Social exchange theory (SET) is one the most influential conceptual paradigms in organizational behavior. Despite its usefulness, theoretical ambiguities within SET remain. As a consequence, tests of the model, as well as its applications, tend to rely on an incompletely specified set of ideas. The authors address conceptual difficulties and highlight areas in need of additional research. In so doing, they pay special attention to four issues: (a) the roots of the conceptual ambiguities, (b) norms and rules of exchange, (c) nature of the resources being exchanged, and (d) social exchange relationships.

Using two criteria, specificity and intensity, to classify seven different constructs is complicated, but it yields interpretable results. Figure 2 displays the Pearson et al. model. The constructs and definitions are paraphrased from their Figure 8.2 (p. 191). Notice that CWB is presented as a broad family of negative work behaviors, which are termed "deviant" when a norm is transgressed. In this model there are three types of deviance-violence, aggression, and incivility. These range from high-intensity (violence) to low-intensity (incivility), with aggression lying in between. Finally, there are two types of chronic aggression, mobbing (highto moderate-intensity) and bullying (moderate-to low-intensity). Aggression. While Pearson et al. (2005) view aggression as narrower than CWB, other researchers treat aggressive behaviors more expansively. Some researchers have considered workplace aggression as a broad concept that subsumes potentially hurtful and harmful constructs (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Particularly, it is inclusive of a range of behaviors that seeks to harm someone physically or psychologically. Perhaps the broadest approach is taken by Hershcovis (2011) and Hershcovis and Barling (2007). They define workplace aggression as "any negative act, which may be committed towards an individual within the workplace, or the workplace itself, in ways that the target is motivated to avoid" (Hershcovis & Barling, 2007, p. 271). Their approach diverges from others as it does not consider intention to harm as part of the definition (Shewach & Sackett, 2016). Taking a similar view, Neuman and Baron (2005) classify the various types of aggressive behaviors along three dimensions: (a) physical or verbal, (b) active or passive, and (c) direct or indirect. For example, a type of aggression that is physical, active, and direct might be homicide, while one that is verbal, passive, and indirect might involve a failure to provide needed feedback. Neuman and Baron's three-dimensional taxonomy could account for many of the different Page 9 of 107 Academy of Management Annals SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY 10 constructs that have been mentioned so far. Incivility could be viewed as active and direct. Theft or sabotage, which are types of productive deviance, are classified as physical, active, and indirect. Although there are distinct differences regarding these behaviors, there are some similarities as well. Overlaps may be attributed to varying research goals as scholars seek to untangle the negative actions and interactions within organizations. First, some researchers tend to conceptualize aggressive behaviors as retaliatory, while others view them as voluntarily deviant. Speaking very loosely, retaliatory behaviors are provoked by the wrongdoing of others, whereas voluntary behaviors are chosen by the actor without provocation. As an example of the former, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) conceptualize workplace aggression as organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB). These behaviors are employed to punish the organization and its membe...

No abstract

Recent research suggests that a better understanding of emotional exhaustion requires the development of new theoretical perspectives. To that end, with the conservation of resources model (COR) as the theoretical framework, the present 1-year longitudinal study was undertaken. Composed of 52 social welfare workers, this research examined the relationship of emotional exhaustion to job satisfaction, voluntary turnover, and job performance. Positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) were used as control variables. Whereas emotional exhaustion was unrelated to job satisfaction, it was associated with both performance and subsequent turnover. In addition, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and performance and also between emotional exhaustion and turnover remained significant above and beyond the effects of PA and NA. Future research directions and implications of the findings are introduced.

No abstract