Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study
of Justice, Social Exchange, and Citizenship
Behavior: The Target Similarity Model†
James J. Lavelle*
Department of Management, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019
Deborah E. Rupp
Department of Psychology and the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820
Joel Brockner
Management Division, Columbia University, Uris Hall, New York, NY 10025
An emerging trend within the organizational justice, social exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior literatures is that employees maintain distinct perceptions about, and direct
different attitudes and behaviors toward, multiple foci such as the organization, supervisors, and
coworkers. However, these multifoci developments have progressed, for the most part, independently of one another. Thus, to gain a more complete conceptualization of the employee experience, this review brings these respective literatures together. Specifically, the authors (a) review
and organize multifoci research and theory in justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior, (b) develop a “target similarity” model to provide a theoretical framework for conceptualizing and integrating multifoci research, and (c) offer suggestions for future multifoci research.
Keywords: organizational justice; social exchange theory; organizational citizenship behavior
†We thank the editor, Russell Cropanzano, for his valuable comments on this article.
*Corresponding author. Tel: 817-272-3854; fax: 817-272-3122.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, December 2007 841-866
DOI: 10.1177/0149206307307635
© 2007 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
841
842
Journal of Management / December 2007
An emerging trend within the organizational justice, social exchange, and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) literatures is that employees maintain distinct perceptions about,
and direct meaningfully different attitudes and behaviors toward, multiple organizational
foci. For example, the social exchange literature suggests that people can have distinct social
exchange relationships with the organization as a whole, and with specific individuals or
groups within the organization (e.g., supervisors and coworkers; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). The organizational justice literature has taken a similar perspective, arguing that employees judge how fairly they are treated by multiple entities
such as supervisors and the organization itself (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Finally, citizenship behavior researchers have also followed this line of argument, suggesting that employees can selectively direct citizenship behavior toward the organization or toward certain
individuals (e.g., coworkers or supervisors) within the organization (LePine, Erez, &
Johnson, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991).
In this review, we seek to gain a more complete conceptualization of the employee experience by explicitly recognizing the different relationships maintained by employees with
individuals and groups internal and external to the organization, including the organization
itself. Although important contributions related to the multifoci perspective have been made
in the social exchange, justice, and citizenship behavior literatures, these developments
have progressed, for the most part, independently of one another. Thus, to capture the more
complete picture we seek, this review brings these respective literatures together. In this
effort, we have two primary objectives. First, we identify and describe key multifoci developments in the justice, social exchange, and citizenship literatures. Second, we organize
and integrate multifoci research and theory in these literatures through the development of
a “target similarity” model grounded in the social exchange literature. Our review begins
by providing an overview of multifoci developments in organizational justice, the first component of the target similarity model.
Organizational Justice
Research conducted across a variety of contexts (e.g., layoffs, drug testing, and pay
cuts) in both laboratory and field settings demonstrates the importance of treating employees in a fair manner (Konovsky, 2000). Recent reviews and meta-analytic studies examining justice at the individual level indicate fairness is a correlate or predictor of a number
of notable organizational outcomes. For example, perceptions of fairness have been positively associated with favorable employee attitudes and behaviors including organizational
commitment, organizational support, OCBs, work performance, and trust in management
(e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001;
Konovsky, 2000). However, when treated unfairly, employees are likely to react in unfavorable ways such as engaging in counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., damaging
company property or spreading rumors), turnover, and theft (Colquitt et al., 2001;
Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001).
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
843
Traditional Approaches to the Study of Justice
The traditional approach to conceptualizing and measuring justice is according to the
form an injustice takes, and the resulting justice judgments have been referred to as “types”
of justice. Research has found that employees make distinct evaluations regarding the fairness of the outcomes they receive (distributive justice [DJ]; Adams, 1965), the fairness of
the procedures that lead to those outcomes (procedural justice [PJ]; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut
& Walker, 1975), and the interpersonal treatment bestowed in the delivery of said procedures
(interactional justice [IJ]; Bies & Moag, 1986). More recent research (Greenberg, 1993) has
further shown that IJ can be divided into fairness perceptions about the information delivered
in the implementation of a procedure (informational justice) and the dignity and respect of
the interpersonal treatment bestowed on employees, typically by management (interpersonal
justice). Empirical evidence has lent support for both four-component (distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal) and three-component (distributive, procedural,
interactional) models of organizational justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt,
2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). Indeed, decades of research confirms that when asked to,
employees can make distinct judgments about these types of fairness.
Multifoci Justice
More recently, research and theory has suggested that employees not only consider the
different types of justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional) but also consider
the agent of the situation that is perceived as fair or unfair (Cropanzano et al., 2001). This
research asks the question of whether it is indeed distinct outcomes, procedures, and interactions that are salient in the minds of employees, or if rather employees naturally focus
their justice judgments on those that they see as responsible for the extent of fairness that
they are experiencing. Consequently, the multifoci model of organizational justice argues
that it is necessary for research to explicitly specify the source of justice.
Although some research, such as that conducted from a system–agent perspective (Bies
& Moag, 1986; Tyler & Bies, 1990) has argued that employees hold systems (i.e., the organization) as responsible for PJ, and hold agents (e.g., supervisors) responsible for IJ (for
similar approaches, also see Blader & Tyler, 2003; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002;
Lavelle, 1999; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006;
Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005), the multifoci perspective holds that employees can
judge the DJ, PJ, and IJ of any party, as long as the employee has reason to believe that the
entity in question was indeed responsible for (i.e., the source of) the fairness that employees received (Liao & Rupp, 2005; Rupp, Bashshur, & Liao, 2007a, 2007b; Rupp, &
Cropanzano, 2002).1 What is important for the current investigation is that employees might
simultaneously judge one party to be fair while perceiving another party as unfair.
Organizational and supervisory foci. Byrne (1999) was an early proponent of the utility
of crossing the source and type of justice.2 She questioned prior research stating that the
844
Journal of Management / December 2007
organization was the sole deliverer of PJ and that supervisors were the sole deliverers of IJ.
Recognizing that supervisors often develop and use their own decision-making procedures,
and that organizations are often anthropomorphized by employees (Levinson, 1965), she
proposed and tentatively confirmed a fully crossed, four-factor model of justice, consisting
of organizational PJ, organizational IJ, supervisory PJ, and supervisory IJ. This multifoci
factor structure was further confirmed at the individual level by Rupp and Cropanzano
(2002), and at the group level by Liao and Rupp (2005).
Coworkers (peers) as sources of justice. Given the growing prominence of teams along with
the flattening of organizational hierarchies, management scholars have become increasingly
interested in the effects of group processes on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. As such,
there exists a slow growth of research focusing on how fairly teams or groups are treated by
authorities or other groups (for recent research in this area, see Colquitt, 2004; Roberson &
Colquitt, 2005; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007). This is often referred to as team justice or
justice climate. Although this is an important line of research, it is not our focus here. That
is, our focus is not how group members are treated by external parties, but rather on how
fairly individual employees feel they are treated by those they typically work with on a regular basis who are of roughly equal status (teammates or coworkers as opposed to those of
higher status such as supervisors). This has been referred to as intraunit justice by
Cropanzano, Li, and James (2007), and there are a small number of studies suggesting that
coworkers are a viable source of justice whose influence is worthy of our research attention (e.g.,
Branscombe, Spears, Ellemer, & Doosje, 2002; Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998; Lavelle
et al., 2007). Moreover, as organizations continue to emphasize the use of self-managing and
autonomous project teams (e.g., client engagement teams), coworkers are becoming an
increasingly important source of fairness of all kinds. For example, such teams often develop
and use their own decision-making procedures pertaining to key team issues including workload allocations, scheduling, and task responsibilities, to name a few.
Customers as a source of justice. The justice literature has also recently incorporated constituencies external to the organization as a source of justice. Rupp, Holub, and Grandey (in
press) have argued that in the customer service industry, customers can often deliver unfair
information and interpersonal treatment to service employees. These authors further posited
that customer injustice would impact employees’ ability to comply with the emotional display
rules sanctioned by the organization (termed emotional labor; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993).
In other words, unfair treatment coming from customers elicits negative emotions in employees that are counter to the emotions they are expected to display (e.g., smiling face, pleasant
demeanor). This requires the employee to surface act, and depletes cognitive and emotional
resources needed to perform other essential job duties. These predictions have been supported
in two empirical studies. Rupp and Spencer (2006) conducted a laboratory experiment in
which they simulated a customer service call center in the laboratory. Research participants
were trained to be call center employees, and took calls from several (confederate) customers
who were either fair or unfair. Results revealed that participants’ emotional labor was higher
for those participants who were treated unfairly by customers. This effect was replicated in a
field study of German bank tellers (Rupp, Holub, Spencer, & Sonntag, in press).
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
845
Summary. There has been growing recognition of the importance of different sources of
justice to employee perceptions of fairness including the organization, supervisors, coworkers, and customers. Emphasizing the importance of the multifoci perspective of justice, Rupp
et al. (2007b: 360) suggest that “failing to specify the source of justice in justice measures,
or averaging across sources, could at worst lead to spurious results, or at best yield justice
effects that are difficult to interpret.” We elaborate on this point later when reviewing supportive studies in the context of our target similarity model.
Where the justice literature has taken an important turn is its integration with social
exchange theory (Cropanzano & Rupp, in press). Indeed, justice is said to engender long-term,
social exchange relationships, and social exchange has been shown to mediate justice effects.
The justice literature has embraced several indicators of social exchange, such as psychological contracts, leader–member exchange (LMX), commitment, support, and trust (e.g.,
Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano & Byrne, 2000; Konovsky,
2000). Consistent with developments in the justice literature, developments in the social
exchange literature suggest that there exist a number of different parties with whom employees
form relationships. It is these multifoci exchanges to which we now turn.
Social Exchange Relationships
P. M. Blau (1964) differentiated between economic and social exchange, arguing that economic exchange involves more of a short-term, quid pro quo exchange of tangible resources.
Alternatively, social exchange is often described as subjective, relationship-oriented interactions between employers and employees characterized by an exchange of socio-emotional
benefits, mutual trust and commitment, a long-term focus, and unspecified, open-ended commitments (P. M. Blau, 1964; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). Although traditionally
about the nature of exchanges (P. M. Blau, 1964), more contemporary formulations of social
exchange theory speak more explicitly about the nature of relationships (e.g., Konovsky &
Pugh, 1994; Mills & Clark, 1982; Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998;
Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Organ, 1988b, 1990; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). In this regard,
“relative to those in economic exchange relationships, individuals in social exchange relationships tend to more strongly identify with the person or entity with which they are
engaged” (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002: 926). Thus, high quality social exchange relationships
are likely to motivate employees to engage in behaviors that have favorable consequences for
the organization over time in part because employees tend to identify the organization’s wellbeing with their own and because they may feel a relational obligation to support the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 1994).
Social exchange relationships, their close cousins, and relational psychological contracts
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1995) include both a notion of a relationship, and
some notion of shared obligation in which both parties perceive responsibilities to each other
(Cropanzano & Byrne, 2000). Whereas few variables within the organizational behavior literature perfectly meet these criteria, some come close, and as a result have been used as proxies
for the quality of social exchange between an employee and another party at work. Such
variables include commitment (Meyer, 1997), trust (Sitkin & Roth, 1993), LMX (Graen &
846
Journal of Management / December 2007
Uhl-Bien, 1995), identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Riketta, 2005), and perceived support
(Moorman et al., 1998). What is especially exciting is that these variables, as they are traditionally measured, not only reflect a multifoci perspective (i.e., with reference made to either
the organization—such as with organizational commitment and perceived organizational support (POS)—or the supervisor—such as with LMX and supervisory trust), but advances within
these subliteratures have created multifoci versions of each individual variable. This reflects the
multifoci notion of social exchange which suggests that employees can and do form multiple
relationships at work with multiple parties (the organization as a whole, managers, coworkers,
etc.; Coleman, 1993; Cropanzano, Chrobot-Mason, Rupp, & Prehar, 2004).
This notion is well illustrated through Reichers’s (1985) work on multifoci commitment.
Commitment has been shown to be a strong predictor of a variety of important workplace
outcomes (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Although commitment
has historically been separated into the three facets of continuance, normative, and affective
commitment (see Allen & Meyer, 1990), it is affective commitment that seems to be the most
robust predictor of behavioral criteria, and, for the purposes of our present investigation, is
the most indicative of a social exchange relationship.
Reichers (1985) was one of the first to explicitly argue that the commitment literature’s traditional focus on the organization as a “monolithic, undifferentiated entity” that elicits commitment is an incomplete conceptualization of employee attachment at work. Informed by the
literatures in organizational theory, reference groups, and role theory, she argued that employee
commitment could be more precisely understood as “a collection of multiple commitments to
various groups that comprise the organization” (Reichers, 1985: 469). She suggested that when
researchers examine the question, “What is it that employees in organizations are committed
to?” a number of different foci or groups in addition to the global organization itself need to be
considered. Reichers suggested that relevant foci include, but are not limited to, coworkers,
supervisors, top management, unions, customers, professions, and the organization itself.
Reichers suggested such groups could be broadly categorized as central and peripheral foci of
commitment. For example, drawing on the notion of psychological proximity, she argued that
(depending on the nature of the employee’s job) coworkers and supervisors may be more proximal, whereas unions, customers, and professions might be more distal foci of commitment.
Reichers’s (1985) reconceptualization of commitment has been referred to as the “multiple commitments perspective” (e.g., Becker, 1992) and as the “multiple constituencies perspective” (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) of employee attachment to the organization.
Empirical studies examining a variety of different foci are supportive of Reichers’s framework. For example, Becker (1992) interviewed employees of a military supply company to
understand their perceptions of relevant and meaningful groups and constituencies within the
organization. Informed by the interviews and Reichers’s theorizing, Becker identified top
management, immediate supervisors, the work group, and the organization itself as relevant
foci of commitment. Becker then found that commitment to the work group, supervisor, and
top management, taken as a set, accounted for variance in key dependent variables such as
turnover intentions, satisfaction, and prosocial behavior, above and beyond that explained by
commitment to the organization itself.
Subsequent commitment research has continued to make these types of multifoci distinctions. One set of research has focused on teams, supervisors, and organizations as foci.
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
847
Consistent with Becker (1992), Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert (1996) found through
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that employees differentiated between commitment to
the organization and commitment to the supervisor. Moreover, Becker et al. found that commitment to the supervisor was positively associated with employee performance whereas
commitment to the organization was not (note these two foci of commitment were substantially related to one another, r = .57). In a study of self-directed sewing teams, Bishop and
Scott (2000) showed that not only do team and organizational commitment load on separate
factors, they also have differential antecedents. For example, satisfaction with coworkers was
a stronger predictor of team commitment than of organizational commitment.
Other research has focused on more distal or external foci. For example, in a sample of
unionized employees of a newspaper organization, Fukami and Larson (1984) found that
commitment to the organization and commitment to the union were predicted by different
antecedents. G. J. Blau’s (1985) research on nurses found that organizational commitment and
professional or career commitment (cf. Morrow, 1983) were also associated with different
antecedents and consequences as, for example, organizational tenure predicted organizational
commitment, whereas tenure in the nursing profession predicted professional commitment.
Likewise, intent to quit the organization was only predicted by commitment to the organization, whereas intent to quit the profession was only predicted by professional commitment.
Drawing from Reichers’s (1985) theorizing, Gregersen and Black (1992) examined factors
associated with expatriates’ commitment to their foreign assignments and to their parent
company. These researchers found factor analytic evidence supporting the distinctiveness of
these factors, and also found a differential set of antecedents to predict the two constructs. For
example, organizational tenure predicted organizational commitment, whereas international
experience predicted commitment to the local operation. In addition, role-conflict was negatively related to commitment to the organization but was unrelated to commitment to the foreign operation. Taken together, the studies reviewed above offer empirical support that
employees demonstrate commitment toward a variety of foci, and suggest that examining commitment to these various foci can improve our understanding of key employee behaviors.
But as we noted above, commitment is merely one example of the many ways in which
multifoci social exchanges relationships have been operationalized. Related literatures have
also shown that employees differentiate and react to the level of social exchange they perceive themselves having with the organization (as reflected in POS, organizational trust, and
organizational identification), the supervisor (as reflected in perceived supervisory support
[PSS], supervisory trust, and LMX), and the team (as reflected in perceived team support
[PTS], work-unit identification, and team member exchange [TMX]; Aryee, Budhwar, &
Chen, 2002; Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000; Masterson et al., 2000; Olkkonen &
Lipponen, 2006; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003;
Tekleab et al., 2005; Walumbwa & Cropanzano, 2007; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick,
2002). Given these unique relationships, it is possible for employees to experience a high
level of social exchange with one party (e.g., coworkers) and at the same time report relatively low levels of social exchange with another (e.g., the organization).
From a multifoci perspective, an employee’s perceived social exchange with a particular
party should impact their behaviors directed at that party (Masterson et al., 2000). One particularly important employee behavior is that of citizenship behavior, a construct that Organ
848
Journal of Management / December 2007
and colleagues developed based on a model of social exchange (Organ, 1990; Organ &
Konovsky, 1989), that has been found to be predicted by many of the social exchange variables mentioned above, such as trust, commitment, LMX, and POS (e.g., Ilies, Nahrgang, &
Morgeson, 2007; LePine et al., 2002; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). It is this construct of
citizenship behavior, and its multifoci analogs, to which we now turn.
Citizenship Behavior3
As we explained above, social exchange theory provides a framework for understanding
multifoci phenomena. That is, the quality of social exchange between the employee and
another party at work will lead the employee to engage in positive behaviors directed at that
party (Cropanzano & Rupp, in press). Of all possible behavioral dependent variables that
could be modeled into this phenomenon, organizational citizenship has made perhaps the
largest strides in formulating multifoci treatments of the construct. In this section, we review
this literature to place the final stepping stones on our path toward our proposed target
similarity framework.
Organ (1988a) defined OCB as discretionary, voluntary behaviors that are not part of an
employee’s specified role requirements nor formally rewarded by the organization. In aggregate, citizenship behavior is said to contribute to organizational effectiveness by enhancing
the “social and psychological context that supports task performance” (Organ, 1997: 91).
Now largely considered to be synonymous with contextual performance (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997), and to include similar constructs such as prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986) and organizational spontaneity (George &
Brief, 1992), such behaviors are important because it is difficult, if not impossible, to specify all of the required employee behaviors that will contribute to organizational effectiveness,
especially during times of change and uncertainty (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Although citizenship behavior has most often been treated as a dependent variable at the individual level
of analysis (which is our focus here), an increasing number of studies have found that citizenship predicts productivity and profitability at higher levels of analysis (Ehrhart, Bliese, &
Thomas, 2006; Koys, 2001; Podsakoff, Ahearn, & MacKenzie, 1997).
Dimensionality of Citizenship Behavior
Organ’s (1988a) five-component model of citizenship behavior is one of the most wellrecognized and influential taxonomies in the literature (LePine et al., 2002). Informed in part
by earlier work with his colleagues (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near,
1983), this model emphasizes different ways in which employees can demonstrate citizenship behavior: (a) altruism, defined as behaviors directed toward a specific person such as
helping coworkers with work-related tasks; (b) conscientiousness, which represents behaviors that go above and beyond minimal expectations of good workers in areas such as attendance and conservation of resources; (c) sportsmanship, which refers to behaviors such as
tolerating minor inconveniences without complaining; (d) courtesy, which involves anticipatory acts that help someone else prevent a problem such as providing relevant information in
advance; and (e) civic virtue, which refers to constructive involvement or participation in the
overall organization and may include attending meetings regarding the organization.
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
849
A number of other citizenship behavior dimensions have since been proposed in the literature. For example, drawing from political philosophy, Van Dyne and colleagues’ (1994)
taxonomy includes obedience, loyalty, social participation, advocacy participation, and functional participation. Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) taxonomy refers to interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism as forms of citizenship
behaviors. As a final example, Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) identified two dimensions
of contextual performance including interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. The
dimensions identified here represent just a handful of citizenship behavior components suggested by researchers over the years. In fact, according to a review by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000), nearly 30 types of citizenship behavior have been
identified in the literature. Because of such a proliferation of constructs and the content overlap in many of these dimensions, researchers have become interested in identifying ways to
clarify citizenship behavior’s nomological network.
Multifoci Citizenship Behavior: Specifying the Intended Beneficiary
One promising approach that has gained increased attention in the literature is to explicitly differentiate forms of citizenship according to the intended beneficiary. Specifying the
beneficiary reflects earlier theorizing by Brief and Motowidlo (1986) who argued that
employees can purposefully direct their prosocial behavior with the intent to benefit particular parties (e.g., peers, supervisors, customers, groups, or organizations). In a similar vein,
Organ (1988a) noted early on that one way to differentiate altruism from conscientiousness
is that altruism is directed toward specific individuals.
Organ’s taxonomy. Many citizenship scholars suggest that each of the content dimensions
of Organ’s taxonomy can be differentiated according to the most proximal beneficiary of the
behavior. That is, based on their definitions and operationalizations, each dimension can be
viewed as either organizationally or individually directed forms of citizenship behavior.
Specifically, individuals are typically considered the most direct beneficiary of altruism and
courtesy, whereas the organization is viewed as the beneficiary of civic virtue, sportsmanship,
and conscientiousness (cf. Ilies et al., 2007; LePine et al., 2002; Robinson & Morrison, 1995).
OCBO and OCBI. Williams and Anderson (1991) conceptualized and labeled citizenship
behaviors directed toward the organization as OCBO, and citizenship behaviors directed
toward individuals (including coworkers and supervisors) as OCBI, where the “O” refers to
the organization and the “I” refers to individuals. These authors found that OCBO, OCBI,
and in-role behavior loaded on different factors. Although OCBO and OCBI were correlated
at r = .56, Williams and Anderson found that intrinsic job satisfaction cognitions (e.g., autonomy) predicted OCBI but not OCBO, whereas extrinsic job satisfaction cognitions (e.g.,
pay) predicted OCBO but not OCBI. Employing Williams and Anderson’s scales, Turnley,
Bolino, Lester, and Bloodgood (2003) examined the effects of psychological contract fulfillment (on the part of the organization) on both OCBO and OCBI. Consistent with expectations, psychological contract fulfillment was more strongly associated with OCBO than
with OCBI (OCBO and OCBI were correlated at r = .58).
850
Journal of Management / December 2007
McNeely and Meglino (1994) developed scales to assess extra-role behaviors that explicitly benefited individuals but not the organization (e.g., assisting coworkers with personal
problems), behaviors that benefited the organization but not individuals (e.g., expressing loyalty toward the organization), and role-prescribed behaviors (e.g., using work time wisely)
as they pertain to the job of a secretary. Results indicated that although these three forms of
citizenship behavior were correlated, they also had unique antecedents. For example, reward
equity (DJ) was correlated with organizationally directed citizenship (labeled by McNeeley
& Meglino as prosocial organizational behavior) but not with individually directed citizenship (labeled as prosocial individual behavior). In addition, concern for others and empathy
each positively correlated with individually directed citizenship but neither was related to
organizationally directed citizenship or role-prescribed prosocial behavior.
Supervisor-directed citizenship behavior. In their study differentiating procedural from IJ,
Malatesta and Byrne (1997) argued that employees could direct their individually oriented
citizenship behavior specifically toward their supervisor (OCBS). As such, they further
refined Williams and Anderson’s (1991) measure of OCBI by specifying only the supervisor
as the recipient of the behavior for each scale item. These authors found that IJ predicted
OCBS (but not OCBO) whereas PJ did not predict OCBS or OCBO. These citizenship scales
were also used by Rupp and Cropanzano (2002). Their results further confirmed the distinction between citizenship directed at the supervisor and citizenship directed at the organization. These factors correlated at r = .52 and supervisory social exchange robustly predicted
citizenship directed at both foci, highlighting the especially important role played by
employee–supervisor relationships.
Citizenship directed at coworkers (peers). As implied by the approach taken by Malatesta
and Byrne (1997), employees can also direct their citizenship behavior explicitly toward
peers. That is, fellow employees of roughly equal status including coworkers, team
members, and work group members can be viewed as unique recipients of individually
directed citizenship behavior. Prior studies focusing on peers as recipients of citizenship
have used a variety of different labels for this behavior including OCBI.
In a recent study, Lee and Allen (2002) suggested, “OCBs that benefit the organization are
more cognitive driven than affect driven. In contrast, behavior that is beneficial to individuals
might have a stronger affective, than cognitive underpinning” (p. 133). Consistent with a
focus on peers, Lee and Allen explicitly excluded behavior directed toward the supervisor in
their conceptualization and measurement of individually directed citizenship. Suggesting that
organizationally directed citizenship and coworker-directed citizenship are unique constructs,
Lee and Allen found that PJ was significantly and positively correlated with organizationally
directed citizenship but not with coworker-directed citizenship (these dimensions were correlated at r = .45). Moreover, results showed that positive affect predicted coworker-directed citizenship but not organizationally directed citizenship. However, before concluding that the
latter dimension is more cognitively driven than the former (at least in terms of justice cognitions), it should be noted that peers such as work group members were not included as a
source of justice in their study. As such, the possibility remains that coworker fairness may
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
851
still contribute unique variance to the prediction of coworker-directed citizenship as our target similarity model, described in a later section, will suggest.
Skarlicki and Latham’s (1996) study of the effects of fairness training in a union context
provides additional support for the distinction between organization- and coworker-focused
citizenship, which measured union members’ citizenship directed toward both the union as
an organization, and toward fellow union members. Using citizenship measures largely representative of civic virtue and altruism (Organ, 1988a), Skarlicki and Latham found through factor analysis that the two dimensions loaded on unique constructs. Moreover, they found that a
fairness measure combining aspects of organization-focused PJ and union representativefocused IJ correlated with organization-directed citizenship but not with peer-directed
justice (and these two justice facets were correlated at r = .50). A comparable pattern of
results was found in Skarlicki and Latham’s (1997) follow-up study using similar measures.
For example, although organizationally and peer-directed citizenship (in the context of a
union) correlated at r = .55, fairness (combining procedural and IJ perceptions about sources
other than peers) correlated with organizational citizenship but not with coworker citizenship.
Summary and integration. The conceptualizations of OCB reviewed above demonstrate
an increasing interest in specifying the intended beneficiary of citizenship behavior. A
number of different approaches have been used in this regard including categorizing Organ’s
(1988a) five dimensions of OCB according to the primary beneficiary (either the organization or individuals), Williams and Anderson’s (1991) focus on differentiating OCBO and
OCBI, and others’ more specific focus on supervisor-directed or coworker- or peer-directed
citizenship (e.g., Lee & Allen, 2002; Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996,
1997). Differentiating between peers and supervisors suggests that the traditional approach
of viewing Organ’s (1988a) altruism and courtesy dimensions as individually directed citizenship may not be specific enough. That is, we suggest that altruism and courtesy can be
directed toward either the supervisor or toward peers.
Target Similarity Framework
As our review of key multifoci developments in the justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior literatures suggests, employees conceptualize their work experience in a multifaceted way, differentiating between sources of justice, social exchange relationship
partners, and beneficiaries of citizenship behaviors. At the outset, we suggested a need to
explicitly bring these literatures together to more fully realize the contributions of these multifoci perspectives for understanding and predicting employee attitudes and behavior at
work. In this regard, our target similarity framework integrates these literatures, and encourages researchers to hypothesize links between key employee perceptions (e.g., justice), relationships (e.g., social exchange), and behaviors (e.g., citizenship) with more precision than
ever before—by specifying foci at all stages of the psychological processes being investigated. In other words, we call for source specifications among antecedents, mediators, and
outcomes, and the study of interactions between multifoci processes.
852
Journal of Management / December 2007
More simply, our model makes three major assertions. First, we recognize that employees form justice perceptions about multiple parties. Second, we acknowledge that justice
evaluations, made by employees about a particular party, will impact the level of social
exchange between the employee and that party. Third, employees will react to felt justice and
social exchange by directing their attitudes and behaviors toward the focal party (e.g.,
source-directed citizenship behaviors). We term this the “target similarity effect,” and illustrate the effect in Figure 1, using the organization, supervisors, and coworkers as illustrative
foci. As indicated by the larger arrows with solid lines, we expect perceptions of fairness
about an entity to best predict social exchange with that entity, which will in turn predict citizenship behaviors directed at that entity. The smaller arrows with dashed lines indicate the
possibility of weaker relationships or “spillover effects.”
Sources and Types of Justice
In terms of fairness perceptions, we adopt the perspective of Byrne (1999), Rupp and
Cropanzano (2002), and Liao and Rupp (2005) who have argued that employees can potentially (if appropriate) attribute various types of justice (i.e., procedural, interactional, and distributive) to each source of justice (e.g., organizations, supervisors, coworkers). Although
some studies (e.g., McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993) demonstrate
that DJ better predicts personal outcomes such as pay satisfaction, whereas PJ better predicts
attitudes toward an entity (the emphasis of our model), we include DJ in our model for two
main reasons. First, social exchange research has argued that outcomes can affect relationships (e.g., Molm, 2003). Second, more recent studies adopting a multifoci view of social
exchange (including both organizationally and supervisor-directed measures), have found that
DJ (in addition to PJ) predicts organizationally directed outcomes such as POS (Wayne et al.,
2002) and organizational identification (Walumbwa & Cropanzano, 2007). Consequently, we
include DJ (and PJ and IJ) in Figure 1.
Two-Phase Approach to Social Exchange Relationships
Drawing from the organizational support literature (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison,
& Sowa, 1986), we conceptualize the formation of social exchange relationships as a twophase process. That is, research in support, which is largely grounded in social exchange,
argues that when organizations demonstrate concern for an employee, the employee will feel
an obligation to reciprocate that concern in the form of affective organizational commitment.
Also, POS is thought to engender commitment in that the felt concern from the organization
can fulfill the employee’s needs for esteem and affiliation. This then leads the employee to
incorporate the organization into their social identity (Rhoades et al., 2001).
In other words, the support from and trust of the organization that organizational justice
creates, puts the social exchange relationship in motion (indicated as Phase 1 in the figure).
Once this begins, employees then reciprocate via commitment to and identification with the
organization (indicated as Phase 2). Indeed, there already exists empirical support for this
two-stage component of our model. For example, a number of studies have found an empirical link between POS and organizationally focused affective commitment (Rhoades &
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
853
Figure 1
The Target Similarity Model
Social Exchange Relationships
Sources of Justice
Phase 1
Phase 2
Organizational
Justice
(DJ, PJ, IJ)
POS,
Organizational
Trust
Organizational
Commitment &
Identification
Citizenship
Toward
Organization
Supervisory
Justice
(DJ, PJ, IJ)
LMX, PSS,
Supervisory
Trust
Supervisor
Commitment &
Identification
Citizenship
Toward
Coworker
Justice
(DJ, PJ, IJ)
TMX, PTS,
Coworker
Trust
Coworker
Commitment &
Identification
Citizenship
Toward
Coworkers
Citizenship Behaviors
Supervisor
Note: DJ = distributive justice; PJ = procedural justice; IJ = interactional justice; POS = perceived organizational
support; LMX = leader–member exchange; PSS = perceived supervisor support; TMX = team member exchange;
PTS = perceived team support.
Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Wayne, 1993), and Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro
(1990) found using longitudinal data, that although POS predicted commitment over time,
the reverse (commitment predicting POS over time) did not occur. Importantly, we do not
posit that this process only occurs between the employee and the organization as a whole.
Following the multifoci perspective, we argue that it can occur with regard to every party that
employees interact with on a repeated basis. As stated throughout this article, a number of
foci seem relevant to employees. However, we narrow our focus to three that most employees performing a variety of different jobs across a number of occupations would be likely to
interact with on a fairly regular basis: supervisors, coworkers, and the organization itself.
Thus, Phase 1 includes variables such as POS, PSS, PTS, LMX, and TMX, and supervisory,
854
Journal of Management / December 2007
organizational, and coworker trust. Phase 2 variables include multifoci commitment and
multifoci identification.
Intended Beneficiaries of Citizenship
As evident in our review of the multifoci citizenship behavior literature, several taxonomies of citizenship have been proposed, both in general, and in reference to particular
targets (foci) of behavior. Key to our target similarity model, however, is that the citizenship
measures used in a particular study (regardless of the label used to describe whatever facet
is being measured) can be reasonably and most directly linked to a specific target or beneficiary of the behavior. Consequently, studies employing an overall measure of OCB are problematic from a target similarity perspective.
Target Similarity: Supporting Evidence
Multifoci Justice Predicting Multifoci Social Exchange Relationships
Research conducted in a variety of contexts supports the link between justice and social
exchange when at least two different targets are simultaneously examined. For example,
Aryee et al. (2002) found that organizational PJ was associated with trust in the organization
(but not with trust in the supervisor) and that IJ (stemming from the supervisor) was more
strongly associated with trust in the supervisor (path estimate = .69) than it was with trust in
the organization (path estimate = .21). Adopting a multifoci perspective across three different targets, Lavelle, McMahan, Henley, and Harris (2007) found that organizational PJ,
supervisory PJ, and coworker IJ were each uniquely associated with POS, PSS, and perceived coworker support, respectively.
In terms of commitment, Malatesta and Byrne (1997) found that organizational PJ predicted organizational commitment, whereas IJ (emanating from the supervisor) predicted
commitment to the supervisor. Moreover, these researchers also found that IJ (but not organizational PJ) predicted supervisory-directed citizenship. Consistent results were found by
Lavelle (1999), who examined the effects of organizational PJ, interpersonal justice on the
part of the supervisor, and interpersonal justice on the part of top management on employee
commitment to each of these foci. Through regression analyses, he found that only organizational PJ predicted commitment to the organization, commitment to the supervisor was
predicted only by interpersonal justice on the part of the supervisor, and that only interpersonal justice on the part of top management predicted commitment to top management.
The Two-Phase Multifoci Social Exchange Process
Organizations and supervisors. In one of the first support studies taking a multifoci perspective, Settoon et al. (1996) examined the relative contributions of LMX and POS on commitment to the organization in a study of hospital employees. Using structural equation
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
855
modeling (SEM), they found that POS predicted organizational commitment whereas LMX
did not. A more recent study by Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2003) extended the findings of Settoon et al. in two ways. First, whereas Settoon et al. examined the relative impact
of organizational support (POS) and supervisor support (operationalized as LMX) only on
employee commitment to the organization, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe examined the
impact of these different sources of support (operationalized as POS and perceived supervisor support, PSS) on both commitment to the organization and commitment to the supervisor.
That is, they took a multifoci perspective across both support and commitment constructs.
Second, these researchers employed a longitudinal design in which the direction of the relationship between these variables could be evaluated.4 In a sample of 238 employees working
in a variety of different occupations and organizations, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe found
through CFA that the organization and the supervisor are distinct sources of support and foci
of commitment. Moreover, using SEM, they found that POS predicted employee commitment
to the organization (but not commitment to the supervisor) whereas PSS predicted commitment to the supervisor (but not commitment to the organization).
Whereas the above studies used POS, LMX, and PSS as indicators of social exchange
relationships with the organization and the supervisor, Aryee et al. (2002) focused on trust
in the organization and trust in the supervisor as indicators of potentially unique social
exchange relationships. Using a sample of 179 employees working in a variety of job types
(e.g., engineering, marketing, and finance) for a public sector organization in India, CFA
results revealed that trust in the organization and trust in the supervisor were perceived as
unique types of trust and these constructs were also distinguishable from organizational
commitment. As hypothesized, Aryee et al. found that trust in the organization predicted
organizational commitment whereas trust in the supervisor did not. Unfortunately, Aryee
et al. did not include a measure of commitment to the supervisor. However, their findings and
the results of Camerman, Cropanzano, and Vandenberghe (2007) suggest that trust in the
organization and trust in the supervisor are differentially associated with commitment to the
organization and commitment to the supervisor, respectively.
Organizations and work teams. Bishop and colleagues (2000) demonstrated the importance of the work team as both a source of support and a target of commitment. Using a sample of 380 production employees in an automotive manufacturing plant, CFA results
demonstrated that employees viewed POS, PTS, commitment to the organization, and commitment to the team as unique constructs. Moreover, they found that POS predicted organizational commitment (but not team commitment) and that PTS predicted team commitment
(but not organizational commitment).
Contingent employee relationships. Recent studies examining the effects of multiple
sources of support on the commitments of contingent or temporary employees further support
the linkage between Phase 1 and Phase 2 social exchange variables. For example, using a sample of 98 contingent workers performing a range of different jobs, Liden, Wayne, Kraimer, and
Sparrowe (2003) examined whether these workers distinguished between support from
and commitment toward the employment agency for which they worked, and support from and
commitment toward the particular organization temporarily employing them. CFA results
856
Journal of Management / December 2007
confirmed the distinctiveness of these four constructs. Providing support for the hypothesized
relationships among these variables, they found that perceived agency support predicted
agency commitment, whereas POS predicted organizational commitment. In addition, Liden et
al.’s study demonstrates support for the linkage between justice and the components of our
two-phase model of social exchange. Specifically, they found organizational support to mediate the relationship between organizational justice and organizational commitment, and agency
support to mediate the relationship between agency justice and agency commitment.
Continuing the focus on contingent employees, Camerman et al. (2007) examined the relevance of social exchange relationships with both one’s staffing agency and with one’s staffing
agent. These authors used trust to operationalize social exchange with the staffing agent and
used POS to indicate social exchange with the agency. Consistent with longitudinal research
conducted in more traditional employee–employer settings as reviewed earlier (e.g.,
Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003), Camerman et al. found that perceived staffing agency
support (Phase 1) predicted commitment to the agency (Phase 2), whereas trust in the staffing
agent (Phase 1) predicted commitment to the staffing agent (Phase 2). In addition, consistent
with the multifoci mediation findings of Liden et al. (2003) and our target similarity model, perceptions of agency support mediated the relationship between perceptions of the agency’s PJ
and agency commitment, whereas trust in the staffing agent mediated the relationship between
informational justice stemming from the agent and employee commitment to the agent.
Multifoci Social Exchange Predicting Multifoci Citizenship Behavior
In their meta-analysis of the LMX literature, Ilies et al. (2007) reported that the relationship between LMX and individually directed citizenship behavior was significantly
stronger than the relationship between LMX and organizationally directed citizenship
behavior. Focusing on antecedents and consequences of POS, Rhoades and Eisenberger’s
(2002) meta-analytic findings indicate that POS is a better predictor of organizationally
directed than of individually directed citizenship behavior. Turning to the commitment literature, Becker and Kernan (2003) found that affective commitment toward the organization predicted supervisor-rated loyal boosterism (a form of organizationally directed
citizenship behavior) whereas affective commitment to the supervisor did not. Moreover,
commitment to one’s supervisor predicted supervisor-rated courtesy, a form of largely
supervisor-directed citizenship (e.g., informing or consulting with the supervisor before
taking important actions), whereas commitment to the organization did not. Similarly,
Lavelle, Konovsky, and Brockner (2005) found that commitment to the organization was
a better predictor of organizationally directed citizenship behavior (including behaviors
such as attending voluntary meetings regarding the organization) than was commitment to
the work group, whereas commitment to the workgroup was a better predictor of coworker
citizenship (e.g., helping coworkers with heavy workloads). Taken together, these studies
suggest that LMX, commitment to supervisors, and commitment to work groups better
predict citizenship behavior directed toward individuals (e.g., supervisors and work group
members) whereas POS and commitment to the organization better predict citizenship
behavior directed toward the organization.
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
857
Interestingly, these results are in contrast to the meta-analytic results reported by LePine et al.
(2002). That is, these authors did not find fairness or commitment to differentially predict
OCBO and OCBI. Note, however, that studies included in the LePine et al. meta-analysis
generally did not take a multifoci perspective across constructs. That is, although the OCB
construct was divided by foci (conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue were classified as OCBO and altruism and courtesy were classified under OCBI), the antecedents
included in the meta-analysis (e.g., justice, commitment) were not. We feel that contrasting
the nonmultifoci results of LePine et al. with the multifoci results of Ilies et al. (2007),
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), Becker and Kernan (2003), and Lavelle et al. (2005) highlight the importance of aligning the foci of both independent and dependent variables.
Multifoci Justice, Citizenship Behavior, and Social Exchange Mediators
As implied by our model, the target-specific relationship between justice and citizenship
behavior is most likely to be mediated by target-specific social exchange relationships.
Recent studies taking a multifoci perspective across all three constructs are consistent with
this expected pattern. For example, Masterson and colleagues (2000) found that LMX mediated the relationship between IJ (emanating from the supervisor) and supervisor-directed citizenship, whereas POS mediated the relationship between PJ (proposed to stem from the
organization) and organizationally directed citizenship. On closer inspection, we note the
items included in their supervisor-directed citizenship measure that assessed behaviors most
directly beneficial to members of one’s work group such as those based on altruism scales
(e.g., “I go out of my way to help coworkers with work-related problems). Recognizing this
issue, Masterson et al. suggested that behaviors benefiting the work group could also be considered as benefiting the supervisor of the group. However, our target similarity approach
suggests further refinement of citizenship measures to more precisely differentiate between
supervisors and coworkers as citizenship beneficiaries.
A recent study by Olkkonen and Lipponen (2006) also tested the type of fully matched
multifoci model that the target similarity framework suggests. That is, they modeled multifoci justice, multifoci identification, and multifoci citizenship. These authors found that IJ
stemming from the supervisor predicted identification with the work unit (referred to as
identification-based commitment by Becker, 1992), whereas organizational PJ predicted
organizational identification (referred to by Becker as identification-based commitment to
the organization). Finally, Olkkonen and Lipponen found that identification with the organization predicted organizationally directed citizenship (and not citizenship directed at the
work unit), whereas identification with the supervisor predicted citizenship toward the work
unit but not the organization.
In another study explicitly adopting a multifoci, social-exchange-based perspective, Rupp
and Cropanzano (2002) found that organizational social exchange mediated the relationship
between organizationally focused justice and organizationally directed citizenship, whereas
supervisor social exchange mediated the relationship between supervisory-focused justice
and supervisory-directed citizenship. One unique finding of this study was that supervisory
social exchange also predicted organizationally directed citizenship. Rupp and Cropanzano
858
Journal of Management / December 2007
suggested that this cross-foci or spillover effect may be illustrative of the far-reaching impact
of employee–supervisor social exchange relationships. Indeed, it is this line of theoretical
reasoning that has led us to incorporate the potential for such cross-foci or spillover effects
in our target similarity framework (as indicated by the dashed lines in Figure 1).
That said, we must also point out that it is intriguing that Rupp and Cropanzano (2002)
found spillover effects on organization-directed citizenship, whereas Masterson et al.
(2000) did not. We think this inconsistency may be because of the different citizenship
measures used in these two studies. Masterson et al.’s measure was similar to Moorman
and Blakely’s (1995) measure of loyal boosterism and explicitly referred to behaviors
directed toward the organization itself (e.g., “I defend the organization when other
employees criticize it.”). Rupp and Cropanzano used Williams and Anderson’s (1991)
measure of OCBO. It should be noted that the highest loading items included in this scale
are largely consistent with Organ’s (1988a) conscientiousness dimension of OCB (e.g.,
attendance and giving advance notice when unable to come to work). Organ has argued
that conscientiousness reflects behaviors exemplifying what a “good” worker should do on
the job and he suggested that employees might in fact perform these behaviors with no
explicit beneficiary in mind.
McNeely and Meglino (1994) referred to behaviors similar to those assessed by Williams
and Anderson’s (1991) OCBO measure as role-prescribed prosocial behavior (referring to
job-directed behaviors). These authors used a measure of prosocial organizational behavior
(which refers to organization-directed citizenship behaviors) that overlaps with Moorman
and Blakely’s (1995) loyal boosterism measure. Notably, McNeely and Meglino found that
prosocial organizational behavior and role-prescribed prosocial behavior were unique constructs. This raises the possibility that the job itself may be the most direct beneficiary of the
behavior assessed by Williams and Anderson’s OCBO measure. If so, the cross-foci effects
of supervisory justice found by Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) and not by Masterson et al.
(2000) may be a function of differences between the measures intended to assess organizationdirected citizenship in each study. Of course, additional research is necessary to evaluate
such possibilities.
Summary of Target Similarity
The approaches taken in the studies reviewed in this section are consistent with the recommendations of applying a target similarity framework across constructs to improve our
ability to understand and predict employee attitudes and behaviors. The results are encouraging in terms of detecting differential effects by target and providing support for a two-phase
social exchange process. Our review also suggests the need to more clearly identify and separate intended beneficiaries when measuring different forms of citizenship behavior. For
example, although supervisors and work group members may be part of the same overall unit,
our review suggests that employees make meaningful distinctions between supervisors and
coworkers as unique sources of justice and social exchange partners, and consequently, they
may choose to direct their citizenship behavior toward one or the other.
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
859
Extending the Multifoci Perspective to the
Prediction of In-Role Performance
A number of studies discussed in our review have also examined the effects of multifoci
justice and multifoci social exchange on in-role job performance. Although our focus thus
far has been on extra-role performance (i.e., citizenship; because of the multifoci approach
taken in the literature), we would be remiss to exclude in-role performance altogether.
Overall, the pattern of relationships revealed across these studies indicates that psychologically proximal justice and social exchange variables (i.e., those with a supervisor or team
focus) are better predictors of in-role performance than are more psychologically distal justice and social exchange variables (e.g., those with an organizational focus). Below, we
briefly review these findings starting with multifoci social exchange variables as predictors.
Masterson et al. (2000) found that LMX predicted in-role behavior, whereas POS did not.
In addition, IJ (stemming from the supervisor) was significantly correlated with in-role performance, whereas organizational PJ was not. Settoon et al. (1996) found similar results
demonstrating that LMX predicted in-role performance, whereas POS did not. Continuing
this pattern, Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) found that supervisory social exchange predicted
in-role performance, whereas organizational social exchange did not. Moreover, these
researchers found that supervisor social exchange mediated the relationship between supervisory justice and in-role behavior. They also found that organizationally referenced justice
did not predict in-role behavior. Similarly, the findings of Walumbwa and Cropanzano
(2007) suggest that LMX (path estimate = .51) is a relatively stronger predictor of job performance than is organizational identification (path estimate = .23). Moreover, these
researchers found that LMX mediated the relationship between supervisory justice (informational and interpersonal) and in-role performance.
Using trust as an indicator of social exchange relationships, Aryee et al. (2002) found
through SEM that trust in the supervisor significantly predicted in-role performance,
whereas trust in the organization did not. Moreover, trust in the supervisor mediated the relationship between IJ from the supervisor and in-role performance, whereas organizationally
referenced justice was not a significant predictor in the model. Cropanzano et al. (2002)
found a similar pattern of results. In fact, these researchers found that organizational procedural fairness was not significantly correlated with in-role performance, whereas justice
stemming from the supervisor was (and the relationship was positive).
Research from a multiple commitments perspective reveals a similar pattern. For example, in
two different studies by Becker and his colleagues (Becker et al., 1996; Becker & Kernan,
2003), affective commitment to the supervisor predicted in-role performance, whereas affective
organizational commitment did not. In a team setting, Bishop et al. (2000) found that employee
commitment to the team predicted job performance (path estimate = .45), whereas organizational commitment did not. Moreover, team commitment mediated the relationship between
team support and job performance, whereas organizational support was not significantly correlated with performance. Recognizing that prior studies generally indicate a weak relationship
between organizational commitment and in-role performance (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990),
Bishop et al. suggest the importance of a multifoci perspective of commitment noting,
860
Journal of Management / December 2007
The significant path between team commitment and job performance suggests that commitment
may be related to performance when the focus of commitment is more proximal and when the
individual’s performance has a more immediate and significant effect on the success of the
object of commitment. (p. 1128)
Taken together, the findings reviewed above strongly suggest the importance of taking a
multifoci perspective of employee relationships at work when examining factors contributing to in-role performance. More specifically, multifoci justice and multifoci social exchange
variables associated with more proximal targets such as team members and supervisors
appear to do a better job in predicting employee performance relative to more distal targets
such as the organization.
Practical Implications
Given the importance of employee performance (both in-role and extra-role) to organizations, the results of the studies reviewed here can provide valuable information to managers
and supervisors. When it comes to in-role job performance, the quality of the social
exchange relationship between an employee and his or her supervisor and his or her work
group is of critical importance, seemingly more so than the relationship with the organization itself. Fair treatment from the supervisor and from the work group can contribute to the
development of social exchange with the supervisor and with the work group, respectively.
In terms of citizenship behaviors, the target similarity effects found in this review serve
to remind managers that the various sources of justice and social exchange relationship partners are not necessarily equivalent in their impact. If it is the goal of management to promote
organizationally directed citizenship, then it is necessary to foster social exchange with the
organization. If their goal is to promote citizenship directed at coworkers, team members, or
direct supervision, then it is necessary to foster social exchange relationships with these specific constituencies. How might social exchange relationships with the various targets be
built? One determining factor and the focus of our review is fairness. More specifically, the
development of social exchange with a particular partner depends on the fairness exhibited
by that source. Consequently, it is reassuring to know that managers may be successfully
trained in how to be more procedurally fair when planning and implementing decisions (e.g.,
Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). Given the growing prominence in the use of teams, organizations may wish to extend fairness training to work groups especially when levels of
coworker- or team member–directed citizenship are lower than desired.
Conclusion
A major purpose of this review was to examine, organize, and integrate the multifoci
approaches that have recently been taken in the justice, social exchange, and citizenship
behavior literatures. Taking a multifoci perspective of the employee experience at work is
likely to become increasingly important. As stated by Settoon et al. (1996: 226), “As
organizations become less hierarchically structured, the study of multiple social exchange
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
861
relationships may be critical in the study of organizational behavior.” We couldn’t agree
more. In this regard, our target similarity model is particularly useful in hypothesizing
differential effects by target and for providing a framework to incorporate other relevant
organizational behavior constructs (e.g., counterproductive work behaviors; cf. Dalal, 2005)
and foci (e.g., HR, other units, or other teams, customers, etc.; cf. Cropanzano et al., 2007;
Rupp et al., 2007b).
As noted throughout our review, to better realize the potential of multifoci research, we
suggest that our constructs and measures thereof must be more precise. Although progress is
being made in this regard, more can be done. For example, on close inspection, our review
revealed that scales often employed by researchers with intent to assess citizenship behavior
directed toward specific beneficiaries actually contain items reflecting a mix of potential
recipients. Consistent with Figure 1, when taking a multifoci perspective, we encourage
researchers to clearly specify the intended sources of justice, social exchange relationship
partners, and beneficiaries of citizenship behaviors. In conclusion, we hope this review and
our target similarity framework encourages researchers to continue the recent trend of integrating multifoci perspectives across relevant organizational behavior constructs to provide
a more complete representation of the employee experience at work.
Notes
1. Much of this theorizing came out of the debate of whether procedural justice and interactional justice represent distinct constructs. For a review of this debate, see Bies (2005).
2. Also see Cobb, Vest, and Hills (1997), who provided evidence for organizational- and supervisory-focused
procedural justice.
3. Notice that, throughout this article, we describe what is typically referred to as “organizational citizenship
behavior” or “OCB” as simply “citizenship behavior.” Because citizenship can be directed at multiple sources, only
one of which is the organization, we reserve organizational citizenship (or, more precisely, organizationally directed
citizenship) for situations in which the organization is the explicit beneficiary of employee citizenship behaviors.
4. This study also extended Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli (2001) by including both the organization and the
supervisor as sources of support and foci of commitment.
References
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 2): 267-299. New York: Academic Press.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63: 1-18.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. 2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 267-286.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of
Management Review, 18: 88-115.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14:
20-39.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
“employee citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26: 587-595.
862
Journal of Management / December 2007
Becker, T. E. 1992. Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management
Journal, 35: 232-244.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. 1996. Foci and bases of employee commitment:
Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 464-482.
Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. 2003. Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role
performance. Human Performance, 16: 327-348.
Bies, R. J. 2005. Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg &
J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: 85-112. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. 1986. Interactional justice: The communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki,
B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1): 43-55.
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. 2000. An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team
environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 439-450.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. 2000. Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team
environment. Journal of Management, 26: 1113-1123.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2003. A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair”
process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 747-758.
Blau, G. J. 1985. The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58:
277-288.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 71-98. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemer, N., & Doosje, B. 2002. Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on
group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 744-753.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11:
710-725.
Byrne, Z. S. 1999. How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organizational outcomes? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Atlanta, GA.
Camerman, J., Cropanzano, R., & Vandenberghe, C. 2007. The benefits of justice for temporary workers. Group
and Organization Management, 32: 176-207.
Cobb, A. T., Vest, M., & Hills, F. 1997. Who delivers justice. Source perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 27: 1021-1040.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 278-321.
Coleman, J. S. 1993. The rational reconstruction of society. American Sociological Review, 58: 1-15.
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86: 356-400.
Colquitt, J. A. 2004. Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 633-646.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.
Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. 2000. Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. In M.
VanVugt, T. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.), Collective problems in modern society: Dilemmas and solutions: 142-161.
London: Routledge.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 164-209.
Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D. E., & Prehar, C. 2004. Accounting for corporate injustice. Human
Resource Management Review, 14: 107-133.
Cropanzano, R., Li, A., & James, K. 2007. Intraunit justice and interunit justice and the people that experience them.
In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, (Vol. 6): 415-437. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
863
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31: 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. 2002. Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from
interactional justice. Group and Organizational Management, 27: 324-351.
Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. in press. Social exchange theory and organizational justice: Job performance, citizenship
behaviors, multiple foci, and a historical integration of two literatures. Research in Social Issues in Management.
Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1241-1255.
Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. 1998. The perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale:
Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83: 683-692.
Ehrhart, M. G., Bliese, P. D., & Thomas, J. E. 2006. Unit level OCB and unit effectiveness: Examining the incremental effect of helping Behavior. Human Performance, 19: 159-172.
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.
Fukami, C. V., & Larson, E. W. 1984. Commitment to company and union: Parallel models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69: 367-371.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1992. Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at workorganizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 310-329.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.
Greenberg, J. 1993. The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In
R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management: 79-103.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gregersen, H. B., & Black, J. S. 1992. Antecedents to commitment to a parent company and a foreign operation.
Academy of Management Journal, 1: 65-90.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 269-277.
Konovsky, M. A. 2000. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of
Management, 26: 489-511.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal,
37: 656-669.
Koys, D. J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior and organizational
effectiveness: A unit level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54: 101-114.
Lavelle, J. J. 1999. Examining layoff survivors’ changes in commitment: The effects of procedural and interactional
injustice. Paper presented at the Academy of Management annual conference, Chicago.
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. 2007. Commitment,
procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A Multi-foci analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Lavelle, J. J., Konovsky, M. A., & Brockner, J. 2005. Differentiating the antecedents of OCBO and OCBI: A multiple commitments and justice framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Honolulu, HI.
Lavelle, J. J., McMahan, G. C., Henley, A. B., & Harris, C. 2007. Unpublished data analysis. Arlington: University
of Texas at Arlington.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and
cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 131-142.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. 2002. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 52-65.
Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research:
27-55. New York: Plenum.
864
Journal of Management / December 2007
Levinson, H. 1965. Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 9: 370-390.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. 2005. The impact of justice climate, climate strength, and justice orientation on work outcomes: A multilevel–multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 242-256.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Kraimer, M. L., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2003. The dual commitments of contingent workers:
An examination of contingents’ commitment to the agency and the organization. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24: 609-625.
Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S. 1997. The impact of formal and interactional procedures on organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
St. Louis, MO.
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.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences
of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-194.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1992. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 626-637.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. 1994. The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial organizational behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Meyer, J. P. 1997. Organizational commitment. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology: 175-228. New York: John Wiley.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. 1982. Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality
and social psychology, vol. 3: 133-156. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Molm, L. D. 2003. Theoretical comparisons of forms of social exchange. Sociological Theory, 21: 1-17.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do
fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. 1995. Individualism–collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 127-142.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. 1998. Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal,
41: 351-357.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. 1997. When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract
violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22: 226-256.
Morrow, P. C. 1983. Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of
Management Review, 8: 486-500.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee–organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527-556.
Olkkonen, M., & Lipponen, J. 2006. Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and
work-unit, and group related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100: 202-215.
Organ, D. W. 1988a. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D. W. 1988b. A restatement of the satisfaction–performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14:
547-557.
Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 12): 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10: 85-97.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 157-164.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearn, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and
quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 262-270.
Lavelle et al. / Target Similarity Model
865
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A
critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
Management, 26: 513-564.
Reichers, A. E. 1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management
Review, 10: 465-476.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87: 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 2001. Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 825-836.
Riketta, M. 2005. Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 358-384.
Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. 2005. Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams.
Academy of Management Review, 30: 595-607.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled contract on
civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 289-298.
Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M. R., & Liao, H. 2007a. Justice climate: Consideration of the source, target, specificity,
and emergence. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, (Vol. 6): 439-459.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M. R., & Liao, H. 2007b. Justice climate past, present, and future: Models of structure and
emergence. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, (Vol. 6): 357-396. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. 2002. Multifoci justice and social exchange relationships. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 89: 925-946.
Rupp, D. E., Holub, A. S., & Grandey, A. In press. Justice and emotional labor. In D. DeCremer (Ed.), Advances in
the psychology of justice and affect. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Rupp, D. E., Holub, A. S., Spencer, S., & Sonntag, K. in press. Justice and emotional labor: The moderating effect
of perspective taking. Journal of Management.
Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. 2006. When customers lash out: The effect of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 971-978.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219-22.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and
continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 774-780.
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. 1993. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust.
Organizational Science, 4: 367-392.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. 1996. Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of organizational
justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 161-169.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. 1997. Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior
within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50: 617-633.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. 2003. Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of
commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2: 251-270.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. 1993. Workers’ evaluation of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four
models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55: 23-40.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. 2005. Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management
Journal, 48: 146-157.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. 2003. The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 2: 187-206.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. 1990. Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In
J. Carroll (Ed.), Advances in applied social psychology: Business settings: 77-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
866
Journal of Management / December 2007
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108-119.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 525-531.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Cropanzano, R. 2007. Organizational learning, job performance, and workplace justice: A
social exchange perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 590-598.
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.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601-617.
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. 2007. Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 681-692.
Biographical Notes
James J. Lavelle earned a PhD in management at the University of Utah. He is an assistant professor in the
Department of Management at the University of Texas at Arlington. His research interests include justice, citizenship behavior, and social exchange relationships in organizations.
Deborah E. Rupp earned her PhD at Colorado State University. She is an assistant professor in both the
Department of Psychology and the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Her current research interests include organizational justice, technology in assessment, and assessment
center methodologies.
Joel Brockner is the Phillip Hettleman Professor of Business at Columbia Business School. He earned a PhD in
social/personality psychology at Tufts University. His research interests include organizational justice, organizational change, self-processes in work organizations, managerial decision making, and cross-cultural influences on
employees’ attitudes and behaviors.