Abstract
This study examined the beneficial role of social self-efficacy (SSE) in relation to the important workplace outcomes of job satisfaction and task performance. We proposed and tested a model in which social status functioned as a mediator of the above relationships. Participants were 172 employees from diverse industries in China, who self-reported their SSE and job satisfaction. Each participant had three coworkers who provided peer ratings of his or her social status and task performance. Results based on structural equation modeling indicated that SSE positively related to social status, which in turn positively related to both job satisfaction and task performance. Consistent with our prediction, social status was found to mediate the above relationships. Implications for career development practices were discussed.
Success in both life and work domains inevitably includes a social component. Indeed, various social effectiveness variables have been identified as strong predictors of overall life quality (e.g., Hermann, 2005) as well as work/career outcomes (e.g., Park, Sohn, & Ha, 2016). For example, effective social skills have been linked to lower perceived stress, reduced symptoms of depression, and higher life satisfaction (Segrin & Taylor, 2007). Furthermore, social effectiveness variables that involve social interactions (e.g., popularity, political skills, emotional intelligence) have been linked to job-related affect, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors, psychological well-being, and task performance (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Cullen, Fan, & Liu, 2014; Scott, 2013).
Among the many social effectiveness constructs that have been examined, social self-efficacy (SSE) has been identified as particularly significant for the dimensions of work or career success that entail social interaction (Fan et al., 2013). SSE has been defined as “an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to engage in the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships” (Smith & Betz, 2000, p. 286). Given the increasing social interaction demands placed on many employees (Deming, 2017; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999), the perceived ability to effectively engage in social interaction would be of importance and thereby SSE has been theorized as a key antecedent of the social components of job performance (Fan et al., 2013).
It is worth noting that SSE differs from many social effectiveness constructs that have garnered the most research interest and deemed as critical for career success (e.g., emotional intelligence, self-monitoring, political skill) in two important ways. First, unlike these social effectiveness constructs, SSE focuses on neither a cognitive understanding component that enables the ability to accurately “read” various social situations nor a behavioral component that permits appropriate action consistent with the cognitive understanding of a social situation (Ferris, Perrewe, & Douglas, 2002). Rather, SSE reflects the perceived ability to affect the social environment through action (Fan et al., 2013). That is, SSE includes a degree of situational blindness (i.e., an ability perception without the necessary accurate perception and analysis of the social environment; Fan et al., 2013). Second, as a domain-specific self-efficacy concept, SSE may not be as stable as trait-like social effectiveness constructs (Bandura, 1997). Consequently, it is possible for career counselors and scholars to develop training or intervention programs to boost individuals’ SSE, which in turn should lead to better distal career outcomes such as job satisfaction and job performance. In other words, as compared with other more established social effectiveness constructs, SSE provides a unique perspective into how social effectiveness may be achieved and offers an extremely valuable possibility of facilitating career adjustment through SSE-focused interventions.
Despite the importance of social effectiveness for success in work and nonwork domains as well as the vast research literature that has been generated, the SSE construct, in particular, has received relatively less research attention. For instance, little is known about the relationship between SSE and career outcomes, as most studies have focused on children’s or adolescents’ SSE (e.g., Li, Shi, & Dang, 2014). The only exception is a study by Fan et al. (2013) who developed a workplace SSE measure and showed its relevance to a host of variables in the workplace (e.g., job-related affective well-being). However, Fan et al. did not test the mechanisms underlying SSE in the work domain. Thus, building on prior research, the present study explicates the facilitative role of SSE in the workplace by examining an important mediator (i.e., social status) through which SSE positively relates to the two important outcomes of job satisfaction and task performance. These two variables have been considered key distal outcomes (satisfaction and satisfactoriness) in the classic career adjustment model of “Theory of Work Adjustment” (cf. Dawis & Lofquist, 1984).
Figure 1 presents our conceptual model, in which social status (peer-rated) is hypothesized as a mediator of the relationship between SSE (self-reported) and the outcomes of job satisfaction (self-reported) and task performance (peer-reported). In the following sections, we first briefly introduce the construct of social status. We then explicate the relationships among variables in the model, focusing first on the SSE–social status link, then the social status–job satisfaction/task performance links, and then the mediating role of social status.
The hypothesized model and structural equation modeling results. All the path coefficients presented in the figure were standardized. Since none of the control variables had significant path coefficients with any variable in the hypothesized model, they were not presented here. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Social Status
The concept of status originated from the organizing force in personality that was initially labeled as “striving for superiority” (Adler, 1930) and “getting ahead” (Hogan, 1983). Some studies on social status have focused specifically on social status in face-to-face groups (e.g., work groups, groups of students in school). In this context, social status is conceptualized as sociometric status and defined as an individual’s informal social position in a group that is represented by prominence, respect, and influence in the eyes of other group members (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001). This conceptualization is contrasted from socioeconomic status, which is a much more global definition of social status and represented in terms of education, occupation, and income. Given our focus on employees’ social status in work groups, we adopt the sociometric definition of social status.
SSE and Social Status
SSE has been identified as a key construct in social interaction (Fan, Meng, Zhao, & Patel, 2012) as well as integral for individuals to function effectively in these contexts. Fan et al. (2013) extended the SSE construct to the workplace and found that it predicted organizational-based self-esteem, political skill, job-related affective well-being, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Compared to individuals with low SSE, those with high SSE are more enthusiastic, open, outgoing, and confident in situations involving social contact. They are more likely to adopt proactive strategies in their social interactions (Gu, Meng, & Fan, 2014) and tend to construct their own social environment (Caspi & Bern, 1990) where they can draw attention to themselves, cast influence, and win the respect of others. For example, these individuals will not only proactively make contacts in a new group but also take active part in group activities. In addition, individuals with a high level of SSE are likely to be high on the personality dimension of extraversion, which has been shown to be beneficial to social status attainment (Anderson et al., 2001). They are also perceived as possessing strong social skills in the eyes of their peers (Meng, Huang, Hou, & Fan, 2015). These valued characteristics enable high SSE individuals to become highly prominent and more influential in groups (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Faris & Felmlee, 2011).
When encountering difficulties during social activities, individuals with high SSE are more resilient than their low SSE counterparts (Meng et al., 2015). They can therefore recover and adapt to a new situation faster than others—a positive attribute that may lead to higher levels of achievement. Because group members will typically grant higher status to members who are believed to make important contributions to the group’s goals (Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008), individuals with high SSE are expected to attain high social status in their social groups.
Furthermore, in social situations, individuals with a high level of SSE exhibit more altruistic behaviors such as helping others and being cooperative in teamwork (Meng et al., 2015), which can also enhance their social status in a group. A recent study on situations involving a social dilemma demonstrated that status attainment benefits from selfless behaviors (Willer, 2009). Strategically providing more help than is received has been regarded as being selflessness in a group and thus such an individual can be ascribed with higher social status (Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006; Hardy & VanVugt, 2006). Moreover, the helping behaviors exhibited by high SSE individuals will increase the likelihood that their actions are reciprocated by their peers (Blau, 1964). Thus, high SSE individuals would be motivated to build and strengthen such relationships with others (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999) and develop a positive social network. Social connectedness has been shown to increase an individual’s visibility in a group (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009), which can function as another variable critical for attaining social status. Thus, we hypothesize that employees’ SSE will be positively related to peer-rated social status (Hypothesis 1).
Social Status and Job Satisfaction
As previously discussed, social status can be defined as sociometric status, which reflects the level of respect and influence among peers. Individuals with high sociometric status have more control over group decisions and more autonomy (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980). The range of control over one’s environment has been shown to be a significant antecedent of job strain and other work-related health issues (Karasek, 1998). Employees with high job control bear a lower risk of mental illness and benefit from increased well-being, as compared with those with low job control (Hausser, Mojzisch, Niesel, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010). For example, Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003) reported that individuals who had more access to group resources and given more autonomy experienced more positive emotions than those with limited access to resources and constrained autonomy in making decisions.
Moreover, individuals with higher social status have more interpersonal connections and are more frequently included in others’ social activities (Thibault & Kelley, 1959), which implies more social exchange. Reciprocating emotional and material benefits will induce feelings of mutual support and enhance the sense of belongingness (Blau, 1964). These experiences have been shown to predict job satisfaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Furthermore, an increase in social status is accompanied by the experience of more positive emotions at work (Kemper, 1993; Lucas, 1999) and can thereby lead to experiencing more job satisfaction. Findings of several empirical studies have provided support for a positive relationship between social status and job satisfaction (e.g., Feng, Su, Yang, Xia, & Su, 2017; Lucas & Lovaglia, 1998). Thus, we hypothesize that peer-rated social status will be positively related to job satisfaction (Hypothesis 2a).
Social Status and Task Performance
Social status has implications for individuals’ ability and tendency to generate important benefits for a group and for their own self-interests (Lukaszewski, Simmons, Anderson, & Roney, 2015). High social status employees are believed to have the ability to accomplish their tasks more effectively (Chatman, Boisnier, Spataro, Anderson, & Berdahl, 2008). Social status also reflects the perceived value of an employee to a group’s effectiveness in the eyes of peers. High social status employees are therefore entrusted to make more contributions to a group’s success (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006). Contributing to a group’s success is also a key performance index (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
Furthermore, high social status bestows individuals with the ability to have influence and power over others in a group. Social influence theory (Levy, Collins, & Nail, 1998) proposes that employees use influence behaviors to achieve positive workplace outcomes, including higher performance appraisals and promotions. Their influence on the process of making group decisions provides them with opportunities to affect decisions in a direction that may benefit them, while avoiding options that may bring negative outcomes. In addition, social status partly determines the allocation of resources within a group, including the critical information and resources that are necessary for effective performance and for the fulfillment of routine or unfamiliar tasks. Based on these arguments, as compared with other group members, individuals with high social status would be in a more advantageous position to influence decisions and access critical resources. Thus, they would have a greater likelihood of effectively accomplishing their job tasks. Therefore, we hypothesize that peer-rated social status will be positively related to task performance (Hypothesis 2b).
Social Status’s Mediating Role
As discussed earlier, employees with a high level of SSE should be more successful at obtaining social status. Further, social status can promote job satisfaction and task performance. Since informal social hierarchies exist in all social groups, the struggle to attain social status is a primary and universal human motive. We theorize that social status should have a mediating role in the relationship between SSE and work outcomes. Job satisfaction reflects the extent to which different psychological needs of an employee are being met (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). One of the most important needs to be satisfied lies in the relationship between employees and the context of work (Wolf, 1970). Employees with high SSE usually yield positive outcomes in social interaction tasks and can thereby gain attention, respect, and influence power, which leads to increases in job satisfaction. With regard to task performance, it is difficult to ignore the effect of one’s social status given today’s working environment where social interaction demands continue to increase (Deming, 2017; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). Thus, we hypothesize that social status will mediate the relationship between SSE and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3a) and the relationship between SSE and task performance (Hypothesis 3b).
Method
Sample and Procedure
Participants were recruited from three courses taught by one of the authors at a large public university located in an east coast city in China. These three courses were: An undergraduate industrial and organizational psychology course with part-time students working toward their bachelor’s degree in psychology, a graduate industrial and organizational psychology course with part-time students working toward their master’s degree in psychology, and a graduate personnel psychology course with part-time students working toward their master’s degree in public administration. The vast majority of these students had full-time positions.
Two graduate assistants came to these classes and introduced the study. Students were told that the study was about workplace interpersonal relationships and that qualified participants should currently hold a full-time job (working at least 40 hrs per week). Students were also told that participants would be asked to complete a self-report survey concerning their social self-confidence and job satisfaction, that participants would have to identify three coworkers who had been working closely with them for at least three months in the same organization, and that participants would need to ask these coworkers to complete a peer-survey that assessed their workplace social influence and work-related behaviors. Both participants and their coworkers were recruited on a voluntary basis. Participants were promised a brief feedback report regarding the quality of their workplace interpersonal relationships based on the survey results. No extra course credits were given.
After the explanation of the study, interested and qualified students signed the informed consent form and then received a survey package, which contained a self-report survey, three peer surveys, and four sets of prepaid envelopes. Participants were asked to complete the self-report survey (a demographic questionnaire, an SSE measure, and a job satisfaction measure) and mail the completed survey to the research team. Participants were also asked to distribute the peer surveys to three peers (colleagues), which included a social status measure and a task performance measure. Peers were also instructed to mail the completed surveys to the research team. All surveys were anonymous and participants’ self-reported surveys and peer surveys were linked through a preassigned code number printed on the first page of all surveys. Participants also received a short form in which they wrote their preassigned code number, e-mail address, and indicated whether they would like to receive a feedback report. The short forms were collected by the two graduate assistants. After data collection was completed, feedback reports were prepared by these graduate assistants under the supervision of the correspondence author and sent to participants’ e-mail addresses. The brief feedback report contained scores of participants’ SSE and mean social status ratings by the three peers. Recommendations on how to improve SSE were also provided for developmental purposes.
We distributed the survey packages to 220 participants (220 self-report surveys and 660 peer surveys). Thus, each participant was given three peer surveys to distribute to their colleagues. In total, 208 completed self-report surveys and 601 completed peer surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 94.5% and 91.1%, respectively. We removed 22 sets of survey packages that either had missing data, or had less than three completed peer surveys, or both. We also removed eight sets of survey packages for which at least one peer had worked with the participant for less than three months. We additionally removed six sets of survey packages for which interrater agreements of the peer ratings for task performance were lower than the desirable level (see the Measures section for details).
The final sample consisted of 172 sets of survey packages. Among the 172 employees who provided self-reported data, 36.4% were men, with a mean age of 28.6 years (SD = 3.7) and an average organizational tenure of 6.3 years (SD = 3.8). With respect to education level, 0.6% had a high school diploma, 50.3% had an associate’s degree, 40.8% had a bachelor’s degree, and 8.3% had a graduate degree. The types of positions held by participants included administrative or management (28.2%), technology or research and development (15.3%), marketing or sales (21.2%), manufacturing (0.6%), and unspecified (34.7%). Participants also reported their current employer as representing a state-owned enterprise (19.8%), a private enterprise (24.4%), a joint venture (34.3%), a government agency (19.2%), or other type of organization (2.3%).
Among the 516 employees who provided peer ratings, 40.5% were men, with a mean age of 29.8 years (SD = 6.0), an average organizational tenure of 6.5 years (SD = 5.6), and an average relationship tenure with participants of 2.5 years (SD = 1.7). With respect to education level, 3.3% had a high school diploma, 37.6% had an associate’s degree, 42.9% had a bachelor’s degree, and 16.2% had a graduate degree.
Instruments
SSE
The Chinese version (Fan, Meng, Gao, Lopez, & Liu, 2010) of the Perceived Social Self-Efficacy Scale (PSSE; Smith & Betz, 2000) was used to measure SSE. Employees were instructed to rate their confidence in successfully completing 25 social tasks on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). A sample item was “Express your opinion to a group of people discussing a subject that is of interest to you.” The α coefficient was .92 in the current sample. Validity evidence for the Chinese PSSE was provided by Fan, Meng, Gao, Lopez, and Liu (2010) and Fan, Meng, Zhao, and Patel (2012). For instance, Fan et al. (2012) reported that Chinese PSSE scores were significantly correlated with life satisfaction (r = .31), positive affect (r = .49), and negative affect (r = −.21) in a sample of 204 Chinese graduate students.
Social status
Employee social status was measured by the 4-item social status scale developed by Anderson, John, Keltner, and Kring (2001). The back-translation technique (cf. Brislin, 1993) was used to translate items into Chinese (Mandarin). Specifically, a Chinese graduate student studying in a U.S. university translated the original English items into Chinese, and then, an American graduate student studying in a Chinese university translated the Chinese items back into English. Authors and an English professor worked together to finalize the Chinese items. A sample item was “This employee has a high level of respect in others’ eyes.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
As social status is a referent-shift variable (Scott & Judge, 2009), interrater agreement r wg and intraclass correlation coefficients ICC(1) and ICC(2) were calculated to justify data aggregation. The average r wg for social status ratings was .94, ICC(1) = .70, and ICC(2) = .90, which were all within the acceptable range (cf. Bliese, 2000; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). We used the mean score of peers’ ratings to indicate participants’ social status and only included peer ratings with rwg ≥ .75 in subsequent analyses. The α coefficient was .90 in the current sample. Regarding its validity evidence, Kennedy, Anderson, and Moore (2013) reported significant correlations between social status and a few theoretically relevant constructs (e.g., peer-rated task ability, r = .79; peer-ranked social skills, r = .79).
Job satisfaction
The 3-item Chinese version of the job satisfaction scale in the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983) was used. Employees reported their own rating of job satisfaction. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item was “In general, I am satisfied with my job.” The α coefficient was .82 in the current sample. Based on a meta-analysis, Bowling and Hammond (2008) reported that job satisfaction was positively correlated with satisfaction with work itself (ρ = .74), with supervisor (ρ = .57) and with coworkers (ρ = .40).
Task performance
The Chinese version of the 11-item task performance scale (Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997) was used to measure employees’ task performance. As discussed earlier, we used peer ratings of task performance. Items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (far below average) to 5 (far above average). A sample item was “Please evaluate his/her work efficiency.” Interrater agreement r wg and ICC(1) and ICC(2) were calculated to justify data aggregation. The average r wg for task performance was .94, ICC(1) = .84, and ICC(2) = .91, which were all within the acceptable range. We used the mean score of peers’ ratings to indicate participants’ task performance and only included peer ratings with rwg ≥ 0.75 in subsequent analyses. The α coefficient was .91 in the current sample. Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and Chen (2005) reported in a sample of 162 Chinese leader-follower dyads that task performance scores had significant correlations with leader-member exchange (r = .38) and organizational citizen behaviors (r = .68), thus providing validity evidence for this Chinese measure.
Control variables
According to status characteristics theory (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Bunderson, 2003), some demographic characteristics can contribute to perceptions of higher social status because certain status cues are perceived by others to be associated with competence or expertise. We thus included several variables that prior research has suggested might influence the mediating and outcome variables in our model, including employees’ gender, education level, and tenure (Anderson et al., 2001; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Ostberg, 2003; Scott & Judge, 2009; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1. As shown, SSE was positively correlated with social status (r = .22, p < .01), which in turn was positively correlated with job satisfaction (r = .21, p < .01) and task performance (r = .69, p < .01), providing initial support for study hypotheses.
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Correlations Among Study Variables.
Note. n = 172. Cronbach’s αs are presented on the diagonal. For gender, 1 = men and 2 = women. For education, 1 = less than high school to 4 = more than a master’s degree.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Measurement Model
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized model. We first created three parcels for SSE and two parcels for peer-rated task performance, with each parcel score being the averaged parcel score across the three peers. We used scores on four social status items as indicators and scores on three job satisfaction items as indicators without parceling. For each social status item, scores averaged across the three peers were used.
We then examined the measurement model using Mplus 7.0. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the four-factor model (SSE, social status, job satisfaction, and task performance) had excellent model fit, χ2(df = 48, n = 172) = 64.99, p > .05, RMSEA = .05 with the 90% confidence interval (CI) [.00, .07], CFI = .99, TLI = .98, and SRMR = .04, AIC = 2909.50, BIC = 3041.93. We also tested two alternative measurement models. In the first alternative model, all variables were loaded on one factor, whereas in the second alternative model, self-reported variables and peer-rated variables were loaded on two separate factors. The single-factor model yielded unacceptable model fit: χ2(df = 54, n = 172) = 989.65, RMSEA = .32 with the 90% CI [.30, .33], CFI = .32, TLI = .17, and SRMR = .26, AIC = 3822.16, BIC = 3935.68. A χ2 difference test comparing the hypothesized four-factor model and the single-factor model was significant: Δχ2(df = 6, n = 172) = 924.66, p < .01. The two-factor model also yielded unacceptable model fit: χ2(df = 53, n = 172) = 819.68, p < .01, RMSEA = .29 with the 90% CI of [.27, .31]), CFI = .44, TLI = .30, and SRMR = .26, AIC = 3654.19, BIC = 3770.86. A χ2 difference test comparing the hypothesized four-factor model and the two-factor model was also significant: Δχ2(df = 5, n = 172) = 754.69, p < .01. Based on the above results, we concluded that the hypothesized four-factor measurement model was established.
Structural Model
We tested two alternative structural models. Model 1 was a complete mediation model, without the two direct links from SSE to job satisfaction and task performance. Model 1 yielded acceptable fit: χ2(df = 61, n = 172) = 83.90, p < .05, RMSEA = .05 with the 90% CI of [.02, .07], CFI = .98, TLI = .98, and SRMR = .05. We then tested a partial mediation model (Model 2), adding the two direct links. Model 2 also had acceptable fit: χ2(df = 59, n = 172) = 83.26, p < .05, RMSEA = .05 with the 90% CI of [.02, .07], CFI = .98, TLI = .98, and SRMR = .05. However, a χ2 difference test was not significant: Δχ2(df = 2, n = 172) = .64, p > .10, suggesting that the more parsimonious, complete mediation model (Model 1) should be preferred. Standardized path coefficients of the final model (Model 1) are presented in Figure 1. As shown, SSE was positively related to social status (β = .26, p < .01), which in turn was positively related to job satisfaction (β = .21, p < .05) and task performance (β = .75, p < .01). Thus, Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b were all supported.
We then used the bootstrapping procedure in Mplus 7.0 to test the mediation or indirect effects linking SSE to the two outcomes of job satisfaction and task performance. The indirect effect of SSE–social status–job satisfaction (unstandardized indirect effect estimate = .07, 95% CI [.02, .17]) and of SSE–social status–task performance (unstandardized indirect effect estimate = .14, 95% CI [.06, .24]) were both significant, since CIs did not contain zero. As such, Hypotheses 3a and 3b received strong support.
Discussion
Employees with good social skills have become increasingly more valued by organizations (Deming, 2017; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). For example, from 1980 to 2012, occupations requiring a high degree of social skills increased by 11.8% (Deming, 2017). Further, social skills were a better predictor of full-time employment and wages for cohorts of young adults who entered the labor market in the mid-2000s as compared with those who entered the labor market in the mid-1980s (Deming, 2017). Employees’ perception of their ability to successfully engage in social interaction (i.e., their SSE) is a good indicator of possessing effective social skills and thereby a significant research topic. Moreover, SSE is an important antecedent of organizational outcomes (Fan et al., 2013).
There has been relatively less research focus on SSE as compared with other social effectiveness variables (e.g., emotional intelligence), and thus our study examined the effect of SSE in the work domain. Specifically, we proposed and tested a model explicating the mediating role of social status. Based on a sample of diverse employees, our results substantiated the hypothesized model. Specifically, SSE was found to be positively related to peer-rated social status, which in turn was positively related to job satisfaction and peer-rated task performance. These findings provide support for our argument that high SSE enables employees to attain a higher informal social position, which likely endows them with the ability to have more control and greater social influence among their work group (Faris & Felmlee, 2011) and the ability to effectively complete job tasks (Meng et al., 2015).
Study results also showed a positive relationship between peer-rated status and job satisfaction as well as task performance, which highlights the importance and the benefits of an informal social position to work outcomes. These findings support our argument that employees with high social status are more likely to have access to intrinsic resources (e.g., social relations) as well as extrinsic resources (e.g., valued information) from peers, which increases their ability to successfully complete job tasks and develop more positive job attitudes (Scott, 2013; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Moreover, the mediation effect of social status in the relationships between self-efficacy and work outcomes further indicates that not only individual factors, but also interpersonal relationship variables driven by self-related characteristics, are a critical determinant of work outcomes.
The present study makes several contributions. First, it is one of the first studies to demonstrate the relevance of adult SSE at the workplace (e.g., Fan et al., 2013). Given that the majority of career assessment and development research has been conducted with high school and college students, this is important because it shows that a construct that derived from the young adult population (e.g., Smith & Betz, 2000) can greatly influence career outcomes of working adults. We hope that the current study can help to move the field of career assessment forward by reminding us that career issues are relevant throughout one’s career, not just when one is a high school or college student. Second, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically establish social status as a key mediator of the effects of SSE on work outcomes, thus moving beyond the previous study (Fan et al., 2013) that simply showed direct relationships between SSE and several workplace outcomes. Third, the current study extends previous research on social status (e.g., Anderson et al., 2001) by (a) establishing SSE as a powerful antecedent of social status and (b) showing that social status predicts important career outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction and task performance).
Practical Implications
Our findings have a few implications for career assessment and development. For instance, given the beneficial role of SSE at the workplace, organizations may want to consider assessing job candidates’ SSE during the application process, particularly for positions that require intensive social interactions such as customer service positions and leadership roles. In addition to self-report instruments, organizations may ask questions such as “How do you evaluate your confidence in getting involved in a conversation with a new and unfamiliar group of individuals?” during the selection interview. Making an inquiry about his or her social behaviors in previous working units from the candidate’s references is another option.
Furthermore, given the malleability of domain-specific self-efficacy constructs that include SSE (Bandura, 1997), organizations as well as career development counselors may consider developing training or intervention programs that boost individuals’ SSE. Bandura’s classic model of self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997) provides numerous suggestions on how to develop such interventions. For instance, focusing on enactive attainment, trainees can be asked to recall, describe, and share previous small success stories in various social interaction contexts. Trainees can also be encouraged to set challenging, yet attainable social interaction goals to expand their success experiences. Focusing on social persuasion, career counselors may teach individuals how to more objectively analyze previous unsuccessful social interactions so that they do not always attribute failure to themselves by, blaming their low SSE. Focusing on vicarious experiences, individuals can be encouraged to observe their friends and colleagues with high SSE in terms of how they approach others in social contexts, how they openly express their opinions while still being respectful of others, how they may give public speeches, and how they handle interpersonal conflict (Smith & Betz, 2000). Finally, focusing on physiological factors, individuals can be taught various coping strategies that can be used when dealing with stress in social contexts.
In addition, career development counselors may consider measuring peer-rated social status prior to the SSE intervention as a diagnostic tool to establish a baseline. Several months post the intervention, social status can be measured again as a way to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSE intervention.
Study Limitations and Future Research Directions
Several study limitations should be noted when interpreting our findings. One limitation was that the cross-sectional design cannot establish causality. To examine this issue, we tested two alternative models with different causal directions. In the first alternative model, we switched the direction of causality, by specifying links from SSE to job satisfaction and task performance, both of which were then linked to social status. In the second alternative model, we switched the position of SSE and peer-rated social status. That is, we specified a link from peer-rated social status to SSE, which was then linked to job satisfaction and task performance. Results based on SEM indicated generally acceptable fit for both alternative models; however, AIC and BIC favored the hypothesized model (Burnham & Anderson, 2004). Further, in the first alternative model, the indirect link of SSE–job satisfaction–social status was not significant. In the second alternative model, the indirect link of social status–SSE–job satisfaction was also not significant. Taken together, these results suggest that the hypothesized model was more likely. However, future research with longitudinal, cross-lagged design is needed to substantiate our conceptual model.
The second limitation concerns task performance ratings. It would have been better to have supervisors evaluate employees’ performance. Future research should use supervisors to assess task performance. Further, an anonymous reviewer noted that participants might seek out colleagues who they view as most friendly with rather than those who might be in a good position to assess their task performance. We reason that if this was the case, the variance in performance ratings would have been diminished, making it more difficult to observe significant results. The fact that we observed significant relationships among study variables and that our model received strong empirical support greatly alleviates this concern.
The third limitation concerns external validity. Given our Chinese employee sample, it is unclear whether our findings may generalize to employees in different countries. Thus, future research is needed to examine our hypothesized model in Western societies.
Conclusion
In sum, this study has yielded important insights into how SSE is related to the two important workplace outcomes of job satisfaction and task performance. In particular, an employee’s social status as perceived by his or her coworkers is found to be critical in materializing the beneficial effects of SSE on workplace outcomes. This study adds to the emerging evidence that SSE is a highly relevant variable in organizational settings (e.g., Fan et al., 2013).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation of China, Grant 71202135.