Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração51(2016)377–385
Human
resources
and
organizations
Social
connection
in
organizations:
the
effects
of
local
ties
on
job
engagement
and
performance
Conexão
social
nas
organiza¸cões:
efeitos
dos
la¸cos
locais
no
engajamento
e
no
desempenho
no
trabalho
Conexión
social
en
las
organizaciones:
efectos
de
los
vínculos
locales
relativos
al
intra
organizacionales
y
rendimiento
en
el
trabajo
Cristiano
de
Oliveira
Maciel
a,∗,
Camila
Camargo
baPontifíciaUniversidadeCatólicadoParaná,Curitiba,PR,Brazil bUniversidadeFederaldoParaná,Curitiba,PR,Brazil
Received29May2014;accepted12February2016
Abstract
Thisstudyexaminestheeffectoflocaltiesoforganizationalactorsontheirdegreeofjobengagementandperformance.Thestudycarriedouta surveywith249respondentsandanalyzedtheeffectoflocalties(i.e.,tiesoftheego)throughdegreesofintra-organizationalsocialconnections. Engagementwasmeasuredinphysical,cognitive,andemotionaldimensions.Performancewasrepresentedbythedegreeofachievementintasks. Theresultsshowthatonlycognitiveengagementandperformanceareinfluencedbydegreesofintra-organizationalsocialconnection.Theseresults areexploredintheconclusionsofthearticle.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords:Socialconnection;Engagement;Performance
Resumo
Nesteartigo,teve-secomoobjetivoexaminaroefeitodoslac¸oslocaisdosatoresorganizacionaisemseugraudeengajamentoedesempenhono trabalho.Oestudofoirealizadopormeiodeumsurveycom249respondentes.Oefeitodoslac¸oslocais(i.e.,lac¸osdoego)foianalisadopormeio dograudeconexãosocialintraorganizacional.Oengajamentofoimensuradonasdimensõesfísica,cognitivaeemocional.Odesempenhofoi representadopelograudeconsecuc¸ãodastarefas.Osresultadosapontamqueapenasoengajamentocognitivoeodesempenhosãoinfluenciados pelograudeconexãosocialintraorganizacional.Taisresultadossãoexploradosnasconclusõesdoartigo.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave:Conexãosocial;Engajamento;Desempenho
Resumen
Elobjetivodel presentetrabajofueexaminarelefectodelosvínculoslocalesdelosactoresorganizacionalesensuniveldecompromisoy rendimientoeneltrabajo.Elestudiofuerealizadopormediodeunsurveycon249encuestados.Seevaluóelefectodelosvínculoslocales(o sea,vínculosdelego)pormediodelgradodeconexiónsocialintraorganizacional.Elcompromisofuemedidoenlasdimensionesfísica,cognitiva
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mail:crmaciel.adm@gmail.com(C.O.Maciel).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadede SãoPaulo–FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.07.005
yemocional,yeldesempe˜nofuerepresentadoporelgradodecumplimientodelastareas.Losresultadosindicanquesóloelcompromisocognitivo yeldesempe˜noestáninfluenciadosporelgradodeconexiónsocialintraorganizacional.Sedetallanestosresultadosenlasconclusionesdelartículo. ©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Conexiónsocial;Compromiso;Rendimiento
Introduction
Thesearchforasenseofcohesionisakeycharacteristicofthe behaviorofsocialactors(Friedkin,2004;Kadushin,2001).This meaningisconstructedbyconnectingwithotherindividualsor evenanthropomorphized non-human elements (e.g., artifacts, religious agents) (Epley, Akalis, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2008; Walton,Cohen,Cwir, &Spencer, 2012).The reasonsfor this searchforconnectionsarecenteredonthebasicneedfor secu-rityandavoidanceofisolation,loneliness,andanguish(Castano, 2013).Waltonetal.(2012)claimthat asense ofrelatingand belongingtoa groupconsideredfamiliar centrally represents thecharacteristicsofthatconceptualizedinthefieldof psychol-ogyas asocialconnection.Kadushin (2001,2012)pointsout thatthisneedtobelongtoacollectivitycreatesasenseofsafety thatcharacterizesoneofthemainmotivationsfortheformation andmaintenanceofsocialnetworks.
The main implication of this basic need of the individ-ualwhentakinginto accounttheorganizationalcontextisthe creation of social norms of acceptance and inclusion. This kind of social norm is the positive expectations that a focal agent (ego) has in relation totheir contacts (alters) in intra-organizational networks, withregards totheir inclusion.The focal agent creates an expectation of their role inrelation to othersocialactorsofanorganizationinthesensethattheir con-tacts,especiallytheir strong ties(withwhomtheyhavemore frequentinteraction)(Granovetter,1973),behaveinamanner that makesthem feel included inanorganization. Studies on expatriates are among the clearest examples of the negative effects generated by newcomers faced with co-workers who donotperformthissocialrole—i.e.,theydonotactinaway that triestomake the newmemberfeel part of the organiza-tion(Pruetipibultham,2012;White,Absher,&Huggins,2011; Yamazaki,2010).
The expectation of being welcomed andaccepted by col-leagues,oreventreatedintimatelylike amemberof afamily (Balkundi&Harrison,2006;Okhuysen,2001),haseffects on thebehavioroforganizationalactors.EspeciallyinBrazilwhere peoplearetypicallycharacterizedaswelcoming,typifiedin Sér-gioBuarquedeHolanda’sCordialMan(2008,p.146),thereisa continuousreconstructionoftheexpectationofbeingaccepted bypeers.Itisparticularlyimportant,therefore,thattheeffectsof thisphenomenonareinvestigatedinmoredetail.Inthislineof reasoning,theconceptofintra-organizationalsocialconnection (Maciel,2015; Maciel &Camargo, 2015)isemployedinthe presentstudy.Intra-organizationalsocialconnectionrevealsto whatextentafocalagent(ego)noticesthattheirlocalties(alters) behaveinawaythatmakesthemfeelpartofanorganization. Thus,itisrelevanttoexaminetheinfluenceofthisperception onbehavioratwork.
Toevaluatethistypeofrelationshipthefollowingobjectivein thisstudywasdefined:Examinetheeffectoflocaltiesofactors embeddedinintra-organizationalnetworksonengagementand performanceatwork.Thesedependentvariableswerechosenas theyrepresentsomeofthekeybehaviorsinformalandinformal evaluationsatwork(Downing,1994;Rich,Lepine,&Crawford, 2010).Engagementistreatedasaconstructcomposedof phys-ical, cognitive,and emotional dimensions.These dimensions correspondtothedegreetowhichaworkeremployshisorher physicalstrength,attention,andemotionalenergyinactivities (Christian,Garza,&Slaughter,2011;Kahn,1990;Zhu,Avolio, &Walumbwa,2009).Taskperformancereferstothedegreeto which an individual fulfills the obligations associated witha particularfunction(Ng&Feldman,2009).
The main contributionof thiswork isthat it goes beyond researchthatonlyemphasizestheeffectsofajob’snature(e.g., autonomy),dispositionalvariables,andsociodemographic vari-ablesinengagementandperformance,andthereforeexamines the importanceofrelationalresourcesingreaterdetail. More-over,thisstudyovercomesthelimitationsofstrictlystructuralist studies,whicharealmostinvariablyrestrictedtoexaminingthe influenceofthestructuralcharacteristicsofintra-organizational networks, such as centrality, reciprocity,and structural holes in behavioral variables (e.g., Perry-Smith, 2006; Raider & Krackhardt,2001).Thus,itispossibletoconsiderwithgreater caresocialactors’reflexivityintheperformanceoftheirlocal tiesandexaminetheeffectsofthisevaluationatwork,sincethis phenomenonhasbeenaddressedonlyperipherallyinprevious research.
Intra-organizationalsocialconnectionasarelational resource
Inthissense,thenotionofintra-organizationalsocial connec-tionmakesitpossibletoconsiderthecapacityforreflexivityof intra-organizationalnetworkagents,sinceeachfocalagent eval-uatesthebehavioroftheircontactsfrominstitutionalizednorms thatareassociatedwithtypifiedrolesinthecontextof organi-zations.More specifically,definingintra-organizationalsocial connectionas ageneralized perceptionwhere contacts—who thefocal agent ranksas targetsof morefrequent interactions (i.e., strong ties) (Granovetter, 1973)—behave in a way that contributetotheconstructionofmeaningthat theybelongto, whichinturn isconnected toasetof relationships of a par-ticularsociallyintegratedgroup.Theconstructshowstowhat extentcontacts(alters)maketheegofeel:(i)thattheybelong to the organization; (ii) that they are connected to an intra-organizational network; (iii) that they are part of a cohesive group;and(iv)thattheyformpartofagroupwhichcouldbe regardedfamily(Maciel,2015).Itisimportanttostressthateven whentheconstructisageneralizedexpectationintermsofthe basicneedsofanyindividual,theintensityofthisexpectation canvarydependingonspecificnormsofreciprocityineach cul-turalcontext(e.g.,Brazil)(Holanda,2008),sociodemographic attributes,dispositionalorientations,differentprocessesof orga-nizationalsocialization,hierarchicalposition,andtypeofwork inorganizations.
Considered a relational resource (Grant, 2007), intra-organizationalsocialconnectioncanbeframedinabroaderset ofcompanyassetsthatfacilitatetheallocationofenergyatwork andcontributetoproductivity(e.g.,organizationalsupport, con-fidence,and sense of reciprocity). According toFreeney and Fellenz(2013),relationalapproaches(i.e.,thosethatemphasize theroleofsocialresourcesintheexecutionoftasks)may indi-catethetypeofrelationshiptheyoperateasantecedentstothe degreeof effortappliedtowork. Grant(2007)reinforcesthis reasoningwhen hecalls attentionto“work’s relational archi-tecture”(p.396),whichstressesrelational properties,such as physicalproximity,duration,andfrequencyofcontacts, influ-ence psychologicalstates, identity, andworker behavior.The statementspresentedhereconvergetohighlighttheimportance of the effects of relational resources on behavior. However, researchofthistypehasbeenrestrictedtotheeffectsofsocial supportandconfidenceintheallocationofenergyatwork(e.g.,
Othman&Nasurdin,2013).Fromthesenotes,thecentralidea ofthisresearch(detailedinthedevelopmentofhypotheses in thenextsubsection)isthatbehaviorswhichreflecttheallocation ofenergyatwork(engagement)andthelevelofachievementof tasks(performance) areinfluencedsignificantlybythedegree ofintra-organizationalsocialconnection.
Intra-organizationalsocialconnection,engagement,and
jobperformance
Engagementatworkis theemploymentandexpressionof physical, cognitive, and emotional energy of organizational membersinexecutingtheirroles.The degreeof allocationof these types of energy describes to what extent social actors adjusttheiregoinorganizationalroles(Kahn,1990;Richetal., 2010; Saks, 2006). A highdegree of engagement is seen as
an organizational member who is task orientated, physically absorbedbytheperformanceoftheirworkactivities(whenthey areavailableorpsychologicallypresent),andhasactive, posi-tiveemotions(Christianetal.,2011;Freeney&Fellenz,2013; Richetal.,2010).Discussionsonthefactorsthatcontributeto increasedengagementinvariablyrecognizetheroleof charac-teristicsoftheworkasacentralelement,butofcourseitisnot theonlyorthemostimportantsetofpredictorsforthisbehavior (e.g.,Bakkeretal.,2007;Kahn,1990;May,Gilson,&Harter, 2004;Olivier&Rothmann,2007;Saks,2006).
Aimingto expandthe set of known predictorsof engage-ment,someresearchhasbeguntoexaminetheroleofrelational features in the variation of energy expended at work (e.g.,
Bakker &Bal,2010; Freeney&Fellenz,2013).Freeneyand Fellenz(2013)—forexample—from aninvestigationinto two maternity hospitals, presented evidence that a social support supervisorincreasedengagementatworkformidwives.Bakker andBal(2010) alsofoundpositive effectsin therelationship betweenfocalactorsandtheir supervisorinteachers’levelof engagement.Saks(2006),inastudy with102 respondentsof variousfunctionsindifferentorganizations,pointedoutthata supervisor’s social support wasnot related toengagement in theirsample,butthatsocialsupportfromtheorganizationwas.
OthmanandNasurdin(2013),inasampleof402nursesfrom threehospitalsinMalaysia,foundpositiveeffectsofsupervisor supporton engagement,as wellasno significantrelationship betweenthisdependentvariableandthesupportofcolleagues.
OlivierandRothmann(2007),fromasurveyof171employees fromapetroleumcompany,showedthatbothadjusttothetype of workbecause normsandrelationships withcolleagues are significantpredictorsofengagement.
Asexemplifiedabove,studiesthatfocus ontheinteraction betweenrelationalresourcesandengagementatwork predomi-nantlyemploythenotionofsocialsupport(inorganizationsize, supervisors,andcolleagues)as anindependentvariable.Such investigationsjustrepeatedlyfocusonthesekindsofsocialties. Some exceptions are recent works that relate engagement to charismaticleadership(Babcock-Roberson&Strickland,2010) and confidence (Lin, 2010). In this sense, the role of intra-organizational socialconnectioninthedegreeof engagement atworkcancontributetodelimit,likeothertypesofrelational content(i.e.,theactionsoflocaltiesintheconstructionof mean-inginwhichthefocalactorisconnectedtotheorganization), whatinfluencesthistypeofbehavior.
More precisely,the argumentthat thehigherthe degreeof intra-organizationalsocialconnectionthegreaterthedegreeof engagementis focusedonthe ideathatlocalties(alters) ofa focalactor(ego)contributetothedevelopmentandsustenance ofpsychologicalconditions,whichactasdriversofthelevelof energyintensityallocatedtowork(Bakker&Bal,2010;Freeney &Fellenz,2013;Kahn,1990).TheseminalworkofKahn(1990)
with—behave in a way that includes them in an intra-organizational networkand make theserelationships familiar andcohesive(Balkundi&Harrison,2006;Maciel,2015;Maciel &Camargo, 2015).Theseeffects,tosomeextent, satisfythe psychologicalconditions forengagement.AccordingtoKahn (1990),workis seenas meaningful when thereis asense of return of efforts when one’s experience in the organization feelsof value.Thisfeelingof appreciationisdueinpart—as outlined—to the general perception of inclusion in an intra-organizationalnetwork.Kahndemonstratedthattheperception ofsignificanceoftheworkvariesaccordingtoworkplace inter-actions,assuchinteractionsprovideasenseofbelongingand appreciation.
Thesecondpsychologicalconditionissafety. Kahn(1990)
explainsthatthisfeelingisfoundwhentheorganizationalactor hasnofearof beingexposedtocolleaguesduringthe perfor-manceoftheir activities.Theperceptionthat therewill beno adverse consequencesfromalters enablesaneasierandmore tranquil allocationofenergy byfocalactorsinactivities.The sense of being connected to a cohesive group characterized by familiarity (Okhuysen, 2001) provides the conditions for thistypeofevaluation.AccordingtoKahn,safetystemsfrom personalrelationships that provide supportanddonot gener-atefeelingsofbeingthreatened,resultingintheorganizational member perceiving the work environment as a safe place to express more freely the various parts of the self. The third psychological condition is availability, which means that the organizationalmemberfeelsphysically,cognitively, and emo-tionallywillingtoinvesttheirenergiesatwork.Theinfluence ofintra-organizationalsocialconnectiononthiskindoffeeling isalsojustifiedintheory,becausethefocalactor’sperception thattheirtiesofmorefrequentinteractiontrytomakethemfeel includedcontributestothejudgmentthattheywillreceive sup-portwhenapplyingtheirphysicalefforts,attention,andpositive valenceatwork(Kahn,1990;Saks,2006).Fromsuchassertions, hypothesesweredeductedthatrelateintra-organizationalsocial connectiontothethreedimensionsofengagement.
H1. The degree of intra-organizational social connection relatespositivelytothedegreeofphysicalengagementatwork.
H2. The degree of intra-organizational social connection relatespositivelytothedegreeofcognitiveengagementatwork.
H3. The degree of intra-organizational social connection relatespositivelytothedegreeofemotionalengagementatwork.
Task performance is one of the overall job performance dimensions(Ng&Feldman,2009)andistraditionally consid-eredinseminal studiesonworkerevaluation. Itis definedas theachievementof specificbehaviorsthatare expectedbased onthe jobdescription (Richet al.,2010; Sonnentag,Volmer, & Spychala, 2008). Sonnentag et al. (2008) noted that the qualityof specificbehavior varies depending on avariety of antecedentsthathavebeenextensivelystudiedinrelationtothe individualnatureofpredictors(e.g.,cognitiveskills,knowledge, attitudestowardtheorganization)andpredictorsofasituational nature(e.g.,natureofthetask).However,onlyrecentlyhasthe roleofrelational aspectsgainedspaceinresearchagendason
performance(Grant,2007;Richetal.,2010;Sonnentagetal., 2008),butittendstoemphasizetheinfluxofsociometric indica-tors,thusneglectingtheimportanceofthecontentofties(e.g.,
Evans&Davis,2005;Mehra,Kilduff,&Brass,2001;Sparrowe, Liden,Wayne,&Kraimer,2001).
Emphasis on the contentof ties isimportant for the focal agents to reflect on the actions of their ties (alters),and that the resultof thisreflection influencestheirperformance.This is for two mainreasons: first, because the focal actor hasin theircontacts—dependingonthevalenceoftherelationship—a resource that can be activated when there is need for assis-tance, knowledge, coordination, and emotional support from their peers;second, becausethe contentof therelationshipis subjecttothenormsofreciprocity—thatis,whenthefocalactor feelsthattheirtiestrytogivethemasenseofwell-being—social normsoperateinawaythatmakethemobligedtoreciprocate (includingintheirjobperformance),becausetheirwork activ-itiesareoftencoordinatedwithotherorganizationalactorsand weighontheevaluationofthegroupasawhole(Halbesleben &Bowley,2007;Halbesleben&Wheeler,2011).Halbesleben and Wheeler(2011)state that the normsof reciprocity (feel-ingindebttoanother)—suchasthosethatcanbegeneratedby the generalizedperceptionthat thecontactsof thefocalactor haveincludedthemintheintra-organizationalnetwork—drive theinvestmentofresourcesinperformancetasks.Therefore,the notionofintra-organizationalsocialconnectionscontributesto the variationof task performance—whenoperating as a rela-tional resource—and isasource of positivenormreciprocity (Halbesleben&Wheeler,2011).Thus,thefourthhypothesisof thestudywasdeduced:
H4. The degreeof intra-organizationalsocial connection is positivelyrelatedtotaskperformance.
Methodologicalprocedures
Totestthehypotheses,weoptedforthesurveyasaresearch method.AgraphicscompanylocatedinthesouthofBrazilwas defined as the social context for research, which hadalmost onethousandemployeesduringthetimeofstudy.Topreserve the anonymity of the company, the survey’s results will not disclose names.Questionnairesweredistributedinall depart-mentsofthecompany,butonly271wereansweredandreturned. Afterexcludingquestionnairesthatwereincompleteorhadno variationinresponses,thefinalsampleconsistedof249 respon-dents. Thus,non-probabilitysamplingwasused foradhesion, involving only analytical possibilities for generalization and theory. Thedata analysisstageinvolved descriptivestatistics, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)with structural equations, andmultipleregressionanalysis.Fordataanalysis,PASW®and AMOSTMversion18softwarewereused.
Thismeasurehassixindicatorsforeachofthethreedimensions ofengagement(i.e.,physical,cognitive,andemotional), total-ing18items.Intheoriginalstudy,thisscalewasonlyevaluated for validity by Cronbach’s alpha=0.80 for a high-order fac-tor.Thetaskperformancescalemeasuresthedegreetowhich the requirements of a respondent’s role are being effectively met.The measure wasadapted fromWilliams andAnderson (1991)andcomprisesofseven affirmations.Theindicatorsof thisscalewerechangedfromthethirdpersontothefirstperson singulartofacilitaterespondentunderstanding.Inthestudyby
WilliamsandAnderson(1991),thisscalepresentedCronbach’s alpha=0.80.Thedegreeofintra-organizationalsocial connec-tion was evaluated by four indicators developed by Maciel (2015) from the literature on social networks and relation-ships(Maciel&Camargo,2015).Thisscalepresentedaverage variance extracted (AVE)=0.55, composite reliability=0.82, andCronbach’salpha=0.80intheoriginalstudy.Appendix1
containsthediagramusedtoassisttherespondentsofthe ques-tionnaire. Overallsatisfaction was used as acontrol variable toverify howintra-organizationalsocialconnectionrelatesto engagementandperformance,eveninthepresenceofinfluences of satisfactiononthese dependent variables.Satisfaction was assessedusingascalecomposedoffiveindicatorsbyBrayfield andRothe(1951),whichiswidelyused inresearchon orga-nizational behavior. This scale was assessed in the original studybytheSpearman–Browncoefficient=0.87.Allindicators inEnglishweretranslatedandadjustedwhennecessary.Ratio scales(ageandtimeatthecompany)andnominalscaleswere alsousedascontrolvariablesinthetestingofthehypotheses. Ageandtimeatthecompanyweremeasuredinyears. Nomi-nalvariablesfollowedtheseencodings:sex(0female,1male), maritalstatus(0single,1married),education(0completedhigh school,1completedhighereducation),position(1operational, 1supervision,0coordinationorabove).
Validationofthemeasurements
Intervalmeasurementsinthesurveywereexaminedinterms of validity and reliability. For this procedure, CFA analysis wasapplied,definingthemaximumlikelihoodasanestimation method(Hair,Anderson,Tatham,&Black,2009).Asymmetry analysisindicatedthatthevariableshadindicesbetween0.73 and−1.36,enablingtheapplicationofthisestimationmethod. AccordingtoSchumackerandLomax(2004),asymmetryvalues between±1.50permitapplication techniquesthatpresuppose normalitywithoutincurringlosseswithrespecttoTypeIand II errors. All interval indicators were submitted to CFA for astructure withsix first-order latent variables. Good quality of adjustment of the empirical data matrix to the theoretical framework for the measures χ2 [1411.71]/Degrees of Freedom
[512]=2.75,androotmeansquareerrorofapproximation=0.08
werefound(Hairetal.,2009).Comparativefitindex=0.88,the incrementalfitindex=0.88,andtheTucker–Lewisindex=0.87 canbeconsideredreasonable,becausetheyareveryclosetothe referenceof(0.90)(Schumacker&Lomax,2004).Eventhough anadditional sample for independent validation wasnot fea-tured,post hocanalysesfor the model’sCFA wereobserved,
whichpresentednostrongcovariancetoindicatetheneedfora newspecification.Residualcorrelationindicatedapoorfitting model.
TheresultsfromtheCFA(showninTable1)confirmedthe validityoftheconvergentindicatorsasthestandardpositionfor eachoftheitemswasstatisticallysignificant(p<0.01). Cron-bach’salpha (α)isabove0.80 forallfactors,indicatinggood internalconsistencyofthemeasurements.Discriminant valid-itywasalsoproventoverifythecorrelationamongthefactors, whichwhensquared wasbelowthe AVE(Fornell&Larcker, 1981).Compositereliabilitywasalsohighinallfactors(>0.70), asdetailedinTable1.
Analysisanddiscussionofresults
Inthestudy,65.1%ofthesamplearemalerespondentsand 34.9%arefemale,43.7%ofwhomaremarried.In relationto the levelof education,51.9%hadcompletedhighschooland 48.1%hadcompletedhighereducation.Theaverageageis31 yearsold.Theaveragetimeatthecompanyis4.72years.The distributionathierarchicallevelsrevealsthat56.5%arein oper-ationalpositions,27.4%insupervisorypositions,and16.1%in positionsabovesupervisor.Themeansofthecontinuous vari-ablesandcorrelationsappearinTable2.Thesecorrelationsare presentedonlytoshowthatthereweresignificantassociations amongvariablesand, therefore,that testingofthehypotheses usingmultipleregressionanalysiswasjustified.
In multiple regression analysis applied to the testing of hypotheses(asshowninTable3),eightmodelswereprepared, including oneforeach dependentvariableonlywiththe con-trol variables and anotherwith the control variables and the main effect also combined for each of the variables to be explained.Theresultsofthehypotheseshavebeenconsidered fromthesecondregressionmodelforeachdependentvariable, i.e.,thehypothesesareonlytestedinmodels1(Hypothesis1),4 (Hypothesis2),6(Hypothesis3),and8(Hypothesis4).In mod-els1,3,5, and7,onlythecontrol variableswereconsidered, whichdoesnotpermittheanalysisofthehypotheses. Accord-ingtoPedhazurandSchmelkin(1991),comparisonofthemodel ofthecontrolvariableswiththemodelthatincludesthe inser-tionofthemaineffectofvariablesiscommonlyusedtoassess thepartitioningofvarianceanditsincreaseintermsof explana-torypower.Inmodel1,forexample,thecontrolvariableshave anadjustedR2=0.26.Whentheintra-organizationalsocial con-nectionvariablewasinserted, itdidnotincrease adjustedR2, i.e.,therewasnoincreaseinrelationtothemodelofthecontrol variables.
Table1
Confirmatoryfactoranalysis.*
Descriptionofmanifestvariablesandreliabilityof latentvariables
Loading
Emotionalengagement(AVE=0.65;CompositeReliability=0.91; α=0.91)
Iamenthusiasticinmyjob 0.760***
Ifeelenergeticatmyjob 0.858***
Iaminterestedinmyjob 0.826***
Iamproudofmyjob 0.748***
Ifeelpositiveaboutmyjob 0.805***
Iamexcitedaboutmyjob 0.822*
Physicalengagement(AVE=0.78;CompositeReliability=0.95; α=0.95)
Iworkwithintensityonmyjob 0.838***
Iexertmyfullefforttomyjob 0.835***
Idevotealotofenergytomyjob 0.906***
Itrymyhardesttoperformwellonmyjob 0.919***
IstriveashardasIcantocompletemyjob 0.863***
Iexertalotofenergyonmyjob 0.918*
Cognitiveengagement(AVE=0.68;CompositeReliability=0.92; α=0.92)
Atwork,mymindisfocusedonmyjob 0.809***
Atwork,Ipayalotofattentiontomyjob 0.780***
Atwork,Ifocusagreatdealofattentiononmy job
0.886***
Atwork,Iamabsorbedbymyjob 0.771***
Atwork,Iconcentrateonmyjob 0.866***
Atwork,Idevotealotofattentiontomyjob 0.817*
Satisfaction(AVE=0.72;CompositeReliability=0.92;α=0.92)
Ifeelfairlysatisfiedwithmypresentjob 0.815*
MostdaysIamenthusiasticaboutmywork 0.886***
Eachdayatworkseemslikeitwillneverend 0.860***
Ifindrealenjoymentinmywork 0.836***
Iconsidermyjobtoberatherunpleasant 0.844***
Performance(AVE=0.65;CompositeReliability=0.93;a=0.92)
Iperformmydutiesproperlyatwork 0.770*
Imeettheresponsibilitiesthatarespecifictomy workactivities
0.790***
Icompletethetasksthatareexpectedofme 0.835***
Imetthedemandsofmywork 0.889***
Iprioritizetheactivitiesthatdirectlyaffectthe evaluationofmywork
0.834***
Itakecareofmymandatoryworkactivities(I) 0.640***
Ihavefailedtoperformessentialdutiesatmy job(I)
0.751***
Intra-organizationalsocialconnection(AVE=0.68;Composite Reliability=0.89;α=0.89)
MycontactsatworkmakemefeelthatIampart oftheorganization
0.828*
Mycontactsatworkmakemefeelincludedin theorganization
0.884***
MycontactsatworkmakemefeelthatIampart ofanintegratedgroup
0.862***
MycontactsatworkmakemefeellikeIamat home
0.714***
Source:Preparedbytheauthors.
***p<0.01.
* Significancenotcalculated(parameterat1).(I)invertedindicator.
a:Cronbach’salpha(Reference=0.60).AVE:(Reference=0.50).
localstructureofthefocalactor,energyexpendedduringwork activitiesdoesnotsuffer.Thus,otherfactorssupportedbythe literature,suchas thenatureofthetask,maybeavariableof greaterexplanatorypowerforphysicalengagement,for exam-ple. Hypothesis 2 maintains that there isa positiveinfluence of social connection on cognitive engagement. The relation-ship has been proven in a model that elevates the adjusted R2 of the 0.26 control variables, mainly caused by satisfac-tion (β=0.50,p<0.01)andsupervisionpositions(β=−0.18, p<0.05)foradjustedR2=0.45,whereonlythecontrolvariable satisfaction(β=0.16,p<0.05)andthemaineffectofthe vari-ableintra-organizationalsocialconnection(β=0.55,p<0.01) werestatisticallysignificant.Unlikethatfoundinthe relation-shipbetweenintra-organizationalsocialconnectionandphysical energyusedatwork,cognitiveengagementisexplainedbythe quality of the focal actor’srelationships (i.e., egocentric net-work)(Maciel,2015;Maciel&Camargo,2015).Thefeelingof beinginarelationshipwithpeoplewhoarestrivingforthe indi-vidual tofeel includedintheorganizationincreasescognitive effortsdirectedatwork.Thiskindofjudgmentresultingfrom intra-organizationalsocial connectionallowsgreater familiar-ityandtranquilitybecauseitreducesuncertaintyandinsecurity, allowingattentiontobeappliedtoworkratherthanbeing con-cernedaboutsocialinclusionintheworkplace(Maciel,2015).
Table2
Mean,standarddeviation,andcorrelationamongvariables.
x s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Age 31.00 9.77 1.00***
2.Timeatcompany 4.72 6.07 0.63*** 1.00***
3.Satisfaction 7.70 1.73 0.25*** 0.25*** 1.00***
4.Intra-orgsocialconnection 7.49 1.33 0.18*** 0.19*** 0.53*** 1.00***
5.Physicalengagement 4.26 2.45 0.00 0.06 −0.09 0.08 1.00***
6.Cognitiveengagement 7.78 1.44 0.08 0.06 0.44*** 0.67*** 0.15** 1.00***
7.Emotionalengagement 7.11 1.34 0.28*** 0.23*** 0.78*** 0.51*** 0.07 0.47*** 1.00*** 8.Performance 7.27 1.20 0.10 0.16** 0.55*** 0.67*** 0.06 0.65*** 0.52***
Source:Preparedbytheauthors.
***p<0.01(two-tailed). ** p<0.05(two-tailed).
Table3
OLSregressionanalysisresults.
Physicalengagement Cognitiveengagement Emotionalengagement Performance
Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5 Model6 Model7 Model8
Controlvariables
Sex 0.15** 0.15*** −0.04 −0.02 −0.10** −0.10** 0.02 0.04
Age(Log) 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.13* 0.12* 0.01 −0.05
Maritalstatus 0.07 0.08 −0.04 −0.00 0.05 0.05 −0.06 −0.03 Education −0.41*** −0.41*** −0.05 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 0.01 0.03 Position(operational) 0.21* 0.22* 0.18 0.09 0.19** 0.18** 0.25** 0.17* Position(supervision) 0.05 0.05 −0.18** −0.12 0.11* 0.12* 0.02 0.07 Timeatcompanytenure(Log) 0.11 0.12 −0.04 −0.06 0.00 −0.00 0.07 0.04 Satisfaction −0.08 −0.06 0.50*** 0.16** 0.77*** 0.74*** 0.62*** 0.30***
Maineffectvariable
Intra-org.socialconnection −0.03 0.55*** 0.06 0.51***
F 9.94*** 8.81*** 9.76*** 19.15*** 39.67*** 35.43*** 13.33*** 22.50***
R2 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.47 0.62 0.62 0.35 0.51
AdjustedR2 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.33 0.49
***p<0.01(two-tailed). ** p<0.05(two-tailed). * p<0.10(two-tailed).
In summary, the associations between intra-organizational socialconnectionandengagementandperformancevariables indicatethattherelationalarchitectureofworkisofreal impor-tance. Social connection demonstrates,for example, that the perceptionofthefocalactoroftheircontactsofmostfrequent interactionprovidethemwithasenseofinclusion,makingthe individualachieve higherlevels of cognitiveengagement and performance, but not greater physical or emotional engage-ment. Therefore, the existence of contacts that perform this type of inclusion role can satistify necessecities of psycho-logical significance, saftey, and availability, which increases somekindof engagement but not all,as defended inthe lit-eraturesofar(Bakker&Bal, 2010;Freeney&Fellenz,2013; Kahn, 1990). Thus, it is likely that the effect of social con-nection on each type of engagement is moderated by other variables(e.g.,autonomy).Eitherway,thestatistically signifi-cantrelationshipbetweenintra-organizationalsocialconnection andcognitive engagementattests that thiskindof content of socialrelationscontributestoworkbeingseenas(i) meaning-ful,becausetheinteractionsprovideasenseofappreciationfor theorganizationalmember;(ii)asenseofsafety,withoutfearof
colleagues;and(iii)availability,whichenablesthework(Kahn, 1990).Withregardtotaskperformance,theresultsshowthat intra-organizationalsocial connectionactuallyproduces posi-tiveconditionsfortheachievementofwork.Asarguedinthe constructionofthehypotheses,thefeelingofinclusion gener-ates indebtedness toward contacts, andthese feelings in turn extendto the organization,causing theemployee tobe more involvedandinvestedintheireffortswhencarryingoutwork (Halbesleben&Bowley,2007;Halbesleben&Wheeler,2011).
Conclusions
by the interpretation of these social actors. Therefore, intra-organizational socialconnection—reflected inthe assessment thateachactor(ego)makes—meansthattherole ofinclusion played bytheir contacts (alters) of morefrequent interaction inintra-organizationalnetworksmatters,andtheircapacityfor agency should not be disregarded (Emirbayer & Goodwin, 1994).
Inthissense,itisconcludedthatintra-organizationalsocial connection operates really like a specific type of local ties, with the potential to generate positive effects on an individ-ual’s behavior at work. This conclusion is justified in the theoreticalframework ofthisconcept asarelational resource (Freeney &Fellenz, 2013;Grant, 2007).The results showed thatcognitiveengagementandperformanceareinfluenced by thedegreeofintra-organizationalsocialconnection,eveninthe presenceofcontrolvariables(e.g.,satisfaction,education, posi-tion). Thus,the idea that interactions withthosepeople who behave in a way that make the individual feel familiar and included in asocial groupis strengthened. Thisbehave gen-eratesfeelingsof indebtednessinaccoradancewiththenorms of reciprocity, which drives the level of energy intensity at work(Halbesleben&Bowley,2007;Halbesleben&Wheeler, 2011).
Ingeneral,theconceptofintra-organizationalsocial connec-tionextendstherangeofdifferenttypesofsocialtiesthatcan be analyzed when investgating the conditions for an individ-ual’sbehavior atwork.Itispossible thatthistypeof content in intra-organizational relationships may be as important as thosealready established inthe literature andmay reach the samestatusasothersocialties,suchasconfidence,reciprocity, friendship,andsharednorms(Podolny&Baron,1997).
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
AppendixA. Supplementarydata
Supplementarydataassociatedwiththisarticlecanbefound, intheonlineversion,atdoi:10.1016/j.rausp.2016.07.005.
References
Babcock-Roberson,M.E.,&Strickland,O.J.(2010).Therelationshipbetween charismaticleadership,workengagement,andorganizationalcitizenship behaviors.TheJournalofPsychology,144(3),313–326.
Bakker,A.B.,Hakanen,J.J.,Demerouti,E.,&Xanthopoulou,D.(2007).Job resourcesboostworkengagement,particularlywhenjobdemandsarehigh.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,99(2),274–284.
Bakker,A.B.,&Bal,P.M.(2010).Weeklyworkengagementandperformance: Astudyamongstartingteachers.JournalofOccupationaland Organiza-tionalPsychology,83(1),189–206.
Balkundi,P.,&Harrison,D.A.(2006).Ties,leaders,andtimeinteams:Strong inferenceaboutnetworkstructures’seffectsonteamviabilityand perfor-mance.AcademyofManagementJournal,49(1),49–68.
Brands,R.A.(2013).Cognitivesocialstructuresinsocialnetworkresearch:A review.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,34(S1),82–83.
Brayfield,A.H.,&Rothe,H.F.(1951).Anindexofjobsatisfaction.Journalof AppliedPsychology,35(5),307–311.
Castano,E.(2013).Onsocialconnection,helping,andaltruism.SocialResearch,
80(2),383–386.
Christian,M.S.,Garza,A.S.,&Slaughter,J.E.(2011).Workengagement: Aquantitative reviewandtestof itsrelations withtask andcontextual performance.PersonnelPsychology,64(1),89–136.
Downing, L. L.(1994). Criterionshaped behavior:Pitfallsof performance appraisal.InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment,2(1),1–21.
Emirbayer,M.,&Goodwin,J.(1994).Networkanalysis,culture,andthe prob-lemofagency.AmericanJournalofSociology,99(6),1411–1454.
Emirbayer,M.(1997).Manifestoforarelationalsociology.AmericanJournal ofSociology,103(2),281–317.
Epley,N.,Akalis,S.,Waytz,A.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(2008).Creatingsocial connectionthroughinferentialreproduction.PsychologicalScience,19(2), 114–120.
Evans,W.R.,&Davis,W.D.(2005).High-performanceworksystemsand organizationalperformance:Themediatingroleofinternalsocialstructure.
JournalofManagement,31(5),758–775.
Fornell, C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Evaluatingstructuralequationmodels withunobservablevariablesandmeasurementerror.JournalofMarketing Research,18(1),39–50.
Fornell,C.(1992).Anationalcustomersatisfactionbarometer:TheSwedish experience.JournalofMarketing,56(1),6–21.
Freeman,L.C.(1977).Asetofmeasuresofcentralitybasedonbetweenness.
Sociometry,40(1),35–41.
Freeney,Y.,&Fellenz,M.R.(2013).Workengagement,jobdesignandthe roleofthesocialcontextatwork:Exploringantecedentsfromarelational perspective.HumanRelations,66(11),1427–1445.
Friedkin, N.E. (2004). Social cohesion. AnnualReview of Sociology, 30, 409–425.
Granovetter,M.(1973).Thestrengthofweakties.AmericanJournalof Sociol-ogy,78(6),1360–1380.
Grant,A.M.(2007).Relationaljobdesignandthemotivationtomakeaprosocial difference.AcademyofManagementReview,32(2),93–417.
Hair,J.F.,Jr.,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.,&Black,W.C.(2009). Multi-variatedataanalysis.NewJersey:Prentice-Hall,Inc.
Halbesleben,J.R.B.,&Bowley,W.M.(2007).Emotionalexhaustionand job performance:Themediatingroleofmotivation.Journalof Applied Psychology,91(1),93–106.
Halbesleben,J.R.B.,&Wheeler,A.R.(2011).Ioweyouone:Coworker reci-procityasamoderatoroftheday-levelexhaustion–performancerelationship.
JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,32(4),608–626.
Hanneman,R.A.,&Riddle,M.(2011).Conceptsandmeasuresforbasic net-workanalysis.InJ.Scott,&P.J.Carrington(Eds.),TheSAGEhandbookof socialnetworkanalysis(pp.340–369).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Holanda,S.B.(2008).RaízesdoBrasil.SãoPaulo:CompanhiadasLetras.
Kadushin,C.(2001).Themotivationalfoundationofsocialnetworks.Social Networks,24(1),77–91.
Kadushin,C.(2012).Understandingsocialnetworks:Theories,concepts,and findings.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kahn,W. A.(1990).Psychologicalconditionsofpersonalengagementand disengagementatwork?AcademyofManagementJournal,33(4),692–724.
Lin,C.P.(2010).Modelingcorporatecitizenship,organizationaltrust,andwork engagementbasedonattachmenttheory.JournalofBusinessEthics,94(4), 517–531.
Maciel,C.O.(2015,novembro).Conexãosocialintraorganizacional:proposta conceitualeavaliac¸ãodeseusefeitosemtrêsdomíniosrelacionais.Anaisdo SimpósiodeGestãodaInova¸cãoTecnológica,BeloHorizonte,MG,Brasil, 28.
Maciel, C.O.,& Camargo,C.(2015).Conexão socialintraorganizacional, suportenotrabalhoeidentificac¸ãoorganizacional.RevistadeAdministra¸cão Contemporânea,19(3),348–366.
May,D.R.,Gilson,R.L.,&Harter,L.M.(2004).Thepsychologicalconditions ofmeaningfulness,safetyandavailabilityandtheengagementofthehuman spiritatwork.JournalofOccupationalandOrganizationalPsychology,
77(1),11–37.
Ng,T.W.H.,&Feldman,D.C.(2009).Occupationalembeddednessandjob performance.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,30(7),863–891.
Okhuysen,G.A.(2001).Structuringchange:Familiarityandformal interven-tionsinproblem-solvinggroups.AcademyofManagementJournal,44(4), 794–808.
Olivier,A.L.,&Rothmann,S.(2007).Antecedentsofworkengagementina multinationaloilcompany.JournalofIndustrialPsychology,33(3),49–56.
Othman,N.,&Nasurdin,A.M.(2013). Socialsupportand work engage-ment:AstudyofMalaysiannurses.JournalofNursingManagement,21(8), 1083–1090.
Pedhazur,E.,&Schmelkin,L.P.(1991).Measurement,designandanalysis. Hillsdale:LEAPublisher.
Perry-Smith,J.E.(2006).Socialyetcreative:Theroleofsocialrelationshipsin facilitatingindividualcreativity.AcademyofManagementJournal,49(1), 85–101.
Podolny,J.M.,&Baron,J.N.(1997).Resourcesandrelationships:Social networksandmobilityintheworkplace.AmericanSociologicalReview,
62(5),673–693.
Pruetipibultham,O.(2012).Developinghumanresourcedevelopment interven-tionstoaidexpatriates’culturaladaptation:Insightstothejavaneseculture.
HumanResourceDevelopmentInternational,15(1),109–117.
Raider,H.,&Krackhardt,D.J.(2001).Intraorganizationalnetworks.InJ.A.C. Baum(Ed.),Companiontoorganizations(pp.58–74).Oxford:Blackwell.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedentsandeffectsonjobperformance.AcademyofManagement Jour-nal,53(3),617–635.
Saks,A.M.(2006).Antecedentsandconsequencesofemployeeengagement.
JournalofManagerialPsychology,21(7),600–619.
Schumacker,R.E.,&Lomax,R.G.(2004).Abeginner’sguidetostructural equationmodeling.Mah-wah:LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesPublishers.
Sonnentag,S.,Volmer,J.,&Spychala,A.(2008).Jobperformance.InJ.Barling, &C.L.Cooper(Eds.),TheSagehandbookoforganizationalbehavior(pp. 427–447).LosAngeles:Sage.
Sparrowe,R.T.,Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S.J.,&Kraimer,M.L.(2001).Social networksandtheperformanceofindividualsandgroups.Academyof Man-agementJournal,44(2),316–325.
Walton,G.M.,Cohen,G.L.,Cwir,D.,&Spencer,S.J.(2012).Mere belong-ing:Thepowerofsocialconnections.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,102(3),513–532.
White,D.W.,Absher,R.K.,&Huggins,K.A.(2011).Theeffectsofhardiness andculturaldistanceonsocioculturaladaptationinanexpatriatesales man-agerpopulation.JournalofPersonalSelling&SalesManagement,31(3), 325–337.
Williams,L.J.,&Anderson,S.E.(1991).Jobsatisfactionandorganizational commitmentaspredictorsoforganizationalcitizenshipandin-role behav-iors.JournalofManagement,17(3),601–617.
Yamazaki,Y.(2010).Expatriateadaptation:Afitbetweenskillsanddemand amongjapaneseexpatriatesin USA.Management InternationalReview,
50(1),81–108.
