Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity.

Abstract

Social exchange (P. Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (A. W. Gouldner, 1960) have been used to explain the relationship of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange with employee attitudes and behavior. Recent empirical research suggests that individuals engage in different reciprocation efforts depending on the exchange partner (e.g., B. L. McNeely & B. M. Meglino, 1994). The purpose of the present study was to further investigate these relationships by examining the relative contribution of indicators of employee-organization exchange and subordinate-supervisor exchange. Structural equation modeling was used to compare nested models. Results indicate that perceived organizational support is associated with organizational commitment, whereas leader-member exchange is associated with citizenship and in-role behavior.

Getting off on the right foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations.

“…We argue that the attitudes formed on the basis of one or more negotiation counterparts in an employment negotiation spread, in turn, to satisfaction with one's job as a whole. Previous research has demonstrated that job satisfaction can result from the quality of employees' relationships with key individuals such as supervisors (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996;Yukl, 1989) or close friends at work (Winstead, Derlega, Montgomery, & Pilkington, 1995). We argue that incoming employees see their negotiation counterparts as representatives of their employing organizations and likely generalize from the relationship that they developed during the negotiation.…”

Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.

“…Indeed, LMX research has revealed that the quality of the relationship has a positive relationship with the frequency with which followers engage in activities beyond the employment contract (Liden & Graen, 1980;Settoon et al, 1996;Wayne & Green, 1993). However, as noted, estimates of the strength of the LMXcitizenship behavior relationship have varied considerably.…”

“…Citizenship behaviors are likely avenues for reciprocation because they reflect discretionary individual behavior that is less likely to be recognized by job descriptions or formal reward systems (Organ, 1988). In essence, subordinates in higher quality LMX relationships "pay back" their leaders by engaging in citizenship (i.e., discretionary) behaviors that benefit the leader and others in the work setting Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996).…”

“…Third, different studies have used various methodologies, including ratings of the relationship between LMX and organizational citizenship behaviors from different rating perspectives (Tierney, Bauer & Potter, 2002;Townsend, Phillips & Elkins, 2000) and different measures with different reliabilities (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004;Settoon et al, 1996), and thus the estimates are not directly comparable. Furthermore, it is useful to investigate whether methodological factors, such as the rating source, further moderate the relationship between LMX and individual-and organization-targeted citizenship behaviors.…”

The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance.

“…

AbstractThis field study examines the joint effects of social exchange relationships at work (LMX:leader-member exchange and TMX: team-member exchange) and employee personality Existing research has demonstrated the importance of personality characteristics and social exchange relationships as predictors of task and citizenship performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991;Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990;Judge & Ilies, 2002;LePine & Van Dyne, 2001;Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). To date, however, consideration of personality characteristics and social exchange relationships as predictors of employee performance has been addressed in two predominantly separate literatures.

…”