To Compare Is Human: A Review of Social Comparison Theory in Organizational Settings

Abstract

Social comparisons are one of the most ubiquitous behaviors that individuals, groups, and firms undertake. In particular, social comparison theory is based upon the premise that actors are motivated to engage in comparisons and that decisions throughout this process impact employees’ core self-evaluations, team relations, executives’ behaviors, firm prestige, and more. However, despite the prevalence of the phenomenon—and thereby the frequent application of the theory in organizational studies—a synopsis of the theory’s underpinnings and extant findings remains absent. Here, we present a state-of-the-art review that summarizes the theory’s history and mechanics and critically examines how social comparison theory has been applied in organizational studies across multiple levels of analysis. In particular, we identify several problems within the literature, including patterns of theoretical imprecision when applying the theory, lopsided attention paid to the micro-level of analysis, and an underappreciation of subjective comparisons. In addition to discussing the extant literature and common methodological approaches, we present a simplified model of social comparisons. Based on this new theory-building, we discuss ways the field can move forward to reconcile some of the identified problems.