Cappelli, 1999) reputation. Since these factors were related to perceived reputation in past research but not found to be significant in this study on reflected reputation, it may be that observers consider these information sources to be more important than targets. Where one is located and their business function in terms of job title are observable environmental characteristics. Several researchers have indicated that observable factors are more extensively used as a basis for judgment (Merton, 1968;

Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980; Taylor & Fiske, 1978). However, these studies focused on observer evaluations of a target. Since the target themselves about have more information that may or may not be observable about their environment, other environmental information sources may play a role in reflected unit reputation. For example, in forming evaluations of reflected unit reputation, targets may use psychological environmental factors to a greater extent than observable factors.

Psychological factors could include the climate of the work environment (Parker, et al.,

2003) or group norms (Tsui, 1984). Since these factors relate to internal states of the target, they are less likely to be known to outsiders or subsequently used as a basis for

153 perceived reputation evaluations. They may however, be relevant to the target in forming reflected reputation perceptions.

In addition, certain characteristics of the group were suggested to lead to greater consensus strength among group members about that reputation. These characteristics were not supported. The lack of support could be attributed to thesmall sample size or lack of variance in the reputation strength measure. Future research should differentiate further between positive and negative reputation as a means of obtaining greater variance in the data. Moreover, the results could have not been supported because there are other factors influencing agreement about reputation perceptions. Interestingly, although they were not significant, unit history and unit size seemed to have the opposite relationships than those proposed in this study. The longer the group had been together, the less agreement they had about reputation perceptions. addition, larger groups had greater strength regarding consensus on reflected unit reputation. These results on history and size may be explained through the revelation of deep rather than surface level diversity issues. Surface level diversity consists of mostly physical and demographic characteristics (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). Deep-level diversity occurs when team members have differing attitudes, beliefs, and values. A longer tenure as a group and a smaller size allow issues to be revealed that could indicate deeper issues on which group members are divided. Time has been demonstrated to enhance the effects of deep level diversity and can often lead to lower group functioning (Harrison, Price, Gavin, &

Florey, 2002). Future research should explore characteristics such as group diversity and personality on agreement perceptions related to reputation.

154

Interdependence and social network density were not related to reflected reputation consensus. Prior research in the “Reputation as Information” framework has indicated that interpersonal relational components of working together (Deutsch & Ross, 2003) and social networks (Schrum & Wuthnow, 1988; Bromley, 1993) relate to more positive perceptions of a target‟s reputation. These findings suggest that interdependence and social networks may be predictors of reflected unit reputation quality rather than reflected unit reputation consensus. Moreover, since these are relational and interpersonal information sources, they may relate to the prominence, or spread of reputation. Rindova et al (2006) predict and find that interpersonal information such as relationships with institutional intermediaries positively relate to reputation prominence. In addition, other relational characteristics may predict reflected reputation consensus more strongly than interdependence and social network density. For example, social network strength of ties or proximity may lead to greater interaction and thus greater agreement about reflected unit reputation perceptions. Future research should consider other interpersonal elements and their relationship to reputation quality, strength, and prominence.

Results indicated that reflected unit reputation influences attitudinal (satisfaction) and behavioral (motivation) outcomes when reputation has high favorability. Moreover, when agreement about reputation perceptions is high, reflected unit reputation quality more strongly influences extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors in which team members go above and beyond in their role. It is interesting that although reflected unit reputation outcomes directly influence job satisfaction and motivation, extra-role behaviors are only affected if there is high agreement about reflected unit reputation

155 perceptions. Extra-role behaviors often involve working with others and are sometimes described as cooperative and interpersonal helping behaviors (van Dyne & LePine,

1998). Greater agreement is often indicative of social interaction and positive relationships (Luria, 2008). Group members that have more relationships and thus greater agreement are more likely not only to see things in a similar way relating to reflected unit reputation perceptions, but are also more likely to go above and beyond for one another relating to extra-role behaviors.

The internal state of burnout was predicted to moderate the relationship between favorability information signals and reflected unit reputation quality. This hypothesis was not supported. Burnout was selected as the internal state in this study because it represents an extreme state (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Persons in a state of high tension or anxiety are predicted to be more likely to distort information that influences judgments (Maas, 1950). However, it may be the case that these extremes are so infrequent that they do not have an influence on everyday information affecting reflected reputation perceptions. Further research should explore more temporary internal states such as positive and negative affectivity, that may influence this relationship. Looking at the temporary states would also necessitate experimental sampling that measures both internal states and reflected reputation at the same time.

This type of methodology would be interesting in reputation research because it would allow one to study if and how reputation perceptions change over time.

In studying the foundations of the unit level of analysis, results identified leadership quality as the most significant antecedent of reflected unit reputation and group-level 156 satisfaction and motivation as important outcomes. Moreover, the agreement regarding reputation quality led to a stronger relationship between the favorability of a unit‟s reputation and extra-role behaviors. These findings support the “Reputation as

Information” framework in analyzing information antecedents and target outcomes associated with reflected reputation. The next step in this research will be to examine a larger set of information antecedents to both perceived and reflected reputation as well as the interaction between the two. Perceived reputation perceptions that indicate how a target is actually seen by others may differ greatly from reflected reputation perceptions of how a target believes they are seen by others. The accuracy of those perceptions as well as the information targets use to make those perceptions would be interesting to learn more about. Relatedly, studies that examine the process in which target‟s seek information to improve the accuracy of their perceptions would be beneficial in understanding reputation perceptions.

Cross-Level Reputation Effects

Once the aggregate antecedents and outcomes associated with reflected unit reputation were determined, it was possible to address the divergence in the current reputation literature studies focused on either organization or individual reputation by integrating levels of analysis and investigating the relationship between multiple levels of reputation. The interaction between personal and unit reputation provided information on the big fish in the little (and the little fish in the big) pond effects. The cross-level relationships between reflected unit reputation and individual level constructs are considered by taking into account the introspective constructs of engagement and identity

157 and how they relate to performance and mobility. Intersecting personal and unit reputation adds value by taking a different perspective than the current literature that seems to suggest that higher reputation leads to more positive outcomes in all circumstances (Cialdini, Borden, Thome, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976; Zinko, Ferris,

Blass, & Laird, 2007). Cross-level analyses also indicate that reputation evaluations do not occur in isolation. Entities are constantly comparing themselves to others which influences how those perceptions affect important organizational outcomes.

Results interestingly indicated that individuals that were the big fish in the little pond, or had high personal reflected reputations in groups with lower unit reflected reputations tended to be more engaged in their work role. This was related to supervisor ratings of engagement which further influenced employee performance. Thus, related to the concept of observability (Merton, 1968), supervisors had to notice the engagement levels of their employees for performance ratings to be affected. In the “big pond”, or units with higher reputation, engagement tended to be relatively consistent regardless of whether an individual has a low or high personal reputation. A little fish in a little pond, or individual with a lower reflected personal reputation in a group that had a lower reflected unit reputation, had the least amount of engagement. Thus, to increase engagement and thereby performance, managers should focus on improving the reflected reputation of their employees and the group itself.

When exploring how the interaction of reflected personal and unit reputation influences identity, however, results demonstrate that the little fish in the big pond, or individuals with lower personal reflected reputations in groups with higher unit reflected

158 reputations, tended to identify the least with the group. The comparison process of evaluating self in comparison to the group leads to the protection mechanism of disassociating with the group. It would be interesting to examine if these individuals had higher identification to an outside group with lower status. Since the relationship between identity and mobility was negative, those with lower identity may be more likely to turnover. Future study should examine the type of group in which these little fish move to after leaving the group with a positive reputation. Do they seek smaller ponds in which they can appear more favorable? The big fish in the little pond related to lower identity than being a big fish in a moderate or high-standing group. Lastly, being a big fish in a big pond, or having a high personal reputation in a group with a positive reflected reputation, led to the highest group identity which is related to lower intentions to quit and less mobility.

Combining the findings from these hypotheses suggests that individuals with high reflected personal reputations in groups with lower reflected perceptions may be more engaged in their work role as a means of leaving the group. These individuals tend to have higher engagement and lower identity, which relates to a greater likelihood of better performance and mobility. This suggests that rather than being engaged as a means to improve the overall reflected reputation of the unit, these individuals may be engaged in their work as a means of increasing mobility opportunities. These findings demonstrate the importance of cross-level analyses. One might otherwise predict that higher reputations will always lead to more positive outcomes. However, in looking at the comparison of reflected individual and unit reputation, it is evident that this is not always

159 the case. Future research should consider other comparison groups, such as others in the same job family or with similar demographic characteristics, and their interactive effects with personal reputation on employee outcomes.

Practical Significance

The study of personal, unit, and organizational reputation as separate yet interrelated constructs has important implications for managerial practices and effectiveness of individuals, teams, and organizations. As demonstrated in this study, leadership quality plays a large role in the perceptions that employees have of how outsiders view their group. Managers that can build trust and provide social support for their employees tend to have groups that employees believe are seen more positively. It is important to note that the focus of this study was on reflected reputation, so employee attitudes and behaviors are clearly influenced by how they perceive the leader of their group (and thus, their group overall) is viewed by others.

In addition, managerial practices directed towards improving the reputation of the unit should be explored. Managers‟ typically do not supervise individuals working on their own but oversee a team of employees sharing common objectives and collective outcomes (Koslowski & Bell, 2003). Over time, the benefits associated with being part of a unit with a positive reputation is expected to be reflected at the aggregate level in the form of collective job satisfaction, extra-role behaviors, and intrinsic motivation as well as at the individual level in the form of improved identity, engagement, and performance behaviors. These individuals are also less likely to leave a group. Since observable factors and visibility are key components of reputation, managers should take steps to

160 ensure that information and accomplishments of the group are known to others both within and outside the organization. Not only will that likely lead to more positive perceptions by others, but will also tend to enhance employees‟ own perceptions of how others view their group.

This study should also call attention to the reflected personal reputations of employees. If individuals believe they are regarded more highly than their group, they may engage more in their work role and have improved performance. If they believe they are regarded less positively than their group, they are likely to have lower identity and may seek mobility opportunities. Being aware of these perceptions in an organization can help employees find ways to enhance positive behaviors or to improve their reputation. This indicates that just being part of a group that you perceive to be viewed positively by others is not enough. Individual reputations within the group matter.

Managers should acknowledge these perceptions and treat employees positively.

Moreover, employees should seek feedback from others to gain more accurate perceptions of how they are viewed by others.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this research provides valuable insight about the importance and effects of reputation in the workplace, there are several limitations. These limitations include issues related to generalizability, direction of causality, and a focus on reflected rather than perceived reputation, organizational insiders and the unit level of analysis. In this section, these limitations are described in detail and their implications for the findings and future research are discussed. 161

Generalizability

First, the data used in this study examines employees working in the customer service industry in a single firm. Thus, the generalizability of the findings to the larger populations of employees in other industries and companies may be an issue. Focusing on employees from a single firm allows for meaningful measures of performance that can be compared across individuals. However, applying these results more broadly cannot be certain without further investigation of other types of positions in other organizations.

This issue is partially mitigated by having two locations or sites which have different labor market information. Moreover, the job of customer service representative is interesting for several reasons. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that customer service representatives held about 2.8 million jobs in the United States in 2008, ranking among the largest occupations. Employment in this role is projected to grow faster than average with favorable job prospects. In addition, customer service representatives play a critical role in providing an interface between customers and companies. Customer service positions are often very good introductory roles that help employees get their foot in the door and advance in companies. Therefore, employee‟s reputation as well as the reputation of the unit in which they work may play a critical role in future career endeavors. Nonetheless, future research should investigate the similarities and differences between personal and unit reputation in other industries and positions including white collar and those traditionally higher in the hierarchy within an organization.

Direction of Causality

162

Next, due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, the direction of causality may also be an issue. It is proposed that reputation influences attitudes, behaviors, motivation, engagement, and identity. It is possible that these outcomes might also affect perceptions employees have of a unit. Moreover, non-recursive loops may be naturally occurring such that reputation influences these outcomes which further enhance employee perceptions of reputation. Longitudinal data might help in investigating the directionality of these relationships. In addition, longitudinal data would help clarify the stability of reputations over time.

Focus on Reflected Unit Insiders

Furthermore, this research focuses on reflected reputation of employees within the organization and demonstrates that what you think others think of you or your group influences employee attitudes and behaviors. Although the purpose of this study was to enhance understanding and indicate the importance of reflected unit reputation to these employees, influence of perceived reputation on observers both within and outside the organization is not assessed. Dunning et al. (2004) suggest that individuals and groups do not always make accurate assessments of their reputation. They may not have information that others have or they may chose to ignore it. Future research should consider the implications of perceived unit reputation, or how others in the organization perceive a group, and how that influences the attitudes and behaviors of those observers.

For example, individuals and groups within the organization that perceive the unit to have a certain reputation may use that as a basis for collaboration, knowledge sharing, learning, power, or distribution of resources. Similarly, organizational outsiders may be

163 influenced by perceived reputation of units such as potential MBA students making decisions whether to apply or attend a particular business school, consumers choosing to buy more or less products from a sub-division, or external investors providing more funds to one unit rather than another due to reputational factors. Thus, future research should investigate how the perceived reputation of individuals and units may affect attitudes and behaviors of observers both within and outside the organization. Research that explores whether behavioral or attitudinal outcomes differ for various perceptions of each level reputation would be useful.

Moreover, this research concentrates on the development and outcomes associated with reflected unit reputation. The integrative multilevel model recognizes the dynamic nature of reputation in organizations. Given the dynamism, various levels of reputation may become more or less important depending on several factors. The salience of each level of reputation may depend on the size of the organization, the stakeholder perceiving the reputation, the culture in which the reputation assessment is taking place, and the timing of the evaluation. Given the size, it is expected that larger organizations are more likely to develop subgroups because of the increased chance of less unification and cohesion simply due to the fact that there are so many people (Fischer & Reuber, 2007).

Thus, units within a large organization are more likely to have their own reputations and to be used as a basis of evaluation in large organizations than in small organizations.

Many researchers have suggested that reputation may differ for various groups of stakeholders (Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997; Fombrun, 2001). Certain constituencies may pay greater attention to the overall reputation of the organization rather than to the

164 sub-units within the company. For example, customers mostly evaluate reputation based on brand names and news stories that discuss the organization. Employees as members of the organization have significantly more familiarity with departments and groups in the organization. These sub-units serve as the basis of comparison and competition for resources (Eccles & White, 1988). Therefore, the importance of various levels of reputation may differ depending on the stakeholder. The various levels of reputation are also expected to differ in significance based on cultural factors such as collectivism vs. individualism. Cultures high on collectivism tend to emphasize overall rather than individualistic characterizations (Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997). Therefore, individuals from collectivistic cultures will likely pay attention to the reputation of organizations and units rather than of individuals. Lastly, before an individual joins a company, their knowledge and familiarity exists with the overall organization. That is, the evaluation tends to be on the organizational level based on what is known about the organization as a whole (Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993) As individuals become members or employees of a company, they gain greater knowledge of departments, groups, and the sub-units within the organization. Thus, they are able to build perceptions of unit reputations, and these evaluations become more salient and important to them. Therefore, the timing in which an individual is associated with a company is related to reputation such that before a person joins a company, organizational reputation is important. After they have become a member, they pay attention to the reputation of the unit. Then, after a greater amount of time working for the company, an individual may find building their personal reputation to be important.

165

Conclusion

Research has demonstrated that reputation can be valuable to organizations and individuals (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Bromley, 1993). This dissertation investigates why the construct of reputation is important and suggests that reputation serves as a heuristic in evaluating the world around us and making decisions. An informational framework for studying reputation in the future is conceptualized. The multilevel model of reputation introduces the new level of unit reputation to be considered. Moreover, the viewpoint takes reflected reputation into consideration in evaluation how reputation perceptions influence a target rather than an observer. The examination of unit reputation as a unique phenomenon in the organization sciences is essential to examine. The development and maintenance of unit reputation can be influential in effecting the effort, satisfaction, and extra-role behaviors of employees. In addition, the interaction of unit reputation with an individual‟s personal reputation can have consequences on in-role performance behaviors and employee mobility. The critical question about reputation is no longer whether it is significant, but when and how it can be used as a source of information in guiding expectations and outcomes.

166

References

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in

social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social

Psychology , 18, 317-338.

Anderson. (1984). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational

Researcher , 13 (9), 5-10.

Anderson, C., & Shirako, A. (2008). Are individual's reputation related to their history of

behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94, 320-333.

Anderson, N. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York, N.Y.:

Academic Press.

Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology , 41, 258-290.

Asch, S. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American , 193, 31-35.

Ashforth, B. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extension. Academy of Management

Review , 4, 837-847.

Ashforth, B., & Kreiner, G. (1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of

constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review , 24, 413-434.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review , 14, 20-39.

167

Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G., Clark, M., & Fugate, M. (2007). Normalizing dirty work:

Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management

Journal , 50, 149-174.

Bargh, J. (1999). The cognitive monster. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope, Dual Process

Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 361-382). New York: Guilford Press.

Bartko, J. (1985). Rationale for reportind standard deviations rather than standard errors

of the mean. American Journal of Psychiatry , 142 (9), 159-1060.

Batt, R., Hunter, L., & Wilk, S. (2003). How and when does management matter? Job

quality and career opportunities for call center workers. In E. Applebaum, A.

Bernhardt, & R. Murnane, Low-wage America: How employers are reshaping

opportunity in the workplace (pp. 270-315). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Beatty, R., & Ritter, J. (1986). Investment banking, reputation, and the underpricing of

initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics , 15, 213-232.

Becker. (1993). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with special

reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press for National

Bureau of Economic Research.

Becker, T., & Martin, S. (1995). Trying to look bad at work: Methods and motivations

for managing poor impressions in organizations. Academy of Management

Journal , 38, 174-199.

Bem, D. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. In L. Berkowitz, Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.

168

Bergh, D., Ketchen, D., Boyd, B., & Bergh, J. (2010). New frontiers of the reputation-

performance relationship: Insights from multiple theories. Journal of

Management , 36 (3), 620-632.

Betz, M. (1972). The effect of organization size upon normative diversity. Social Science

Quarterly , 54, 984-990.

Bilkey, W., & Ness, E. (1982). Country-of-Origin effects on product evaluations. Journal

of International Business Studies , 13 (1), 89-99.

Bishop, J., Scott, K., & Burroughs, S. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee

outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management , 26, 1113-1132.

Blanton, H., Buunk, B., Gibbons, F., & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better-than-others

compare upward: Choice of comparison and comparative evaluation as

independent predictors of academic performance. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology , 76, 420-430.

Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:

Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein, & S. Kozlowski,

Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,

extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, C.A.: Jossey-Bass.

Bolino, M., Turnley, W., & Bloodgood, J. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation

of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review , 27, 505-522.

Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. (1999). UCINET 5 for Windows: Software for

Social Network Analysis. Natick, M.A.: Analytic Technologies, Inc.

169

Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies ,

39, 61-74.

Boulding, K. (1956). General Systems Theory: The skeleton of science. Management

Science , 2, 197-208.

Boyd, B., Bergh, D., & Ketchen, D. (2010). Reconsidering the reputation-performance

relationship: A Resource-based view. Journal of Management , 36 (3), 588-609.

Brass, D., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and

organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 47,

795-817.

Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 17 (5), 475-482.

Brewer, M. (1996). When stereotypes lead to stereotyping: The use of stereotypes in

person perception. In C. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone, Stereotypes and

Stereotyping (pp. 254-276). New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.

Brief, A. (1998). Attitudes in and Around Organizations. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage

Publications.

Brockner, J., Siegel, R., Daly, J., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The

moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42,

558-583.

Bromley, D. (2001). Relationships between personal and corporate reputation. European

Journal of Marketing , 35 (3/4), 316-334.

Bromley, D. (1993). Reputation, Image, and Impression Management. New York: Wiley.

170

Brown, K., Kozlowski, S., & Hattrup, K. (1996). Theory, issues, and recommendations in

conceptualizing agreement as a construct in organizational research: The search

for consensus regarding consensus. Academy of Management Proceedings.

Cincinnati, Ohio.

Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage Publications.

Cable, D., & Graham, M. (2000). The determinants of job seekers' reputation perceptions.

Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21 (8), 929-947.

Cable, D., & Turban, D. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment

context: A brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33,

2244-2266.

Cabrera, E., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people

management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management ,

16 (5), 720-735.

Caplan, R., Harrison, R., Wellons, R., & French, J. (1980). Social Support and Patient

Adherence: Experimental and Survey Findings. Ann Arbor, M.I.: Institute for

Social Research.

Cappelli, P. (1999). The new deal at work: Managing the market-driven workforce.

Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a

meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior , 13, 55-110.

171

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at

different levels of analysis: A typology of composition. Journal of Applied

Psychology , 83, 234-246.

Chatman, J., Bell, N., & Staw, B. (1986). The man-aged thought: The role of self-

justification and impression management in organizational settings. In H. Sims, &

D. Gioia, The Thinking Organization (pp. 191-124). San Francisco, C.A.: Jersey-

Bass.

Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a system theory of motivated behavior in work

teams. Research in Organizational Behavior , 27, 223-67.

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance

mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy

of Management Journal , 46 (5), 591-607.

Cialdini, R., Borden, R., Thome, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. (1976).

Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology , 34, 366-375.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple

correlation/regression analysis for the social science. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning

and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 38, 128-152.

Colarelli, S. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job

previews. Journal of Applied Psychology , 69 (4), 633-642.

172

Collins, C., & Clark, K. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management

team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource

practices in creating organizational competitve advantage. Academy of

Management Journal , 46 (6), 740-751.

Colquitt, J., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, J., LePine, D., & Sheppard, L. (2002). Computer-

assisted communication and team decision-making performance: The moderating

effect of openness to experience. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (2), 402-410.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary

review. Journal of Management , 31 (6), 874-900.

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C., & Chen, P. (2002). Using social exchange theory to

distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organizational

Management , 27, 324-351.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:

Harper and Row.

Dasgupta, N., Banaji, M., & Abelson, R. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception:

Associations between physical features and psychological judgment. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology , 77 (5), 991-1003.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination. New York:

Plenum.

DeJong, D., Forsyth, R., & Lundholm, R. (1985). Ripoffs, lemons, and reputation

formation in agency relationships: A laboratory market study. Journal of Finance

, 40, 809-820.

173

Deutsch, Y., & Ross, T. (2003). You are known by the directors you keep: Reputable

directors as a signaling mechanism for young firms. Management Science , 49,

1003-1017.

DeWulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., et al. (2009).

Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-

paradigmatic perspecitive. Human Relations , 62 (2), 155-193.

Dickson, M., Resick, C., & Hanges, P. (2006). When organizational climate is

unambiguous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (2), 351-364.

Diener, E., & Larsen, R. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situational consistency of

affective, behavioral and cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology , 47, 871-883.

Diez-Roux, A. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies

in multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health , 88, 216-222.

Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and

implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (4),

611-628.

Dollinger, M., Golden, P., & Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of reputation on the decision

to joint venture. Strategic Management Journal , 18 (2), 127-140.

Dunn, J. (2008). A multidimensional view of personal repuations. Proceedings of the

Sixty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Anaheim, C.A.:

G.T. Solomon.

Dunn, J. (2007). Glorious or notorious? Personal reputations in the workplace. ProQuest .

174

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for

Health, Education,and the Workplace. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest , 5 (3), 69-106.

Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: The role of image and

identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal , 34, 517-

554.

Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organizational images and member

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly , 39 (2), 239-263.

Eby, L., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of the

boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 (6), 689-708.

Eccles, R., & White, H. (1988). Price and authority in inter-profit center transactions.

American Journal of Sociology , 94, 517-551.

Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in Management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Lexington, M.A.: Lexington Books.

Edwards, J., & Rothbard, N. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An

examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processing , 77, 85-129.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. (2001).

Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology

, 86, 42-51.

175

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhodes, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support

and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (3), 565-573.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at

work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance.

Academy of Management Review , 29, 459-478.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at

work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance.

Academy of Management Review , 29, 459-478.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of

Psychology , 53, 161-186.

Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low

group or individual status on indivdiual and collective identity enhancement

strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64, 766-778.

Eysenck, H. (1967). The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Ferguson, T., Deephouse, D., & Ferguson, W. (2000). Do strategic groups differ in

reputation? Strategic Management Journal , 21, 1195-1214.

Ferris, G., Blass, F., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R., & Treadway, D. (2003). Personal

reputation in organizations. In J. Greenberg, Organizational Behavior - The State

of the Science (pp. 211-246). New Jersey: LEA.

Ferris, G., Fedor, D., & King, T. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial

behavior. Human Resource Management Review , 4, 1-34.

176

Ferris, G., Perrewe, P., Zinko, R., Stoner, J., Brouer, R., & Laird, M. (2007). Human

resources reputation and effectiveness. Human Resouce Management Review , 17,

117-130.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations , 7 (2),

117-140.

Fischer, E., & Reuber, R. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unfamiliar: The challenges

of reputation formation facing new firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice ,

53-75.

Fiske, S. (2004). Social Beings:A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology.

Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.

Flanagan, D., & Shaughnessy, K. (2005). The effect of layoffs on firm reputation.

Journal of Management , 31, 445-463.

Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The

challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions of

Psychological Science , 13, 83-87.

Flynn, F. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generousity and

frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of

Management Journal , 539-553.

Foa, E., & Foa, U. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K.

Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Wells, Social Exchange: Advances in theory and

research (pp. 77-94). New York: Plenum Press.

177

Fombrun. (2001). Corporate reputations as economic assets. In M. H. Barney, The

Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management (pp. 289-312). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Fombrun. (1996). Reputation: Realizing the Value from Corporate Image. Boston, M.A.:

Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and

corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal , 33 (2), 233-258.

Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N., & Server, J. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multi-

stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management , 7

(4), 241-255.

Foreman, P., & Whetten, D. (2002). Members' Identification with Multiple-Identity

Organizations. Organizational Science , 13 (6), 618-635.

Fryxell, G., & Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune Corporate "Reputation" Index: Reputation

for what? Journal of Management , 20, 1-14.

Fujiwara-Greve, T., & Greve, H. (2000). Organizational ecology and job mobility. Social

Forces , 79, 547-585.

Fuller, J., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived

external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational

identification process. Human Relations , 59 (6), 815-846.

Fulmer, I., Gerhart, B., & Scott, K. (1987). Are the 100 Best Better? An empirical

investigation between being a "Great Place to Work" and firm performance.

Personnel Psychology , 52, 409-418.

178

Funder, D., & Dobroth, K. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with

interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 52, 409-

418.

Gardner, D., Dunham, R., Cummings, L., & Pierce, J. (1989). Focus of attention at work:

Construction definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational

Psychology , 62, 61-77.

Gatewood, R., Gowan, M., & Lautenschlager, G. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment

image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal , 36,

414-427.

Gavin, M., & Hofmann, D. (2002). Using hierarchical linear modeling to investigate the

moderating influence of leadership climate. Leadership Quarterly , 13 (1), 15-33.

George, J., & James, L. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited:

Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within

and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 (5), 798-804.

Gioia, D., & Sims, H. (1983). Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of

managerial behavior and reputation. Journal of Management , 9, 7-26.

Glucker, J., & Armbruster, T. (2003). Bridging uncertainty in management consulting:

The mechanisms of trust and networked reputation. Organization Studies , 24 (2),

269-297.

Goethals, G., & Darley, J. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach.

In J. Suls, & R. Miller, Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical

Perspectives (pp. 259-278). Washington D.C.: Hemisphere.

179

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, N.Y.:

Doubleday.

Gonzalez-Roma', V., Peiro', J., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents

and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87

(3), 465-473.

Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corporate reputation management: "living the brand".

Management Decision , 39 (2), 99-104.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review , 25, 165-

167.

Griffin, R. (1983). Objective and social sources of information in task redesign: A field

experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly , 28 (2), 184-200.

Griffin, R., Bateman, T., Wayne, S., & Head, T. (1987). Objective and social factors as

determinants of task perceptions and responses: Perspective and empirical

investigation. Academy of Management Journal , 30 (3), 501-523.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS).

Motivation and Emotion , 24 (3), 175-213.

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, M.A.: Addison-Wesley.

Hall, A., Blass, F., Ferris, G., & Massengale, R. (2004). Leader reputation and

accountability: Implications for dysfunctional leader behavior. The Leadership

Quarterly , 15, 515-536.

180

Hamilton, D., & Sherman, S. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological

Review , 103, 336-355.

Harris, S. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based

perspective. Organization Science , 5, 309-321.

Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the

effect of surface versus deep-level diversity on group cohesiveness. Academy of

Management Journal , 41, 96-17.

Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002). Times, teams, and task

performance: Changing effects of diversity on group functioning. Academy of

Management Journal , 45, 1029-1045.

Hayes, A., Preacher, K., & Myers, T. (2009). Mediation and the estimation of indirect

effects in political communication research. In E. Bucy, & R. Holbert,

Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and

analytical techniques. New York: Routledge.

Helm, S. (2007). The role of corporate reputation in determining investor satisfaction and

loyalty. Corporate Reputation Review , 10 (1), 22-37.

Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., & Gatignon, A. (2004). Exploring the role of perceived

external prestige in managers' turnover intentions. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management , 15, 1390-1407.

Hitt, M., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effects

of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A

resource based perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 44, 13-28.

181

Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., Gavin, M., Perrewe', P., Hall, A., & Frink, D. (2007).

Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability-job tension effects on job

performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes , 102 (2), 226-239.

Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., Zinko, R., Amell, B., & James, M. (2007). Reputation as a

moderator of political behavior-work outcomes relationships: A two-study

investigation with covergence results. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (2),

567-576.

Hofmann, D., & Gavin, M. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:

Theoretical and methodological implications for organizing science. Journal of

Management , 24, 623-641.

Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. Dunnette, & L.

Hough, Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 873-919).

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hogg, M., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective:

Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research ,

35, 246-276.

House, R., Rousseau, D., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework

for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. Cummings,

& B. Staw, Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 71-114). Greenwich, C.T.:

JAI Press.

182

Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of

network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative

Science Quarterly , 38 (2), 277-303.

Ironson, G., Smith, P., Brannick, M., Gibson, W., & Paul, K. (1989). Construction of a

job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures.

Journal of Applied Psychology , 74, 193-200.

James, L. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of

Applied Psychology , 67, 219-229.

James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1984). rwg: An assessment of within-group

intterrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology , 69, 85-98.

Janz, B., Colquitt, J., & Noe, R. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role

of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support

variables. Personnel Psychology , 50, 877-904.

Jensen, M., & Roy, A. (2008). Staging exchange partner choices: When do status and

reputation matter? Academy of Management Journal , 51 (3), 495-516.

John, O., & Robins, R. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual

differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology , 1, 206-219.

Jones, G., Jones, B., & Little, P. (1998). The benefit of a good reputation: An empirical

analysis. Academy of Managerial Communications , 2, 26-42.

183

Joyce, W., & Slocum, J. (1984). Collective Climate: Agreement as a basis for defining

aggregate climates in organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 27 (4),

721-742.

Judge, T., Locke, E., Durham, C., & Kluger, A. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and

life satisfaction: The role of core self evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology ,

83, 17-34.

Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement

at work. Academy of Management Journal , 33 (4), 692-724.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty:

Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kane, A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via

personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 96 (1), 56-71.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, N.Y.:

Wiley.

Kay, A., Wheeler, S., Bargh, J., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: The influence of

mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral

choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processing , 95, 83-96.

Kenrick, D., & Stringfield, D. (1980). Personality traits and the eye of the beholder:

Crossing some traditional philosopical boundaries in the search for consistency in

all of the people. Psychological Review , 87, 88-104.

184

Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural

analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of

Management Journal , 37, 87-108.

Kim, H. (2009). Market Uncertainty and Socially Embedded Reputation. American

Journal of Economics and Sociology , 68 (3), 679-701.

Klein, B., & Leffler, K. (1981). The role of market forces in assuring contractual

performance. Journal of Political Economy , 89, 615-641.

Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing

and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods , 3 (3),

211-236.

Klein, K., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data

collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review , 19 (2), 195-229.

Koslowski, S., & Bell, B. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W.

Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski, Handbook of psychology: Industrial and

Organizational Psychology (pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.

Koslowski, S., & Klein, K. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in

organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. Klein, & S.

Koslowski, Multilevel theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations:

Foundations, Extensions, and New DIrections (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, C.A.:

Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S., & Doherty, M. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination

of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology , 74, 546-553.

185

Kramer. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas. In L. Cummings, & B.

Staw, Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 191-228). Greenwich,

CT: J.A.I. Press.

Kramer, R., Brewer, M., & Hanna, B. (1995). Collective trust and collective action: The

decision to trust as a social decision. In R. Kramer, & T. Tyler, Trust in

Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 357-389). Thousand Oaks,

C.A.: Sage Publications.

Landau, J., & Hammer, T. (1986). Clerical employees' perceptions of intraorganizational

career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal , 29, 385-404.

Lansisalmi, H., Peiro, J., & Kivimaki, M. (2000). Collective Stress and Coping in the

context of Organizational Culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology , 9 (4), 527-559.

Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist , 36, 343-

356.

Lazear, E. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. The American Economist , 90 (5),

1346-1361.

Leary, M., & Kowalski, R. (1990). Impression Management: A literature review and two-

component model. Psychological Bulletin , 107, 34-47.

LeBreton, J., & Senter, J. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and

interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods , 11 (4), 815-852.

186

Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you''ll like it - the influence of

expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological

Science , 17 (12), 1054-1058.

Lei, D., Hitt, M., & Bettis, R. (1996). Dynamic core competencies through meta-learning

and strategic context. Journal of Management , 22, 549-569.

Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental

conflict: Concepts and cases. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Lievens, F. (2007). Employer branding in the Belgian Army: The importance of

instrumental and symbolic beliefs for potential applicants, actual applicants, and

military employees. Human Resource Management , 46, 51-69.

Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes

to a company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology , 56, 75-102.

Lipshitz, J., & Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-

making analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 69

(2), 149-163.

Littlepage, G., Robinson, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and

group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of

expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes , 69, 133-

147.

Liu, J., & Issamy, V. (2004). Enhanced reputation mechanism for mobile ad hoc

networks. In Trust Management Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 48-62).

Berlin: Springer.

187

Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength - how leaders form consensus. The Leadership

Quarterly , 10, 42-53.

Maas, H. (1950). Person and group factors in leaders' social perception. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology , 45, 54-63.

Macrae, C., Stangor, C., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Stereotypes and Stereotyping. New

York: Guilford Publications, Inc.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of a

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational

Behavior , 13, 103-123.

Mahon, J. (2002). Corporate Reputation: Research agenda using strategy and stakeholder

literature. Business & Society , 41 (4), 415-445.

Manners, G. (1975). Another look at group size, group problem solving, and consensus.

Academy of Management Journal , 18 (4), 715-724.

March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Marsh, H. (1987). The big-fish little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of

Educational Psychology , 79, 280-295.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). The Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, C.A.:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of

Psychology , 52, 397-422.

188

McFarland, C., & Buehler, R. (1995). Collective self-esteem as a moderator of the frog-

pond effect in reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology , 68, 1055-1070.

Mehra, A., Dixon, A., Brass, D., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network ties of

group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation.

Organization Science , 17, 64-79.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-

monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science

Quarterly , 46, 121-146.

Merton, R. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Milbourn, S. (2003). CEO reputation and stock-based compensation. Journal of

Financial Economics , 68 (2), 233-263.

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our

capacity for processing information. Psychological Review , 63, 81-97.

Miniski, D., Semmann, J., & Krambeck, H. (2002). Reputation helps solve the "tragedy

of the commons". Nature , 415, 424-426.

Moorman, R., Blakely, G., & Niehoff, B. (1998). Does perceived organizational support

mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship

behavior? Academy of Management Journal , 47, 351-357.

Moreland, R. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups

and organizations. In L. Thompson, D. Messick, & J. Levine, Shared cognition in

organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 3-31). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

189

Mueller, B., Nordt, C., Lauber, C., Rueesch, P., Meyer, P., & Roessler, W. (2006). Social

support modifies perceived stimatization in the first years of menal illness: A

longitudinal approach. Social Science , 62 (1), 39-49.

Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.

Review of General Psychology , 2, 175-220.

Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday

Life. Chicago, IL: Chicago Press.

Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of

judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 (4), 250-256.

Ozer, M. (2009). Top management teams and corporate political activity: Do top

management taems have influence on corporate political activity. Journal of

Business Research .

Parker, C., Baltes, B., Young, S., Huff, J., Altmann, R., Lacost, H., et al. (2003).

Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24, 389-416.

Peterson, R., & Jolibert, A. (1995). A Meta-Analysis of Country of Origin Effects.

Journal of International Business Studies , 26, 883-900.

Pfeffer, J., & Moore, W. (1980). Power in university budgeting: A replication and

extension. Administrative Science Quarterly , 25 (4), 637-653.

Pinder, C. (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River,

N.J.: Prentice Hall.

190

Pompitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credability: A critical review of

five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 34, 243-281.

Pompitakpan, C. (2003). Validation of the celebrity endorsers' credibility scale. Journal

of Marketing Management , 19, 179-195.

Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior

performance. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.

Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods , 40, 879-891.

Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect

effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods , 36, 717-731.

Ranft, A., Zinko, R., Ferris, G., & Buckley, M. (2006). Marketing the image of

management: The costs and benefits of CEO reputation. Organizational

Dynamics , 35, 279-290.

Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Application and data

analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM6:

Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, I.L.: Scientific

Software International, Inc.

191

Rieh, S., & Danielson, D. (2007). Credibility: A Multidisciplinary Framework. In B.

Cronin, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (pp. 307-364).

Medford, N.J.: Information Today.

Rindova, V., Pollock, T., & Hayward, M. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social construction

of market popularity. Academy of Management Review , 31 (1), 50-71.

Rindova, V., Williamson, I., Petkova, A., & Sever, J. (2005). Being good or being

known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and

consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal , 46

(6), 1033-1049.

Riordan, C., Gatewood, R., & Bill, J. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and

implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business

Ethics , 16, 401-412.

Roberts, P., & Dowling, G. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial

performance. Strategic Management Journal , 23, 1077-1093.

Roggeveen, A., Bharadwaj, N., & Hover, W. (2007). How call center location impacts

expectations of service from reputable versus lesser known firms. Journal of

Retailing , 83, 403-410.

Rosenbaum, J., Kariya, T., Settersten, R., & Maier, T. (1990). Market and network

theories of the transition from high school to work: Their application in

industrialized societies. Annual Review of Psychology , 16, 263-299.

Rothbard. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and

family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly , 46, 655-684.

192

Rothbard, N., & Wilk, S. (in progress). Supervisor and Self Engagement. Columbus,

Ohio: Manuscript in Preparation.

Rousseau, D. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-

level perceptives. Research in Organizational Behavior , 23, 1-37.

Rousseau, D., Sitkins, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A

cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review , 23, 387-392.

Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

Managerial Psychology , 21, 600-619.

Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job

attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly , 23, 224-253.

Salas, E., Dickinson, T., Converse, S., & Tannenbaum, S. (1992). Toward an

understanding of team performance and training. In R. Swezey, & E. Salas,

Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor

analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies , 3, 71-92.

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in

Personnel Psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of

research findings. Psychological Bulletin , 262-274.

Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction

for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (2), 220-229.

193

Schrum, W., & Wuthnow, R. (1988). Reputational status of organizations in technical

systems. The American Journal of Sociology , 93 (4), 882-912.

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. (2003). Cycles of corporate branding: The case of LEGO

Company. California Management Review , 6-26.

Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation - An

empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review , 56, 46-71.

Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An

inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment.

In L. Martin, & A. Tesser, The Construction of Social Judgments (pp. 217-245).

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Shanley, M., & Correa, M. (1992). Agreement between top management teams and

expectations for post-acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal ,

13 (4), 245-266.

Shea, G., & Guzzo, R. (1987). Groups as human resources. In K. Rowland, & G. Ferris,

Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 5, pp. 323-356).

Greenwich, C.T.: JAI Press.

Shenkar, O., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. (1997). Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: An

interdisciplinary approach to organizational standing. Human Relations , 50,

1361-1381.

Sheppard, B., & Tuchinsky, M. (1996). Micro-OB and the network organization. In R.

Kramer, & T. Tyler, Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research

(pp. 140-165). Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage Publications.

194

Shrout, P., & Fliess, J. (1979). Interclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.

Psychological Bulletin , 86, 420-428.

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A., & Van Riel, C. (2001). The impact of employee communication

and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of

Management Journal , 49, 1051-1062.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology , 30, 526-537.

Sorensen, A., & Kalleberg, A. (1981). An outline of a theory of the matching of persons

to jobs. In I. Berg, Sociological Perspectives on the Labor Market (pp. 49-74).

Maryland Heights, M.O.: Academic Press.

Spence. (1973). Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 87, 355-379.

Spence, M. (1974). Market Signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related

screening processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets.

The American Economic Review , 92 (3), 434-459.

Staw, B., Sutton, R., & Pelled, L. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable

outcomes at the workplace. Organizational Science , 5, 51-71.

Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and

performance. American Psychologist , 52, 613-629.

Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.

Academy of Management Review , 20 (3), 571-610.

195

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social

Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Oxford, U.K.: England Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of

Psychology , 33, 1-39.

Tang, L., & Reynolds, D. (1993). Effects of self-esteen and perceived goal difficulty on

goal setting, certainty, task performance, and attributions. Human Resource

Development Quarterly , 4, 153-170.

Taylor, A., MacKinnon, D., & Tein, J. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect.

Organizational Research Methods , 11, 241-269.

Taylor, S., & Fiske, S. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head

phenomena. In L. Berkowitz, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp.

249-288). New York: Academic Press.

Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

Thompson, L., & Fine, G. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A

review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 3 (4), 278-

302.

Thorndike, E. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied

Psychology , 4 (1), 25-29.

Tinsey, C., O'Connor, K., & Sullivan, B. (2002). Tough guys finish last: The perils of a

distributive reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes ,

88, 621-645.

196

Tsui, A. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance , 34, 64-96.

Turban, D., & Cable, D. (1997). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics.

Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 (6), 733-751.

Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational

attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal , 40,

658-672.

Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in

organizational design. Academy of Management Review , 3 (3), 613-624.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.

Science , 185, 1124-1130.

Tyler, T., & Blader, S. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social

identity and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 7,

349-361.

Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Team members' affective

responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal

of Management , 26 (4), 633-655.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. (1998). Helping and voice extra0role behaviors: Evidence of

construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal , 41, 108-119. van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. (1998). Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of

Construct and Predictive Validity. The Academy of Management Journal , 41,

108-119.

197 van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational

identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 73, 137-

147. van Knippenberg, D., van Dick, R., & Tavares, S. (2007). Social identity and social

exchange: Identification, support, and withdrawal from the job. Journal of

Applied Social Pscyhology , 37 (3), 457-477.

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory. In P.

Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, Organization culture (pp.

31-53). Newbury Park, C.A.: Sage.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly , 40 (1), 145-180.

Washington, M., & Zajac, E. (2005). Status evoluation and competition: Theory and

evidence. Academy of Management Journal , 48, 281-296.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.

Structural analysis in the social sciences. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University

Press .

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors

of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of

Personality , 60 (2), 441-476.

Weick, K. (1979). Social psychology of organizing. Reading, M.A.: Addison-Wesley.

198

Whetten, D., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity

and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business and

Society , 41 (4), 393-414.

Wood, J. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin , 22 (5), 520-537.

Wright, P., George, J., Farnsworth, S., & McMahan, G. (1993). Productivity and extra-

role behavior: The effects of goals and incentives on spontaneous helping.

Journal of Applied Pscyhology , 78, 374-381.

Wynn, G. (1987). The effects of a salespersons' credibility on other salespersons and

sales manageers. In J. H. Gilson, Developments in Marketing Science (pp. 353-

358). Bal Harbour, FL: Academy of Marketing Science.

Yammarino, F., & Atwater, L. (2006). Understanding self-perception accuracy:

Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management ,

32, 231-247.

Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology , 9, 1-27.

Zhou, X. (2005). The institutional logic of occupational prestige ranking:

Reconceptualization and reanalyses. American Journal of Sociology , 111 (1), 90-

140.

Zinko, R. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of personal reputation in organizations.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University . Tallahassee,

Florida.

199

Zinko, R., Ferris, G., Blass, F., & Laird, M. (2007). Toward a theory of reputation in

organizations. In J. Martocchio, Research in Personnel and Human Resource

Management (pp. 169-209). Oxford, U.K.: JAI Press/ Elsevier Science Ltd.

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level

relationships between organization and group-level climate. Journal of Applied

Psychology , 90 (4), 616-628.

200

Appendix A: Survey Recruitment Email and Participation Request

201

Department of Management and Human Resources 700 Fisher Hall 2100 Neil Avenue Columbus, OH 43210-1144 fisher.osu.edu

Welcome!

You have been chosen to be a part of our study of service worker professionals. This survey is part of a study designed to understand the demands of customer service work. In this study we are looking at work-related and customer-related work demands on employees in customer service contexts. Your responses will help us understand how organizations can reduce unnecessary demands on workers and ways in which service workers cope with the demands of their work.

To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be 18 years of age or older. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey which will require approximately 20-30 minutes of your time. Because we recognize the value of your time, a random drawing of names of participants will be held at the completion of the project for three $50 gift certificates.

The website you access has been developed at and is controlled by researchers at The Ohio State University. The site is password protected. Although every precaution has been taken to ensure your responses to the survey remain confidential, we cannot guarantee perfect internet security. You may skip any question you do not wish to answer and you can end your participation in this study at any time. Before proceeding to the survey, please click the submit button below to read the Consent form.

202

CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

Protocol title: The causes and consequences of work demands for service professionals Protocol number: (To be added upon approval) Principal Investigator: Steffanie L. Wilk

I consent to my participation in this research being conducted by Professor Steffanie Wilk (Principal Investigator) and Ms. Erin Coyne (Co-Investigator) of the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University.

The purpose of the study, the procedures that will be followed, and the amount of time it will take have been explained to me. I understand the possible benefits, if any, of my participation.

I know that I can choose not to participate without penalty to me. If I agree to participate, I can withdraw from the study at any time without any penalty.

I have had a chance to ask questions and to obtain answers to my questions. I can contact study investigator Erin Coyne, [email protected] or Steffanie Wilk, [email protected] if I have any further questions about this research. If I have questions about my rights as a research participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, I may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251.

I have read and understand this form, I am 18 years of age or older. I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study and I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

If you disagree with any of the above statements and do not wish to participate, simply close this window to end this session. If you agree to all of the above statements, print a copy of this page by selecting the print button on your web browser or by pressing the “Ctrl” key and the “p” key at the same time. Once the page has printed, click the "submit" button below to continue to the sign-up for focus groups.

203

Appendix B: Survey Reminder Email

204

Department of Management Department of Management and Human Resources 2000 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall 700 Fisher Hall 3620 Locust Walk 2100 Neil Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370 Columbus, OH 43210-1144 wharton.upenn.edu

Greetings!

Two weeks ago you were invited to participate in a survey investigating the work-related and customer-related demands on employees in customer service contexts. If you have already completed the survey we thank you for your responses! If you have been unable to complete the survey we would again like to invite your participation. Your participation is completely voluntary. Please click on the link at the bottom of this note if you would like to participate. The survey will be available on-line for an additional two weeks.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you do agree to participate in this study, you will need to fill out an online survey that will take about 30-45 minutes to complete. PLEASE KEEP THIS EMAIL AS IT IS YOUR ONLY LINK TO THE SURVEY. If you lose the link, please ask us for a replacement. In addition, we will be asking your manager to complete a survey about the employees in their group and their own experiences in the workplace, and we will be obtaining employee performance data (e.g., average calls per hour) from your organization. While there may be no direct benefits to you, your responses will help us understand how organizations can reduce unnecessary demands on workers and ways in which service workers cope with the demands of their work.

To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be 18 years of age or older. Because we recognize the value of your time, a random drawing of names of participants will be held at the completion of the project for ten $50 gift certificates.

Follow this link to the Survey: ${l://SurveyLink}

205

Appendix C: Employee Survey Instrument

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

Appendix D: Supervisor Survey Instrument

218

219

220

221

222

223