Organizational Behaviour Comportement Organisationnel

ConclusionResearchers of social influence in organizations have recently produced significantadvancements toward the objective of attaining a better understanding of the precise mechanismsand targets of influence that unfold among employees in the work place. Yet most of this workhas been limited to employee perceptions and attitudes (Ibarra & Andrews, 1993; Johanson,2000; Meyer, 1994), which, arguably, are first level outcomes of influence processes (Salancik &Pfeffer, 1978). Notwithstanding the importance of employee perceptions and attitudes, theposition argued in this chapter was that a neglect of how social influence might affect employeebehavior is a shortcoming in the literature because today’s organization needs to find new waysof soliciting employee cooperation that are independent of management rule. Peer socialinfluence is one such means, and its power to affect behavior was evident in the study presented.Peer consultation highlights the contextual nature of role enactment processes in organizations(Meyer, 1994) and represents a key tool of realizing the potential of organizational culture toaffect member performance behavior (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). In particular, whereinterpersonal exchanges between employees can serve as a basis for role modeling, as well as theemergence of informal cliques or sub-groups can foster cooperative norms, the drain onmanagerial time and effort to help orient new organizational members may be significantlyreduced. However, care needs to be taken in order to maintain a focus in these efforts oncooperation not just with other individuals, but also with the organizational collective (Bolino,1999).ReferencesAshford, S. & Cummings, L.L. (1983), “Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategiesof creating information.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32: 370-398.Bolino, M.C. (1999), “Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?Academy of Management Review, 24: 82-98.Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L. (1999), UCINET 5 Version 1.0. Natick, MA:Analytic Technologies.Borman, W.C. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements ofcontextual performance,” In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection inorganizations: 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Burt, R.S. (1976), “Positions in social networks,” Social Forces, 55:93-122.Callero, P.L. (1994), “From role playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource.“ SocialPsychology Quarterly 57: 228-243.Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J., (1975), “A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadershipwithin formal organizations.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.DiMaggio, P. (1992), “Nadel’s paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects oforganizational structure.” In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations:Structure, Form, and Action: 118-142. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Erickson, B.H. (1988), “The relational basis of attitudes.” In B. Wellman & S.D. Berkowitz(Eds.), Social structures: A network approach: 99-121. Cambridg, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.Feldman, D.C., (1981), “The multiple socialization of organization members.” Academy ofManagement Review, 6: 309-318.Festinger, L. (1954), “A theory of social comparison processes” Human Relations, 7:114-140.Friedkin, N.A. (1984), “Structural cohesion and equivalence explanations of socialhomogeneity.” Sociological Methods and Research, 12: 235-261.Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters. New York: Boss-Merrill.Hall, D.T. & Moss, J.E. (1998), “The new Protean career contract: Helping organizations andemployees adapt.” Organizational Dynamics; 26: 22-37.Ibarra, H. (1992), “Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and62