Explaining Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review of the Social Exchange Perspective

by Tiffany Schroeder

WP-10-03

Copyright Department of Organizational Behavior Weatherhead School of Management Case Western Reserve University Cleveland OH 44106-7235 e-mail: ler6@case.edu

OCB and Social Exchange 2

Explaining Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review of the Social Exchange Perspective Tiffany Schroeder Case Western Reserve University

OCB and Social Exchange 3 Abstract Social Exchange has been widely cited as an explanation for why employees might act as good organizational citizens, proposing that individuals perform OCB as part of a desire to maintain equitable and favorable workplace relationships that extend beyond the benefits of the more impersonal contractual agreements. Although this perspective has been given much credit in the study of OCB, I argue that a lack of clarity around the underlying assumptions and connection to motives for OCB, in combination with a dearth of attention to alternative explanations for findings around justice, have thwarted a critical examination of this explanation to employee citizenship. In this paper I attempt to clarify the social exchange explanation by outlining several additional assumptions underlying this approach to OCB, and then use these assumptions to highlight empirical and conceptual gaps. Finally, I consider the value of the social exchange perspective for future research on OCB.

OCB and Social Exchange 4

Researchers have been studying organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) for over 30 years now, with insights into antecedents and motives guided primarily through the lens of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Although other researchers have also explored OCB from intraindividual perspectives (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Motowidlo et al., 1997) and through an impression management framework (Bolino, 1999), this paper is limited to the OCB research based on social exchange theory. A reliance on social exchange as an explanatory mechanism has led us to discovery of several important antecedents of citizenship: relationships between perceptions of justice, equity, relationship quality, as well as several important consequences including enhanced productivity, lower turnover, and higher customer satisfaction (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). But despite its apparent popularity and role in guiding the study of organizational citizenship to date, some scholars have begun to question reliance on social exchange as the dominant explanatory framework of citizenship behavior (Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Snape & Redman, 2010; Zellars & Tepper, 2003). In this review I start by giving a brief history as to how and why scholars became interested in applying social exchange to OCB. I then provide a more in-depth look at the major tenets of the perspective, and the findings attributed to it. Building on previous accounts of social exchange, I propose several key unexamined assumptions, discuss areas where more work is needed, and give examples of alternative explanations for extant findings. In the last section I revisit the perspective in terms of its proposed significance and provide suggestions for future research.

OCB and Social Exchange 5 The concept of OCB originally grew out of Dennis Organs musings into explanations for the apparent non-relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Organ, 1988). Organizational citizenship behavior was eventually proposed as an alternative form of performance, differentiated from traditional performance on the basis of its relative freedom from situational and ability constraints (p.70). Essentially, the upper boundary of task performance is largely limited by a persons knowledge, skills, and ability, and the lower boundary is limited by the fear of losing ones job. This means the individual performing the job does not have a great deal of room to vary in performance based on their satisfaction with the context. In contrast, helping a coworker does not necessarily depend on expertise in helping, and because doing so is not typically tied to a persons job description that person may decide not to perform the behavior at all. In this sense, citizenship has more freedom to vary than task performance, and should be comparatively more likely to vary with a persons cognitive or affective appraisal (i.e., job satisfaction) of the workplace (Organ, 1988). Researchers started out exploring the role between job satisfaction and OCB, but the focus soon shifted to fairness. The reasoning here was that satisfaction and its close relative, commitment, were reflections of the employees attitudes toward the organization, rather than direct insights on how they perceive the organization to be acting toward them (Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993). While satisfaction and commitment might be influenced by both cognitions and mood, fairness- thought to be a component of satisfaction- represented a conscious calculation of the environment. The calculative nature of the cognitive judgment was thought to be less influenced by stable dispositional factors and less prone to situational fluctuation than other types of attitudes. Therefore, fairness perceptions represented a potentially more useful target of study than other attitudinal forms, in terms of both providing a window of

OCB and Social Exchange 6 insight into employees cognitions and in foreshadowing potential receptivity to managerial interventions (Organ, 1988; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). This cognitive approach fit in line nicely with the emerging social exchange explanation. Social exchange provided a mechanism for the intuitive link between attitudes and performance. The idea was that many acts in the workplace are not strictly regulated by contractual obligations, but through a more implicit and discretionary exchange of resources, including those more social in nature (Blau, 1964). According to this perspective employees might perform OCBs out of a sense of obligation to return any number of perceived material or social benefits they have gained from the organization (Organ, Podsakoff. & MacKenzie, 2006). Social exchange has received a great deal of credit during the last three decades for linking employee attitudes and OCB performance, yet as Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) point out, many ambiguities remain. The precise motive prompting employees to perform OCBs and logistics of the process are not always clear, as detailed in the following section. The Social Exchange Perspective As Cropanzano & Michell (2005) point out, social exchange can refer to a type of transaction, but has typically been conceptualized as a type of relationship by OCB theorists (e.g., Organ, 1988). In this view, organizations function partially through mutually desirable relationships in which parties give and receive a variety of benefits- including socio-emotional benefits. When trust has been developed to a critical level, employees can engage in behaviors beyond the minimum requirement, trusting that they will not be taken advantage of, but rather their needs will be met through this ongoing relationship. In this light, social exchange does not explicitly specify motives beyond the desire to maintain the exchange relationship.

OCB and Social Exchange 7 But researchers have given a few possible motives for engaging in OCB from this perspective, or for sustaining the relationship. Indeed, without an explanation as to why employees might be motivated to engage in such an exchange, the perspective would not offer much in the way of explanation or prediction of behavior. Concerning motives on the employees parts, there have generally been two similar, yet distinct, lines of reasoning within the social exchange perspective for why people might perform OCBs. First, when people perceive that they are treated fairly, the norm of reciprocity says that they should reciprocate (Blau, 1964). So people perform OCBs in order to give back to the organization, or organizational leader. This explanation is typically linked to group-value literature, placing heavy emphasis on the quality of the relationship, such that employees are guided to return benefits in order to maintain the social exchange relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2001). The second line of reasoning is similar but slightly more proactive: Because Im treated fairly, I can act now, trusting that my contributions will be fairly rewarded over the long-term. Typically these explanations imply a trade-off such that the employee is sacrificing something in the short-term with the expectation that in the long-run they will be fairly compensated for their efforts (e.g., Organ & Moorman, 1991). Again, OCB researchers have typically not focused on disentangling motives when discussing social exchange. They have typically provided arguments similar to one of the above, or a combination of these, to explain why employees might partake in social exchange, but focused most attention on linking perceptions of justice to citizenship behavior. Whether or not OCBs are performed proactively or reactively, with or without motivation beyond sustaining the social exchange relationship, there are three core features defining social exchange according to Organ and colleagues (2006, p. 72):

OCB and Social Exchange 8 1. Voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returnsthey are expected to bring and typically in fact do bring from others (Blau, 1964, p. 91) 2. The obligation by a party to reciprocate a benefit voluntarily rendered by some other party. However, the obligation is unspecified as to form degree, or time of reciprocation 3. It depends on trust- that is, confidence that the other party will, in good time and in some appropriate manner and situation, reciprocate benefits, contributions, or favors; reciprocation cannot be enforced by appeal to third parties. These statements primarily encompass the motives of individual actions rather than the relationship itself. In the end, it seems, we cannot fully understand the relationship without understanding individual motives, and likewise cannot fully understand individual motives without appreciating the complex nature of benefits accrued through dynamic relationships. In reality, there are likely multiple benefits and motives underlying each action in social exchange (Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008a), making it difficult to identify where and when the social exchange label may be applied to a set of transactions. In an effort to clarify this, I have identified some additional assumptions that seem necessary, but not sufficient, components of social exchange, starting with assumptions regarding the nature of exchanges: 1. Dyadic: Both parties are actively involved as giver and receiver in the exchange of non-contractual benefits. 2. Non-contracted/non-explicit: Further, both similarly view benefits as (mostly) discretionary in order to qualify as, and maintain, social exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). It is the perceived discretion over form and timing that

OCB and Social Exchange 9 primarily otherwise would be economic exchange from social exchange (Organ et al., 2006) 3. Frequent: Social exchanges should be ongoing and frequent in order to maintain a generalized sense of obligation toward one another, and trust in reciprocity. 4. Observable: Both sides should be able to see something in order to feel an obligation to reciprocate 5. Long-Term Stablility: Roughly equivalent exchange will occur over the longterm, but not necessarily in the short-term 6. Benefits are Beneficial: In order to maintain social exchange, receiving parties must actually perceive that the discretionary acts are desirable. Although implied above, there are also a number of assumptions that pertain to the cognitions of the actor: 1. Action is Desirable: Discretionary behavior is assumed to be received by the other graciously, and perceived as a benefit. 2. Trust in Reciprocity: An actor must trust the other party to return the benefits. 3. Discretionary Benefits: To sustain the social exchange relationship, the actor must believe beyond those they would expect from the contractual relationship. To summarize, social exchange entails an inherently long-term set of transactions in which parties exchange benefits on the basis of trusting organizational relationships. This has been used as a generalized explanation for why employees might engage in citizenship behaviors, although the exact motive may depend on the individual employee, as well as the degree to which the social exchange relationship represents a substantial benefit in its own right (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Regardless of what the employee perceives to be getting out of

OCB and Social Exchange 10 the relationship, the belief in just returns over the long-term should be enough to promote action that is not otherwise guaranteed a reward, namely, citizenship behavior. Social exchange, then, does not specify the exact benefit or motivation for employees engaging in this type of exchange aside from including socio-emotional benefits, as opposed to purely economic benefits. When viewed at the more general level the perspective presents no major problems, yet it seems that researchers are inconsistently inferring motivation. The assumptions I have listed above are not consistent with all descriptions of social exchange (e.g., Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008b, on p. 179, propose a social exchange mechanism not requiring perceptions of justice), but they provide a greater degree of precision and predictive power than that which has been previously afforded, and they should help researchers to be more mindful when inferring underlying motivation. Social Exchanges Impact on the Literature and Key Findings As I mentioned earlier, the social exchange explanation for OCB was developed alongside the view that cognitions about treatment by the organization would provide a cleaner and more efficient entrance into the link between employee attitudes and performance. Specifically, early scholars theorized that it was the belief in the organization as a microcosm of a just world (Organ & Moorman, 1993, p.8) that would be most important to subsequent OCBs, proposing that the belief frees the rational person from the hold of immediate returns to self and justifies contributions in the form of OCB (Organ & Moorman, p. 9). Interestingly, these scholars compared the development of organizational cognitions in the workers to the cognitive development of a child, explaining in the end that where they differ is that adults are more likely to place emphasis on the processes underlying reward distribution, because, unlike children, they understand the human intervention in the process. Before contributing in the form

OCB and Social Exchange 11 of OCB, then, adult workers should trust the people and processes in the system to consistently meet their needs. Much of the research from the social exchange perspective has thus focused not on the outcomes afforded through the exchange, but on indications of systemic, consistent fairness from the actors perspective. More specifically, this has led researchers to examine perceptions of fairness in terms of procedural justice- justice in terms of the people or systems determining how resources should be allocated. Other forms of justice have also been examined, and more recently have been distinguished according to the intended source of OCB (Fassina et al., 2008a). Findings centered on perceptions of justice, and to a lesser extent attitudes formed toward the organization, have been the primary sources of data gathered to support social exchange as an explanation for OCB. It is outside the scope of this paper to present all of the research findings used to support the perspective, but here I present some of the key findings. Key Findings Perceptions of fair treatment appear to contribute to OCB performance beyond what can be accounted for by attitudes reflecting how the employee feels toward the organization. Moorman (1991), for example, found that job fairness (procedural justice) accounted for variance in explaining OCB performance beyond what was accounted for by job satisfaction, implying that employees feelings toward the organization might be secondary to judgments of fair treatment in determining behaviors. Similarly, Moorman and colleagues (1993) found that when controlling for commitment and satisfaction, procedural justice carried additional variance in predicting three of the five OCB dimensions tested: courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness (but not altruism or civic virtue). On the other hand, Fassina and colleagues (2008b) found in a recent meta-analysis that job satisfaction also influences the performance of

OCB and Social Exchange 12 OCB beyond the effects of justice, suggesting that both perceptions of justice and feelings of satisfaction contribute to performance of OCB in slightly different ways. These findings suggest that social exchange is appropriate to the extent that employee cognitions of treatment by the employer, organization, or workgroup are related to their own behaviors are linked to an exchange for their own contributions to the relationship in the form of OCB. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) also contributed to our understanding of how social exchange works by their finding that feelings of trust mediate the relationship between procedural justice and OCB, but not between distributive justice and OCB. This, they explained, supports the social exchange perspective because perceptions of procedural fairness promote trust for reciprocation in future interactions, which is required in order for social exchange to occur. Distributive justice, on the other hand, is more likely indicative of economic exchange, where explicit agreements reduce ambiguities and the need to rely on judgments of trust. This and similar findings have been taken as indication that procedural fairness provides security over concerns about future treatment, allowing employees to engage in social exchange.1 Overall, perceptions of justice appear to have a small effect on OCB, with global perceptions of justice (shared variance between distributive, procedural, and interactional) accounting for 2-3% of the variance in OCB (Fassina, Jones & Uggerslev, 2008a). Although not originally proposed as a part of the social exchange perspective, OCBs also appear to vary according to perceptions of justice specific to the target (i.e., the intended beneficiary of the OCB), such that interactional justice matters more for OCBs directed toward individuals, and procedural justice carries more weight for OCBs directed toward the organization (Lavalle et al., 2009; LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002; Yoon & Suh, 2003). To the extent that perceptions of justice are important to the performance of OCB because they

OCB and Social Exchange 13 represent trust that OCBs will be reciprocated, target-specific effects are generally supportive of an underlying social exchange mechanism (Fassina et al., 2008a). To summarize, justice, satisfaction, trust, and commitment appear to play similar, yet slightly different roles as predictors of OCB (e.g., Fassina et al., 2008b; Moorman, 1991; Williams & Anderson, 1991; Yoon & Suh, 2003). Researchers have primarily taken relationships between procedural justice and OCB as support for the social exchange perspective. This line of thinking has led to some important insights in terms of identifying different types of justice, distinguishing between types of OCB and their targets, and positing explanations for these effects. One study even shows that OCB can be increased with a justice intervention (Skarlicki & Latham, 1997). Yet the research conducted from this perspective tends to explain little variance in terms of OCB performed, and appears to be capturing only part of the story. Below, I revisit assumptions of the social exchange perspective and use these to show where further investigation is needed. Revisiting the Notion of Social Exchange as an Explanation for Employee Citizenship: An Incomplete Story In terms of the assumptions listed earlier, many features of the social exchange relationship have been left unexamined by the extant research. In this section I discuss missing pieces of the puzzle that currently undermine support for the social exchange mechanism. I start by revisiting the assumptions underlying the exchange and actor cognitions, then I discuss where the evidence attained so far may be unreliable as a pure indication of social exchange. Evidence around Process Assumptions The first assumption underlying the exchange process was that it is dyadic in nature, with both parties actively involved as giver and receiver in the exchange of non-contractual benefits.

OCB and Social Exchange 14 Research thus far has typically been conducted from the employee side only, and even here only examining what the employee judges as the likelihood of reciprocation (implied from justice), and their contributions to the exchange. In order to truly determine whether or not the exchange is dyadic, we would need to be able to see how changes on either side would affect behavior on the other. The second assumption is that reciprocation is non-contracted or non-explicit, that is, the timing and form of reciprocation is left to discretion. Research indicates that many employees view OCBs as a part of the job (Morrison, 1994; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004), and early on scholars noted the importance of careful distinction between in-role effects and extra-role effects (Williams & Anderson, 1991), yet researchers in this sphere have typically not restricted analysis to OCBs that were indeed considered discretionary. We also do not know what, if any, benefits from the employers side are considered by either party to be discretionary. Social exchanges and accompanying interactions should also be frequent enough to maintain the generalized sense of obligation toward one another and trust in reciprocity. Because researchers have not typically inquired into the nature of the benefits perceived to have been given and received in the interaction, it makes it difficult to question the frequency at which they are exchanged. Further, it become harder to test the assumption that the benefits being exchanged are actually observable enough to provoke reciprocation in the form of continued social exchange. Social exchange relationships are more personal and reliant on trust for continuation over the long-term, yet researchers have failed to test whether these relationships are actually stable over long periods of time. Instead, the majority have relied on cross-sectional studies (Organ et al., 2006), which clearly falls short in capturing an explanation reliant on long-term relationships.

OCB and Social Exchange 15 Given the difficulty and resources involved in longitudinal studies a complementary alternative might be inquiry into how these relationships are built in the first place. To declare an exchange a social exchange, parties must believe that the resources being exchanged are discretionary, but also desirable or beneficial. Cropanzano & Mitchell (2005) propose that the key is a match in perceptions of the relationship or the exchange from the two sides. That is, in order for social exchange to take place successfully both parties must indeed believe that the exchange is a social one and feel they are somehow benefitting from this more personal relationship- but some employees or employers might prefer reciprocity in the form of economic exchange, or the agreed-upon transactions. As the research currently stands, it is difficult to distinguish whether the parties involved actually prefer social to economic exchange, or categorize these in the same way. Bergeron (2007) notes that there is likely a trade-off to OCBs, and they may take away from important task behavior. OCBs directed toward the organization or supervisor then might not always be kindly received. If no desire exists for exchanges beyond those made explicit, or if actions are performed out of perceived necessity rather than discretion, we cannot confidently label this as a social exchange. In short, this assumption must be tested if we are to label an exchange as social. Evidence around Cognitions of the Actor The first assumption here was that the actors contribution is primarily beneficial or desirable to the other party, and will be received graciously. We are currently lacking evidence that employees performing social exchange behaviors such as OCBs actually believe they are primarily benefitting the other party. That is, we might wish to confirm that people perform OCBs primarily because they are deemed valuable to some other person or entity, rather than because they are directly rewarding to the party performing the action. This distinction becomes

OCB and Social Exchange 16 especially key considering recent evidence by Bolino, Grant, and Harvey (in press) demonstrating that OCB directed toward the organization can actually directly benefit the individual by strengthening feelings of self-worth. Interestingly, this was true only for individuals motivated by prosocial values, or concern for the organization, while those who performed OCBs for impression management reasons (including the desire to build up future returns) made a trade-off such that feelings of self-worth were actually lowered by the performance of OCBs. The point here we can no longer assume that the other as the immediate beneficiary if individuals can gain direct reward with or without accompanied benefits from the other. Trust in reciprocity is another assumed cognition of the actor. This is the assumption that has received the most attention and support, but without controlling for other motives we cannot assume that this should represent social exchange. I will return to this point in the next section. The final assumption around actor cognition in the social exchange perspective is that the actor must believe the benefits they receive are in fact discretionary, rather than something they are entitled to as a part of the contracted exchange (behaviors expected in exchange for the paycheck). We need to determine what behaviors employees might consider discretionary on the part of employers and/or supervisors. Without this we cannot truly say that a perceived obligation to reciprocate in the form of OCB exists. For example, is fair and respectful treatment between human beings a right, or a privilege? If a privilege, then employees might see this as a discretionary behavior which they ought to return in some fashion. This can easily be considered within the framework of social exchange. But if respectful treatment is a right then we are still left wondering what employees perceive to be getting out of the exchange relationship. On a related note we might ask: When employees do things like take time away from their regular

OCB and Social Exchange 17 work to help on an unexpected project, or intentionally portray the organization in a positive light during their off-hours- are these things that are considered a right of the employer, or a privilege? Research has found that perceptions of role breadth vary between individuals and across job levels, and employees performance of OCB partially depends on whether or not they perceive it to be a part of their job (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison, 1994). If employees perceive these behaviors to be a part of their job, this might be better considered under the economic exchange framework- especially because researchers typically infer social exchange from the perspective of the employee only. Alternatively, we might choose to measure perceived relationship. The trouble here is that not all are in agreement that some specific type of relationship underlies social exchange. On the other hand, one of the few explicit assumptions stated by theorists is that the relationship provokes a sense of obligation. To test this assumption, then, researchers should attempt to determine whether that obligation, if unfulfilled, leads to a reduction of discretionary behavior. Social exchange is based on the premise that perceptions of fairness or justice strengthen relationships and trust over time, and the norm of reciprocity present in these relationships holds that people will feel obligated to return any good deeds. In order to go above and beyond their level of required work, then, people should perceive that the organization or leader is meeting or exceeding that which is owed to them as an employee. Strictly speaking, some might say that which is owed to an employee is a paycheck. Others might say that employees are deserving of respect, and a lack of respect indicates a lack of justice or fairness. Still others might say that employees should be given the tools they need to adequately do the work theyve been hired to do, and that fairness is achieved when they are given access to these tools. The point here is that just as understanding of an employers expectations will vary from employee to employee, so

OCB and Social Exchange 18 will employee expectations for what is owed to them as a part of the contractual relationship, therefore researchers should exercise caution in labeling types of exchange without understanding employee expectations. Justice as an Indicator of Social Exchange Researchers of OCB have often relied on justice-especially procedural justice- as a proxy for social exchange. Despite some inconsistencies in effect sizes and covariances, perceptions of justice have emerged consistently as a predictor of employee OCB. Again, the thought here is that perceptions of fairness in interactions and procedures now reassures employees that they can trust they will be taken care of in the future, allowing them to contribute as they see fit, without needing to see immediate rewards. Given the evidence accumulated, we might infer that as far as these types of justice go, social exchange is occurring. In this section I aim to show why even this inference may be premature. As I pointed out earlier there are multiple motivations that might be inferred from the social exchange literature. Likewise, there are several reasons employees might rely on a sense of justice or trust in the relationship before deciding to contribute in the form of OCB. The sense of psychological safety underlying judgments of trust or justice frees employees from the restriction of fear, but is not a motivation in its own right because it must be accompanied by some other motive in order to lead to action. Building on Organ and colleagues (2006) emphasis around feelings of obligation as a key to the exchange process, psychological safety would not be sufficient because it would simply allow OCB to occur without the fear that one might be taken advantage of, not imply a sense of obligation to initiate the behavior. Nor would it necessarily ensure the belief that actions in the form of OCB will produce some personally desirable outcome. Despite some scholars beliefs that OCB research has tended to assume self-serving

OCB and Social Exchange 19 motives (e.g., Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004), a closer examination of the social exchange explanation reveals that, according to this perspective, employees ultimately act in order to receive some sort of benefit in return. Justice is key to this perspective then because it ensures that benefits will in fact be reciprocated. Looking at the various operationalizations of justice, though, one might get the sense that there are additional reasons this might be important for an employees discretionary action. Perhaps more importantly than representing the likelihood of reciprocation, justice holds its importance as an indicator that an employees effort will not be needlessly wasted. That is, respectful treatment and fair procedures might symbolize the employers desires to systematically make sound judgments in all areas. Therefore to the extent an employee believes the leaders are headed in the right direction, making the extra effort to help a colleague, put in extra effort, or speak up on the companys behalf can be viewed as worthwhile- these efforts are contributing to an organzation that is sure to use resources effectively. In both of these views, justice serves to reduce uncertainty around outcomes (Lind & van den Bos, 2002) - the difference is that in one case outcomes hold their importance in ensuring that personal needs will be met (the social exchange view), whereas in the other case employees are concerned more with the connection of their work to organizational outcomes. In the latter, an employees perception of expected reciprocity, or expected personal benefit, appears to be overshadowed by the direct benefits associated with perceived influence (e.g., Grant, 2007; Snape & Redman, 2010). Problems in Measuring Justice There also appear to be several problems with the way justice is currently measured, as well as the inferences based on this measurement. Many of the arguments for using justice

OCB and Social Exchange 20 measures come from Allan Linds early work (e.g., Lind & Taylor, 1988), but more recently he and a colleague have presented a compelling case that fairness may not be of fundamental importance in determining behavior, and in fact may only matter when the ability to trust is unclear (Lind & van den Bos, 2002) . This theory of uncertainty management is based on evidence that relationships between fairness and subsequent actions are stronger in cases when outcomes are unclear or when trust in an authority figure is not certain. They also proposed that if information from one type of justice is missing perceptions from another type of justice may be used to fill in the blanks (e.g., distributive justice for procedural justice). This is important for a number of reasons. First, it signals that using measurements of justice might not be appropriate in cases where trustworthiness is already well-established, and likewise, where trustworthiness is uncertain, justice may serve as a more sensitive measurement. Second, if fairness heuristics are used to inform ratings on the basis of whatever data is available, shared variance between the different types of justice are likely to be inflated. Recent meta-analytic findings have indeed suggested that shared variance between procedural, distributive, and interactional justice was greater than isolated justice effects (Fassina et al., 2008a). If justice measurements have problems independently, these only multiply when used in combination with similarly complex constructs. Skarlicki & Latham (1997) performed a quasiexperiment in which they tested an intervention designed to increase perceptions of justice. The intervention consisted of training one set of union leaders in how to increase their communication, respect, and openness toward union members. They then compared their members perceptions of justice and subsequent OCBs with members from control groups, finding that the intervention did positively impact both perceptions of justice and OCB performance in the training group. As noted earlier, this has been regarded as a key point of

OCB and Social Exchange 21 support in the social exchange OCB literature. This seems convincing on the surface, but looking deeper indicates other possible mechanisms acting on OCB. Much of the intervention was centered on teaching leaders how to give employees a chance to make their voices be heard, and the procedural justice questionnaire also asked employees questions about their ability to voice concerns. Further, the OCB measure tapped into members active participation in the union, which might be might also be thought of in terms of expressing ones voice. Rather than inferring social exchange, then, it seems more parsimonious to assume that the intervention aimed at increasing opportunities for union members to have their voices heard simply increased their perceived ability to voice concerns, which subsequently increased their active use of that voice. Greater attention to competing explanations such as this one are needed to guide us in identifying the mechanisms of social exchange and the performance of OCB. The Link between Justice and OCB Adding to the problems stemming from the measurements themselves, using supervisor ratings of employee behavior might be inflating the correlation between justice and OCB. According to the social exchange perspective employees contribute in the form of OCBs because they expect to receive some sort of reciprocation. Again, this relies on the assumption that the employer will notice and appreciate the behavior. Yet OCBs are by definition less likely to be enforceable job requirements than task behaviors (Organ, 1997), with the implicit reasoning being that they are more dependent on situation than are task behaviors, and therefore more challenging for a manager to observe and regulate in any systematic fashion. Bergeron (2007) proposed that individuals may differ in how visible their OCB is to supervisors and that through the performance appraisal process this visibility could moderate the relationship between OCB and individual career outcomes. If supervisors assessments of OCB

OCB and Social Exchange 22 are skewed in the performance appraisal process, they are probably also biased in research surveys asking for reports of subordinates citizenship behaviors. Just because a supervisor does not notice an employees OCB behaviors, it does not necessarily follow that the employee has not performed these behaviors. Because OCBs can be performed by any member of the organization and can be directed toward multiple targets, they are less likely to appear in some systematic fashion. Helping a fellow employee, for example, is only helpful if the fellow employee actually needs the help. It is unlikely that the fellow employee needs help on some regularly occurring basis- in fact, when individuals judge coworkers to be consistently needy they are actually less likely to help (Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Oosterhof, 2006). In effect, OCBs are more likely than task behaviors to be performed on an as-needed basis, which may or may not catch the attention of the supervisor. The extent to which OCB is visible to a supervisor for a given employee may then depend on the frequency of interaction he or she has with that employee. Common sense tells us that the more two individuals interact, the better the chance one will have an opportunity to observe anothers behaviors, including those that are infrequent and situational. On the other hand, as two individuals interact less frequently, the chances for accurate observation of nonroutine behaviors will decline exponentially. Thus a supervisors rating of OCB is more likely to be determined, at least in part, by the extent to which he or she interacts with a given employee. Researchers have used supervisors as the source in an effort to eliminate concern over common-method bias (Organ et al., 2006). The concern is that employees rating their perceived level of justice may similarly rate their levels of citizenship in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. It has been noted that supervisor ratings of OCB may not be as reliable (e.g., Organ et al., 2006), yet this may be a bigger issue than it appears on the surface. It is easy to see that

OCB and Social Exchange 23 supervisor ratings will not capture the full extent of an employees citizenship behaviors, but the hidden bias is that they may be picking up some employees behaviors more than others, and this may be systematically related to employees perceptions of justice. Aside from introducing error into the outcome of interest, though (OCB ratings), differences in interaction frequency might also influence employees perceptions of justice. Over time, fairness has been operationalized in a variety of ways, but these have typically contained some combination of two elements: the extent to which a person feels respected as a valuable member of the group, and the extent to which a person is kept in the loop and given a chance to speak up in procedural matters (Colquitt, 2001). An employee who interacts more frequently with the supervisor may be more likely to hear explanations for the supervisors decisions and be given a chance to respond. Further, this employee may feel more respected and valued as a group member as a result of this increased interaction, assuming the supervisor is not simply attempting to monitor or control the employees behavior. Frequency of interaction, it seems, could be biasing both employees justice ratings and supervisors ratings employees citizenship behaviors in the same direction. If this is the case, we have little reason to trust the extant data supporting the social exchange perspective. Rewards through Reciprocation vs. Rewards through Involvement Skewed measurements of justice might also be leading OCB researchers to erroneously attribute the mechanism of influence based on a flawed understanding of why justice really matters. As Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ (1993) point out, procedural justice taps into procedures that allow employees to exercise voice, which might intuitively be labeled under the self-interest model rather than the relational or group value model (Lind & Taylor, 1988). Yet a later finding by Lind and colleagues (1990) indicated that it was the procedure itself that

OCB and Social Exchange 24 invoked the fairness perceptions, not control over the outcome, leading to the conclusion that procedural justice holds its primary value in indicating a persons worth within the group. That is, according to these scholars procedural justice is important to people primarily because it ensures they will not be taken advantage of, or because they value involvement in the group as an end in itslf, rather than because they associate it with specific future rewards (Moorman et al., 1993). Cropanzano, Byrne, & Bobocel (2001) perhaps provide the most comprehensive discussion as to why justice matters, outlining three key perspectives: instrumental, relational/group value, and moral virtues. The instrumental approach, they explain, is a type of economic exchange, and is based on the idea that people have a need for control, and fair situations offer greater control over the long-term. This sense of control is not limited to outcomes, but can pertain to a sense of control over the process in the form of voice. The relational approach, on the other hand, is based on the idea that people need to feel a part of the group, and so to the extent that they are allowed to do so, they will perceive that they are being treated fairly. The difference between the instrumental and relational views, they explain, is the distinction between economic concerns (instrumental) and social concerns (relational). Finally, the moral virtues approach is conceptualized as a more general concern for the well-being of all people. On the surface it would seem that the instrumental view captures economic exchange, while the relational view captures social exchange, and therefore only the relational view would be pertinent in the application of social exchange. A person who values justice primarily for the sake of involvement in the process, or the satisfaction of the need for control might then tend to develop greater trust and grow closer to leaders or organizations that allow them to become more involved in the process. But then why would this person perform OCB? It is possible that the

OCB and Social Exchange 25 higher quality relationship developed then sparks a felt need to reciprocate in the form of additional contributions to the organization or leader, and the trust that future contributions will be recognized. On the other hand, it seems possible that the person who desires involvement and even perceives the opportunity for involvement as fair might also wish to be involved in activities beyond those that are restricted specifically to his or her job. OCBs can offer a form of process control because they offer greater discretion than do task behaviors (Organ et al., 2006). The point here is that when process control serves as the major determinant or motivator of justice perceptions, it could also provide the impetus for performing OCB. Research on OCB from the social exchange perspective has typically not attempted to distinguish between participants reasons for valuing fairness, and the motivation for performing OCB has typically been inferred from theoretical arguments. If process control serves to both shape perceptions of fairness and motivate discretionary behavior, then is the social exchange relationship (with a focus on the perceived obligation to reciprocate) really explaining citizenship behavior? While both the instrumental and group-value cases might be argued to fit within the realm of social exchange (Organ et al., 2006), it is worth considering other possible benefits of this form of justice such as the possibility that this sense of voice may be beneficial in its own right. Research in Self-Determination Theory attests to the fact that it is not the perception of control over outcomes that is what drives human behavior so much as it is the perception of choice in initiating behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore in addition to securing future fair treatment, having the freedom to speak out when needed might be rewarding to the extent that it satisfies the basic need for autonomy, or ones perceived control over initiating behavior.

OCB and Social Exchange 26 I point this out for two reasons. First, if the freedom to get involved in procedures can be satisfying in its own right, then the freedom to perform OCBs might also be satisfying in its own right. Second, if people care about this type of fairness because they see it as a basic human need rather than a group benefit, they may be more likely to view it as part of the employers obligation, rather than a benefit to be reciprocated or an indicator of status within the organization. Social Exchange vs. Economic Exchange The value of contributing through OCB in the social exchange relationship is not explicitly specified according to the perspective. This makes sense, as each employee will tend to differ in the value he or she attaches to various outcomes. Social exchange does tell us there should be some instrumental value attached to the action, at least to the extent that employees engage in the exchange in the hopes of receiving benefits from the other party. But instrumentality seems to carry different connotations for different researchers, with some distinguishing between OCBs performed as a part of social exchange and OCBs performed for instrumental reasons (e.g., Hui, Lam and Law, 2000). Expectations of reciprocation are important to both social exchange and economic exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), it seems that this reciprocation is just harder to pinpoint in social exchange: the obligation is unspecified as to form, degree, or time of reciprocation (Organ et al., 2006, p. 72). In this respect OCB is also instrumental from the social exchange perspective, but the expectations around return are typically not made explicit. Indeed if an employee wishes to repay some generosity from the supervisor, he or she might wait for the optimal time to do so, when help is actually needed, rather than attempting to return the favor immediately. If the supervisor had specified in advance the conditions for repayment, he or she may have been without help at the

OCB and Social Exchange 27 crucial time. In the same way, the return employees reap from their citizenship behaviors may take a variety of forms, but trust in the supervisor provides some confidence that the return will be appropriate. Does this mean that employees cannot have any image of the desired outcome? Hui and colleagues (2000) found that some employees performed instrumentally in order to gain a promotion. On the one hand, this might be considered social exchange, as benefits (OCBs) are being given in the hopes of some future, technically unspecified (no guaranteed link between OCB and promotion) return. But others might argue that this should not be considered social exchange, as employees tended to attach a specific return value to the OCBs (promotion), and discontinued the exchange once this value was received (they performed fewer OCBs after promotion). A return in the form of promotion was not made explicit by the employer or the employee at the time of helping- and the degree to which it was expected, as opposed to some other reward form, is unclear. It should be fairly obvious that returns are generally expected for good deeds that are performed, but the link between actions and specific outcomes might be better described as degrees along a continuum of expectation around contingency, rather than a presence of a contingent reward versus an ambiguous exchange of rewards. As other scholars have pointed out, this line can also become blurred by differing perspectives on what is considered part of the job (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). This surfaces an important question that is not explicitly addressed by the social exchange perspective: The nature of the exchange (social or economic) is often difficult to distinguish, without knowledge of the underlying intents, values, and history between the two sides. Further, the perspective of one side relies on the reactions of the other, therefore exchange is unlikely to be accurately assessed at a single point in time.

OCB and Social Exchange 28 Re-evaluating the Reasons for the Social Exchange Framework I have reviewed empirical evidence in terms of social exchange and discussed areas where more research is needed. In this section I revisit the value of the social exchange perspective at a higher level by examining the framework in terms of its original purpose (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2006): explaining the relationship between satisfaction (attitudes) and performance beyond that caused by constraints such as the relative lack of flexibility around changing the level of task behavior. We now know that OCBs are often rewarded as a part of performance evaluations, and linked to other individual career outcomes (Bergeron, 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Even in the absence of explicit linkages between OCB and tangible outcomes, role breadth can make cognitive distinction between OCB and task behavior disappear. Given that the line between OCBs and task behavior is becoming increasingly blurry (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004), we must wonder whether there is truly any added flexibility around the performance of OCBs. Further, the unspoken pressures around discretionary behavior might be more binding than overtly imposed codes of conduct like formal descriptions of task behavior (Barker, 1993). One recent study indicated that about 75% of the participants felt strong pressure to engage in OCB (Vigoda, 2007) and others have demonstrated the powerful role of workplace norms around OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). If the variance around timing and form of OCB performance comes from real-time situational demands rather than an employees discretion, the social exchange perspective is not applicable. In addition to concerns about the volition involved in citizenship behavior, it is not clear that the link between attitudes and performance in the form of OCB is any stronger than the link between attitudes and task performance (Edwards, Bell, Arthur, Winfred, & Decuir, 2008). This

OCB and Social Exchange 29 might tell us that social exchange is a less viable explanation for OCB performance, it might reflect the problems associated with measurement of complex phenomena, or it might be indicative of an separate set of constraints around changing performance of OCB according to ones attitude. The first alternative creates serious doubts over the validity of the social exchange perspective, the second creates doubts over extant findings, and the third tells us that social exchange might not be important for the reasons originally proposed, but does not completely rule out its validity.

Conclusion In this paper I have tried to highlight some of the ways we can begin to examine the assumptions underlying the social exchange approach. The purpose here is to both clarify research from the social exchange perspective, and to spark inquiry into other possibilities. At the core of social exchange is the understanding that in the absence of explicit rewards, humans give to others because they expect some benefit in return. This explanation is somewhat vague, and in this way it mirrors the perspective itself. The lack of clarity afforded by previous accounts makes it difficult to compare results, answer questions, and refine theory, which is needed in order to move forward in this area (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In order to determine more precise measurements, strong, explicit theoretical guidance will need to be at the forefront. This is fundamental to provide a common language and consensus for researchers to systematically examine the constructs of interest and build upon each others work (Pfeffer, 1993). In terms of application to OCB, researchers generally assume that it is not the specific benefit employees are receiving that is critical nor the primary motive driving their action, but rather it is the trust that reciprocation will prevail that is key. Yet without careful attention to the

OCB and Social Exchange 30 nature of expectations and motivations, we cannot rule out other explanations for the results we find. Are humans acting selfishly, selflessly, or are they exponentially benefitting both the self and the organization? Depending on the answer, we might intervene in slightly different ways (e.g., decrease barriers rather than trying to change employee perceptions). In conclusion, if we wish continue down the social exchange path, I would urge researchers to carefully consider and systematically test the assumptions and alternatives raised in this paper. On the other hand, given the small effect sizes and alternative explanations, perhaps his time might be better spent pursuing other, more promising, alternatives.

OCB and Social Exchange 31

References

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408-437.

Bergeron, D. M. (2007) The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078-1095.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 8298.

Bolino, M. C., Grant, A., & Harvey, J. (in press). Citizenship and self-worth: The role of citizenship motives

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229-246.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. DOI: 10.1037//00219010.86.3.386.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizizationally directed citizenship behavior: Reciprocity or its my job? Journal of Management Studies, 41, 85106.

OCB and Social Exchange 32 Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D.E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.

Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-902. DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268.

Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, J., Winfred, & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 441-465. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00328.x

Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960-974.

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008a). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and sharedvariance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828. DOI: 10.1002/job.494

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008b). Relationship clean-up time: Using meta-analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 161-188.

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417.

OCB and Social Exchange 33 Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900-912.

Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion : A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822-828.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.

Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Kanovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: a multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 337-357.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

Lind, E. A. & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181-223.

OCB and Social Exchange 34 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., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviors: The importance of the employees' perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 15431567.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 8597.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.

Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6, 5-18.

OCB and Social Exchange 35 Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature,Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B. D., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 13061314.

Snape, E., & Redman, T. (in press). HRM Practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Management Studies.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50, 617633,

Van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 877-893.

OCB and Social Exchange 36 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Yoon, M. H., & Suh, J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality as external effectiveness of contact employees. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 597. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00290-9

Zellars, K. L. and Tepper, B. J. (2003). Beyond social exchange: new directions for organizational citizenship behavior theory and research. In Martocchio, J. J. and Ferris, G. R. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI Press, 22, 395424.