This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Haley, H. Articles by Sidanius, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Person-Organization Congruence and the Maintenance of Group-Based Social Hierarchy: A Social Dominance Perspective

Department of Psychology, UCLA

Jim Sidanius

Department of Psychology, UCLA, Sidanius{at}psych.ucla.edu

Using vocational choice theory and social dominance theory as guiding frameworks, this paper examines the interrelationships between the types of social institutions that a person occupies, on the one hand, and the sociopolitical attitudes and behavioral predispositions that a person displays, on the other. Beginning with Holland (1959, 1966), numerous researchers have documented the fact that people’s work-related values tend to match the values of their work environments. Researchers have also found, as we might expect, that this value match yields superior job performance and greater employee satisfaction. Social dominance theory has proposed an important expansion of this research: people’s sociopolitical attitudes (e.g. anti-egalitarianism) should also be compatible, or congruent, with their institutional environments (e.g. schools, workplaces). A growing body of research supports this claim. Specifically, recent research has shown that hierarchy-enhancing (HE) organizations (e.g. police forces) tend to be occupied by those with anti-egalitarian beliefs, while hierarchy-attenuating (HA) organizations (e.g. civil liberties organizations) tend to be occupied by those with relatively democratic beliefs. This research has also provided evidence for five (non-mutually exclusive) processes underlying this institutional assortment: self-selection, institutional selection, institutional socialization, differential reward, and differential attrition. This paper reviews the literature bearing on each of these processes, and suggests key paths for future research.

Key Words: anti-egalitarianism • college major • institutions • organizations • person-environment fit • social dominance orientation • social dominance theory • social hierarchy • social roles • socialization • vocational choice

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 8, No. 2, 187-203 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430205051067


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?