2002 Stamper Insider-Outsider JOB

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 875–894 (2002)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI: 10.1002/job.175
Insider or outsider? How employee

perceptions of insider status affect
their work behaviory
CHRISTINA L. STAMPER1* AND SUZANNE S. MASTERSON2
1
Western Michigan University, Haworth College of Business, Department of Management, 3390
Schneider Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, U.S.A.
2
University of Cincinnati, College of Business Administration, Department of Management, Cincinnati,
OH 45221-0165, U.S.A.
Summary Many researchers have used the insider–outsider distinction when discussing employment
relationships (e.g., Graen & Scandura, 1987; Pfeffer & Baron, 1988). However, there is no
known empirical research directly assessing employees’ perceptions of their status as organi-
zational insiders. This article is intended as an initial step to theoretically and empirically
explore the concept of perceived insider status (PIS). First, we build theoretical arguments
describing how organizations may differentiate between insider and outsider employees, lead-
ing to differences in perceptions of insider status. We then hypothesize and show empirical
evidence that contrasts, but relates, actual inclusion and perceived organizational support to
PIS. We subsequently examine two types of discretionary employee behavior, altruism and
production deviance, as potential consequences of PIS. Our results suggest that both actual
inclusion, as well as perceived insider status, have implications for organizational functioning
via discretionary employee behaviors. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
For years, the distinction between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ employees has been informally utilized
throughout both the academic and practitioner literature. Many organizations have attempted to
strategically apply this distinction to their workforces to gain labor efficiencies and competitive advan-
tages (Kalleberg & Schmidt, 1997). One way to differentiate between employees is by determining
which are critical to organizational functioning and which are less critical to obtaining company goals
and objectives (e.g., Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Hite, 1995). Pfeffer and Baron (1988) suggested that
another way of creating employment relationship differences (i.e., the insider/outsider dichotomy)
is through variations in temporal exposure to the organization. Therefore, employees who have less
* Correspondence to: Christina L. Stamper, Western Michigan University, Haworth School of Business, Department of
Management, 3390 Schneider Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, U.S.A. E-mail: christina.stamper@wmich.edu
y
Presented at the Southern Academy of Management, Orlando, Florida, November, 2000.
Received 17 April 2002

Revised 3 July 2002
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 22 August 2002
876 C. L. STAMPER AND S. S. MASTERSON
temporal exposure, such as that which stems from part-time employment, are more likely to be exter-
nalized employees or outsiders (Pfeffer & Baron, 1988).
Several industries rely heavily on employees who fall into employment categories that are typically
considered representative of outsider, or marginalized, employees. Restaurants, hotels, and retail
establishments are a few examples of businesses that employ a large number of part-time and seasonal
workers (Nollen & Axel, 1995). In fact, approximately 16–18 per cent of the US workforce is
employed part-time (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998). The use of these non-traditional (i.e., non-
full-time) employees to meet organizational needs in regard to scheduling and customer service is well
accepted in these industries. Moreover, such industries often have full-time and part-time employees
working side-by-side, raising questions about how their differential work status may affect perfor-
mance or other important outcomes. For example, there is evidence suggesting that part-time employ-
ees do not perform citizenship behaviors as frequently as full-time workers (Stamper & Van Dyne,
2001), and there may be other negative effects associated with part-time employees. However, we
do not currently know whether such effects are due to the employees’ actual status as a full-time versus
part-time worker, or the employees’ perceived status as an organizational insider versus outsider.
Moreover, little is known about what makes employees consider themselves to be organizational insi-
ders versus outsiders, or about the consequences of such a distinction between employees.
This paper attempts to address this issue by exploring a construct called perceived insider status
(PIS), which represents the extent to which an individual employee perceives him or herself as an insi-
der within a particular organization. Using a sample of restaurant workers, we address three research
questions in this study: (1) is actual inclusion related to perceived insider status; (2) is perceived insider
status different from perceived organizational support; and (3) what are the work behavior implications
of varying perceptions of insider status as compared to actual inclusion? Specifically, we propose and
test two antecedents of PIS (actual inclusion and perceived organizational support), as well as two
possible outcomes of employees’ PIS in the organization: organizational citizenship behavior and
deviancy behavior.
Perceived Insider Status
Researchers have long discussed the relationship that develops between an individual employee and
his or her work organization. One way to conceptualize this relationship is through the exchanges that
occur between organizations and employees. Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory is based on the pre-
sumption that employment relationships can go beyond a simple economic exchange agreement.
Social exchange relationships are based on the promise of reciprocation (Gouldner, 1960), and the
details of the exchange are sometimes unspecified. Under social exchange, employees may rely on
relational trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), whereby they will contribute effort beyond
that required by the job with the expectation that they will be rewarded sometime in the future.
One way to create a distinction between insider and outsider employees using social exchange is for
the organization to offer different rewards or inducements to the two groups. For example, full-time
workers tend to get more benefits, training, and advancement opportunities from their organizations
than part-time workers (Hipple, 1998). Based on inducements and contributions theory (March &
Simon, 1958), these workers should then feel obligated to contribute more work and effort to the orga-
nization than would workers not receiving such opportunities, such as part-time employees. As this
inducement–contribution cycle continues, it creates a differential in the treatment of workers, resulting
in the perception that some employees are more valuable to the organization and others are more
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 875–894 (2002)
INSIDER OR OUTSIDER 877
expendable, i.e., that some are organizational insiders, and others are outsiders. This is similar to
human capital theory (Becker, 1964), which argues that organizations will invest in employees
(e.g., training, promotions) who they expect will provide a return on the investment for the benefit
of the organization. To summarize, organizations that promote the distinction between insider and out-
sider employees may use inducements such as benefits, training, and promotions to send signals to
certain employees that they have achieved insider status (and subsequently send signals to employees
who do not receive these inducements that they are outsiders).
Another way to create differences in insider status perceptions is through organizational socialization
processes. During the initial employment entry process, workers are likely to form opinions about how
the organization treats employees. This is the time when psychological contracts, defined as beliefs
about the expectations in the employee–employer relationship (e.g., Rousseau, 1989, 1995), may
develop. As newcomers to the organization, employees’ perceptions regarding their relationship with
their employer are extremely pliable, and may be impacted by such socialization factors as proactive
tactics and various types (i.e., investiture, random) of socialization (see Saks & Ashforth, 1997, for
a thorough review of the socialization literature). However, employee perceptions may also change over
time, allowing newcomers, who may initially perceive themselves to be ‘outsiders’ despite entrance into
the firm’s labor force, to develop feelings of being ‘insiders’ (Thomas & Anderson, 1998).
In our literature review, we were not able to locate any published studies that directly examined
employees’ perceptions of insider status. Past research has instead focused on measures of actual
inclusion. For example, Hom (1979) used the actual numbers of hours worked per week as a proxy
measure of employees’ inclusion or peripherality in organizations. Similarly, work conducted in the
social network literature (e.g., Brass, 1985; Ibarra, 1993) has focused on an employee’s level of cen-
trality and influence within an organization, akin to actual inclusion in an organization. While actual
inclusion in an organization is obviously an important contribution to understanding organizational
behavior, we believe that perceptions of insider status may not be directly reflected by an employee’s
level of actual inclusion, as examined in past research. Potentially, an employee may work long hours
every week for an organization (i.e., Hom’s measure of peripherality) or have high centrality in one of
the company’s departments, but still not have a feeling of being an insider in the firm. For example,
minority status, based on race or gender, has been found to prevent the development of social network
connections that benefit career goals and progression (Brass, 1985). This lack of interaction with
majority group members may prevent the minority of organizational members from feeling as if they
belong to the organization and are included in it. Moreover, such employees may feel marginalized,
and thus not feel as much like insiders as those in the majority.
Perhaps the best analogy to perceived insider status is the in-group versus out-group designations
originally tied to leader–member exchange (LMX; e.g., Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). LMX
refers to the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and his or her employee (e.g., Graen
& Scandura, 1987), and early work on this topic discussed the propensity of supervisors to treat sub-
ordinates as members of the in-group versus the out-group. Thus, even though employees might hold
the same job title and carry out the same responsibilities, they can experience differential relationships
with their supervisor, and perceive themselves to be insiders or outsiders. In a similar manner, we pro-
pose that employees can experience feelings of in-group versus out-group status within the organiza-
tion based on differential relationships with the organization despite having the same job title and
responsibilities, and that PIS is a measure of this perception of insider status within the organization.
Despite the similarities, perceived insider status is distinct from LMX in two ways. First, the level of
conceptualization is different. Leader–member exchange is a dyadic phenomenon between two peo-
ple. However, PIS is a perception about the relationship between an employee and an organization.
Second, LMX and PIS differ in their operationalization. LMX is a more general measure of the
employee–supervisor relationship (e.g., ‘My working relationship with my supervisor is very effective,’
Graen & Scandura, 1987), which might be equated to perceived organizational support at the
employee–organization level (see Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). In contrast, PIS spe-
cifically measures the feelings of insider status that may result from a particular employee–organization
relationship (e.g., ‘I feel very much a part of my work organization.’).
In summary, PIS represents a new dimension of the organization–employee relationship: the extent
to which employees feel like organizational insiders. It is distinct from actual inclusion and has the
potential to add depth to our understanding of employees’ attitudes and behaviors in organizations.
In the next two sections, we develop hypotheses regarding some antecedents and consequences of PIS.
Actual inclusion and perceived insider status

As argued above, we believe that actual inclusion and PIS are two separate phenomena. We suspect,
however, that actual inclusion is one potential influence on PIS. In this paper, we use two proxies to
represent differences in actual inclusion: number of hours worked per week and organizational tenure,
based on the temporal arguments of Pfeffer and Baron (1988). This is further supported by the work of
several work status researchers (e.g., Miller & Terborg, 1978; Peters, Jackofsky, & Salter, 1981), who
have attempted to explain differences in full- and part-time workers through the concept of partial
inclusion in one’s work organization (Katz & Kahn, 1966). To date, no research has examined PIS
as a result of work status differences or tenure.
There are reasons to argue that part-time workers may differ from full-time workers in their level of
PIS. As mentioned earlier, part-time versus full-time workers often experience radically different ben-
efit, promotion, and training opportunities (Hipple, 1998), with full-time employees receiving the bet-
ter package. Sherer (1996) specifically argued that such differences are likely to convey insider/
outsider status. This is consistent with the social exchange (Blau, 1964) and human capital theory
(Becker, 1964) arguments presented in the prior section. Both support the likelihood that full-time
employees are more likely than part-time workers to perceive themselves as insiders.
Similarly, the longer employees work for a particular organization, the more likely they are to
become familiar with specific operating procedures and behavioral norms. Longer-tenured employees
are more likely to have gained regular access to both important information and people who are at the
centre of things. Consequently, these employees are more likely to have gained the knowledge and
experience necessary to belong to the ‘in-group’ in the organization.
What these arguments suggest is that actual inclusion (i.e., average time spent in the workplace,
either through hours per week or organizational tenure) is not equivalent to, but will impact, employ-
ees’ perceptions of insider status. To further clarify the two concepts, we believe that theoretically,
organizations can foster both insider and outsider relationships with employees regardless of the
employees’ actual inclusion in the organization. However, in general, we believe that there is a positive
association between actual inclusion and perceived insider status.
Hypothesis 1: Actual inclusion will be positively related to perceived insider status.
Perceived insider status and perceived organizational support
Blau’s (1964) social exchange framework may best be represented by the concept of perceived organi-
zational support (e.g., Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Masterson et al., 2000). Per-
ceived organizational support (POS) refers to the global belief held by an employee concerning the
extent to which the organization values the employee’s contributions and cares about the employee’s
well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). We suspect that perceived organizational support and PIS are
distinct in that an employee can feel that an organization values his or her contributions, yet not feel like
an organizational insider. For example, seasonal retail employees may feel that their employers value
their contributions to the organization, but may not perceive themselves to be corporate insiders. Simi-
larly, employees in an organization’s satellite offices may feel that they make valuable contributions to
the organization’s functions, yet still feel ‘out of the loop’ with regard to central headquarters.
We propose that perceived organizational support is one factor employees use to determine whether
or not they perceive themselves as a company insider. Further, we believe that POS is a necessary pre-
requisite to perceiving insider status in the workplace. An employee must believe that the organization
values his or her contributions (i.e., he or she matters) to the organization before perceiving that he or
she truly belongs in the company. If the organization sends signals through policies (e.g., differential
access to profit-sharing programmes for managers versus staff, etc.) or actions (e.g., not sharing infor-
mation with employees, adhering to strict policies and procedures versus treating employees like indi-
viduals, etc.) that indicate the individual does not matter to the company, then the employee is less
likely to develop a perception that he or she is an organizational insider. This is consistent with past
research indicating that organizational attachment may be influenced by the perceived support of key
organizational representatives (e.g., top managers and supervisors; McClurg, 1999; Naumann,
Bennett, Bies, & Martin, 1998; Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001). Therefore, we predict that
perceived organizational support is an antecedent of PIS.
Hypothesis 2: Employees with high levels of POS will experience higher levels of PIS than employees
with lower levels of POS.
Behavioral consequences of perceived insider status

Beyond understanding the potential antecedents of PIS, it is also important to determine the impact of
such a perception on employees’ work behavior. Since PIS is a perception about the relationship an
employee has with a work organization, the type of work behavior that may be most affected is dis-
cretionary work behavior (Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989). One type of discretionary work behavior is
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), or ‘ . . . individual behavior that is discretionary, not
directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes
the effective functioning of the organization’ (Organ, 1988, p. 4). In developing hypotheses about
PIS and OCB, we focus specifically on altruism, or employee behaviors directed at helping others
in the organization (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). We focused on altruism because of the task interde-
pendence among restaurant workers (i.e., hosts, servers, cooks, and bussers), in that they have to rely
on each other to provide a completely satisfying dining experience to the guest.
A second category of discretionary behaviors is referred to as deviant workplace behavior (DWB),
defined as individual behaviors that detract from organizational functioning (Robinson & Bennett,
1995). Such behaviors have also been called anticitizenship behaviors (e.g., Ball, Trevino, & Sims,
1994). Here, we focus specifically on the DWB of production deviance, or employee behaviors that
violate corporate norms related to creating the product or providing the service (e.g., being late, putting
in low effort, etc., Robinson & Bennett, 1995). In restaurants, it is imperative that employees provide
high quality service to guests at all times, in order for the company to retain repeat business. If employ-
ees intentionally work slowly, take excessive breaks, or are late for shifts, it interferes with the accom-
plishment of the organization’s mission, and thus is detrimental to corporate success.
According to Graham (1991), use of the term citizenship implies ‘ . . . the status of belonging . . . ’
(p. 251). She argues that having citizenship bestowed on an individual requires that individual to
accept certain responsibilities. In order to meet these responsibilities, employees must behave in
certain ways, such as helping coworkers and refraining from disrupting organizational productivity
(Graham, 1991; Inkeles, 1969). We propose that individuals who perceive themselves to be organiza-
tional insiders are likely to consider themselves to be citizens of the firm, and thus must accept the
responsibilities of citizenship. This would require engaging in positive discretionary work behavior
(OCB) that goes beyond the requirements of their job duties, while also refraining from any behaviors
that may detract from organizational functioning (DWB). Conversely, we propose that outsiders can
withhold or reduce OCB without penalty because such behaviors are not expected of them due to their
differential relationship with the organization. At the same time, outsiders may be more likely to
engage in activities that reduce the productivity of the organization (i.e., deviant workplace behavior
or anticitizenship behavior), given that they might not feel as responsible for organizational outcomes.
This proposal is consistent with results of a study conducted by Tsui and her colleagues (Tsui, Pearce,
Porter, & Tripoli, 1997), which demonstrated that the quality of the employment relationship was
related to organizational citizenship, such that employees in balanced or mutual investment relation-
ships contributed the highest levels of citizenship behavior. Also, the proposed inverse relation
between the outcomes (e.g., OCB and DWB) is consistent with recent empirical research conducted
by Bennett and Stamper (2001), who found evidence that OCB and DWB are opposing ends of a con-
tinuum representing the underlying construct of discretionary work behavior. Thus, we would expect
OCB and DWB to be inversely related to common antecedents.
Hypothesis 3: High levels of PIS will be associated with high levels of OCB.
Hypothesis 4: High levels of PIS will be associated with low levels of DWB.
It is important to note that previous research (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001) has found actual inclusion
(full-time versus part-time employment) to be associated with higher levels of OCB. Thus, in testing
Hypotheses 3 and 4, both measures of actual inclusion (average hours worked and tenure) will be
included as predictors of OCB and DWB, in order to test the relative importance of PIS in understand-
ing employees’ discretionary behaviors in the workplace.
It is also important to recognize that past research has found perceived organizational support to be
an antecedent of both OCB and DWB (e.g., Masterson et al., 2000; Stamper, 2002—presented at the
annual Southern Management Association meeting, Atlanta, 2002; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).
Here, we have hypothesized that PIS is an antecedent of both OCB and DWB, and that POS is an ante-
cedent of PIS. Integrating the past research findings with our current proposals leads us to propose that
PIS will mediate the relationship between perceived organizational support and these discretionary
work behaviors. All hypothesized relations are summarized in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 5: PIS will mediate the relationship between POS and both OCB and DWB.
Figure 1. Theoretical model of main study constructs
Organizational Context
Structural Factors
The Firm
We selected a variety of sit-down restaurants (e.g., both chain and individual ownership) from the
Midwestern U.S. as the service setting for this study, given that they usually employ large numbers
of both traditional and non-traditional employees (e.g., full versus part-timers). This variation in
work status categories provided a rich context for studying differences in employment relationships
established between workers and the organization. However, we found that work status alone had
little impact on whether employees perceived themselves as insiders or outsiders to the organiza-
tion. This could be due to the prevalence of non-traditional workers in service industry organiza-
tions such as restaurants, as well as the fact that work responsibilities held by both traditional and
non-traditional workers are essentially the same in this setting.
Level of Employee
The employees all held entry-level positions in their work organizations. At this level, there may be
more variation in insider status than at higher or managerial levels. Typically, there is more fluctua-
tion in job tenure in lower-level jobs, such that good workers get promoted and move to positions
that are more central to the operation of the business, while poor workers fall out of the organiza-
tion, through voluntary or involuntary turnover. As one moves to higher levels in the organizational
hierarchy, it is expected that perceptions of insider status would become similar.
Functional Departments
The employees in our study all held positions in the direct service function of their organization.
However, perceptions of insider status may vary according to functional assignment. For example,
in restaurants, the front-of-the-house staff members (e.g., servers, hosts, floor managers) are typi-
cally ‘favored’ over more hidden, back-of-the-house employees (e.g., cooks, expediters, kitchen
managers), since they are responsible for directly generating and managing revenue. These employ-
ees and managers may get more resources, more attention from executives, and more recognition
for helping the company achieve its goals. Further, top executives are typically chosen from this
area when promotions are available.
Economic Factors
Data for this study were collected in the mid-to-late 1990s. During this time, the U.S. economy was
strong, with unprecedented growth in the financial sector. The service sector of the economy was
also growing significantly, and service sector workers could easily find alternative positions in com-
peting firms. Thus, managers were deeply concerned with employee retention, especially of full-
time workers. This type of economy may influence perceptions of insider status in two ways. First,
employees may be less concerned with becoming an insider, since they may freely switch compa-
nies at will. This could reduce the number of consequences associated with perceptions of insider
status. Second, employers may attempt to increase perceptions of insider status in order to build
perceived employee responsibility toward the organization. This could lead to the employee feeling
tied to the company, and increase the chance he or she will stay with the firm.
Method
Participants and procedure
We tested our hypotheses with data collected as part of a larger study on employee attitudes and beha-
vior. The sample consisted of workers from six different restaurant organizations located in the Mid-
west USA. To ensure adequate time for managers to assess OCB, employees who had been employed
by their organization for at least one month were eligible to participate in the study, resulting in a
potential participant pool of 350 employees. Of those, 66 were not present during data collection
due to scheduling conflicts, 20 chose not to participate, two terminated their employment during
the time of the study, and five were not rated by their supervisors, and thus had to be eliminated from
the study. Thus, the final sample consisted of 257 employees for a response rate of 74 per cent. Parti-
cipants were 88 per cent white and 75 per cent female. On average, they were 27 years old and had
been employed by their organizations for 2.7 years.
The employees were asked to complete a questionnaire that included items measuring employee
attitudes as well as demographic information. These questionnaires were handed out to employees dur-
ing both shift and weekly meetings (depending on the organization’s request) and were filled out and
returned immediately. Supervisors completed questionnaires designed to measure the citizenship
behavior of their employees. These surveys were completed over a two-week time frame and were
hand-collected by the first author. Both employees and supervisors were assured that their responses
would be confidential and would not be communicated to the organization or other participants.
In addition, employees were told that the research was designed to study work attitudes and beha-
viors. Employees were not exposed to the supervisor survey, so they could not guess which work beha-
viors were included in the study (thus, possible contamination due to demand effects was eliminated).
Upon completion of the surveys, the participants were not formally debriefed by the researchers,
although they were given the opportunity to request a summary of the findings.
The response rate from our supervisors (n ¼ 33) was 100 per cent (due primarily to hand-collection
by the first author). Seventeen of the supervisors were female (51 per cent) and 32 were white (97 per
cent). Supervisors rated an average of eight employees each.
Measures
Employee survey
A 10-item PIS scale, developed by the first author based on the theoretical arguments mentioned
above, was pretested on 173 undergraduate students at a large, midwestern university, in order to assess
internal reliability and consistency. All students were working either full- or part-time, and were
instructed to use their current employer as the referent organization. The scale was assessed using prin-
ciple components factor analysis, with varimax rotation. The rotated solution included two factors,
based on an Eigenvalue criteria of greater than one. The first factor contained seven items that corre-
sponded to the intended definition of PIS (i.e., organizational insider status). The second factor con-
tained three items that appeared to describe a centrality dimension (e.g., I think of myself as being ‘in
the middle of things’ in my workplace; I view myself as being on the fringes in this organization (R)).
The items from the second factor were discarded, based on conceptual desirability as well as item–total
correlations and improved coefficient alphas. In addition, to maintain construct clarity in this particular
study, one of the remaining seven items was removed because of conceptual overlap with the POS
variable (‘This organization makes me feel as if I matter here’). The coefficient alpha of the scale with
the six remaining items is 0.88 (see Table 1).
Table 1. Original 10-item perceived insider status scale
Items Rotated Rotated Item–total Alpha with
Factor 1 loadings Factor 2 loadings correlation item removed
1. I feel very much a part of my work organization 0.86334 0.22009 0.8085 0.8909
2. My work organization makes me believe that I am included in it 0.88095 0.17613 0.8015 0.8915
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3. I feel like I am an ‘outsider’ at this organization (R) 0.77324 0.22522 0.7137 0.8968
4. I think of myself as being ‘in the middle of things’ in my workplace 0.20676 0.46165 0.3301 0.9195
5. This organization makes me feel as if I matter here 0.72819 0.32330 0.7274 0.8956
6. I don’t feel included in this organization (R) 0.83170 0.22697 0.7823 0.8922
7. When I think of this organization, I think of myself as being on the periphery (R) 0.07656 0.88755 0.4007 0.9153
8. I feel I am an ‘insider’ in my work organization 0.73284 0.29308 0.7191 0.8963
9. My work organization makes me frequently feel ‘left-out’ (R) 0.85618 0.28069 0.8385 0.8894
10. I view myself as being on the fringes in this organization (R) 0.43893 0.67721 0.6318 0.9017
Items retained (Eigenvalue ¼ 3.78; total variance ¼ 63%; alpha ¼ 0.88) Components
matrix
I feel very much a part of my work organization 0.762 0.6537 0.8669
My work organization makes me believe that I am included in it 0.805 0.7058 0.8588
I feel like I am an ‘outsider’ at this organization (R) 0.801 0.7007 0.8593
I don’t feel included in this organization (R) 0.845 0.7573 0.8497
I feel I am an ‘insider’ in my work organization 0.713 0.5980 0.8760
My work organization makes me frequently feel ‘left-out’ (R) 0.828 0.7328 0.8538
INSIDER OR OUTSIDER
J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 875–894 (2002)

883
Table 2. Factor analysis with POS and PIS items

Rotated Factor 1 Rotated Factor 2 Rotated Factor 3
Items loadings loadings loadings Eigenvalues
1. POS2 0.73 0.16 9.77E-02 6.47 (26.9% of variance)

2. POS1 0.71 0.20 0.18 1.75 (23.8% of variance)
3. POS6 0.70 0.13 0.31 1.23 (12.2% of variance)
4. POS4 0.70 2.75E-04 0.27 (Total variance ¼ 62.9%)
5. POS3 0.70 0.24 0.19
6. POS8 0.63 0.26 2.96E-02
7. POS9 0.63 0.28 8.62E-03
8. PIS3(r) 4.08E-02 0.79 0.33
9. PIS5(r) 0.15 0.78 0.34
10. PIS7(r) 0.14 0.75 0.39
11. PIS6 0.28 0.71 0.11
12. PIS1 0.41 0.70 0.10
13. PIS2 0.54 0.65 9.22E-02
14. POS5(r) 0.18 0.10 0.82
15. POS7(r) 0.31 0.27 0.71
To examine construct clarity, an exploratory factor analysis using the current sample (using varimax
rotation) was run on the POS and PIS scale items. Results indicate the presence of three factors, based
on the criteria of eigenvalues greater than 1 (63 per cent of total variance explained). Item factor load-
ings indicate that seven POS items clearly load on the first factor, all six PIS items load on the second
factor, and the two reverse-scored POS items load on the third factor (all factor loadings greater than
0.60; see Table 2). The conventional cut-off for factor loadings is 0.40, with cross-loadings at least 0.20
less than the primary loading. As shown in Table 2, three items were problematic: PIS item number 2
has a strong secondary loading on the POS factor, and POS items number 5 and 7 loaded onto a poten-
tial third factor. However, these items were retained because removal of them compromised the relia-
bility (as measured by coefficient alpha) of the scales. Thus, overall the factor analysis empirically
supports the theoretical distinction between POS and PIS.
In the current study, perceived insider status was measured using the revised 6-item scale
( ¼ 0.88). Items include: ‘I feel very much a part of my work organization’ and ‘I feel I am an ‘‘insi-
der’’ in my work organization’. The 9-item perceived organizational support scale was replicated from
Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro (1990) ( ¼ 0.86). Sample items include: ‘The organization
values my contributions to its well-being’ and ‘The organization really cares about my well-being.’ For
both PIS and POS, responses were given using a 5-point Likert-type response format (1 ¼ strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree), and the scale score was calculated by summing the individual item
scores. In addition, employees reported demographic information, including their age (years), gender
(0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female), ethnicity (0 ¼ white, 1 ¼ other), tenure (number of months), and average num-
ber of hours worked per week.
Supervisor survey
Two representative types of discretionary employee behavior were measured. Altruism was assessed
using the Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) 5-item scale. Sample altruism items
include: ‘Helps others who have been absent,’ and ‘Helps orient other employees even though it is
not required’ ( ¼ 0.91). Production deviance was assessed with a 5-item scale based on Robinson
and Bennett’s multidimensional scaling framework (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Sample production
deviance items include: ‘Exaggerates to get out of work’ and ‘Intentionally works slower’ ( ¼ 0.78).
For both altruism and production deviance, responses were given using a 5-point Likert-type response
format (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree), and the scale score was calculated by summing
the individual item scores.
Analyses
Hierarchical regression analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) was used to test Hypotheses 1 through 4, allow-
ing us to first partial out the effects of the control variables (i.e., gender, race, age for Hypothesis 1, also
average hours worked and tenure for Hypotheses 2 through 4). These variables were used as controls
because past research has found relationships between them and some of the other independent variables
in the study (e.g., gender and OCB, Stamper & Van Dyne, 1999; tenure and work status, Stamper & Van
Dyne, 2001; tenure and POS, Wayne et al., 1997). Finally, we tested the mediational hypothesis using
the three sets of regression models suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986).
Results
Correlational results may be seen in Table 3. It is interesting to note that none of the control variables
(race, gender, and age) are significantly correlated with PIS. Additionally, the correlation between PIS
and POS is 0.60. As discussed in the prior section, we conducted a joint factor analysis of their items in
order to provide additional support for their inclusion as separate variables. The results of this analysis
revealed that, despite the high correlation between the overall factors, their items load cleanly on the
expected factors (see Table 2). Finally, as would be expected, the correlation between altruism and
production deviance is negative and significant (r ¼ 0.45).
Turning to a test of Hypothesis 1, with age, race, and gender used as control variables, both tenure
(F ¼ 1.30, p 5 0.10) and the average hours worked per week (F ¼ 2.16, p 5 0.10) failed to predict
differences in PIS, contrary to our prediction (see Table 4). Conversely, after entering all control vari-
ables into the hierarchical regression, we did find that high levels of perceived organizational support
were strongly associated with high levels of PIS (F ¼ 116.45, p 4 0.001, ¼ 0.58, R2 ¼ 0.32), as
was predicted in Hypothesis 2 (see Table 4).
Turning to outcomes of PIS, our next hypothesis predicted that PIS would be positively associated
with altruism, which was supported: (F ¼ 8.54, p 4 0.01, ¼ 0.18, R2 ¼ 0.03; see Table 5). The
fourth hypothesis, that PIS would be negatively associated with production deviance, was also sup-
ported: (F ¼ 11.92, p 4 0.01, ¼ 0.22, R2 ¼ 0.05).
Interestingly, both tenure and average hours worked were significant predictors of altruism along
with PIS. Thus, it appears that both types of status (actual and perceived) work in an additive fashion
in order to influence employees’ positive discretionary behaviors. However, neither tenure nor average
hours worked was a significant predictor of production deviance along with PIS.
Finally, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-stage model for testing mediation was used to examine the
last hypothesis, which predicted that PIS would mediate the relationships between POS and both OCB
and DWB. The first stage in this test examines whether the independent variable is significantly related
to the dependent variable(s). Formatting the regression similar to the prior hierarchical structures,
results reveal a significant relationship between POS and altruism (F ¼ 7.35, p 4 0.01, ¼ 0.16,
R2 ¼ 0.03) and production deviance (F ¼ 12.82, p 4 0.001, ¼ 0.22, R2 ¼ 0.05), thus meet-
ing the first condition of mediation (see Table 6).
The second stage in the Baron and Kenny mediation test examines whether the independent
variable is significantly related to the mediator. This condition was met with our test of Hypothesis 2,
886
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlational matrix1

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. Tenure 32.85 59.74
C. L. STAMPER AND S. S. MASTERSON
2. Race2 0.88 0.32 0.09

3. Gender3 0.75 0.44 0.18y 0.12z
4. Age 27.07 10.62 0.59* 0.02 0.21*
5. Average hours worked/week 29.80 8.75 0.09 0.17y 0.18y 0.17y
6. Perceived organizational support 3.54 0.67 0.02 0.12y 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.86
7. Altruism 3.71 0.79 0.31* 0.00 0.13z 0.24* 0.20* 0.15z 0.91
8. Production deviance 2.30 0.69 0.16z 0.18y 0.21* 0.06 0.03 0.22* 0.45* 0.78
9. Perceived insider status 3.71 0.74 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.60* 0.19y 0.21* 0.88
y z
*p < 0.001; p < 0.01; p < 0.05.
Notes:
n ¼ 257.
1
Bold numbers on the diagonal are coefficient alphas.
2
0 ¼ white; 1 ¼ other.
3
0 ¼ male; 1 ¼ female.
J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 875–894 (2002)

Table 4. Hierarchical regression results predicting perceived insider status (H1 and H2)
Step IV Beta F R2 R2
H1a. Tenure 1 Age 0.10 2.03 0.02 0.02

Gender 0.05
Race 0.09
2 Tenure 0.09 1.30 0.03 0.01
Overall F: 1.85; adjusted R2: 0.01
H1b. Average hours worked/week
1 Age 0.16z 1.90 0.03 0.03
Gender 0.04
Race 0.11k
Tenure 0.10
2 Average hours 0.10 2.16 0.04 0.01
Overall F: 1.96k adjusted R2: 0.02
H2. Perceived organizational support

1 Age 0.10 1.97 0.02 0.02
Gender 0.04
Race 0.10
2 Tenure 0.11 1.90 0.04 0.02
Average hours 0.10
3 POS 0.58* 116.45* 0.36 0.32
Overall F: 21.85*; adjusted R2: 0.35
*p < 0.001; y p < 0.01; z p < 0.05; kp < 0.10.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression results of perceived insider status predicting discretionary employee behavior (H3
and H4)
Step IV Beta F R2 R2
H3. Altruism
1 Age 0.22* 5.54* 0.07 0.07
Gender 0.08
Race 0.02
2 Tenure 0.23y 9.49* 0.14 0.07
Average hours 0.20y
3 PIS 0.18y 8.54y 0.17 0.03
H4. Production deviance

1 Age 0.00 6.82* 0.08 0.08
Gender 0.21*
Race 0.16y
2 Tenure 0.14 1.65 0.09 0.01
Average hours 0.02
3 PIS 0.22* 11.92* 0.14 0.05
*p < 0.001; y p < 0.01; z p < 0.05.
Table 6. Hierarchical regression results testing mediation (H5)

Step Variable POS only POS and PIS POS only POS and PIS
altruism altruism production dev. production dev.
1 Age 0.23*1 0.23* 0.02 0.00

Gender2 0.07 0.08 0.19y 0.21y
Ethnicity3 0.02 0.02 0.16y 0.16y
R2 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08
F 5.72* 5.53* 6.17* 6.70*
2 Tenure 0.23y 0.23y 0.15z 0.14k
Average hours worked 0.20y 0.20y 0.03 0.02
R2 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.01
F 10.05* 9.52* 2.02 1.68
3 POS 0.16y 0.08 0.22* 0.13k
PIS 0.13k 0.14k
R2 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.06
F 7.35y 4.87y 12.82* 7.47*
R2 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.15
Adjusted R2 0.15 0.05 0.11 0.12
F 7.83* 6.83* 6.11* 5.69*
*p < 0.001; y p < 0.01; z p < 0.05; kp < 0.10.
Notes:
1
Standardized beta coefficients.
2
0 ¼ male; 1 ¼ female.
3
0 ¼ white; 1 ¼ other.
in which the results supported a positive and significant relationship between POS and PIS
(see Table 4).
The final stage in the Baron and Kenny mediation test is to run a regression analysis in which both
the independent variable and the mediator are used to predict the dependent variable. The beta coeffi-
cients for the independent variable generated in this third stage are then compared to the beta coeffi-
cients from the first stage. If the coefficient has been reduced from stage one to stage three (due to the
presence of the mediator), but remains significant, the results indicate partial mediation, while a coef-
ficient reduced to non-significance is considered to indicate full mediation. We first ran the analysis
using both POS and PIS to predict altruism, followed by a separate test for the prediction of production
deviance. For altruism, the beta coefficient for POS decreased from 0.16 ( p 4 0.01) to 0.08
( p 5 0.10), becoming non-significant. However, the beta coefficient for PIS was only 0.13
( p 4 0.10). Thus, there is only a marginal finding indicating full mediation (see Table 6).
When the regression analysis was run with production deviance as the dependent variable, the beta
coefficient associated with POS remained marginally significant ( ¼ 0.13, p 4 0.10 compared to
¼ 0.22, p 4 0.001; see Table 6); similarly, the beta coefficient for PIS was marginally significant
( ¼ 0.14, p 4 0.10). Thus, our findings suggest marginal evidence for a partial mediation model in
which both POS and PIS partially mediate the effects of the other construct on production deviance.
Overall, the hypothesis received mixed support.
Discussion
This study goes beyond past research on employees’ actual inclusion in organizations to focus on
perceived insider status, exploring potential antecedents and behavioral consequences. Support for
our specific hypotheses was mixed, although we found evidence that perceived organizational support
influenced PIS, and that two types of discretionary employee behaviors were outcomes of PIS.
One interesting result of this study is that there is no support for actual inclusion in the organization
leading to PIS. In the past, researchers have used actual hours worked per week as a proxy measure of
organizational inclusion—the more hours worked, the more one is immersed or included in the orga-
nization (e.g., Hom, 1979). Moreover, tenure with the organization may be considered to be another
indicator of actual inclusion in the organization—the longer one is a member of the organization, the
more included one is (see Pfeffer & Baron, 1988, for temporal arguments). However, we found no
support for a relationship between either tenure or the average numbers of hours worked per week
and PIS. These results imply that factors other than one’s actual inclusion are important to perceiving
oneself to be an organizational insider. However, this finding may be limited to industries that rely
heavily on non-traditional workers (e.g., part-time or temporary employees). Specifically, for indus-
tries that employ a large percentage of part-time workers on a regular basis (such as the service sector,
and restaurants in particular), actual inclusion indicators, such as average hours worked per week or
tenure, may not be seen as associated with insider status. Therefore, organizations in these industries
may not need to be concerned about the negative consequences (e.g., less loyalty and effort, more
absenteeism and turnover) that may be associated with an employment relationship that is based more
on economic than social exchange as those in other, more traditional industries. In order to fully under-
stand the generalizability of the current findings, future research should focus on studying the impact
of such contextual factors on the formation of both PIS and POS.
Our results also demonstrated a distinction, as well as a significant and positive relationship,
between perceived organizational support and PIS. Although we are unable to distinguish causality
with our data, as the items for both variables were collected simultaneously on the same survey, we
believe there is good reason to suspect that perceived organizational support is an antecedent of PIS.
Just as past LMX research has discussed a supervisor’s treatment of employees as valued as a precursor
to in-group versus out-group status (e.g., Liden et al., 1997), an organization’s treatment of employees
as valued (i.e., high POS) should be a precursor to PIS. Despite this theoretical explanation, it is impor-
tant for future research to study these variables longitudinally in order to confirm their causal relation-
ship. However, our preliminary findings point to an interesting possibility; rather than actual inclusion,
it is the organization’s treatment of employees that influences their perceptions of inclusion. This find-
ing suggests that organizations can actively influence employees’ perceptions of inclusion through
altering their perceptions of support. For example, organizations can adopt fair procedures and prac-
tices (e.g., Masterson et al., 2000) and offer more developmental opportunities to employees (e.g.,
Wayne et al., 1997) in an effort to increase employees’ POS and, subsequently, their perceptions of
insider status.
In regard to the outcomes of PIS, we tested two types of discretionary behaviors as potential con-
sequences of PIS. Our results indicate that PIS is positively and significantly related to altruism (a
positive discretionary behavior) and negatively and significantly related to production deviance (a
negative discretionary behavior). Interestingly, measures of actual inclusion were significant predictors
of only positive discretionary behaviors. Such findings indicate that both actual and perceived inclu-
sion in the organization matter, and organizations must attend to both in order to maximize the pro-
ductive capacity of the firm.
Finally, our hypothesized model suggested that PIS may mediate the POS–outcome relation. Our
findings marginally support this argument for positive discretionary behavior, but were more complex
for negative discretionary behavior. This differential result may be explained by the fact that produc-
tion deviance was not as prevalent as altruism (mean of 2.30 versus 3.71), and thus it is more difficult to
detect a mediated relationship. However, our results could also be attributed to the possibility that per-
ceived insider status is more strongly related to altruism because they both are interpersonally focused
in nature, whereas production deviance could be considered an organizationally focused behavior

(e.g., Williams & Anderson, 1991). The proclivity to exhibit behavior that directly affects the organi-
zation may not be strongly affected by interpersonal phenomena. Future research should be designed
to test for these possibilities, in addition to testing for a more complex relationship, such as a reciprocal
one, between POS and PIS.
Limitations
As with any research, this study has several limitations that should be noted. First, although data were
collected from both employees and their supervisors, they were all collected at a single point in time.
We therefore cannot draw conclusions about causality, but rather can only talk about the general rela-
tionships between the variables of interest. Another potential limitation concerns the composition of
the sample of employees. Although the mean age of respondents is 27 years old, the median is only 22
to 23 years old, thus creating a very young sample that may differ from older workers. In addition, the
sample contains more women and Caucasians than would be expected according to general population
percentages. However, this sample is representative of the employees working within the restaurant
sector in the Midwest, and therefore we must be careful not to dismiss it summarily. Additionally,
employees were asked to voluntarily participate in the study, potentially resulting in a self-selection
bias in the final data set. However, given that only 20 out of 284 employees declined to participate
when given the chance (about 7 per cent), we do not believe that the effect of any such selection bias
would be substantial.
Finally, although data on employee discretionary behaviors were collected from supervisors,
thereby eliminating the problems associated with single source data, it can be questioned as to whether
supervisors are the best source for such ratings. For example, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) suggest that
peers often observe more of each other’s behaviors across a wider range of situations than do super-
visors, perhaps enabling a more accurate rating of OCB. Moreover, peers are often not subjected to
impression management tactics such as those directed at supervisors, reducing the potential for bias in
ratings of behavior and OCB (Organ & Konovsky, 1989). Also, it is possible that some managers in the
study had preconceived opinions and expectations regarding differences in work behavior for insiders
and outsiders. Perhaps some managers rated outsiders lower in citizenship behavior based on a biased
schema or stereotypes rather than on their actual behavior. Despite such concerns, we have confidence
in the employee behavior ratings provided by the supervisors given the nature of the restaurants studied
here. Only supervisors who worked directly with employees on a regular basis were asked to provide
data, to improve the probability that they had several opportunities to witness both types of behaviors
from employees.
Future research and conclusions
Despite some limitations, this research contributes to the management literature through demonstrat-
ing the importance of employees’ perceptions of insider status within the organization. The results
demonstrate that PIS is different than actual inclusion, and is related to POS. Furthermore, PIS is posi-
tively related to helping behavior and negatively related to deviant behavior, important extra-role beha-
viors organizations must control in order to function (Katz & Kahn, 1966). These results imply that
organizations must try to actively manage their employees’ perceptions of insider status in order to
reap positive outcomes for organizational functioning. How organizations can accomplish this goal
must be the target of future research.
Specifically, additional research must be conducted in order to better understand the antecedents and
consequences associated with PIS. For example, this study did not examine employees’ relationships
with their supervisors as a potential influence on PIS, but as key representatives of the organization,
supervisors may play an important role in their employees’ feelings of insider status. Furthermore,
coworkers may also factor into employees’ perceptions of being an insider or outsider. Research on
self-categorization theory and prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, Cooper-Shaw, & Holzworth, 1993; Hogg &
Hardie, 1991, 1992) may explain how employees develop PIS through conceptions about their social
identity in relation to coworkers. In addition, the organizational justice literature may provide some
additional insight into how employees develop perceptions of insider status. The group value model of
justice (e.g., Lind & Tyler, 1988) suggests that employees look to fair treatment as a signal of their
value to the group (i.e., organization) to which they belong. Thus, both fair organizational procedures
and interpersonal treatment within organizations may be strong influences on PIS.
Another potential area for research is empirically testing the distinctions and relationships between
PIS and other constructs that represent the employee–organization relationship. For example, it seems
likely that the type of exchange relationship (e.g., Blau, 1964) and psychological contract (e.g.,
Rousseau, 1995) will influence employees’ perceptions of insider status in the organization, as sug-
gested by previous work on employee relationships (e.g., Pfeffer & Baron, 1988; Tsui et al., 1995).
Similarly, there is reason to suspect that PIS in the organization may lead to increased identification
with the organization (e.g., Mael & Tetrick, 1992), as employees reconcile feelings of belongingness
with who they are. In the current study, we chose to specifically measure and compare PIS to both
actual inclusion and POS; however, in order to truly understand the role of PIS and the usefulness
of each of the conceptualizations of the employee–organization relationship, they must be studied
within the confines of a single research effort. In addition, further attempts should be made to integrate
the various conceptualizations into a comprehensive model of the relationship between employees and
their work organizations.
Beyond this, future research must broaden the outcome variables studied in association with PIS.
Employee attitudes and intentions, such as organizational commitment and turnover intentions, should
be examined in conjunction with PIS. The range of behaviors should also be widened to include other
types of OCB, DWB, in-role behavior, and actual turnover.
Finally, additional research should focus on better understanding how PIS is different from actual
inclusion. Although there was not a significant relationship between actual hours worked or tenure
with the organization (both forms of actual inclusion) and PIS, we must continue to test these
two to better understand how they are related and/or where the disconnect between the two
originates, perhaps in social networking. This will help organizations to better manage employee
perceptions of insider status, even during times when employees may be purposely externalized from
the firm.
When conducting future research, investigators must not overlook the importance of study context
in their findings. In the current study, we specifically examined service sector organizations and
employees. As discussed above, this particular context may have affected our findings related to actual
inclusion, since part-time workers are so prevalent in service industry jobs in the United States. These
results may or may not generalize to manufacturing or professional level jobs such as education, med-
ical, sales, and legal vocations. Also, different cultural and international contexts may limit the
generalizability of results. Comparative studies across professions, cultures, and industries are needed
in order to truly understand many of the constructs included in this research.
In summary, this paper has taken a first step in exploring the concept of PIS, or the extent to which
employees perceive themselves to be insiders within their organizations. Although there is still much
to be learned about this concept, our findings establish several important relationships between PIS and
the highly studied concepts of POS and discretionary employee behaviors, as well as support the
distinctiveness of PIS from POS. Overall, this study should provide a foundation for future research
aimed at understanding employee perceptions and behaviors within organizations.
Author biographies
Christina L. Stamper (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an Assistant Professor of Management

for the Haworth College of Business at Western Michigan University, USA. Her research focuses on
explaining various factors in employer–employee relationships (e.g., perceived organizational support,
work status differences, psychological contracts) and how they impact work attitudes and behavior.
Her work has appeared in several publications, including the Journal of Organizational Behavior
and Personnel Psychology.
Suzanne S. Masterson (Ph.D., University of Maryland) is an Assistant Professor of Management in
the University of Cincinnati’s College of Business Administration. She was recently appointed as a
CBA Research Fellow. Her research interests focus on fairness perceptions within organizations, spe-
cifically aimed at understanding the dimensions of fairness as well as the outcomes associated with
fairness for various organizational stakeholders. She also conducts research on service quality issues.
Her research has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Journal of Quality Management, and Advances in the Management of Organizational Quality.
References
Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: influences on subordinate
performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 299–322.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social-psychological research.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bennett, R., & Stamper, C. L. (2001). Corporate citizenship and deviancy: a study of discretionary work behavior.
In S. Craig, Galbraith, & Mike Ryan (Eds.), Strategies and organizations in transition (Vol. 3, pp. 269–290).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, Ltd.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men’s and women’s networks: a study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 28, 327–343.
Bureau Of Labor Statistics. (1998). The Employment Situation News Release: Selected employment indicators,
March [Online]. Available: http : //stats:bls:gov/news:release/empsit:t04:htm [8 November 1999].
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd
edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee
diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25,
53–62.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings, & B. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 4, 249–270.
Hipple, S. (1998). Contingent work: results from the second survey. Monthly Labor Review, 121, 22–35.
Hogg, M. A., & Hardie, E. A. (1991). Social attraction, personal attraction, and self-categorization: a field study.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 175–180.
Hogg, M. A., & Hardie, E. A. (1992). Prototypicality, conformity, and depersonalized attraction: a self-
categorization analysis of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 41–56.
Hogg, M. A., Cooper-Shaw, L., & Holzworth, D. W. (1993). Group prototypicality and depersonalized attraction
in small interactive groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 452–465.
Hom, P. W. (1979). Effects of job peripherality and personal characteristics on the job satisfaction of part-time
workers. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 551–565.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework. Academy
of Management Review, 18, 56–87.
Inkeles, A. (1969). Participant citizenship in six developing countries. American Political Science Review, 63,
1120–1141.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Schmidt, K. (1997). Contingent employment in organizations: part-time, temporary, and
subcontracting relations. In A. L. Kalleberg, D. Knoke, P. Marsden, & J. Spaeth (Eds.), Organizations in
America: Analyzing their structures and human resource practices (pp. 253–275). New York: Sage.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: the past and potential for
the future. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 15, pp. 47–119).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying organizational identification. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 52, 813–824.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: the
differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
738–748.
McClurg, L. N. (1999). Organisational commitment in the temporary-help service industry. Journal of applied
Management Studies, 8, 5–26.
Miller, H. E., & Terborg, J. R. (1979). Job attitudes of part-time and full-time employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64, 380–386.
Naumann, S. E., Bennett, N., Bies, R. J., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Laid off, but still loyal: the influence of perceived
justice and organizational support. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 356–368.
Nollen, S. D., Axel, H. (1995). Managing contingent workers: how to reap the benefits and reduce the risks. New
York: AMACOM.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.
Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating
the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 34–40.
Peters, L. H., Jackofsky, E. F., & Salter, J. R. (1981). Predicting turnover: a comparison of part-time and full-time
employees. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 89–98.
Pfeffer, J., & Baron, J. N. (1988). Taking the workers back out: recent trends in the structuring of employment. In
B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 257–303). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects of followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Rousseau D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten
agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross discipline view
of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: making sense of the past and present as a
prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234–279.
Sherer, P. D. (1996). Toward an understanding of the variety in work arrangements: the organization and labor
relationships framework. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 3,
pp. 99–122). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (1999). Diversity at work: do men and women differ in their organizational
citizenship behavior? Performance Improvement Quarterly (Special Issue: Embracing Diversity), 12, 59–76.
Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: a field study of
restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 517–536.
Stamper, C. L. (2002). The importance of perceived organizational support to the decision to exhibit deviant
workplace behavior. Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, presented at the SMA annual
conference in Atlanta, GA.
Thomas, H. D. C., & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts during organizational
socialization: a study of recruits entering the British Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 745–767.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Hite, J. P. (1995). Choice of employee–organization relationship:
influence of external and internal organizational factors. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resource management (Vol. 13, pp. 117–151). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee–
organization relationship: does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40,
1069–1121.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: construct
redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp.
215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange:
a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The
role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27, 213–229.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 7, 601–617.

2002 Stamper Insider-Outsider JOB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2002 Stamper Insider-Outsider JOB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2002 Stamper Insider-Outsider JOB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 875–894 (2002)

Insider or outsider? How employee

Received 17 April 2002

Perceived Insider Status

Actual inclusion and perceived insider status

Perceived insider status and perceived organizational support

Behavioral consequences of perceived insider status

Figure 1. Theoretical model of main study constructs

Participants and procedure

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 875–894 (2002)

Table 2. Factor analysis with POS and PIS items

1. POS2 0.73 0.16 9.77E-02 6.47 (26.9% of variance)

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlational matrix1

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. Race2 0.88 0.32 0.09

J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 875–894 (2002)

H1a. Tenure 1 Age 0.10 2.03 0.02 0.02

H2. Perceived organizational support

H4. Production deviance

Table 6. Hierarchical regression results testing mediation (H5)

1 Age 0.23*1 0.23* 0.02 0.00

in nature, whereas production deviance could be considered an organizationally focused behavior

Future research and conclusions

Christina L. Stamper (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an Assistant Professor of Management

You might also like

1 Age 0.231 0.23 0.02 0.00