Managers are Humans, too: How Social Approval Concerns Lead to Unequal Task Allocation
Access to this document is restricted. Some items have been embargoed at the request of the author, but will be made publicly available after the "No Access Until" date.
During the embargo period, you may request access to the item by clicking the link to the restricted file(s) and completing the request form. If we have contact information for a Cornell author, we will contact the author and request permission to provide access. If we do not have contact information for a Cornell author, or the author denies or does not respond to our inquiry, we will not be able to provide access. For more information, review our policies for restricted content.
Task allocation is a common job requirement; however, previous research finds that managers often feel anxious and guilty about overburdening subordinates when delegating (Akinola et al., 2018). Across five studies, I demonstrate that managers assign additional tasks to employees who like them more (vs. less), above and beyond performance. I also show that this preference is influenced by managers’ social approval concerns but not by expected compliance. Moreover, I show that this preference increases in high-stakes contexts where managers’ social approval concerns are heightened. This research makes theoretical contributions to the task allocation literature by demonstrating that managers use how much their employees like them as a cue when deciding how to allocate additional tasks. Additionally, this research demonstrates how managers’ social approval concerns are consequential motivators of task allocation decisions. There are practical implications for managers as well, who should be mindful of how their social approval goals can lead to the inequitable assignment of additional work.