Suuremal või vähemal määral on igaühele oluline tema staatus ühiskonnas või sotsiaalsetes süsteemides üldisena. Staatus töökohal on väga spetsiifiline individuaalse heaolu aspekt ning seetõttu siinviidatu oma koha leidiski. Tekst võiks huvi pakkuda nii juhtidele-ametnikele, kel suured võimalused iga töötaja (tunnetusliku) staatuse mõjutamiseks aga ka kõikidele inimestele üldiselt, sest pakub selge analüütilise raamistiku, mille kasutusväli võiks olla üsna avar.

Kontekstiks:

The desire for group status is deeply ingrained in human nature (Anderson et al., 2015; Barkow et al., 1975; Mitchell et al., 2020)—and thus reasonably extends to modern-day work (Garcia et al., 2013).

Staatus – millega on tegemist?

Status reflects the degree of influence one possesses over resource allocations, conflicts, and group decisions (Berger et al., 1980). A perceived lack of status in comparison to relevant (i.e., usually similar) others, or a perception of status threat, motivates the affected individuals to act to (preemptively) close that gap (Duffy et al., 2012; Lee & Duffy, 2019).

Autorid seavad fookust:

Building on previous studies, we question and extend the common conception of status threat as the result of an unfavorable social comparison of one’s present position on relevant status dimensions (e.g., job performance, Lam et al., 2011). Instead, we acknowledge that individuals need to gauge their potential status in the future in order to maintain high status (Reh et al., 2018; as also replicated in Briker & Walter, 2021).

… ja lubavad:

Moreover, we introduce three factors of uncertainty— fl uctuations, time span, and interruptions in individual’s observation—that impede the reliability of the comparison, which then weakens the impact of those temporal markers on employees’ assessment of status threat (see Figure 1).

Miks staatus on oluline:

Status plays a central role in employees’ self-concept because of its many advantages and relational implications (Fiske, 1991). People with high status not only report higher subjective well-being, but seem to enjoy better health, higher self-esteem, more influence (Berger et al., 1980), and more respect and support from others (Anderson et al., 2001, 2006).

Raamistik:

Our temporal social comparison theory includes five temporal markers (position, velocity, acceleration, mean level, and minimum and maximum position) and three factors of uncertainty (fluctuations, interruptions, and time span) that together describe how employees assess status threat and its temporal proximity.

Miks see raamistik kasulik on?

Our model illustrates that employees’ cooperative (i.e., self-improvement-oriented) and competitive (harm-oriented) behaviors emerge from challenging versus threatening status comparisons.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Our temporal social comparison theory includes five temporal markers (position, velocity, acceleration, mean level, and minimum and maximum position) and three factors of uncertainty (fluctuations, interruptions, and time span) that together describe how employees assess status threat and its temporal proximity.

Panus:

In addition, our theory significantly extends classic social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) by better illustrating the occurrence and nature of status threat. […] Our proposed temporal social comparison theory suggests that status satisfaction in the present may be shattered by expected status threats in the future; likewise, the status dissatisfaction of today may become more bearable when perceiving a brighter tomorrow.

Reh, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Tröster, C., & Giessner, S. R. (2022). When and why does status threat at work bring out the best and the worst in us? A temporal social comparison theory. Organizational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221100200