University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior

(USC Thesis Other)

Power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content POWER, STATUS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

By
Yeri Cho

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION)

August 2013

Copyright, 2013 Yeri Cho
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have many people to thank for the continuous support and help that they gave me on my
academic journey. I thank Jen Overbeck for her unwavering support and guidance over the past
five years. I remember first meeting Jen in 2007—even before I was admitted to USC. Our
meeting was full of excitement about sharing similar research interests and the prospects of
engaging in fun research together. Since then, Jen has always been encouraging, supportive, and
patient. I thank her for the numerous hours she spent mentoring and guiding me, despite her own
busy schedule.
I thank Nate Fast and gratefully acknowledge his support and guidance on this
dissertation. I am truly appreciative of everything that Nate provided me. I have learned so much
about research from him through our meetings, writing of manuscripts, handling reviews, and
communicating my research to others. Nate always went above and beyond the call of duty for
me. He invested deeply—not only in my research, but also in my overall well-being and
academic progress. I really loved his “student-first” policy that gave first priority to what was
best for his students.
Both Jen and Nate truly deserve high respect and admiration. They have the best qualities
of a researcher and mentor, and I will strive to emulate them. I am so fortunate to have had an
opportunity to learn from these two individuals. I am forever grateful and can never repay my
debt of deepest gratitude. I hope that someday I can “pay it forward” to my own students.
I also thank my committee members, Peter Carnevale and Jesse Graham for serving on my
dissertation committee. They both provided invaluable insights and suggestions on this
dissertation.

3
I want to thank Biqin Xie, Shresh Nallareddy, and Aniket Aga for their friendship and
encouragement—especially during my first year at USC Marshall School of Business. They are
the hardest working people I have ever met, and I’ve always admired their commitment and
dedication to their field. I thank my colleagues and staffs at the Management and Organization
Department—especially YooKyoung Kim, Priyanka Joshi, Mariam Krikorian, and Queenie
Taylor for their friendship and support. Thanks also to Emily Tansuwan for her valuable input
during the last five years. Spending time with all of these people gave me the energy and
motivation to move forward.
I thank Dr. Kyudok Hong for inspiring me by being a perfect role model. Dr. Hong had a
significant influence on my decision to pursue an academic career, and he showed tremendous
foresight by encouraging me to reflect on my path, my goals, and my future as an academician. I
thank Eunyi Chung for her true and steadfast friendship. I also thank Eunyoung Lee for being my
best friend (even though we are about six thousand miles apart from each other) and my bible
study friends, my church friends, Pastor Shin and his wife, for their support and prayers.
I owe a huge thank-you to my family—my parents, my grandmother, my brother
Hyunjun, and my sister-in-law Hyemin. Because of my family’s sacrifice and unconditional
love, I have been able to come this far. My parents instilled in me the importance of learning and
provided me with boundless opportunities. When I started my PhD at Marshall, my father gave
me this advice: “Believe in yourself, even when no one else does.” This advice helped me to
overcome many of the challenges that I’ve had to face.
Last but foremost, I thank God for His love and grace. I am aware that I am only at the
beginning of my journey, and that He will continue to be there for me just as He always has
been.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLE 5
ABSTRACT 6
INTRODUCTION 7
POWER, STATUS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 8
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES 11
STUDY 1 12
STUDY 2 17
STUDY 3 21
GENERAL DISCUSSION 24
CONCLUSION 27
REFERENCES 28

5
LIST OF TABLE AND FIGURES
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities (Study 1)
Figure 1. Effects of power and status on OCB (Study 1)
Figure 2. Effects of power and status on OCB targeted at individuals (Study 1)
Figure 3. Effects of power and status on OCB targeted at the organization (Study 1)
Figure 4. Effect of power and status on the number of ideas generated beyond job requirements
(Study 2)
Figure 5. Effects of power and status on the likelihood of voluntarily completing extra-survey
(Study 3)
6
ABSTRACT
Although objective hierarchical characteristics influence individuals’ voluntary behaviors
in organizations, individuals’ subjective perception of their position within a social hierarchy is
also an important factor in predicting such behaviors. In this dissertation, I propose that power
and status interact to predict citizenship behavior. Through three studies, I find support for this
prediction. Study 1, a field survey, showed that self-perceived power and status are interactively
related to full-time working adults’ organizational citizenship behavior. Among high-power
individuals, elevated status was associated with more organizational citizenship behavior,
whereas the same relationship did not exist among individuals with low power. Studies 2 and 3,
experiments, orthogonally manipulated status and power and showed that powerful individuals
with low status are less likely to engage in extra voluntary surveys or help their coworkers by
going above and beyond their roles than powerful individuals with high status. As predicted, the
diminishing effect of a lack of status on citizenship behavior emerged among high-power
participants and not among low-power participants. Implications for research on power, status,
and organizational citizenship behavior are discussed.
7
INTRODUCTION
In a workplace, countless people often exhibit behavior that goes above and beyond their
job descriptions; they do this to help their organization achieve its goals. This is called
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and is defined as “individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system” (Organ, 1988, p.
4). Examples of OCB are “giving up time to help others who have problems”, or “offering ideas
to improve the functioning of the organization” even though this is not part of one’s job (Lee &
Allen, 2002, p. 142). Previous studies have shown that OCB is essential and important in
organizations because it relates to both various individual outcomes and to positive
organizational outcomes (such as organizational performance) (Aryee & Law, 2007; Organ,
Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).
Employees who voluntarily devote their time and energy toward helping their
organizations and others are viewed as “good soldiers” (Organ, 1988) or “good citizens”
(Bergeron, 2007). These good citizens who are perceived as making valuable contributions to
their organizations are typically respected and admired by others. However, it might be that the
opposite of this equation also holds true. In other words, it may be the case that self-perceived
status (respect and admiration) and power (control over valued resources) affect citizenship
behavior.
A significant number of studies have investigated various antecedents of OCB
(Spitzmuller, Van Dyne, & Illies, 2008) and found that personality traits, motives, and job
attitudes such as job satisfaction or fairness perception influence OCB (Borman & Penner, 2001;
Grant & Mayer, 2009; Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ &
Ryan, 1995; Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,
8
2000). However, little research has sought to understand how social hierarchy influences OCB.
One notable exception is Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch’s (1994) research showing that
hierarchical job level (low, medium, or high) increases OCB (loyalty and participation) through
covenantal relationship (mutual trust, shared values, and open-ended commitment). Some studies
included hierarchical position or job level as a control variable for systematic biases associated
with individuals’ demographic characteristics (Bowler & Brass, 2006; Choi, 2007; Grant &
Mayer, 2009). Prior research suggests that a person’s objective job level or position within the
social hierarchy can influence OCB.
In this dissertation, I suggest that how individuals subjectively perceive their position in
the social hierarchy can be an important factor to consider when attempting to predict individuals’
voluntary behaviors that are not formally required by their jobs. Recent theoretical development
in the power and status research in the area of social psychology suggests that power (control
over outcome) and status (esteem and respect) are two bases of social hierarchy (Magee &
Galinsky, 2008). It also highlights that even though power and status are related, they are
theoretically and empirically distinct and can have different effects on individuals who have both,
neither of the two, or one of the two. In this dissertation, I argue that individuals’ self-perceived
power and status in organizations interact to affect their citizenship behavior. In the following
section, I present my theoretical arguments for the hypothesized relationship. Following that, I
present results from a field study and two experiments.
POWER, STATUS, AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Definitions of Power and Status and the Differences between the Two Constructs
Status and power are the two basic building blocks of social hierarchy (Magee &
Galinsky, 2008). Recent theoretical development in the social psychology literature defines
9
status as respect and admiration conferred upon an individual by others (Anderson & Kilduff,
2009; Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Fiske, 2010; Fiske & Berdahl,
2007). Research in this tradition emphasizes that others grant status through status-conferral
processes (Blader & Chen, 2012; Ridgeway & Erickson, 2000). In contrast to status, the mostly
widely accepted definition of power is control over valued resources (Fiske, 1993; Fiske &
Berdahl, 2007; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Overbeck &
Park, 2001).
Status is different from power, although they have often been used interchangeably in
prior research (e.g., Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005). Magee and Galinsky (2008) posit the
following difference between power and status, “Power, more than status, is a property of the
actor. Status, more than power, is a property of co-actors and observers (p. 364).”
People generally expect that high-power individuals tend to have high status or vice versa
(Magee & Galinsky, 2008), and that low-power individuals tend not to have status. Yet, not all
people who have control over resources are respected or admired by others, and not all people
who are respected or admired by others have control over resources. Recent empirical studies
suggest that it is important to distinguish between power and status, studying their interactive
effects rather than examining the isolating effects of possessing either power or status (Blader &
Chen, 2012; Fast, Halevy, & Galinsky, 2012; Fragale, Overbeck, & Neale, 2011).
The Effects of Power and Status on Organizational Citizenship Behavior
An individual’s motivation to exhibit OCB can be influenced by the extent to which the
individual feels that he or she should exhibit this behavior, and this includes situations where the
individual believes he or she owes OCB to others or to the organization (Organ et al., 2006). The
feeling of obligation to engage in OCB is related to the social exchange account of OCB. Blau
10
(1964) defines social exchange as the “voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the
returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others” (Blau, 1964; p. 91).
In part, social exchange differs from economic exchange in that it entails unspecified obligation.
In the social exchange relationship, one is expected to reciprocate for benefits received—but
when, what, and how to reciprocate are unspecified.
According to a social exchange model of OCB (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Organ, 1988;
Rioux & Penner, 2001), individuals respond to how they are treated at work; if they are treated
well, OCB is a possible way for them to reciprocate (Organ, 1988). The chapter on social
exchange by Blau (1964) illustrates a situation where a respected senior colleague feels obligated
to reciprocate by devoting more of his limited time than he ordinarily would to a junior colleague
who shows deferential admiration toward him (pp. 90-91).
Research on status suggests that status increases attention to others (Blader & Chen, 2012)
because others confer status upon an individual (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962; Homans, 1961). In
contrast, lacking status makes an actor demean others, especially among the powerful (Fast et al.,
2012), in order to compensate for a reduced feeling of self-worth (Baumeister, Bushman, &
Campbell, 2000; Henry, 2009). Based on previous research that focuses on status, I propose that
having high status motivates one to engage in OCB more, whereas lacking status hinders one’s
motivation to engage in OCB.
In addition, I predict that power interacts with status to predict OCB. According to the
power approach/inhibition theory, increased power activates approach behaviors, whereas
reduced power activates inhibitory behaviors (Keltner et al., 2003). The theory posits that having
power comes along with access to rewards, and it frees individuals to act on their own goals and
desires; however, lacking power makes individuals more subject to punishments. This theory
11
informs that whether or not status is going to lead to OCB can depend on whether one has power
or not. If individuals with low power and low status act on their preferences to not exhibit OCB,
they may face negative social consequences. In contrast, if powerful individuals with low status
do not engage in OCB, they will not experience the same negative consequences because they
have power.
Taken together, I hypothesize that lacking status decreases OCB among high-power
individuals, whereas lacking status does not affect OCB among low-power individuals. When
people treat high-power individuals with respect and admiration, they likely reciprocate by
performing citizenship behavior. In contrast, high-power individuals who feel a lack of respect
and admiration by others likely reciprocate by reducing citizenship behavior. However, the
diminishing effect of lacking respect and admiration should not influence how much low-power
individuals demonstrate citizenship behavior.
These predictions are consistent with the social exchange theory which suggests that
respect and admiration by others are rewards that make one willing to enter into a social
exchange relationship and obligate one to reciprocate (Blau, 1964). In contrast, a lack of respect
and admiration does not bind one in the social exchange relationship, and motivates one to
disengage with others in return to negative treatment received.
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
I tested this hypothesis with three studies. Study 1 used field data from full-time working
adults and tested whether perceived power and status interactively influence OCB. I also tested
whether the interaction of power and status causes differences in citizenship behavior in two
experiments (Study 2 and 3). Both Study 2 and 3 orthogonally manipulated power and status and
tested the prediction. In Study 2, participants randomly received one of the four different roles
12
(high power/high status, high power/low status, low power/high status, and low power/low
status), and had an opportunity to help their coworkers in ways that exceeded their job roles and
were not compensated for. In Study 3, participants also received one of the four roles that differ
in power and status and had an opportunity to voluntarily complete extra surveys that are beyond
their duty.
STUDY 1
Study 1 tested the basic question of whether perceived power and status interact to predict
OCB. I measured three variables: perceived power, perceived status, and OCB. I predicted that
powerful individuals with low status are less likely to perform OCB than individuals who have
both power and status.
Method
Participants and Procedures
One hundred and four full-time working adults completed the first survey that included
independent measures of power and status and demographic characteristics on MTurk at Time 1.
I separated measurement of independent and dependent variables temporally by administering
two surveys at different times to control for common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKinzie,
Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Two months later, at Time 2, 78 of the original 104 participants (75%)
completed the second survey that only included the dependent measure of OCB. There were no
significant differences between respondents and nonrespondents on independent variables and
demographic characteristics. Fifty-three percent of the participants were male; the average age of
the participants was 35.38 (SD = 12.45); and the average tenure was 6.83 years (SD = 6.10).
There were 6 senior managers, 19 middle managers, 22 low-level managers, and 31 employees
who were not managers.
13
Measures
Power. Power was measured with Caza, Tiedens, and Lee’s (2011) 4-item scale.
Participants used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely) to indicate their
perceived power. Example items of power included, “To what extent are you at the top of the
power hierarchy at your place of work?” and “To what extent are you powerless at your place of
work (reverse-scored)?”
Status. Status was measured with two items, an adapted version of an existing status scale
(Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Flynn, 2003). Participants answered the following two
questions: “How much influence do you exert over decisions at work?” and “How much status
do you have at work?” Responses ranged from very little to very much on a 7-point Likert scale.
OCB. OCB was measured using Lee and Allen’s (2002) 16-item scale. Eight items
measured OCB targeted at the organization (OCBO) and the other eight items measured OCB
targeted at individuals (OCBI). Participants were asked to indicate how often they engaged in a
particular type of OCB on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always). Example items of
OCBO included “I attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image,”
“I defend the organization when other employees criticize it,” “I offer ideas to improve the
functioning of the organization,” “I express loyalty toward the organization,” and “I demonstrate
concern about the image of the organization.” Example items of OCBI included “I help others
who have been absent,” “I willingly give my time to help others who have work-related
problems,” “I give up time to help others who have work or non-work problems,” “I go out of
the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group,” “I share personal property
with others to help their work,” “I assist others with their duties,” and “I adjust my work
schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time off.”
14
Results and Discussion
Participants’ age, tenure, and job level did not affect the results of this study. There was
an effect of gender on OCB. Female participants significantly reported more OCB and OCBI
than male participants, t(77) = 2.22, p = .03 and t(77) = 2.11, p = .04, respectively. The effect of
gender on OCBO was marginally significant, t(77) = 1.85, p = .07. The reported results below
are the same with and without controlling for gender. Table 1 presents means, standard
deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities (Study 1)
Note. N =78. SD = standard deviation; Cronbach’s alphas are presented in parentheses.
a
Gender is coded female = 0 and male = 1
b
Job level is coded 1 = employees who are not managers, 2 = low-level manager, 3 = middle manager, and 4 =
senior manager
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

I tested the hypothesis by regressing OCB on power (mean-centered, continuous), status
(mean-centered, continuous), and the interaction term. There were no main effects of power or
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Age 35.38 12.45 -
Gender
a
.53 .50 -.21 -
Tenure 6.27 6.00 .47** .13 -
Job level
b
2.00 .98 .26* .03 .31** -
Power 3.03 1.00 .11 -.01 .24* .77** (.92)
Status 4.45 1.66 .07 .10 .26* .73** .86** (.89)
OCBI 4.42 1.16 -.05 -.24* .04 .07 .07 .13 (.90)
OCBO 4.45 1.20 -.06 -.21 .03 .14 .30** .18 .62** (.89)
OCB 4.43 1.06 -.06 -.25* .04 .12 .21 .17 .90** .90** (.92)
15
status on OCB. However, the predicted power and status interaction effect on OCB emerged, β =
.27, t(77) = 2.32, p = .02 (see Figure 1). Simple-slopes analyses revealed a weak association
between status and OCB among high-power participants (1 SD above the mean), t(77) = 1.42, p
= .16, but no association among low-power participants (1 SD below the mean), t(77) = -.59, p =
.55.

Figure 1. Effects of power and status on OCB (Study 1). The graph shows a predicted level of
OCB for individuals with high and low power (1 SD above and below the mean, respectively)
who reported high and low status (1 SD above and below the mean, respectively).

Two subscales of OCBI and OCBO showed different main effects of power and status
and the interaction effect. There was a marginally significant main effect of status on OCBI, β =
.29, t(77) = 1.88, p = .07, and the interaction effect between power and status on OCBI was
significant, β = .19, t(77) = 2.60 , p = .01 (see Figure 2). There was a significant main effect of
power on OCBO, β = .47, t(77) = 1.98, p = .05, but the power and status interaction effect on
OCBO was not significant, β = .12, t(77) = 1.61, p = .11 (see Figure 3). Simple-slopes analyses
further revealed a significant association between status and OCBI among high-power
16
participants (1 SD above the mean), t(77) = 2.56, p = .012, but no association among low-power
participants (1 SD below the mean), t(77) = -.57, p = .57.

Figure 2. Effects of power and status on OCB targeted at individuals (Study 1)

Figure 3. Effects of power and status on OCB targeted at the organization (Study 1)

The results supported the hypothesis that power and status interact to predict OCB.
Further analysis shows that OCBI drives the interaction. This finding is in line with previous
discussions that one’s sources of status are other individuals who confer it, and thus status makes
one attend more to others. The results supported the social exchange theory account of
17
citizenship behavior. Individuals who reported high status reciprocated with more OCBI than
individuals who reported low status, but perceived power gives individuals the freedom to not
exhibit OCBI toward others when they receive low status from others. However, the findings are
based on a cross-sectional correlational study, therefore they do not indicate causal direction.
The evidence can equally support the reverse relationship—that OCB leads to increased status
among the powerful, not among the powerless. I address this limitation in the next two
experiments.
STUDY 2
Study 2 examined whether there is a causal relationship between the interaction of power
and status and citizenship behavior. In order to examine this, I orthogonally manipulated power
and status and operationalized OCB as ‘voluntary extra-role helping behavior.’ I predicted that I
would find a significant interaction effect of power and status on citizenship behavior.
Method
Participants and Procedures
A total of 151 people from MTurk participated in this study. Nine participants failed an
attention check question and were excluded from analysis. Forty-eight percent of the participants
were male, and the average age of the participants was 34.29 (SD = 13.06). The study employed
a 2 (power: high versus low) x 2 (status: high versus low) between-subject design. The power
and status manipulations were adapted from Fast et al. (2012).
All of the participants received the same role title, Person A. However, participants in the
high-status condition learned that their task was to generate important and creative ideas to
improve organizational productivity, whereas their coworker’s (Person B) task was to generate
ideas to organize the contents of a desk. They were then given the following information: “Based
18
on a pretest, people consistently look up to your role, showing a great deal of admiration and
respect for people in your role. In contrast, people tend to look down on the person in Role B,
viewing this individual with disdain.” In contrast, participants in the low-status condition learned
that their task was to generate ideas to organize the contents of a desk, whereas their coworker’s
(Person B) task was to generate important and creative ideas to improve organizational
productivity. Then, they were informed of the following: “Based on a pretest, people consistently
look up to Person B, showing a great deal of admiration and respect for this individual. In
contrast, people tend to look down on your role, viewing people in your role with disdain.”
Participants were then exposed to power manipulations. Individuals in the high-power
condition were instructed: “You get to dictate what exercises your coworker must do in order to
qualify for a $50 bonus drawing that will happen after the study. Thus, you control the amount
and type of effort he/she must exert in order to win the $50. He/she has no such control over you
because you will be entered into the $50 no matter what.” In contrast, participants in the low-
power condition were instructed: “Your coworker gets to dictate what tasks you must do in order
to qualify for a $50 bonus drawing which will happen after the study. Thus, your coworker
controls the amount and type of effort you must exert in order to win the $50. You have no such
control over your coworker because he/she will be entered into the $50 no matter what.”
Next, participants generated 10 ideas—either on ways to improve organizational
productivity or to organize contents of a desk, and they also had an opportunity to help their
coworkers generate ideas. If their job was to generate ideas to increase organizational
productivity, they could decide to not help (i.e., by generating ‘zero’ ideas for their coworkers),
or help their coworker by generating as many ideas as they could (up to 10) on ways to organize
the contents of a desk, or vice versa. Participants were explicitly informed that this was voluntary,
19
and they could skip this part and move on to the next part of the study. To check whether
manipulations were effective or not, participants were asked to answer the following two
questions on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (my coworker’s role) to 4 (my role): “Whose role is
viewed more positively (i.e., more respected and admired?)” and “Whose role affords more
control over access to the $50 bonus?”
Measures
Citizenship behavior (voluntary extra-role helping behavior). The dependent measure of
citizenship behavior toward others was the number of ideas from zero (minimum) to ten
(maximum) that participants generated to help their coworker do his/her job beyond the job
requirements.
Results and Discussion
Participants’ age and gender did not affect the results of this study. Therefore, I do not
discuss these two variables further.
Manipulation Checks
The power and status manipulations were effective. Participants in the high-power
condition perceived significantly more power (M = 3.81, SD = .70) than participants in the low-
power condition (M = 1.23, SD = .73), t(142) = 21.43, p = .00. There was no main effect of status
on perceived power, t(142) = -.76, p = .45. The effect of status and power interaction on
perceived power was not significant, t(142) = .99, p = .32.
Participants in the high-status condition perceived significantly more status (M = 3.91,
SD = .53) than participants in the low-status condition (M = 1.07, SD = .38), t(142) = 36.83, p =
.00. There was no main effect of power on perceived status, t(142) = .70, p = .48. The effect of
status and power interaction on perceived status was not significant, t(142) = -.27, p = .79.
20
Citizenship Behavior
There was a significant main effect of status on extra-role helping behavior, β = 1.04,
t(142) = 3.98, p < .001. More importantly, the interaction between power and status on
citizenship behavior was significant, β = .60, t(142) = 2.30, p = .02 (see Figure 4). Lacking
status led to significantly less citizenship behavior among participants in the high-power
condition, t(73) = 4.30, p < .001, whereas status had no effect among participants in the low-
power condition, t(69) = 1.11, p = .27. Further analysis reveals that participants in the high-
power, low-status condition showed significantly less citizenship behavior than participants in
the other three conditions, t(142) = -4.31, p < .001.

Figure 4. Effect of power and status on the number of ideas generated beyond job requirements
(Study 2)

By experimentally manipulating the level of power and status, the findings from this
study provide further support for my prediction that being respected and admired by others
increases one’s OCB and more importantly, power and status interact to affect OCB. These
21
results are consistent with the social exchange theory in that those who received respect and
admiration reciprocated by engaging in OCB. The combination of lacking status and having
power frees individuals from returning behavior that is neither formally required nor rewarded.
STUDY 3
Study 3 extended the previous findings by investigating whether or not the helping
behavior beyond one’s duty would be extended to helping others outside of one’s organization. I
predicted that individuals would pay the forward respect and admiration they received at work by
helping others who were not in their organization.
Method
Participants and Procedures
A total of 93 undergraduate students participated in this study in exchange for course
credit. Fifty-six percent of the participants were male, and the average age of the participants was
20.73 (SD = 1.93). The design of the study was similar to Study 2, except for two alterations:
first, the study used a different dependent measure of citizenship behavior, and second,
participants received explicit role titles of “Idea Producer” and “Worker,” instead of everyone
receiving the same role of “Person A.” The study also employed a 2 (power: high versus low) x 2
(status: high versus low) between-subject design. The power and status manipulations were also
adapted from Fast et al. (2012).
Upon arrival, participants were informed that this study concerned how people work on
tasks from separate locations. They were then randomly assigned to one of the four conditions
that orthogonally manipulated power and status. Participants learned that they would be assigned
to a coworker with whom they would interact but they would not actually meet, and that they
both worked in the virtual firm, “VCC Inc.” Participants were randomly assigned to the Idea
22
Producer (high-status) role or the Worker (low-status) role. Participants in the Idea Producer role
learned that they would be asked to generate and work with important ideas. In contrast,
participants in the Worker role learned that they would do small, menial tasks, such as checking
for typos. More importantly, participants in both roles were informed that, “Based on a pretest,
people look up to the Idea Producer role and have a great deal of admiration and respect for it. In
contrast, people tend to look down on the Worker role.”
Participants then learned whether they had more power than their coworkers or not.
Participants in the high-power condition were told that they would evaluate their coworkers’
work, and the coworkers would have to do whatever they asked them to do. In contrast,
participants in the low-power condition were told that their coworkers would evaluate their work,
and they would have to do whatever their coworkers asked them to do.
Next, participants learned that researchers needed volunteers to complete extra surveys.
They were asked whether they could or could not volunteer to engage in more surveys after
finishing the study being completed for research credit. Participants were explicitly informed that
this was not a required part of the study; therefore, their time and effort would not be
compensated, but their participation would benefit other people and researchers by providing a
better understanding of human behavior. As instructional manipulation checks, participants were
asked to indicate whether their role or their coworker’s role was more respected/admired and
whose role had more power.
Measures
Citizenship behavior. Citizenship behavior toward others who are outside of one’s
organization was measured by whether participants completed the extra survey (coded 1) or
whether they did not do the extra survey (coded 0) at the end of the research.
23
Results and Discussion
The interaction between power and status on citizenship behavior was not significant, β =
-1.45, p = 0.19 but the means of citizenship behavior in the four different conditions were in a
similar direction as those in Study 2 (see Figure 5). However, as predicted, participants in the
high-power/high-status condition were significantly more likely to perform citizenship behavior
outside of one’s organization than those who were in the high-power/low-status condition, β = -
1.97, p = .02, whereas there was no effect of status among low-power participants, β = -.52, p =
.45. The results supported the prediction that low-status hinders citizenship behavior among
high-power participants, but it does not affect citizenship behavior among low-power
participants. A chi-square test revealed a marginally significant trend that participants in the
high-power, low-status condition helped the least compared to all the other conditions, χ
2
(1, N =
93) = 3.79, p = .09.

Figure 5. Effects of power and status on the likelihood of voluntarily completing extra survey
(Study 3)
24
The very weak (or no) power and status interaction effect on citizenship behavior outside
of one’s organization is not surprising. Power and status are granted within an organization, and
thus are less likely to affect someone’s behavior who is not in that organization. These findings
suggest that an individual who has power but lacks status is less likely to engage in citizenship
behavior even outside of his/her own organization in response to a lack of admiration and respect
received from that organization.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It is important to discover what it is that encourages employees to engage in
organizational citizenship behavior, but it is equally important to find what discourages them
from performing OCB. Across three studies (one field study and two experiments), this
dissertation showed that possessing power while lacking status hinders an individual’s
citizenship behavior. Study 1 demonstrated the interactive effect of power and status on OCB
among working adults. Study 2 further examined the causal relationship and confirmed that
power and status interact to predict citizenship behavior. Study 3 found that individuals pay
forward the negative treatment they receive at work when they have power but lack status.
Lacking status leads to a lower citizenship performance of the powerful, not of the powerless—
even outside of an organization.
Burke, Weir, and Duncan (1976) showed that the direction of informal helping
relationships in organizations is generally top down. That is, individuals at the top of the
hierarchy are generally the ones that other people in the organization seek out for help. Not all
people who have an ability to perform OCB choose to do so. What are the influences that make
powerful individuals refuse to help others and the organization beyond their assigned duties?
This dissertation’s findings provide an answer to this question. Having status leads to OCB,
25
whereas lacking status hinders OCB. More importantly, power moderates this relationship in a
way that the combination of having power but lacking status makes individuals unwilling to
devote their time and energy to helping others beyond what is required in their day-to-day work.
Therefore, the present findings acknowledge the importance of having status among the powerful.
John Kotter’s (1982) book on America’s leading executives describes the challenges of not
getting enough cooperation and support from disrespected immediate bosses.
My research results were robust across two different methodologies and three different
dependent measures of citizenship behavior. The strength of this research is in its multi-method
approach. It shows that the relationship between the interaction of power and status and OCB
exists among working adults, and by doing so it increases external validity. Studies 2 and 3
further show the causal relationship of the variables by manipulating power and status and
measuring actual citizenship behaviors.
This research offers several important contributions. First, existing research on the
antecedents of OCB has failed to take into account structural factors, such as power and status.
The present findings advance research on the determinants of OCB by addressing this oversight
and incorporating social psychology research on power and status. Specifically, conceptual
clarity between power and status offers a better understanding of exactly how status or power or
the combination of the two influences individuals’ OCB. Second, this research extends the social
exchange explanations of OCB. Social exchange theory explains that individuals perform OCB
as a way to reciprocate for the positive treatment they receive at work. This research addresses
the other side of the story by showing that individuals will refuse to perform OCB in response to
negative treatment received (being disrespected, unappreciated, or underrated by others). Third,
this research suggests important consequences of having high status versus low status. Flynn,
26
Reagans, Amanatullah, and Ames (2006) showed that individuals who are high self-monitors
achieve high status by helping other people. This research suggests the opposite is also true.
Individuals with high status are also more likely to go above and beyond their duty, whereas
individuals with low status are more likely to strictly adhere to what is required of them.
Implications and Future Directions
These findings have important practical implications. First, organizations can greatly
benefit by placing more control over valued resources in the hands of individuals who are good
workers and are also respected and admired by others—rather than those who may perform
better but are not respected by others. Second, individuals may be more sensitive to a relative
decrease in their status than a decrease in their power, and may respond to these changes
differently. It is important to be aware that there can be cases when social rewards like respect
and admiration may matter more to individuals than economic rewards.
There are several potential inquiries for future research based on the findings from this
research. First, there are certain factors that increase citizenship behavior, while there is a
separate set of factors that decrease citizenship behavior. A vast majority of research on the
antecedents of OCB have sought to identify motivators of OCB, but neglected to find OCB
reducers. Future research is needed to identify what hinders citizenship performance, especially
among those who have more ability to engage in that behavior than others. Second, a self-serving
motive or other-serving motive may be mediating the relationship between the power and status
interaction and citizenship behavior. Future research should address the possible mediating role
of self-serving versus other-serving motives on the interactive effect of power and status on
citizenship behavior. Third, the addition of a control condition is needed to interpret the power
and status interaction effect more clearly—whether the effect is caused by elevated power/status
27
or by reduced power/status (Moskovitz, 2004). Fourth, the findings hint that other types of extra-
role behaviors (e.g., Voice OCB) and formal/informal helping relationships at work are also
likely to be influenced by employees’ perceived power, status, or the interaction. It would be
interesting to examine whether power and status would interact to predict different types of
citizenship behavior.
CONCLUSION
Little attention has been directed at the impact of social hierarchy, power and status, on
organizational citizenship behavior. This lack of consideration regarding the two fundamental
elements of social relations seriously limits our understanding of why individuals who have
valuable resources needed to perform OCB refuse to do so. This research reveals that one’s self-
perception of possessing power but lacking status hinders citizenship behavior.

28
REFERENCES
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects
of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295-298.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your
place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(6), 1094-1110.
Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(3), 558-577.
Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-Esteem, narcissism, and
aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 26-29.
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good
citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078-1095.
Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 994-1014.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley: New York.
Borman, W. C., & Penner, L. A. (2001). Citizenship performance: Its nature, antecedents, and
motives. In B. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace. (pp.
63-92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior:
A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 70-82.
Burke, R. J., Weir, T., & Duncan, G. (1976). Informal helping relationship in work organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 19(3), 370-377.
Caza, B. B., Tiedens, L., & Lee, F. (2011). Power becomes you: The effects of implicit and
explicit power on the self. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
114(1), 15-24.
Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of work
environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 467-484.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review. 27(1), 31-
40.
Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The destructive nature of power without status.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 391-394.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621-628.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske,
D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941–
982). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Social power. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (pp. 678–692). New York and
London: Guilford Press.
30
Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and
frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(5), 539-553.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. (2006). Helping one's way to the
top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1123-1137.
Fragale, A. R., Overbeck, J. R., & Neale, M. A. (2011). Resources versus respect: Social
judgments based on targets' power and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47(4), 767-775.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression
management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900-912.
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension
of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898-924.
Henry, P. J. (2009). Low-status compensation: A theory for understanding the role of status in
cultures of honor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 451-166.
Homans, C. G. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social
exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286-1298.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
31
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The General Managers. New York: The Free Press.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The
role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 Social hierarchy: The self-‐reinforcing nature of power
and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
Moskowitz, D. S. (2004). Does elevated power lead to approach and reduced power to inhibition?
Comment on Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003). Psychological Review, 111(3),
808-811.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome (Vol.
133). Lexington, MA: Lexington books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A Meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation
processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81(4), 549-565.
32
Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and
social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior.
Human Performance, 10(2), 111-131.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Erickson, K. G. (2000). Creating and spreading status beliefs. American
Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 579-615.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A
motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
Spitzmuller, M., Van Dyne, L., & Ilies, R. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior: A review
and extension of its nomological network. In J. Barling & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 106-123). New York: Nova Science
Publishers.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,
37(4), 765-802.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although objective hierarchical characteristics influence individuals’ voluntary behaviors in organizations, individuals’ subjective perception of their position within a social hierarchy is also an important factor in predicting such behaviors. In this dissertation, I propose that power and status interact to predict citizenship behavior. Through three studies, I find support for this prediction. Study 1, a field survey, showed that self-perceived power and status are interactively related to full-time working adults’ organizational citizenship behavior. Among high-power individuals, elevated status was associated with more organizational citizenship behavior, whereas the same relationship did not exist among individuals with low power. Studies 2 and 3, experiments, orthogonally manipulated status and power and showed that powerful individuals with low status are less likely to engage in extra voluntary surveys or help their coworkers by going above and beyond their roles than powerful individuals with high status. As predicted, the diminishing effect of a lack of status on citizenship behavior emerged among high-power participants and not among low-power participants. Implications for research on power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The curse of loyalty: interdependent self construal and support for corruption

PDF

Leadership and the impact on organizational citizenship behaviors: an evaluation study

PDF

How does status influence behavior? The impact of achieved and endowed status on consumption patterns

PDF

Technology, behavior tracking, and the future of work

PDF

Transcendental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of spirituality in the workplace

PDF

The influence of organizational ethics on job attitudes and government performance

PDF

The morality of technology

PDF

The interactive effects of incentive threshold and narcissism on managerial decision-making

PDF

The cost of a poker-face: consequences of self-regulation on emotion recognition and interpersonal perception

PDF

Two essays on the mutual fund industry and an application of the optimal risk allocation model in the real estate market

PDF

The motivational power of beauty: how aesthetically appealing products drive purchase effort in consumers

PDF

Novelty versus familiarity: divergent effects of low predictability and low personal influence

PDF

Enchanted algorithms: the quantification of organizational decision-making

PDF

A costly penny for your thoughts?: Allies cause harm by soliciting disadvantaged group members' voice when confronting prejudice

PDF

Consumers' subjective knowledge influences evaluative extremity and product differentiation

PDF

The effects of curiosity-evoking events on consumption enjoyment

PDF

Powerful brand influentials: conceptualization, measurement, and distinctiveness of a brand’s influential consumers

PDF

Habits as friend and foe to self-control: the dual roles of routinized behavior

PDF

Essays on strategic categorization

PDF

Essays on understanding consumer contribution behaviors in the context of crowdfunding

Asset Metadata

Creator Cho, Yeri (author)

Core Title Power, status, and organizational citizenship behavior

School Marshall School of Business

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Business Administration

Publication Date 07/23/2013

Defense Date 06/06/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational citizenship behavior,Power,status

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Fast, Nathanael (committee chair), Overbeck, Jennifer (committee chair), Carnevale, Peter (committee member), Graham, Jesse C. (committee member)

Creator Email cho.yeri@gmail.com,yericho@stanfordalumni.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-294602

Unique identifier UC11292753

Identifier etd-ChoYeri-1811.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-294602 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChoYeri-1811-0.pdf

Dmrecord 294602

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cho, Yeri

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA