Abstract
We systematically analyze the role of social comparison processes in organizations. Specifically, we describe how social comparison processes have been used to explain six key areas of organizational inquiry: (1) organizational justice, (2) performance appraisal, (3) virtual work environments, (4) affective behavior in the workplace, (5) stress, and (6) leadership. Additionally, we describe how unique contextual factors in organizations offer new insight into two widely studied sub-processes of social comparison, acquiring social information and thinking about that information. Our analyses underscore the merit of integrating organizational phenomena and social comparison processes in future research and theory.
Conclusion
We have analyzed social comparison processes in six key organizational contexts: (1) organizational justice, (2) performance appraisal, (3) virtual work environments, (4) affective behavior in the workplace, (5) stress, and (6) leadership. In each of these areas, we have offered a set of key conclusions and recommendations for future research. Specifically, we have emphasized the important roles played by social comparison information in these contexts. Notably, we asked how comparison information is acquired and how individuals think about and use this information once acquired. In so doing, we believe we made a strong case for studying social comparison processes in organizations—a focus that is still relatively infrequent despite its benefits to understanding organizations and social comparison processes themselves.
Our assertion that fully understanding human behavior in the workplace requires appreciating social comparison processes is far from hyperbole. To the contrary, it is axiomatic to say that people working with others find it almost impossible not to compare themselves to them. As referents, coworkers are more than convenient, they are compelling sources of social information (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992), and, as we have noted, workplace dynamics often impose opportunities to attend to that information. Based on this, we have argued that understanding the dynamics underlying such comparisons is worthwhile. Indeed, our analyses offer insight into popular organizational practices (e.g., performance appraisal, the introduction of virtual work environments) as well as fundamental psychological processes in organizations (e.g., perceiving fairness and experiencing affect). Although the role of social comparison processes sometimes is merely implicit in the study of these matters, researchers and theorists have acknowledged its value. However, in the case of some aspects of topics of keen interest to organizational scholars (e.g., leadership), attention to social comparison processes largely has gone unacknowledged. Yet, as we have noted, social comparison processes appear to be inextricably involved in these areas as well, warranting exploration in future studies.
We believe that organizations constitute a valuable context within which to study social comparison processes. Not only are social comparisons endemic to work settings, but if there is any merit to our analyses, such comparisons manifest themselves in ways that sometimes are broader in scope and more highly nuanced than has been recognized to date in the literature. And given the importance of understanding social comparison processes (as spotlighted by the many provocative contributions to this issue), we hope that our analyses will stimulate interest in examining them in organizations.
