Being popular in teams, a case of different levels of extraversion,
agreeableness and social dominance between subordinate and leader
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
2
Being popular in teams, a case of different levels of extraversion,
agreeableness and social dominance between subordinate and leader
ABSTRACT
Previous studies have advocated the importance of popularity in life in general. These studies confirmed the large influence popular individuals have within their social groups. In this thesis we propose that popularity is important throughout working-life and for the functioning of individuals within their teams. Surprisingly, only very few researchers have conducted research on employee popularity within organizations. This thesis extends to previous findings on popularity and individual’s functioning within teams by examining the predictors of popular individuals in working teams. Personality traits are important predictors of popularity within social groups. Therefore, extraversion, agreeableness and social dominance are tested with respondents to see their effect on popularity. In organizations, employees often work together with their leader and the leader is likely to have a prominent role within teams. We include and examine the role of the leader in this respect because we expect the leader’s personality to moderate the relationship between employee personality and employee popularity.
3 INTRODUCTION
“I’m not popular. People must view me as a loser. I am always forgotten about/overlooked,
and I’m never invited anywhere.” (Rebecca, 2013)
Popularity has a large influence on the way individuals function and are seen and treated by others. From the first school-years, children are interested in being popular in class (Scott and Judge, 2009). Young children experience social order in terms of status, which has influence on their well-being later in life (Östberg, 2003). Within a school class, it is clear to see which students are popular. Popular students are an example to the other students and have a large influence on them. The quote above is made by an employee of an organization, not a child at school, which indicates the important role of popularity throughout (working-) life. Individuals later in life also experience positive consequences of being popular, such as a higher success rate, greater social problem-solving skills, positive social actions, positive social traits, and friendship relations (Newcomb, Bukowski and Pattee, 1993: 118; Scott and Judge, 2009). Individuals that are unpopular suffer from negative consequences of being unpopular. They experience more teasing from others and they are more absent (Newcomb et al., 1993). Another negative outcome is that unpopular people can be bullied by others (Newcomb et al., 1993). Although the importance of popularity in human life becomes clear, there has not been much research conducted on the causes and consequences of popularity in the workplace (Scott and Judge, 2009). Existing research on popularity has been performed at schools, with young children (Van der Linden, Scholte, Cillessen, Te Nijenhuis and Segers, 2010; Scott and Judge, 2009; Newcomb et al., 1993). Popularity is a main topic in the functioning of people and therefore also important in the functioning of subordinates and leaders.
4 and Judge, 2009; Newcomb et al., 1993). Accordingly, notwithstanding the limited research on popularity we can readily expect that popularity has a pervasive influence on the functioning of managers and employees within organizations. As a result, popular employees can be expected to have a lot of influence in teams and groups within organizations and are therefore particularly important for the functioning of employees within an organization. In addition to the beneficial effects for popular employees, unpopular employees can be expected to suffer from their lack of popularity, they have a higher absenteeism than their popular colleagues and are victimized and bullied more often (Scott and Judge, 2009). Popularity can therefore be expected to have pervasive effects on employee functioning within teams.
Research demonstrates that personality characteristics are important determinants of individual popularity. Individuals can be perceived as popular from positive and negative behaviors. The study of Van der Linden et al (2010) demonstrates that extraversion (positive behavior) is a personality trait that is highly correlated with popularity. Extraverted individuals enjoy being with others and usually have positive emotions. Furthermore, extraverted individuals have high-level social skills, in contrast to introverted individuals (Anderson, John, Keltner and Kring, 2001; Akert and Panter, 1988). The characteristics of an extraverted individual enhances the level of perceived popularity of that individual; they draw attention to themselves. A second positive characteristic that will enhance an individual’s popularity is agreeableness. Agreeable individuals are tolerant, forgiving, and like to cooperate with others. This, together with other characteristics agreeable individuals possess, e.g. being gentle and patient, enhance the level of popularity. Agreeable individuals are easy to work with and are generally liked (Ashton and Lee, 2007). The final personality characteristic discussed in this study that determines the level of popularity is social dominance. Social dominance is considered as a negative behavior that will increase popularity. Social dominant individuals are the centre of attention and have a high influence on others. This are characteristics that are corresponding with characteristics of being popular. In this study a positive relationship between subordinate’s extraversion, agreeableness, social dominance and their popularity is expected.
5 the leader of the team is extraverted, subordinate extraversion is less likely to be salient and less likely to be positively related to employee popularity. Conversely, if the leader is introverted, the level of extraversion of the subordinate is more likely to be salient and a stronger link between employee extraversion and popularity can be expected. Therefore, the link between subordinate’s extraversion and popularity is weaker when the leader has a high level of extraversion. Hence, the relationship between subordinates’ extraversion and their popularity will be influenced by the level of extraversion of the leader, as such that the expectation is that the leader’s extraversion negatively moderates the relationship; the higher the level of extraversion of the leader, the weaker the relationship between employee or subordinate extraversion and employee popularity. The same effect is expected when a leader of a team has a high level of agreeableness. Since leaders have a lot of influence on their subordinates, we expect that the subordinates are likely to pay attention to their leaders. Therefore, the expectation is that the agreeable behaviors of the subordinates, like being tolerant and kind, are less notable when the leader shows the same behaviors. As a result, the positive relationship between the level of agreeableness of the subordinate and his or her popularity will be weakened when the leader has a high level of agreeableness. Finally, the effect of the behaviors of a social dominant leader will have a negative influence on the positive relationship between the level of social dominance of the subordinate and his or her level of popularity. This is again caused by the central role the leader possesses, behaviors of a leader have a lot of impact on subordinates.
6 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Popularity can be defined as ‘being generally accepted by one’s peers’ (Scott and Judge, 2009: 21). An employee is perceived as being popular or unpopular by other people within a group. Therefore, in order for a subordinate to be perceived as popular, he or she needs to be part of a social group. Popularity is a concept that has been researched for a long period of time. Already in 1947, Reilly and Robinson (1947) researched if the popularity of freshmen could be predicted. But to date these studies have been done in elementary schools, high schools and colleges, and limited attention has been paid to popularity in working environments.
Being popular has several advantages. Popular employees have more likeability to find friends and get more help from others (Van der Linden et al., 2010). Furthermore, popular individuals are more ‘accepted, appreciated, preferred and respected’ (Östberg, 2003: 18), which results in greater self-confidence. In organizations, it is extremely important for every employee to have a high performance. Being popular, or not, can have an influence on performance. Popular individuals are role models for their colleagues and experience advantageous treatment of them (Scott and Judge, 2009). Furthermore, they have a higher success rate (Newcomb et al., 1993). Finally, popular individuals can be seen as the informal leaders of the team. When an individual is popular, he or she obtains influence over team members. Employees within a team will listen to the popular individual and they will imitate him or her. This enhances the emergence of the informal leadership (Zhang, Waldman, and Hang, 2012). On the negative side of popularity, unpopular employees are more likely to be victimized by their colleagues (Scott and Judge, 2009). It is important to note in this respect that popularity is not equal to liking. It is possible to define someone as popular, but on a personal level not liking him (Scott and Judge, 2009; Cillessen and Rose, 2005). If an individual is perceived as popular, but not well-liked, then these individuals have characteristics like being at the centre of attention and being imitated (characteristics of being popular), but they are not liked because of behavioral characteristics like aggression and manipulativeness (Cillessen and Rose, 2005).
7 possible to use it strategically against other individuals. This may increase their popularity. ‘Aggression will have short-term advantages, but could have long-term disadvantages’ (Cillessen and Rose, 2005: 104).
In this study, we include both positive and negative traits as predictors of popularity. The positive traits – bright side of popularity – will be measured by extraversion and agreeableness. The negative traits – the dark side of popularity – will be measured by social dominance.
The bright side of popularity: The effects of extraversion and agreeableness on popularity
One of the most important predictors of popularity is extraversion. Extraverted individuals are searching for social interactions and activities. They are ‘sociable, active, talkative, person-oriented, optimistic, fun-loving, affectionate people’ (González-Abraldes, Millán-Calenti, Lorenzo-López and Maseda, 2013: 92). Furthermore, they are enthusiastic and are willing to take new actions (González-Abraldes et al., 2013). Moreover, individuals with a high level of extraversion have more interpersonal relations with colleagues in the organization (McCrae, Costa, Busch, 1986), and are more quickly socialized in their teams and organizations. Extraverted leaders dominate the group in a sociable and outgoing manner (Emery, Calvard and Pierce, 2013: 31). On the opposite side, introverted individuals are “reserved, sober, unexuberant, aloof, task-oriented and retiring quiet” (González-Abraldes et al., 2013: 92).
Extraversion has been found to be a critical determinant of popularity (Van der Linden, et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2001). An extraverted individual possesses characteristics that we expect will enhance perceived popularity. Extraverted individuals have the qualities to draw attention to themselves and their actions, and have more influence in a group (Anderson et al., 2001). They are more likely to be perceived as popular because they are more outgoing. In particular, a high level of extraversion will increase the level of influence and respect from other group members (Anderson et al., 2001). Socially, they are more skilled than introverted individuals. In the study of Van der Linde, et al. (2010), extraversion showed the highest positive correlation with popularity. Furthermore, popular individuals define themselves as extraverts. Consequently, we hypothesize that:
8 Agreeableness is “the tendency to be forgiving and tolerant to others, in the sense of cooperating with others even when one might be suffering exploitation by them” (Ashton and Lee, 2007: 156). Behaviors of an agreeable individual are “patient, tolerant, peaceful, mild, agreeable, lenient, and gentle” (Ashton and Lee, 2007: 156). On the opposite side, non-agreeable individuals are petulant, obstinate, and irascible (Ashton and Lee, 2007).
There are two possibilities on how agreeableness will affect popularity of a subordinate. The first possibility is a negative relationship between agreeableness and popularity. When an individual is agreeable, a negative result might be that he or she is too compliant and therefore is not considered as a serious team member (Anderson et al., 2001). The second possibility of the relationship between agreeableness and popularity is that the behaviors of agreeable individuals, e.g. trust, pudency and gentle, are highly valued characteristics because they “contribute to group cohesion and interpersonal harmony” (Anderson et al., 2001: 118). As Cillissen and Rose (2005) argued, a positive behavior that enhances someone’s perceived popularity is kindness. Agreeable individuals have this characteristic and therefore are more likely to be perceived as popular. Furthermore, individuals that have a high level of agreeableness are able to get high quality relationship with others, and they are able to discuss and negotiate in a working environment (Anderson et al., 2001). In this study, we believe in the second explanation; we expect that individuals high in agreeableness are more likely to be perceived as popular. Consequently, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2. Subordinate agreeableness is positively related to subordinate popularity.
The dark side of popularity: The effect of social dominance on popularity
Negative behaviors can lead to a higher level of popularity (Cillessen and Rose, 2005). Therefore, in this study, we include social dominance. “Social dominance results when members of a social group vary in their ability to acquire resources in the presence of others (i.e. compete)” (Hawley, 1999: 97). Individuals most often acknowledge the advantages of being with others, but the limited nature of resources raise competition within a team. These resources can be material, social, and informational (Hawley, 1999).
9 attention, they have a high influence on others. The group members watch, imitate and learn from their socially dominant colleagues, who are often “seen as powerful and cool” (Reijntjes et al., 2013: 224). Since popular individuals are given more attention, draw attention to themselves and are often imitated, they show the same characteristics in accordance with social dominant individuals. Consequently, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3. Subordinate’s social dominance is positively related to subordinate popularity.
The moderating role of the leader’s characteristics
Leaders have a central role in teams, e.g. they assign tasks to subordinates, rate them, have interactions with team members, and influence decisions. We have argued that extraversion is a strong predictor of popularity ratings or informal leadership within a team. In accordance with our previous argumentation we can also expect, however, that if the leader is extraverted him or herself, given the leader’s central role, the leader is also more likely to be considered as the informal leader of the group. Accordingly, if an extraverted leader is more likely to be considered as the informal leader of the group, we can expect that extraverted subordinates are less likely to be considered as informal leaders in teams with extraverted leaders, because their extraversion is less salient to other members of the team. Thus, we expect that in teams with extraverted leaders, subordinate extraversion less likely results in attributions of popularity by fellow group members. Conversely, if an individual in a team deviates very much from the leader in terms of being more extraverted, subordinate extraversion is more likely to be salient within the team and foster popularity attribution by fellow team members. Consequently, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4. Leader extraversion negatively moderates the positive relationship between subordinate extraversion and subordinate popularity.
10 more agreeable, these same behaviors shown by the subordinate are less notable. The expectation that a higher level of agreeableness will lead to a higher level of perceived popularity is also applicable to the leader’s level of popularity. We expect that if the leader shows behaviors of agreeableness, like patience and gentleness, he or she is more likely to be seen as the informal leader and being popular. Agreeable subordinates will then not be seen as popular. On the opposite side, if the leader is not agreeable, the behaviors of the agreeable subordinate will be more likely noticed by the team members and this subordinate will be seen as more popular. Consequently, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5. Leader agreeableness negatively influences the positive relationship between subordinate agreeableness and subordinate popularity.
Finally, we argued that social dominance is likely to increase the level of popularity of the subordinate. Here, the expectation is that when the leader is social dominant, his or her behavior will be more salient than that of the social dominant subordinate. Again this is caused by the important role the leader possesses within the team. The team members will be more focused on the leader’s behaviors, and the subordinate gets less attention. Their behavior is less noticed due to the important role the leader possesses within the team. Furthermore, the leader might be seen as a role model and the informal leader of the group, whereby the leader has influence over the subordinates, and is perceived as more popular. Therefore, the relationship between subordinate’s social dominance and his/her popularity will be weakened. Consequently, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 6. Leader social dominance negatively influences the positive relationship between subordinate social dominance and subordinate popularity.
11 FIGURE 1.
Conceptual model
METHODS
Sample and procedure
The hypotheses discussed in the theory part of this research were tested statistically in multiple organizations. Eighteen work teams from 10 Dutch organizations from diverse industries such as government, education, engineering, and healthcare participated in the research. The hypotheses were tested through questionnaires for subordinates and their leaders. In total, 219 individuals were approached to participate in the research, 156 responded, which gives a response rate of 71.23%. The respondents consisted of 140 subordinates and 16 leaders. All analyses were based on the complete data set of the 18 work teams.
12 Respondents filled in the questionnaire that included items measuring the variables popularity, extraversion, agreeableness and social dominance. Furthermore, items about the remaining Big Five characteristics (neuroticism, openness to experience, and conscientiousness), job satisfaction, interpersonal liking, age and tenure were included in the questionnaire. The measurement period was from the 23th of April to the 6th of May 2013, and the questionnaires were conducted during working hours. Questionnaires were prepared for all subordinates of the 18 teams that agreed to participate in the research.
The first part of the questionnaire contained items about the subordinate himself or herself. These items included the subjects extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, social dominance, and job satisfaction. The second part of the questionnaire contained items about popularity and interpersonal liking. These subjects were measured using peer-ratings, respondents had to answer these items about their colleagues. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants received a short introduction text which guaranteed the anonymous nature.
The average work team, leader included, contained 7.8 employees (SD = 5.12). The average age of the participating subordinates was 39.82 (SD = 11.21), ranging from 23 to 64. Subordinates were predominantly male (75.18%). The average age of the leaders was 42.33 (SD = 6.70), ranging from 31 to 54, and were also predominantly male (93.33%). The average time respondents spent in their current organization (i.e. organizational tenure) was 9.36 years (SD = 9.66), and average team tenure was 4.51 years (SD = 4.78).
Measures
The items were translated to Dutch using the double-blind back-translation method, because all participants were Dutch speaking. Subordinates and leaders received identical questionnaires. Participants were asked to answer the items on what they are and how they react, not what they want to be like. A copy of the questionnaire including all items is attached in Appendix A.
Extraversion. Extraversion was measured using self-rating items. Examples of the
13
Agreeableness. The second item, agreeableness, is also measured using self-ratings.
Examples of this item: “I am considerate and kind to almost everyone”, “I have a forgiving nature”, “I am generally trusting” and “I like to cooperate with others” (Denissen et al., 2008: 156). Respondents answered these items on a five-point Likert-scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. The Cronbach’s alpha for agreeableness was .70, so the internal consistency of this scale is sufficient. Item scores were averaged to form total scores for the level of agreeableness.
Social dominance. The third item, social dominance, is again measured using
self-ratings. Examples of this item: In general: “I try to surpass others’ accomplishments”, I try to outdo others”, “I demand explanations from others”, and “I am not afraid of providing criticism” (International Personality Item Pool, 2013).Respondents answered these items on a five-point Likert-scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. The Cronbach’s alpha for social dominance was .73, which is larger than .70, so the internal consistency of this scale is sufficient. Item scores were averaged to form total scores for the level of social dominance.
Popularity. The items of popularity were measured using peer ratings. Therefore,
popularity was measured by the interpretation of others; colleagues defined if the individual is perceived as popular. Items to measure popularity: “this person (specified by name of colleague)” follow up questions were: “is popular”, “is quite accepted”, “is generally admired”, and “is socially visible” (Scott and Judge, 2009; 25). Respondents answered these items on a five-point Likert-scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. The Cronbach’s alpha for popularity was .92, which is larger than .70, so it can be said that the internal consistency of this scale is sufficient. Item scores were averaged to form total scores for the level of popularity.
Control variables. In this research, age, organizational tenure, the remaining Big Five
characteristics, job satisfaction, and interpersonal liking were used as control variables. Tenure is used as control variable because this could have effect on the way individuals react towards each other. Tenure is related to status, and therefore might have an influence on popularity (Scott and Judge, 2009). Furthermore, in the theory section, we discussed that individuals who are perceived as popular, are not necessarily liked on a personal level. Therefore, interpersonal liking is used as a control variable to demonstrate that popularity and interpersonal liking are not the same (Scott and Judge, 2009).
14 items are: “I worry a lot” and “I get nervous easily” (neuroticism, one item deleted due to misspelling, Cronbach’s alpha = .73), “I am original, come up with new ideas” and “I am curious about different things” (openness to experience, Cronbach’s alpha = .77), and “I do a thorough job” and “I am a reliable worker” (conscientiousness, Cronbach’s alpha = .74) (Denissen et al., 2008: 156). Job satisfaction was measured by using the following items: “In general, I am satisfied with my job”, “In general, I am satisfied with the feeling that my work is worth it”, and “In general, I am satisfied with the type of work I am performing” (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, Cronbach’s alpha = .84). Interpersonal liking was tested using the following item: “How much do you like this person” (Wayne and Ferris, 1990: 490). The items of interpersonal liking were answered on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). The remaining control variables were measured on a five-point Likert-scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. Since the Cronbach’s alpha’s for all control variables were above .70, the internal consistency of these scales are sufficient. Item scores were averaged to form total scores for the level of the items.
Data analysis
In separate analyses, we regressed popularity on the control variables and on extraversion, agreeableness and social dominance of the subordinate. Furthermore, the moderating role of the leader’s behaviors was tested. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), the predictor (independent) variables were standardized. By multiplying the corresponding standardized predictor variables, interaction effects were computed.
15 RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of the research variables and control variables. Significant positive correlations between variables can be discovered, due to this model.
Extraversion is positively and significantly related to agreeableness (r = .21, p < .05) and to social dominance (r = .19, p < .05). Agreeableness is furthermore significantly negatively related to social dominance (r = -.29, p < .01) and significantly positive related to popularity (r = .17, p < .05).
TABLE 1
Mean, Standard Deviations and Research Variable Inter-correlations
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Age 39.82 11.21 2. Tenure 9.38 9.79 .64** 3. Neuroticism 2.54 .53 .01 -.11 4. Openness to experience 3.52 .48 .22** -.02 -.04 5. Conscientiousness 3.67 .43 .21* .14 -.28** .06 6. Job satisfaction 3.87 .59 -.03 -.01 -.14 .04 .13 7. Interpersonal liking 5.17 .68 -.32** -.17 -.11 -.06 -.15 .15 8. Extraversion 3.53 .58 .08 -.02 -.31** .31** .23** .23** -.08 9. Agreeableness 3.73 .42 -.01 -.02 -.28** .14 .32** .09 .11 .21* 10. Social dominance 2.84 .42 -.15 -.12 .09 .14 -.01 .10 .03 .19* -.29** 11. Popularity 3.42 .42 -.25** -.09 -.16 .04 -.09 .21* .82** .01 .17* -.02 N = 153
regressions were conducted. All analyses were controlled for age, tenure, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, job satisfaction, and interpersonal liking. The results of the multiple regression analyses are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 (model 1) presents the relationship between the control variables and the independent variable popularity of the subordinate. There is a positive significant relationship between interpersonal liking and popularity (B = .34, p < .01) and between openness to experience and popularity (B = .06, p < .05).
In this study, we expected a positive relationship between the level of extraversion of the subordinate and the subordinate’s popularity (hypothesis 1). Unfortunately, the results (model 2) show an insignificant relationship between the level of extraversion of the subordinate and his or her popularity (B = .00, n.s.). This means that hypothesis 1 is not supported.
Hypothesis 2 assumed that there is a positive relationship between the level of agreeableness of the subordinate and his or her level of popularity. Unfortunately, the results (model 3) show an insignificant relationship between the level of agreeableness of the subordinate and his or her popularity (B = .02, n.s.). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is not supported.
Next, hypothesis 3 stated that the level of social dominance will positively influence the level of popularity of a subordinate. Unfortunately, the results (model 4) show an insignificant relationship between the level of social dominance of the subordinate and his or her popularity (B = -.03, n.s.). Although the relationship is not significant, it shows a small negative relationship, which means that a higher level of social dominance will decrease the subordinate’s level of popularity. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is not supported.
leaders, on the level of popularity of the subordinate
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Variables Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE
Step 1 Age -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 -.00 .00 Tenure .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Neuroticism -.02 .02 -.02 .02 -.01 .02 -.01 .02 -.02 .02 -.02 .02 -.02 .02 -.02 .02 Openness to experience .06* .02 .05* .02 .05* .02 .06* .02 .06* .02 .06* .02 .05* .02 .05* .02 Conscientiousness .01 .02 .01 .02 .00 .02 .01 .02 .00 .02 .00 .02 .00 .02 .00 .02 Job satisfaction .03 .02 .03 .02 .03 .02 .04 .02 .03 .02 .04 .02 .04 .02 .04 .02 Interpersonal liking .34** .02 .34** .02 .34** .02 .34** .02 .34** .02 .34** .02 .34** .02 .34** .02 Step 2 Extraversion .00 .02 -.01 .04 -.01 .04 Step 3 Agreeableness .02 .02 .01 .02 .01 .02 Step 4 Social dominance -.03 .02 -.02 .03 -.02 .03 Step 5
Extraversion subordinate x extraversion leader .02 .03 .02 .03
Agreeableness subordinate x agreeableness leader .02 .03 .02 .03
Social dominance subordinate x social dominance leader -.01 .02 -.01 .02
R2 (ΔR2) .84 (.13) .84 (.13) .84 (.13) .84 (.13) .85 (.13) .85 (.13) .85 (.13) .85 (.13)
Note: unstandardized regression coefficients are presented, n = 153 ** = correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
popularity, such that when the level of agreeableness is high, the direct relationship between agreeableness of the subordinate and his/her popularity will be weakened. Model 6 illustrates that the two-way interaction is not significant (B = .02, n.s.), so hypothesis 5 is not supported.
Finally, hypothesis 6 stated that the level of social dominance of the leader moderates the relationship between the level of social dominance of the subordinate and subordinate’s popularity. When the level of social dominance is high, the direct relationship between social dominance of the subordinate and his or her popularity will be weakened. Model 7 illustrates that the two-way interaction is not significant (B = -.01, n.s.). Hypothesis 6 is therefore not supported.
Model 8 includes all variables measured in this study. Unfortunately, also the combined measured showed no significant relationships between the independent variables and popularity of the subordinate.
DISCUSSION
In this final section, the findings and theoretical implications, directions for future research, strengths and limitations, and practical implications are discussed.
Findings and theoretical implications
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between extraversion, agreeableness, and social dominance of the subordinate on the level of perceived popularity of that subordinate. Furthermore, we predicted that extraversion, agreeableness and social dominance of the leader moderated the relationship between these characteristics of the subordinate and their perceived popularity in a negative manner.
20 adolescents, being popular is an issue of daily concern. In these schools, it is obvious to see which students are popular and there is a clear distribution between different groups of popular and unpopular children/adolescents. Furthermore, for adolescence, it is very important to be accepted by classmates (Van der Linden et al., 2010). There is a possibility that popularity is a more important subject in schools, with children, than it is with adults in working environments and that therefore the trait extraversion does not show a relationship with popularity in this study.
Next, the relationship between level of agreeableness and popularity of subordinates is also not found to be significant in this study. Although we expected that characteristics of agreeable individuals, like kindness, being gentle, and patient, would increase the level of popularity, this study did not find this relationship. As indicated in the theory section, being agreeable could lower someone’s level of popularity because he or she was not considered a serious team member (Anderson et al., 2001). Previous research (e.g. Van der Linden et al., 2010) also did not find a relationship between agreeableness and popularity, so it is likely to expect that agreeableness does not lead to a higher level of perceived popularity.
Although we stated that a higher level of social dominance will increase the level of perceived popularity, the results of this study show that this relationship works the other way around. A higher level of social dominance will probably lower someone’s perceived popularity. However, this was a weak negative, non-significant, relationship. A possible explanation for this outcome is that negative behaviors do not increase an individual’s popularity. This is in contrast with the findings of Cillessen and Rose (2005), who stated that negative behaviors, like manipulativeness and aggression, increases someone’s popularity. This again could be explained with the difference between children/adolescents in schools and employees within organizations. If popularity is more important in schools than it is in working environments, then there is a possibility that negative behaviors are associated with popularity due to fear. Not being popular can result in being bullied and ignored (Scott and Judge, 2009), which is likely to be caused by the negative behaviors of the popular individuals. In organizations and working teams however, these negative behaviors like social dominance could have an adversative result due to the lower level of importance of popularity and negative behaviors being valued as bad, not as good or popular.
21 most individuals that are seen as popular, are also well-liked. An explanation for this relationship is that in working environments, you have to be well-liked before you can be perceived as popular. As stated earlier, extraversion and agreeableness did not have significant relationships, but since liking does, we can expect that popularity in working environments is related to other characteristics than being popular in schools. Therefore, liking could be related to popularity in work teams.
A surprising result of this study is the positive relationship between openness to experience and popularity. This relationship is not expected and never found in previous research on popularity. This again could be explained by the difference between students and employees. Openness to experience and popularity showed no relationship in previous research done at schools. Therefore, we can conclude that openness to experience is not important to students at a school, at least, it does not result in a higher level of popularity. But we can conclude that openness to experience leads to a higher level of popularity in work settings. Characteristics as appreciating artistic experiences, being original and coming up with new ideas, being a deep thinker, and having an active imagination (Denissen et al., 2008) are important characteristics to being popular in organizations.
Finally, the moderated roles of the leader’s characteristics are not found to be significant within this study. Although leaders have a central role in working teams and they exert influence over e.g. decisions to be made, there was no effect of their personality characteristics on the relationship between the personality characteristics of the subordinate and their level of popularity. This could be explained by the non-significant relationships between the characteristics of the subordinates and their perceived popularity. Apparently, at this moment, it can be concluded that popularity might be less important in working environments than it is in schools.
Directions for future research
22 Moreover, past research did find a relationship between extraversion and popularity. However, this study failed to find this correlation. Therefore, this relationship needs to be further investigated to have a conclusion on the influence of extraversion on popularity. Furthermore, although liking and personality are not the same (Van der Linden et al., 2010), this study found a strong positive relationship between these two subjects. Apparently it is important in working environments to be well-liked in order to be perceived as popular. To make a conclusion on this subject in the future, future research needs to examine this relationship in working environments. Besides, openness to experience is found to be a predictor of popularity in this research (although the relationship was small). Since this relationship is never found earlier, it is an important indication for future research and we would recommend to further investigate this relationship. Why is openness to experience important for perceived popularity in work settings, and why not with children in schools?
A surprising finding in this study was found in the relationship between social dominance and popularity. Although Cillessen and Rose (2005) stated that popularity can be obtained by negative behaviors, in this study, this relationship is not supported. The direction of this effect is contrary to the expectations. Contradictory to the expectations while not being significant, future research might find significant results of this contradiction which could indicates that social dominance could lower a subordinate’s perceived popularity. This relationship is subject to future research because different results are found in different research findings. There is also a possibility that other negative personality characteristics or behaviors will increase or decrease the level of perceived popularity.
Finally, there is a possibility that other personality characteristics have influence on an individual’s perceived popularity (Scott and Judge, 2009). It is important to research other possible predictors of popularity, so there becomes more clarity on this subject.
Strengths and limitations
23 settings. This study adds important findings related to popularity research in organizational contexts.
The first limitation of this study includes the personal items of the questionnaire. Respondents indicated that the questions were too personal and some did not want to answer the items. Coherent with this point, some respondents answered all items about their colleagues the same, e.g. all colleagues received a 3 for popularity. This might have influenced the outcomes of this study, this could be a reason why no significant relationships of the expected hypothesis were found.
Furthermore, the team sizes varied from 3 to 21 people and for some teams the response rate was quite low. Therefore, the results could not be realistic because indications of someone’s behaviors are build on the reasoning of few subordinates.
Practical implications
Although this study did not show any significant results of the relationships we expected, we can still provide some practical implications. Openness to experience and interpersonal liking showed significant relationships with popularity. This indicates that in order to be perceived as popular, you need to have these characteristics. We furthermore put forward the fact that it is possible that popularity is not as important in work settings as it is in schools with children or adolescents. However, employees have a need for fitting in and want to have a valuable contribution to the organization’s goals. This need for fitting in refers to being accepted and having influence over team members. Since being popular is defined as being accepted, and popular individuals are often imitated by their colleagues, it is likely to expect that these two subjects are correlated. Therefore, for employees within an organization, popularity is still an important factor that can have a large influence on an individual’s well-being.
CONCLUSION
25 REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., and West, S.G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Akert, R.M., and Panter, A.T. 1988. Extraversion and the ability to decode nonverbal communication. Personality and individual differences, 9(6): 965-972.
Anderson, C., John, O.P., Keltner, D., and Kring, A.M. 2001. Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of personality &
social psychology, 81(1): 116-132.
Ashton, M.C., and Lee, K. 2007. Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2): 150-166.
Cillessen, A.H.N., and Rose, A.J. 2005. Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current
directions in psychological science, 14(2): 102-105.
Denissen, J.J.A., Geenen, R., Van Aken, M.A.G., Gosling, S.D., and Potter, J. 2008. Development and Validation of a Dutch Translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal
of Personality Assessment, 90(2): 152–157.
Emery, C., Calvard, T.S., and Pierce, M.E. 2013. Leadership as an emergent group process: a social network study of personality and leadership, Group process & Intergroup relations, 16(1): 28-45.
González-Abraldes, I., Millián-Calenti, J.C., Lorenzo-López, L., and Maseda, A., 2013. The influence of neuroticism and extraversion on the perceived burden of dementia caregivers: and exploratory study. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 56(1): 91-95.
26 Hawley, P.H. 1999. The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental review, 19(1): 97-132.
International Personality Item Pool, 2013. http://ipip.ori.org/. Accessed on April 18th 2013.
McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., and Busch, C.M. 1986. Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-Set and the 5-factor model. Journal of Personality, 54(2): 430-446.
Newcomb, A.F., Bukowski, W.M., and Pattee, L. 1993. Children’s peer relations: a meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status.
Psychological Bulletin, 133(1): 99-128.
Östberg, V. 2003. Children in classrooms: peer status, status distribution and metal well-being. Social science & Medicine, 56(1): 17-29.
Rebecca, 2011. http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111126231246AAEUL7 m. Accessed on April 24th 2013.
Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Goossens, F.A., Olthof, T., Van de Schoot, R., Aleva, L., and Van der Meulen, M. 2013. Developmental trajectories of bullying and social dominance in youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(4): 224-234.
Reilly, J.W., and Robinson, F.P. 1947. Studies of Popularity in College: I. Can Popularity of Freshmen be Predicted? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7(1): 67-72.
Scott, B.A., and Judge, T.A. 2009. The popularity contest at work: who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of applied psychology, 49(1): 20-33.
27 Wayne, S.J., and Ferris, G.R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of
applied psychology, 75(5): 487-499.
Zhang, Z., Waldman, D.A., and Wang, Z. 2012. A multilevel investigation of leader-member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel
28 APPENDIX A
Questionnaire
Extraversion
(Denissen, Geenen, Van Aken, Gosling and Potter, 2008: 156) Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree I am talkative o o o o o
I tend to be quiet (reverse coded) o o o o o
I generate a lot of enthusiasm o o o o o
I am outgoing, sociable o o o o o
I am reserved (reverse coded) o o o o o
I am sometimes shy, inhibited (reverse coded) o o o o o
I am full of energy o o o o o
I have an assertive personality o o o o o
Agreeableness
(Denissen, Geenen, Van Aken, Gosling and Potter, 2008: 156) Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
I am considerate and kind to almost everyone o o o o o
I have a forgiving nature o o o o o
I am helpful and unselfish with others o o o o o
I start quarrels with others (reverse coded) o o o o o
I am sometimes rude to others (reverse coded) o o o o o
I can be cold and aloof (reverse coded) o o o o o
I am generally trusting o o o o o
I tend to find fault with others (reverse coded) o o o o o
I like to cooperate with others o o o o o
Neuroticism
(Denissen, Geenen, Van Aken, Gosling and Potter, 2008: 156) Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree I worry a lot o o o o o I can be tense o o o o o
I am relaxed, handle stress well (reverse coded) o o o o o
I get nervous easily o o o o o
I am emotionally stable, not easily upset
(reverse coded) o o o o o
I remain calm in tense situations (reverse
29
I am depressed, blue (deleted due to
misspelling) o o o o o
I can be moody o o o o o
Openness to experience
(Denissen, Geenen, Van Aken, Gosling and Potter, 2008: 156) Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
I like to reflect, play with ideas o o o o o
I am inventive o o o o o
I value artistic, aesthetic experiences o o o o o
I am original, come up with new ideas o o o o o
I am ingenious, a deep thinker o o o o o
I have an active imagination o o o o o
I am curious about many different things o o o o o
I am sophisticated in art, music, or literature o o o o o
I have few artistic interests (reverse coded) o o o o o
I prefer work that is routine (reverse coded) o o o o o
Conscientiousness
(Denissen, Geenen, Van Aken, Gosling and Potter, 2008: 156) Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree I do a thorough job o o o o o
I persevere until the task is finished o o o o o
I tend to be disorganized (reverse coded) o o o o o
I tend to be lazy (reverse coded) o o o o o
I am a reliable worker o o o o o
I do things efficiently o o o o o
I make plans and follow through with them o o o o o
I am easily distracted (reverse coded) o o o o o
I can be somewhat careless (reverse coded) o o o o o
Social dominance
(International Personality Item Pool, 2013)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
In general, I try to surpass others’
accomplishments o o o o o
In general, I try to outdo others o o o o o
In general, I am quick to correct others o o o o o
30
I demand explanations from others o o o o o
I want to control the conversation o o o o o
I am not afraid of providing criticism o o o o o
I challenge others’ point of view o o o o o
I lay down the law to others o o o o o
I put people under pressure o o o o o
I hate to seem pushy (reverse coded) o o o o o
Popularity
(Scott and Judge, 2009: 25)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
This person (specified by name of colleague):
Is popular o o o o o
Is quite accepted o o o o o
Is generally admired o o o o o
Is socially visible o o o o o
Job satisfaction
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976)
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
In general, I am satisfied with my job o o o o o
In general, I am satisfied with the feeling that
my work is worth it o o o o o
In general, I am satisfied with the type of work
I am performing o o o o o
Interpersonal liking
(Wayne and Ferris, 1990: 490)
Totally
disagree … … … … …
Totally agree How much do you like this person (specified
