Social Exchange Theory
1
Running head: Justice and Social Exchange Theory
SOCIAL EXHANGE THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE: JOB PERFORMANCE,
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS, MULTIPLE FOCI, AND A HISTORICAL INTEGRATION OF
TWO LITERATURES
Russell Cropanzano
Department of Management and Policy
Eller College of Business and Public Administration
University of Arizona
Deborah E. Rupp
Department of Psychology and the
Institute for Labor and Industrial Relations
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Social Exchange Theory
2
ABSTRACT
In this paper we present an integrative and historical review of two literatures – organizational
justice and social exchange theory. We pay special attention to social exchange relationships and
economic exchange relationships. The former refers to relationships that are quid pro quo,
generally short term, involve limited affective attachment, and usually exchange concrete
outcomes. The latter refer to relationships that are more open-ended, generally longer-term,
involve identification and emotion, and often exchange less quantifiable outcomes. Justice is
important, as it facilitates the development of social exchange relationships. We also discuss the
multi-foci model of justice that is derived from social exchange theory. Specifically, workers
form relationships with different sources of fairness, such as the organization as a whole (e.g.,
perceived organizational support, organizational commitment) and the immediate supervisor
(e.g., leader-member exchange, supervisory trust). An understanding of each focus allows for
more precise prediction of consequential workplace outcomes, such as citizenship behaviors and
job performance.
Social Exchange Theory
3
SOCIAL EXHANGE THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE: JOB PERFORMANCE,
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS, MULTIPLE FOCI, AND A HISTORICAL INTEGRATION OF
TWO LITERATURES
Since the term “organizational justice” was coined by Wendell French in 1964, this
literature has explored the different sorts of transactions that occur among people at work.
Fairness research is especially pertinent to who gets what (distributive justice), how goods are
assigned (procedural justice), and the interpersonal treatment received along the way
(interactional justice). Justice researchers acknowledge the importance of economic self-interest.
However, they go further, arguing that justice pertains to more than simply favorable or
unfavorable outcomes (Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003; Van den Bos, Wilke, Lind, &
Vermunt, 1998). To say that a transaction is “just,” implies that it is consistent with certain
standards of appropriate or ethical conduct (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001). A
fair outcome might well be a favorable one, but then again, it need not be. Giving people what
they want is not the same as giving them what they deserve.
Homo sapiens have a long history of this sort of thing. As cultural anthropologists
observed in the last century, human beings were inveterate traders long before the development
of industrial economies, nation states, or large-scale markets (Malinowski, 1932; Sahlins, 1972).
Whether the context was kula rings in Melanesia (Malinowski, 1922) or potlatches in the Pacific
Northwest (Mauss, 1925), people improved their economic lot from these transactions. But more
than that, human beings also exchanged goods and services to cement social relationships,
perform religious duties, or express a preferred social structure (Fiske, 1991). Exchange, it would
seem, is about more than merely exchange. It was from these ethnographies that social scientists
formulated social exchange theory.
Social Exchange Theory
4
Social exchange theory comes in numerous manifestations. The varieties most common
to organizational behavior share with justice research an emphasis on interpersonal transactions
(exchanges) and a belief that these transactions are about more than simply economic selfinterest. Not only are these exchanges important, but their nature and their consequences are
believed to be shaped by the social and relational context in which they occur. Despite this
agreement on important first principles, we shall soon see that justice scholars were hesitant to
integrate the insights from social exchange theory into their work. Only with time has this
skepticism been addressed, and contemporary approaches to social exchange applied to justice
theory.
In this paper we will argue for the need to more fully integrate social exchange theory
with organizational justice. We will first provide a brief overview of social exchange theory and
then discuss some general applications to workplace fairness. Then we shall turn our attention to
the multi-foci models, which posit that individuals form multiple relationships at work. These
include both their supervisor and their organization as a whole. After discussing the evidence for
multi-foci social exchange, we will take up the matter of multi-foci justice.
A Blueprint of Social Exchange Theory
The social sciences literature has seen many social exchange theories (see Cropanzano,
Rupp et al., 2001; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, for more complete reviews). These bring
together different emphases and perspectives. However, within the organizational sciences,
modern social exchange theory derives its explanatory power by emphasizing the type and
quality of relationships engaged in by employees (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Shore et al.,
2004). Building on the work of Blau (1964) and Organ (1988a; 1990) social exchange theorists
place these relationships on a continuum. Anchoring one pole are economic exchange
Social Exchange Theory
5
relationships. These relationships involve the quid pro quo exchange of concrete goods that are
often economic or quasi-economic. Economic exchange relationships tend to be short-term with
little if any emotional attachment between the two parties. Anchoring the other pole are social
exchange relationships, which draw their name from that of the overall theory. Social exchange
relationships tend to be more open-ended. They may involve more abstract socio-emotional
“goods,” such as support and loyalty. Social exchange relationships tend to be longer-term with
close attachments between the parties and psychological identification with the relationship.
Theorists often discuss person-to-person relationships. These could be between a leader
and a subordinate or, for that matter, a romantic couple (Sternberg, 1987). However, it is
important to emphasize that social exchange theory is not so limited. As we have explained
elsewhere (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), individuals often think of organizations
as possessing human-like qualities. Consequently, workers also form relationships with their
employers as a whole (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Shore et al., 2004). This possibility is
captured by such constructs as perceptions of organizational support (POS, Shore & Shore,
1995), organizational commitment (Bishop & Scott, 2000), and organizational trust (Aryee,
Budhwar, & Chen, 2002). As we shall soon see, there is a good deal of predictive value in
considering both relationships between employees and their immediate supervisors, as well as
between employees and their employing organization as a whole.
Social exchange relationships are often initiated when a more powerful party, such as a
boss or an organization, reaches out to a less powerful party, such as an individual employee. If
the employee is desirous of such a relationship, he or she reciprocates the favorable treatment
through his or her attitudes and behaviors. This simple model has been used to account for the
development of high-quality exchange relationships (LMX) between leaders and subordinates
Social Exchange Theory
6
(cf., Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bein, 1996). If the supervisor extends the
opportunity for a quality LMX relationship (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Sparrowe &
Liden, 1997; Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000), the subordinate may respond with more
favorable work attitudes, higher job performance, and more organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCB, for evidence see Gerstner & Day, 1997; Hackett, Farh, Song, & Lapierre, 2003; Ilies,
Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Kaufman, Stamper, & Tesluk, 2001).
The model also seems to hold at the level of the organization, as shown by research on
perceptions of organizational support (POS). Fasolo (1995) argued that organizations should
treat their employees with both procedural justice and distributive justice. Each of these
encourages perceptions of organizational support. This support then increases worker
commitment to the organization. For its part, commitment facilitates job performance. Fasolo
presented evidence supporting his model.
Additional data was subsequently provided in three studies reported by Rhoades,
Eisenberger, and Armeli (2001). In their first study, Rhoades and her colleagues determined that
procedural justice had an impact on commitment, but this effect was mediated by POS. Their
second study included longitudinal data collected over a two-year period. Rhoades et al. found
evidence that organizational support acted as an antecedent cause of organizational commitment.
This is consistent with Fasolo’s (1995) prediction. Finally, in their Study 3, these authors
reported that the impact of POS on voluntary turnover was mediated by commitment. When
considered together, the work of Rhoades and her colleagues supports the proposition that
procedural justice boosts organizational support (Study 2), while support then impacts
performance (Study 1) and turnover (Study 3). This is noteworthy because it illustrates the
sequence social exchange theorists have long been discussing. The firm provides fair and
Social Exchange Theory
7
supportive treatment, the employee repays with commitment and high performance.
Social Exchange Theory and Organizational Justice
Even from this brief overview, one can readily see the potential for integrating justice
with social exchange theory. Indeed, organizational justice falls naturally into such a framework,
as fairness can be treated as antecedent to the social exchange relationship. Through its impact
on these relationships justice subsequently impacts worker attitudes and OCB. Despite this
compatibility between the justice and social exchange literatures, as well as supporting empirical
evidence, the potential from integrating these two paradigms has been broadly appreciated only
in the last decade. Indeed, for much of its early history, organizational justice was kept
assiduously away from social exchange theory, regarding it with something approaching
suspicion.
In the rest of this paper we will trace that history. We argue that early justice scholars had
good reason to be skeptical of social exchange theory, as it was generally understood to be
merely about types of exchanges in the 1960s and 1970s. As we shall see, it was an expansion of
social exchange theory, occurring in the 1980s (e.g., Mills & Clark, 1982; Organ, 1988a; Organ
& Konovsky, 1989) and 1990s (e.g., Organ, 1990; Moorman, 1991), that bestowed on the model
its present emphasis on types of relationships. This extension provided the impetus for
explaining justice in terms of social exchange (e.g., by Organ & Moorman, 1993; Moorman,
Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998, and Niehoff & Moorman, 1993, among others).
The Early Years
It was something less than love at first site.
Before the 1990s, and even a bit thereafter, justice researchers seemed to think of social
exchange theory only in the narrowest of terms. Consider, for example, the following quotes.
Social Exchange Theory
•
8
Lind (1995): Social exchange theory and related frameworks are “quasi-economic models
of organizational behavior [that] suppose that people conduct an analysis of the benefits
and costs associated with a given policy.”
•
Tyler and Lind (1992, p. 116): “Social exchange theories … view people as motivated by
self-interest.”
•
Konovsky (2000, p. 493): Social exchange theory is “another example of self-interest
models.”
Seen in the light of more recent scholarship, these quotes share a similar irony. In each case, the
author or authors argue that social exchange theory is limited due to its myopic focus on selfinterest and the absence of social considerations. The currency of social exchange theory at that
time was transactions (as opposed to relationships). Rather than viewing social exchange as a
manifestation of a trust-based social bond between two parties, it was seen as a more fully
matured strategy for maximizing ones self-interest It might be tempting to argue that these
authors were simply in error, but a close look provides credence to their arguments. These and
other justice researchers had good reason for their skepticism. Many classic social exchange
theorists embraced the descriptions quoted above (for a review see Cropanzano, Rupp et al.,
2001). For example, Gergen (1960, p. 2) maintained that the social exchange theory “view of
man is not flattering; he is seen as basically motivated for his own needs, utilizing all cognitive
and behavioral means at his disposal to achieve these ends in a complex world.” In discussing
equity theory and helping behavior, Hatfield, Walster, and Pilavin (1978, pp. 128-129) went even
further:
The majority of scientists – [us] included – are fairly cynical. They interpret
apparent altruism in cost-benefit terms, assuming that individuals … perform
Social Exchange Theory
9
those acts that are rewarded … and … avoid those acts that are not. Either selfcongratulation or external reward, then, must support apparently altruistic
behavior … Most often scientists attribute apparent altruism to more selfish
motives.
Even scholars who were a bit more balanced about human motivation, such as Homans
(1958; 1961), placed little emphasis on the psychology interpersonal relationships within the
social exchange framework. When justice scholars viewed social exchange theory as focusing
narrowly on self-interested transactions (understood in economic or quasi-economic terms), they
were accurately repeating the views of sundry contemporary and near-contemporary social
exchange theorists. In the next section we will discuss how social exchange theory evolved to
focus on how different exchanges might manifest or be manifested by different types of
relationships occurring at work.
A Short and Selective History of Social Exchange Theory
Blau (1964), and the origins of modern social exchange theory. In his influential book
Blau (1964) provided a useful description of social and economic exchange. He did so by
comparing one to the other. Blau maintained that “the basic and most crucial distinction is that
social exchange entails unspecified obligations” (1964, p. 93, italics in original). He also added
that only social exchange “involves favors that create diffuse future obligations … and the nature
of the return cannot be bargained” (p. 93). Blau went on to remark that “only social exchange
tends to engender feelings of personal obligations, gratitude, and trust; purely economic
exchange as such does not” (p. 94). Further, he opines that “in contrast to economic
commodities, the benefits involved in social exchange do not have an exert price in terms of
single quantitative medium of exchange” (p. 94).
Social Exchange Theory
10
It is important to consider Blau’s (1964) ideas carefully. He argued that individuals
engage in transactions with one other. Blau believed that social exchange relationships were
causally related to these transactions, though the direction of the causal arrow is somewhat
ambiguous. For example, on p. 97 he argues that “the character of the relationship between
exchange partners” might “affect the process of social exchange.” He concedes that an
individual could become “committed to an exchange partner” (p. 101). In the former case, the
relationship causes the type of exchange. In the latter case, the (committed) relationship is
caused by the exchange. Interestingly, in neither case does he use the word “exchange” to
denote a type of relationship. Rather, Blau seems to be describing a type of supportive and
generous transaction. These types of transactions, while not relationships per se, could create or
encourage close relationships with others. In other places, his language lends itself to a different
interpretation. For instance, Blau maintains that social exchange involves “trusting others” and
“personal obligations” (p. 94). This strongly implies, though does not explicitly state, that social
exchange is a sort of relationship characterized by trust and obligation.
As one can see, much of modern social exchange theory can be found in the work of Blau
(1964). He clearly appreciated the importance of interpersonal relationships, believing that their
development could be influenced by the nature of one’s transactions. Blau also recognized that
these relationships, once in place, provided a causal impetus of their own. These are important
ideas. On the other hand, it is not entirely clear whether Blau (1964) was using the term “social
exchange” to refer to a type of relationship, to refer to a type of transaction that may
subsequently cause a high-quality relationship, or to both. These matters would be sorted out by
later scholars.
Economic and communal relationships (Mills & Clark, 1982). Regardless of Blau’s
Social Exchange Theory
11
(1964) intent, he was understood as maintaining that exchanges were types of relationships. This
idea quickly gained currency, especially among social psychologists (e.g., Holmes, 1981). Mills
and Clark’s (1982; Clark & Mills, 1979) work was especially important for defining our current
understanding of social exchange theory. Among other things, Mills and Clark sought to
distinguish between types of transactions and types of relationships. They did so by emphasizing
the latter. Specifically, Clark and Mills (1979) argued that the term “exchange relationship” was
more appropriate than “economic exchange,” while “communal relationship” was more
appropriate than “social exchange.” Consistent with Blau (1964), they argued that exchange
relationships are more likely to be quid pro quo, to demand repayment in a particular time
period, to involve the exchange of economic or quasi-economic goods, and to be motivated by
personal self-interest. Communal relationships were argued to be more open-ended, less time
specific, include the exchange of socioemotional benefits, and to place greater emphasis on the
needs of the other party.
Clark and Mills’ (1979) subtle distinction between transactions and relationships
had a lasting impact. As Fiske (1991, p. 30) observed, “[Mills and Clark] raise an
extremely important issue concerning the intensity of social relationships.” As such,
research on social exchange began to place a greater emphasis on relationship
development. For example, Murstein, Cerreto, and MacDonald (1977) and Sternberg
(1987) treated social exchange theory as a model for understanding close, loving
relationships. As we shall now see, these developments within social psychology were
paralleled by a similar evolution within the organizational sciences.
Social and exchange relationships and organizational citizenship behaviors.
The modern notion of social exchange relationships entered the management sciences via
Social Exchange Theory
research on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). To understand why this
occurred, it is worthwhile to examine early models of OCB (e.g., Organ, 1988a; 1990).
Originally, it was Organ’s (1988b; 1990) goal to explain why previous research had
found a weak link between job satisfaction and job performance. To account for this
modest association, Organ distinguished between “in-role” behaviors, which were
heavily regulated by the firm, and “extra-role” behaviors for which employees were
allowed more discretion. Given the relatively close supervision of formal job duties,
Organ suspected that employees were unable to alter their performance too much,
without bringing sanctions upon themselves. On the other hand, individuals had a good
deal more latitude for adjusting their extra-role behaviors. Thus, extra-role behaviors, but
not in-role behaviors, were expected to be more strongly impacted by job satisfaction.
Beneficial extra-role activities were termed organizational citizenship behaviors.
A number of ironies followed. As it happened, later work found that citizenship
behaviors can be in-role as well as extra-role (Organ, 1997), and that job satisfaction is
actually a useful predictor of job performance ratings (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton,
2001). Nevertheless, in the years that Organ (1988b) posed these observations, they were
widely shared by scholars. Consequently, Organ sought to explain why workers would
exert effort on behalf of an organization (that is, perform citizenship behaviors) when it
was not directly rewarded by their employers (that is, it was an extra-role behavior). To
account for what seemed to be an economically anomalous possibility, Organ (1988a,
1990), and Konovsky (Organ & Konovsky, 1989) employed Blau’s (1964) model of
social exchange theory in order to account for OCBs.
Social exchange theory provided two good reasons that employees would engage
12
Social Exchange Theory
13
in OCBs. According to Blau (1964), individuals in social exchange relationships need not
behave altruistically. Assuming they have chosen their exchange partners wisely, they are
apt to be repaid, only over an extended time horizon and not necessarily in a quid pro quo
fashion. Over the long run, effort should pay off. This possibility was emphasized by
Organ in his early work (e.g., Organ, 1990; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). In addition, there
exists a second reason that individuals exert effort in social exchange relationships.
According to social exchange theorists, many people are motivated by a norm of
reciprocity (Gouldner, 1961; Levinson, 1965). For the most part, we seek to repay goodwith-good and bad-with-bad. Therefore, when a person is treated kindly by an institution
or by another person, he or she is apt to return the favor by working hard and going
beyond the call of duty, and this is especially so when the person has a strong
reciprocation ideology (Witt, 1991; 1992; Witt & Broach, 1993; Witt, Kacmar, &
Andrews, 2001).
We can summarize this thinking as follows: The possibility that workers might
engage in long-term, social exchange relationships with employers provides a motive for
performing OCBs, even if they were extra-role. Though repayment might not come soon,
and it might not come in dollars, it likely would come (Organ, 1990). In addition, even if
one was not attending to personal self-interest, by entering into a relationship, one takes
on certain obligations. At the very least, repayment of services rendered would be an
appropriate policy (Levinson, 1965). Notice the emphasis on relationships allowed Organ
to explain why workers sometimes go beyond the call of duty.
Though Organ remained closer to the earlier terminology, his understanding of social
exchange theory was consistent with that of Mills and Clark (1982; Clark & Mills, 1979). Organ
Social Exchange Theory
14
(1988a, p. 69) maintained that an “exchange relationship binding an individual to a collective
body can take on the quality of covenant” (italics added). He (1990) also termed social exchange
a “relationship,” and with Konovsky (1989, p. 62) distinguished between social exchange and
economic exchange relationships. For Organ and colleagues, social exchange theory is more
than simply a set of rules for transacting benefits; rather, these authors re-articulated concepts to
focus on the interpersonal attachment between two or more individuals.
Social exchange theory and organizational justice revisited. At the same time Organ
(1990) was re-formulating social exchange theory, he was also adding fairness perceptions to the
model. Organ (1988a) explicitly recognized the importance of both distributive justice (the
fairness of the outcomes received) and procedural justice (the fairness of the allocation process).
Later work would include interactional justice (the fairness of the interpersonal transactions
between two or more people) as well. In this regard, an especially important study was presented
by Organ and Konovsky (1989).
These authors surveyed employees at two large hospitals. Employee rated their typical
mood and their cognitions regarding their job and pay. Pay and job cognitions predicted
supervisory-rated OCB better than did workplace affect. In and of themselves, these findings
may not be striking. However, the interpretation of these results(p. 162) provided a key
theoretical advance. Viewing the job and pay cognition items through a justice lens, Organ and
Konovsky argued that it might be fairness perceptions that best predict OCB. They concluded:
[T]he frequent rendering of OCB gestures would seem to reflect mainly a sense of
social exchange relationship with the organization. … So long as the individual
can sustain an attitude of trust in the long-term fairness of the organization in the
Social Exchange Theory
15
relationship, he or she need not worry about the recompense for this or that
specific OCB gesture (p. 162).
In other words, justice creates trust. Trust is one index of a social exchange relationship
(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Once a trusting relationship exists, people can perform OCB with
less fear of exploitation. To be sure, certain particulars remained to be hammered out by later
scholars, including a greater articulation of the concept of reciprocity (cf., Bishop & Scott,
2000). Nevertheless, a solid integrative model linking social exchange and organizational justice
was available to scholars by the end of the 1980s. Justice researchers wouldn’t wait long to take
advantage of it.
Adding justice to social exchange theory. An interesting aspect of Organ’s (1988a;
1990) early work is that he was using social exchange theory to understand the causes of OCB
(for a specific statement, see Organ, 1988b). In this regard, he was largely successful. Moreover,
if justice can be seen as antecedent to social exchange, as Organ and Konovsky (1989)
maintained, then justice should also serve as a cause of citizenship behaviors. Evidence was
consistent with this idea (e.g., Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). For example,Moorman (1991)
found that procedural justice, though not distributive justice, successfully predicted OCB. An
important aspect of Moorman’s work is that he drew heavily on social exchange theory in
formulating his predictions, paying special attention to the work of Organ and Blau (1964).
In a later study Niehoff and Moorman (1993) examined the manner in which supervisors
monitor subordinate behavior (observation, informal discussions, and formal meetings). These
three types of monitoring were expected to predict distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice. Justice, in turn, would facilitate citizenship behaviors. Whereas support for hypotheses
was only partial, the results did make the case that justice predicted at least some dimensions of
Social Exchange Theory
16
OCB. In addition, Niehoff and Moorman again chose social exchange theory as an interpretive
lens for their results.
These studies made important early contributions, explicitly linking justice, social
exchange theory, and citizenship behaviors. However, they did not test the key contribution of
Organ and Konovsky’s (1989) framework – There was no relational mediator. In other words,
although social exchange theory provided a rationale explaining the justice-OCB link, up to this
point, social exchange has not been operationalized, measured, and empirically tested as a causal
variable. This was addressed in a third study by Konovsky and Pugh (1994). These authors
examined employees’ relationship with their supervisor, indexing it by the amount of trust the
former had in the latter. Konovsky and Pugh found that supervisory procedural justice increased
trust in one’s boss. This trust, in turn, improved OCB performance.
Moorman, Blakely, and Niehoff (1998) tested a similar framework, though using
organizational support (not supervisory trust) as their relational mediator. Moorman and his
colleagues found that procedural justice caused perceived organizational support. Support, in
turn, caused OCB. Thus, the relationship between an individual and employer acted as a
mediator. This provided support for the extended social exchange model.
One might say that by the end of the 1990s, management scholars had a social exchange
theory of their own. It was derived by Organ and his colleagues (1988a; 1990; Organ &
Konovsky, 1989) from Blau’s (1964) earlier work. Additionally, it was similar to the roughly
contemporaneous social psychological research of Mills and Clark (1982) and Clark and Mills
(1979) in that it emphasized the role of relationship formation. Also as proposed by Organ,
justice was shown to be an important causal antecedent of social exchange relationships, while
these relationships at least partially mediated the impact of fairness (e.g., Konovsky & Pugh,
Social Exchange Theory
17
1994; Moorman et al., 1998). Organizational justice and social exchange theory were closely
aligned, but there was one other idea that needed to be considered.
Multifoci Approaches to Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory maintains that individuals can form multiple relationships at
work. Following from Cropanzano and Byrne (2000) and Rupp and Cropanzano (2001) we refer
to the various potential relationship partners (whether they be individual, groups, or social
entities) as foci of exchange. One especially important focus of exchange is the organization;
another is the supervisor. A third focus, though a bit less widely examined by social exchange
theorists, is the work team. In this section we shall examine evidence pertaining to each of these
foci, organizing our review so as to highlight different relational constructs. Subsequently, we
will consider how this work was adapted by organizational justice researchers.
Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange
A popular multi-foci approach to social exchange integrates two relational constructs –
perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Historically, both of these
constructs have drawn heavily from social exchange theory. POS represents the extent to which
employees believe their organization looks out for and cares about them (Shore & Shore, 1995).
Upon experiencing support, individuals feel an obligation to reciprocate, and this obligation is
especially powerful among those with a strong exchange ideology (Eisenberger, Armeli,
Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). Consequently, supported employees reciprocate by
demonstrating more OCB (Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999; Moorman et al., 1998), higher
job performance (Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Lynch, Eisenberger, &
Armeli, 1999; Hochwarter, Witt, Treadway, & Ferris, 2006; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, &
Birjulin, 1994), and more innovation (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990, Study 2).
Social Exchange Theory
18
POS even reduces sundry forms of withdrawal behavior, including absenteeism (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, Study 2; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, Study
1), turnover (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1993;
Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberge, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Rhoades et al., 2001;
Stinglhamber & Vandenberge, 2003), and tardiness (Eder & Eisenberger, in press).
In contrast, LMX represents the quality of the relationship between a supervisor and
supervisee (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Sparrowe & Liden,
1997). When in a high-quality LMX relationship, individuals show more favorable work
attitudes (Gerstner & Day, 1997), as well as more citizenship behaviors (Hackett et al., 2003;
Ilies et al., 2007; Wayne & Green, 1993) and higher job performance ratings (Chen, Lam, &
Zhong, 2007).
Indeed, some of these studies (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007) have tested
the effects of POS and LMX simultaneously, given that they measure aspects of the distinct
social exchange relationships employees have with their employing organization and
supervisors, respectively The general supposition of these studies was that employees reciprocate
the treatment they believe that have received from others. Thus, if an organization is supportive
of them, then workers are apt to report fewer turnover intentions and more commitment
(outcomes seen to be directed at the organization). Likewise, if one has a high-quality LMX
relationship with their boss, then the employee is apt to show more OCB and job performance
(outcomes seen to be directed at supervision).
An early study was conducted by Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996). These researchers
surveyed 254 hospital employees, with their supervisors reporting on their OCB and
performance. As found in previous research, POS predicted organizational commitment.
Social Exchange Theory
19
However, only LMX predicted OCB and job performance. It is noteworthy that Settoon et al.
operationalized OCB through a measure of altruism. As discussed by Ilies et al. (2007), these
types of measures tend to show stronger associations to LMX. Consequently, these findings
could potentially underestimate the POS/OCB relationship. Later research would operationalize
OCB is multiple ways, allowing for a broader prediction of the construct (e.g., Masterson, Lewis,
Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Regardless, the work of Settoon and his colleagues is important, as it
provides solid support for a multi-foci model of social exchange.
Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) tested a similar model. POS and LMX were both
assessed and found to be reciprocally related. More relevant to the present discussion,
organizational support predicted affective commitment, OCB (contrary to the findings of Settoon
et al., 1996, but consistent with the later meta-analysis of Ilies et al., 2007) and turnover
intentions (negatively). LMX again predicted performance ratings, OCB, and doing favors for
one’s manager. Based on social exchange theory, one would anticipate that a high-quality
relationship with one’s boss would encourage an employee to do favors for him or her. Likewise,
a supportive organization should and did build commitment in its workforce. Performance was
again predicted exclusively by LMX, an issue we will return to at the end of this section.
An extension of these ideas was tested by Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski (2001). These
authors were interested in adjustment among 213 American expatriate mangers working outside
the United States. This study was somewhat complex in that the authors examined two types of
support – first from the parent company and second from the foreign facility. Kraimer and her
colleagues also looked at LMX. LMX was directly related to both task performance and
contextual performance (a variable conceptually similar to OCB, see Organ, 1997). Foreign
facility POS predicted task performance, though this was mediated by work adjustment.
Social Exchange Theory
20
More recently, Wayne et al. (2002) extended the support/LMX model in order to include
procedural and distributive justice. These authors found that both procedural and distributive
justice predicted organizational support. POS then predicted both organizational commitment (a
finding consistent with the work of Fasolo, 1995, and Rhoades et al., 2001) and OCB. Neither
type of justice predicted LMX, though LMX subsequently predicted OCB and job performance
ratings. It is interesting to examine the relationship of organizational support to job performance.
While these two variables exhibited a significant zero-order correlation (r = .27) there was no
evidence of a direct path from support to performance ratings. On the other hand, there was a
significant path from support to OCB and from OCB to performance. Consequently, it is
meaningful to say that POS and performance are related, albeit only indirectly by way of OCB.
This indirect path could explain why previous work (such as that of Settoon et al., 1996) found
weak and nonsignificant associations between POS and performance. Lacking a test of this
indirect effect, the role of support could have been understated. This possibility is an important
one, and something like it was later tested by Walumbwa and Cropanzano (2007).
Varieties of Support and Their Relationship to Commitment
Earlier we mentioned studies by Fasolo (1995) and Rhoades et al. (2001). These POS
scholars maintained that justice (especially procedural justice) causes workers to feel supported.
Subsequently, employees reciprocate POS by building commitment. In the final stage,
commitment leads to improved job performance. A good empirical case can be made for this
model. There is a strong relationship between support and commitment (e.g., Cropanzano et al.,
1997; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1987; Settoon et al., 1996; Randall et al.,
1999; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2002; Wayne et al., 1997), though the two are different
constructs (e.g., Hutchison, 1997; Rhoades et al., 2001; Shore & Wayne, 1993). For its part,
Social Exchange Theory
21
commitment is also a very important workplace variable (Meyer, 1997; Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Among other things, it seems to be related to job performance (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), as is
POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
We might say that the zero-order correlations among POS, organizational commitment,
and performance are well established. Fasolo (1995) and Rhoades et al. (2001) provided
evidence for the correct pattern of mediation as well. What is missing, however, is whether this
dual mediation holds across multiple foci. Organizational support researchers have addressed this
question in two ways, by comparing the organizational focus with the supervisory focus and also
by comparing the organizational focus with the team focus.
Organizational support and supervisory support. Psychometrically, organizational
and supervisory support do not appear to be the same construct (Hutchison, 1997; Kottke &
Sharafinski, 1988). As the supervisor is often seen as an organizational representative,
supervisory support tends to increase perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 2002,
Study 1) and this effect is even stronger when the supervisor has high status (Study 2). In any
case, such findings suggest that one could modify the support/LMX model presented above.
Specifically, organizational support could be retained, while substituting supervisory support for
LMX. Evidence is limited but generally consistent with this organizational support/supervisory
support model.
In a longitudinal study, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2003) assessed organizational
and supervisory support among 238 graduates of a Belgium university. At a later time, the
authors assessed organizational and supervisory commitment, and still later they collected job
separation data. Consistent with predictions, POS caused commitment to the organization,
Social Exchange Theory
22
whereas supervisory support caused commitment to the supervisor. Both types of commitment
were subsequently related to turnover.
Organizational support and team support. Bishop, Scott and their colleagues
conducted a series of studies examining support and commitment within a team environment. In
their first study, Bishop and Scott (2000) surveyed 485 participants in 50 sewing teams. They
found that organizational commitment and team commitment were separable constructs, which
loaded on distinguishable factors and had distinct antecedents. Their next study built on this
preliminary evidence, proposing a multi-foci version of Fasolo’s (1995) and Rhoades et al.’s
(2001) model. Specifically, Bishop, Scott, and Burroughs (2000) found that perceived support
from the organization engendered organizational commitment toward the organization. This
organizational commitment, in turn, reduced turnover intentions and increased citizenship
behaviors. Additionally, perceived support from the team members engendered team
commitment toward the workgroup. This team commitment, in turn, boosted job performance
and also increased citizenship behaviors.
Finally, in a study of over 900 employees at four distinct organizations, Bishop, Scott,
Goldsby, and Cropanzano (2005) replicated Bishop and Scott’s (2000) earlier work, finding once
again that organizational commitment is distinct from team commitment. Bishop et al. also
reported that organizational support is a different construct than team support. Finally, Bishop
and his colleagues presented more evidence that organizational support increases organizational
commitment, while team support increases team commitment.
In a related study of workgroups, Howes, Cropanzano, Grandey, and Mohler (2000)
proposed a slightly more elaborate model. They argued that researchers could distinguish three
support combinations – organizational support for the individual, team support for the individual,
Social Exchange Theory
23
and organizational support for the team. In a study of 25 quality teams, Howes and his
collaborators found that each type of support had different consequences. Organizational support
for the individual was the strongest predictor of organizational commitment and intention to
turnover from the organization. This is generally consistent with Bishop et al. (2000). Team
support for the individual was the best predictor of team commitment, team cohesion, and
intention to turnover from the team. This is generally consistent with Bishop et al. (2005).
Organizational support for the team was the best predictor of team performance, as rated by
upper managers.
Bishop and Scott’s work is impressive because of its cumulative nature. This program of
study lends itself to some important conclusions. First, the team seems to be a viable focus for
social exchange, separate from (though correlated with) the overall organization. Second,
Fasolo’s (1995) and Rhoades et al.’s (2001) model seems reasonable, in that support may be one
cause of commitment (Stinghamber & Vandenberghe’s, 2003, findings are also consistent with
this idea). Third, this model seems to generalize across two different foci – organization and
team. These are important findings, though their implications have not been extensively
examined among justice researchers.
Examining the Role of Trust
As relational constructs go, trust seems a tad underappreciated by social exchange
theorists and justice researchers alike. This is surprising insofar as trust has a long history in
social exchange theory, having been discussed by Blau (1964), Holmes, (1981), and Organ
(1988a). More generally, trust is an important variable for understanding work behavior
(Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). Indeed, a meta-analytic study by Dirks and Ferrin
Social Exchange Theory
24
(2003) determined that trust in leadership was related to OCB, turnover intentions, and job
performance ratings.
Though not a multi-foci study, Konovsky and Pugh (1994) ascertained that trust mediated
the effect of procedural justice on OCB. Generally consistent evidence was also reported by
Pillai, Schriesheim, and Williams (1999). Likewise, Chen and his colleagues (2005) reported that
perceived organizational support increased trust in the organization. Organizational trust, in turn,
led to greater commitment, higher job performance, and increases in two types of citizenship
behaviors.
Trust does hold promise for multi-foci research. Aryee et al. (2002) found that trust in the
organization was related to distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Subsequently,
organizational trust then engendered job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and organizational
commitment. Supervisory trust behaved differently. It was caused by interactional justice and,
for its part, impacted job performance and OCB.
Concluding Thoughts
Research on multi-foci social exchange has produced a number of promising results.
First, social exchange constructs seem to be related to OCB, job performance, and perhaps
turnover. The precise pattern of relationships could be debated, however. While the supervisory
focus seems consistently related to performance, this is less true for the organization as a whole.
Second, employees seem able to distinguish among at least two, and possibly three, relational
foci – organization, supervisor, and team. Third, relational variables tend to act as proximal
causes of work behavior. The sundry models function in the same fashion, but differ as to their
choice of mediators. Probably the most common are support and its variants (organizational,
supervisory, and team). LMX has also been an effective predictor. Evidence favoring trust is
Social Exchange Theory
25
sparser, but the data are promising. Fourth, and perhaps most important here, fairness seems to
serve as an antecedent to the relational constructs (see especially Aryee et al., 2002; Wayne et
al., 2002). Taken together, these findings present an open invitation to justice researchers.
Multifoci Approaches to Organizational Justice
Among the first justice scholars to compare difference sources of justice were Masterson,
Lewis, Goldman, and Taylor (2000). In terms of justice, Masterson et al. were interested in
procedural and interactional fairness (that is, they did not assess distributive justice). Otherwise,
their model was similar to that proposed by Settoon et al. (1996) and Wayne et al. (1997; 2002).
Employees’ relationship with the organization was operationalized by POS, while employees’
relationship with the immediate supervisor was operationalized by leader-member exchange.
Masterson and her colleagues reasoned that since procedures are often set by the organization,
procedural justice would be most efficacious predictor of POS. Since interpersonal treatment
often comes from the boss, then interactional justice would be most strongly related to LMX.
These predictions were supported. Also important for the social exchange model, POS mediated
the impact of procedural fairness on OCB intended to help the organization (OCBO), turnover
intentions, and organizational commitment. LMX mediated the impact of interactional justice on
OCB intended to help the supervisor (OCBS), job satisfaction, and job performance. Unlike
Fasolo (1995) and Rhoades et al. (2001), Masterson et al. (2000) did not propose a causal link
from organizational support to performance. A smaller-scale, but generally similar, study was
reported by Cropanzano, Prehar, and Chen (2002). Cropanzano et al. examined employees’
responses to their performance appraisals. The researchers controlled for distributive justice but
did not otherwise incorporate outcomes into their model. Like Masterson et al., these researchers
argued that formal procedural justice would be the best predictor of responses toward the
Social Exchange Theory
26
organization, including trust in upper management, performance appraisal system satisfaction,
and job satisfaction. Conversely, interactional justice was anticipated to predict supervisory
focused responses, including LMX, supervisory satisfaction, satisfaction with feedback, and job
performance. LMX was posited to mediate the effect of interactional justice on the other three
variables. Findings were supportive, with the exception of job satisfaction. Notice, however, that
Cropanzano and colleagues did not include a measure of the relationship with the organization,
such as POS.
Extending this model even further, Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) questioned whether
procedures necessarily always derived from the organization and whether interactions
necessarily only came from the supervisor. They reasoned that supervisors have some discretion
in setting formal policies, while firms as a whole can be characterized by the interpersonal
treatment their workers receive. Omitting distributive justice, they considered four types of
fairness – organizationally-focused procedural justice (OPJ), organizationally-focused
interactional justice (OIJ), supervisory-focused procedural justice (SPJ), and supervisory-focused
interactional justice (SIJ). The effects of the two organizationally-focused variables, OPJ and
OIJ, were expected to be mediated by one’s social exchange relationship with the organization
and to be indirectly related to OCB. The effects of the supervisory-focused variables, SPJ and
SIJ, were expected to be mediated by one’s social exchange relationship with the supervisor and
to indirectly predict OCBS and job performance. Arguing that supervisors play a special role in
the worklife of their reports, Rupp and Cropanzano also maintained that interactional justice, by
way of supervisory social exchange, would predict OCBO (for more discussion of this sort of
relationship, see Ilies et al., 2007).
Social Exchange Theory
27
Results were largely, but not entirely, consistent with Rupp and Cropanzano’s (2002)
model. Most significantly, evidence supported the predicted effects for interactional justice but
not for procedural justice. This may have been due to the high correlations for justice within each
focus. For example, OPJ and OIJ were correlated .75, and the factor correlation was .88.
Likewise, SPJ and SIJ were correlated .79, and their factor correlation was .91. Intercorrelations
this high make it difficult to find independent effects within each focus.
A different take on a similar model was tested by Liden, Wayne, Kraimer, and Sparrowe
(2003). Liden and his colleagues examined responses to procedural justice from contingent
workers. These individuals received procedural fair (or unfair) treatment from one of two
organizations, rather than from a single organization and a supervisor. Specifically, Liden et al.
investigated procedural fairness from the employment agency, as well as procedural fairness
from the employing organization. These researchers found that agency justice predicted agency
POS, and agency POS predicted agency commitment. Likewise, organization justice predicted
organization POS, and organization POS predicted organizational commitment. Organizational
commitment engendered altruistic OCB. Notice that the two foci under investigation here, the
employment agency and the organization, are distinct from those explored by Masterson and her
colleagues (2001). Nevertheless, theoretically similar findings were reported.
While unanswered questions remain, these findings are quite encouraging. Procedural
justice and interactional justice, when their effects are at least partially mediated by relational
variables, are able to predict OCBO and OCBS, respectively. The evidence for job performance
is also interesting. One commonality among the studies of Masterson et al. (2001), Cropanzano
et al. (2002), and Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) is that only SIJ, working through supervisoryfocused social exchange relationships, was a consistent predictor of job performance ratings.
Social Exchange Theory
28
Though the variables are not directly comparable, these findings share much in common with the
results reported by Aryee et al. (2002), Settoon et al. (1996), Wayne et al. (1997), and Kraimer et
al. (2000). They are also consistent with the work of Bishop et al. (2000), who failed to find that
POS (mediated by organizational commitment in Bishop et al.’s study) predicted job
performance. However, these findings are less consistent with the work of Wayne et al. (2002),
who determined that POS was able to predict performance, though its effect was mediated by
another variable (see also Fasolo, 1995; Rhoades et al., 2001). It seems possible that the
inclusion of mediators could allow scholars to obtain significant, though indirect, associations
between organizational support and job performance ratings.
Recent Extensions #1: The Four-Factor Model of Justice
As should be apparent, all of the aforementioned justice studies employed a threecomponent model of justice – distributive, procedural, and interactional, though not always
measuring distributive. Historically, this is a popular and influential model (Cropanzano, Byrne
et al., 2001). However, another viable approach is to subdivide interactional justice into two
additional parts. The first part is informational justice, which refers to the appropriate openness
and honesty in communication. The second is interpersonal justice, which refers to treatment of
others with dignity and respect. Evidence suggests that this is useful approach for structuring
justice (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).
In an initial attempt to examine the four-factor model of justice within the context of
social exchange theory, Roch and Shanock (2006) surveyed two samples of individuals – One a
set of employed undergraduates and another a set of working university alumni. Within both of
these samples, Roch and Shanock found that distributive justice predicted pay satisfaction, while
Social Exchange Theory
29
procedural justice predicted organizational support. In an exploratory analysis, these authors
found that interpersonal justice also predicted organizational support.
In addition to informational and interpersonal justice, Roch and Shanock (2006) also
considered a broad measure of interactional justice. This measure correlated quite highly with
interpersonal justice (r =.80 in sample one, and r = .81 in sample two). Separately, both
interpersonal justice and interactional justice were associated with LMX. However, when both
considered simultaneously the effect for interpersonal justice was nonsignificant due to the high
correlation with interactional justice. Interestingly, the correlation between interpersonal and
informational justice was less substantial.
A similar study was conducted by Camerman, Cropanzano, and Vandenberghe (in press),
who surveyed 162 Belgium contingent workers. As the survey was done through an employment
agency, there was no supervisor as such. Instead, Camerman et al. examined worker response to
their staffing agents. Building on earlier work, these researchers posited that procedural justice
would predict organizational support. It was predicted that POS, in turn, would predict
organizational commitment (as suggested by Bishop et al., 2000; 2005; Fasolo, 1995; Rhoades et
al., 2001, and Stinglhamber & Vandenberghe, 2003). Taking the place of interactional fairness,
informational justice and interpersonal justice were expected to predict trust in the staffing agent
(as suggested by Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Trust, in turn, was expected to predict commitment
to the staffing agent. Finally, Camerman and her colleagues also included distributive justice, but
did not expect that it would predict either of the relational variables (ie., POS or trust). Similar to
Roch and Shanock (2006), they posited that distributive justice would be directly related to
outcome satisfaction.
Social Exchange Theory
30
Results were generally supportive, though interpersonal justice was not associated with
trust in the staffing agent. The authors speculated that this might be due to the fact that the
sample was of temporary workers. Information about job opportunities could have been more
crucial that politeness. Interestingly, post hoc exploratory analyses suggested that model fit
might be improved if a path was added from informational justice to POS. Such a cross-foci
effect is, of course, similar to that obtained by Roch and Shanock (2006).
In a subsequent study, Walumbwa and Cropanzano (2007) sought to integrate and extend
previous work. To do so, they incorporated ideas from several others studies. First, they
employed the four-factor model of justice, as recommended by Camerman et al. (in press).
Second, they maintained that distributive justice would predict social exchange relationships at
the organizational focus, as found by Wayne et al. (2002). Third, they used LMX to
operationalize the supervisory social exchange relationship, as done by Masterson et al. (2000)
and Cropanzano et al. (2002). Fourth, they posited that the organizationally-focused relationship
would have an indirect association with job performance, as found by Wayne et al. Fifth, they
posited that LMX would have a direct association with job performance, as found by Masterson
et al., Cropanzano et al., and Settoon et al. (1996). Sixth, they examined the cross-foci effects
found by Rupp and Cropanzano (2002). Specifically, Walumbwa and Cropanzano maintained by
both LMX and also POS would be associated with job performance ratings.
While Walumbwa and Cropanzano’s (2007) model had much in common with previous
research, there were also some differences. These were primarily relevant to the organizational
focus. For one thing, Walumbwa and Cropanzano employed organizational identification as the
operationalization of an employee’s social exchange relationship with a firm as a whole. They
suspected that identification would increase voluntary learning behaviors, while these behaviors
Social Exchange Theory
31
would subsequently boost job performance. Note that learning behavior had not been examined
in previous multi-foci research.
These predictions were tested in a three-wave longitudinal study of 398 employees of a
large automobile dealership. Overall, the results were highly supportive. As expected,
distributive justice and procedural justice each engendered organizational identification.
Identification then increased both learning behavior and job performance. Learning behavior also
impacted performance ratings. Meanwhile, at the supervisory focus, interpersonal and
informational justice both predicted LMX. Subsequently, LMX impacted both learning behavior
and job performance. As was true with Roch and Shanock (2006) and Camerman et al. (in press)
study, the Walumbwa and Cropanzano’s (2007) results attest to the power of the four-factor
model of justice in multi-foci research.
Recent Extensions #2: Unit-Level Justice and the Multi-Foci Model
As should also be apparent from our review thus far, the social exchange-based justice
research to date has been conducted at the individual level of analysis. That is, employees are
asked how fairly they feel they themselves are treated in terms of outcomes, procedures, and
interpersonal treatment by the organization, supervisor, and team. These self-based justice
perceptions are then shown to impact social exchange relationships between the employee
making the justice judgment and focus of that judgment (be it the supervisor or the
organization—operationalized as POS, LMX, trust, and so on). Finally, the quality of the social
exchange relationship impacts the employee’s subsequent attitudes, OCBs, performance, and
turnover intentions. Whereas this research has been crucial to our understanding of both social
exchange and fairness in its own right, a recent trend to consider justice at higher levels of
analysis serves to push our awareness of these constructs even further.
Social Exchange Theory
32
Justice climate. It was Mossholder, Bennett, and Martin (1998) who first proposed the
idea of a unit-level “context for justice,” arguing that a procedural justice violation directed at
any individual group member might be seen as a procedural justice violation directed at the
entire group. With a sample of 53 bank branches, these authors showed that procedural justice
ratings, aggregated to the branch level, predicted 20% of the variance in employee job
satisfaction (but did not predict commitment). Naumann and Bennet (2000) coined the term
“procedural justice climate,” which refers to a distinct group-level cognition about how a work
group as a whole is treated. Using data from 40 bank branches, these authors found that cohesion
and visibility, but not demographic similarity, predicted procedural justice climate, and
procedural justice climate predicted OCBs (but again, not commitment).
Colquitt, Noe, and Jackson (2002) showed with a sample of 88 semiautonomous teams
within six automobile part manufacturing plants that smaller, more collective teams predicted
procedural justice climate. Further, procedural justice climate predicted team performance and
absenteeism. Ehrhart (2004), using a sample of 249 grocery store departments showed servant
leadership to be a significant antecedent of procedural justice climate, and procedural justice
climate to predict team performance and absenteeism. Finally, Simons and Roberson (2003)
extended this burgeoning literature by measuring both procedural and interactional justice
climate, and testing models at the individual, group, and organizational level of analysis. Using
an impressive dataset from over 100 hotel properties, these authors found both procedural and
interactional justice climate to predict commitment and satisfaction, which in turn predicted
discretionary service behavior, intent to remain, guest service satisfaction, and turnover at
multiple levels of analysis.
Social Exchange Theory
33
Multifoci justice climate. Although an important set of studies, it may seem at first
glance that this body of research is not entirely relevant to the investigation we have embarked
upon in the present paper. That is, these studies are neither based on social exchange theory, nor
do they take a multfoci perspective. It was this point exactly that led Liao and Rupp (2005) to
argue for the viability of multifoci justice climate. They argued that the multifoci, social
exchange based phenomenon evidenced by Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) at the individual level
of analysis, can also be manifested at the unit level of analysis. That is, through social
information processing and socialization processes, shared cognitions regarding the treatment of
the team by multiple foci emerge, which through group level social exchange relationships with
various foci, impact attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
Using a sample of 44 work groups, Liao and Rupp aggregated 6 forms of justice to the
unit level of analysis, creating supervisory procedural justice climate, supervisory informational
justice climate, supervisory interpersonal justice climate, organizational procedural justice
climate, organizational informational justice climate, and organizational interpersonal justice
climate variables. Using hierarchical linear modeling, Liao and Rupp showed that these grouplevel multifoci justice climate variables predicted multifoci commitment, satisfaction, and OCB
above and beyond the effects of individual-level multifoci justice perceptions. Further, consistent
with the individual-level multifoci literature, results showed a tendency for justice climate
surrounding a particular focus (e.g., supervisor, organization) to best predict outcomes directed at
that source, further supporting the notions of social exchange theory in a multilevel context.
Measurement issues and multifoci justice alignment. Subsequently, Rupp, Bashshur,
and Liao (in press a; in press b) have extended the multifoci justice climate research in two ways.
First, they caution those conducting multilevel multifoci justice research to carefully consider the
Social Exchange Theory
34
composition model used to measure justice climate variables. In doing so, they provide empirical
evidence showing that justice climate is easiest to detect when a multifoci referent shift model is
used. Such a model requires employees to be asked how fairly they feel their team is treated by
the multiple parties with whom the team members must interact (e.g., the supervisor,
organization, other teams, etc).
Secondly, Rupp and colleagues propose an important future area of investigation for
multifoci justice researchers (those interested in both individual and unit level phenomena): That
of multifoci alignment. That is, we can use polynomial regression and response surface
methodology to consider the effect on outcomes when employees (and groups of employees) are
treated similarly or differently by the various foci. Using data from a sample of resident hall
advisors at a large state university, Rupp et all showed that whereas consistently fair treatment
from various sources led to positive outcomes, and consistently unfair treatment from various
sources led to negative outcomes, the most negative effects resulted from inconsistent treatment.
That is, employees engaged in fewer OCBs when they were treated fairly by the supervisor, but
unfairly by the organization, than in situations where they were treated unfairly by both foci.
These methods and preliminary findings open the door for several social exchange-based
multifoci studies focusing on uncertainties regarding the contingencies for behavior, and the noncompensatory nature of multifoci justice.
Circling back to social exchange. Clearly, what the multilevel multifoci literature is still
lacking is an explicit modeling of social exchange mediators such as POS, LMX, and trust.
Whereas Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) tested a multifoci justice model with multifoci social
exchange mediating effects on multifoci outcomes (all at the individual level of analysis), Liao
and Rupp (2005) did not explicitly test social exchange as a mediator (nor did the other justice
Social Exchange Theory
35
climate studies). This is certainly a direction that future research should take, although this is
easier said than done. The best way to test for multifoci justice climate is using random
coefficient modeling (RCM, often done using hierarchical linear modeling, HLM), which allows
investigators to test for incremental justice climate effects, above and beyond the effects of
individual level justice perceptions. However, it is difficult to test for mediation using HLM.
Despite this challenge, other research taking a higher level perspective has made a place
for social exchange. For example Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, and Williams (2006) present a
model proposing that employees’ perceptions of their employer’s level of corporate social
responsibility impacts the quality of social exchange between employee and employer, which
consequently impacts the employee’s attitudes and behaviors. This represents an interesting new
area, where the focus of the justice perception shifts externally—considering how the
organization is treating others (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, in press).
Concluding Thoughts
This paper sought to explicitly integrate the social exchange literature with that of
organizational justice. Although early formulations of social exchange focused on various types
of transactions and the maximization of outcome favorability, thanks to the work of researchers
such as Blau, Mills and Clark, Moorman, and Organ, Konovsky and Pugh we have not only seen
a shift toward the study of relationships within social exchange theory, we have also seen an
explicit treatment of justice as a primary catalyst for such relationships. Further, we have seen
justice scholars argue that if we are to accept that employees form social exchange relationships
at work, and fairness engenders the formation of such relationships, then it is critical to explicitly
take a multifoci perspective that differentially measures justice coming from different foci, the
quality of exchange with different foci (e.g., LMX, POS, trust), and employee attitudes and
Social Exchange Theory
36
behaviors directed at different foci. Indeed, the norm of reciprocity has been shown to be alive
and well, with the cleanest justice-social exchange-outcome effects when foci are aligned.
Lavelle, Rupp, and Brockner (in press) have termed this the target similarity effect. By reviewing
the multifoci perspectives taken in the justice, commitment, and OCB literatures, respectively,
Lavelle et al. support the arguments we have made here, that the focus of the justice judgment
impacts the quality of social exchange with that focus, and will subsequently impact attitudes
and behaviors directed at that focus. The multilevel, justice climate literature furthers this
analysis, and also presents opportunities to study multifoci alignment. Clearly, we have come a
long way, although a number of investigative opportunities remain ahead.
Social Exchange Theory
37
REFERENCES
Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C., & Ganapathi, J. (in press). Putting the S back in
corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational
support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of
Management, 29, 99-118.
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.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational trust 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, 1113-1132.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., Goldsby, M. G., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). A construct validity study
of commitment and perceived support variables: A multi-foci approach across different
team environments. Group and Organization Management, 30, 153-180.
Camerman, J., Cropanzano, R., & Vandenberghe, C. (in press). The benefits of justice for
temporary workers. Group and Organization Management.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A
new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level
empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 202-212.
Social Exchange Theory
38
Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C. (2005). Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational
support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 457-470.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
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.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and
consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through the lens of
social exchange theory. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick
(Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual
perspectives (pp. 5-28). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
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 (pp. 142-161). London: Routledge.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness
heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
Social Exchange Theory
39
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (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., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to
organizational justice. In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management (Vol. 20, pp. 1-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002_. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R. (in press). Perceived organizational support: Reducing the negative
influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation
of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.
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.
Social Exchange Theory
40
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and
Employee Retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.
Fahr, J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship
behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16,
705-722.
Fasolo, P. M. (1995). Procedural justice and perceived organizational support: Hypothesized
effects on job performance. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational
politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp.
185-195). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. New
York: The Free Press.
French, W. (1964). The personnel management process: Human resources administration. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.
Gergen, K. J. (1969). The psychology of behavioral exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gerstner, C. R., & David, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange
theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement American
Sociological Review, 25,161-178.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
Social Exchange Theory
41
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bein, 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.
Hackett, R. D., Farh, J., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. (2003). LMX and organizational citizenship
behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese samples. In G. B.
Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity (pp. 219-264). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Piliavin, J. A. (1978). Equity theory and helping relationships. In:
L. Wispe (Ed.), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological
Principles (pp. 115-139). New York: Academic Press.
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interaction of
social skill and organizational support on job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 482-489.
Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and
macromotives. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social
behavior (pp. 261-284). New York: Plenum.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597606.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Howes, J. C., Cropanzano, R., Grandey, A. A., & Mohler, C. J. (2000). Who is supporting
whom?: Quality team effectiveness and perceived organizational support. Journal of
Quality Management, 5, 207-223.
Hutchison, S. (1997). Perceived organizational support: Further evidence of construct validity.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 1025-1034.
Social Exchange Theory
42
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E., & Patton, G.K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127, 376-407.
Kaufman, J. D., Stamper, C. L., & Tesluk, P. E. (2001). Do supportive climates make for good
corporate citizens? Journal of Managerial Issues, XIII, 436-449.
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 and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational
support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075-1079.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate
performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 42, 7199.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal
of Management, 32, 991-1022.
Social Exchange Theory
43
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work
outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242256.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past
and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.) Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 15, pp. 47-119: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
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.
Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: inferior
versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
467-483.
Lind, E. A. (1995). Justice and authority relations in organizations. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M.
Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social
climate of work organizations (pp. 83-96). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western pacific: An account of native enterprise and
adventure in the archipelagoes of Melansian New Guinea. London: Routledge.
Malinowski, B. (1932). Crime and custom in savage society. London: Paul, Trench, Trubner.
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.
Social Exchange Theory
44
Mauss, M. (1925). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York:
The Norton Library.
Meyer, J. P. (1997). Organizational commitment. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 175-228). New
York: Wiley.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 133-156). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
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., & 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.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural
justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131-141.
Murstein, B. I., Cerreto, M., & MacDonald, M. G. (1977). A theory and investigation of the
effect of exchange orientation on marriage and friendship. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 39, 543-548.
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and
test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management, 43, 881-889.
Social Exchange Theory
45
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 527-556.
Organ, D. W. (1988a). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
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, pp. 4372). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
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.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership and organizational justice:
Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30,
763-779.
Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational
politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job
performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 159-174.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
Social Exchange Theory
46
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.
Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an exchange framework:
Clarifying organizational justice dimensions. Journal of Management, 32, 299-322.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-946.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M. R., & Liao, H. (in press a). Justice climate past, present, and future:
Models of structure and emergence. Research in Multilevel Issues.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M., & Liao, H. (in press b). Justice climate: Consideration of the source,
target, specificity, and emergence. Research in Multilevel Issues.
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to
corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 537-543.
Lavelle, J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (in press). Multifoci perspectives and target similarity in
organizational behavior: Bridging justice, commitment, and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Management.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
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.
Social Exchange Theory
47
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689-695.
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice.
In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and
support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 149-164). Westport,
CT: Quorum Books.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Liden, R. C., McLean-Parks, J., et
al. (2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of
transition. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
managemen, (Vol. 23, pp. 291-370). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of
aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 432-443.Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are
outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A
meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309–341.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitment. New York: Basic
Books.
Social Exchange Theory
48
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of
support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 251-270.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In: M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange
(LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital
for competitive advantage. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management (Vol. 18, pp. 137-185). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by
means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and
satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1493–1503.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Cropanzano, R. (2007, August). Doing well by doing good: Effects of
multi-foci justice on performance and organizational learning. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Philadelphia, PA.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee
citizenship and impression management. Human Relations, 46, 1431-1440.
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.
Social Exchange Theory
49
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
82-111.
Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes: Organizational citizenship
behaviors relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1490-1501.
Witt, L. A. (1992). Exchange Ideology as a moderator of the relationships between importance of
participation in decision making and job attitudes Human Relations, 45, 73-85.
Witt, L. A., & Broach, D. (1993). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the procedural justicesatisfaction relationship. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 97-103.
Witt, L. A., Kacmar, K. M., & Andrews, M. C. (2001). The interactive effects of procedural
justice and exchange ideology on supervisor-rated commitment Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22, 505-515.