Measuring Social Exchange Constructs in Organizations

Communication Methods and Measures
ISSN: 1931-2458 (Print) 1931-2466 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcms20
Measuring Social Exchange Constructs in

Organizations
Kelly McMillan & Simon Albrecht
To cite this article: Kelly McMillan & Simon Albrecht (2010) Measuring Social Exchange
Constructs in Organizations, Communication Methods and Measures, 4:3, 201-220, DOI:
10.1080/19312450903378909
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19312450903378909
Published online: 09 Sep 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 141
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcms20
Download by: [Universidad Nacional Colombia] Date: 05 November 2017, At: 21:44
Communication Methods and Measures, 4(3), 201220, 2010
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1931-2458 print / 1931-2466 online
DOI: 10.1080/19312450903378909
Measuring Social Exchange Constructs

1931-2466
1931-2458
HCMS
Communication Methods and Measures
Measures, Vol. 3, No. 4, Oct 2009: pp. 00
in Organizations
Downloaded by [Universidad Nacional Colombia] at 21:44 05 November 2017
Kelly McMillan and Simon Albrecht

Measuringand
Mcmillan Social
Albrecht
Exchange Constructs
Monash University
Although social exchange has been frequently referred to as a framework for

exploring employee-organization relationships, the role of potentially important
exchange related variables such as communication climate and change communica-
tion are less understood. The present research aimed to assess the measurement
properties of an expanded set of social exchange constructs. The measurement
properties of change communication, communication climate, perceived organiza-
tional support, procedural justice, affective commitment, and cynicism toward
organizational change were tested using competing confirmatory factor analytic
models. After appropriately defining items and refining individual scales, confirma-
tory factor analyses provided evidence in support of an expanded set of social
exchange constructs. Despite high correlations between some of the variables, tests
for discriminant validity established that respondents (N = 500) could reliably dis-
tinguish between the full set of constructs. Furthermore, Harmans One Factor Test
for common method variance suggested that the variance in the data could not be
explained by a single construct. Practical implications for the use of this set of social
exchange constructs in organizational contexts are discussed.
Organizations today engage in continuous and incremental change in response to

rapidly changing markets, consumer demands, and worker expectations (Daly,
Teague, & Kitchen, 2003). A key issue for executives in leading employees through
change is getting them to buy in to change and remain committed to their orga-
nization (Zorn & Cheney, 2000). Increasingly, communication is being regarded
as the key change management strategy used to influence employee attitudes
toward change (Barrett, 2002). Empirical research supports the importance of
communication in change, with communication having been shown to influence
Correspondence should be addressed to Kelly McMillan, Psychology Department, Monash University,

900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, 3145, Australia. E-mail: Kelly.mcmillan@med.monash.edu.au
202 MCMILLAN AND ALBRECHT
commitment, trust in management, intentions to turnover, employee participa-

tion, and a range of other change relevant attitudes and behaviors (Chawla &
Kelloway, 2004; Gopinath & Becker, 2000). Despite increasing amounts of
research being focused on organizational change and communication, opportuni-
ties remain to further understand the psychological experiences through which
communication operates to influence employee attitudes toward change.
Although the reality of ongoing organizational change is widely acknowl-
edged (Daly et al., 2003; Zorn & Cheney, 2000), it is estimated that half of orga-
nizational change programs fail to achieve their intended results (Cartwright &
Cooper, 1993; Elving, 2005). Failed organizational changes and employee judg-
ments about the mismanagement of change have been shown to have a great
impact on employee support for change (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005)
and the successful implementation of change (Axtell et al., 2002). The variation
in the success of organizational change has seen the focus of change management
shift in emphasis from hard systems change (e.g., changes in technology)
toward soft systems change where the importance of people management fac-
tors, such as communication and engagement, are more fully recognized (Bartels,
Douwes, Jong, & Pruyn, 2006).
Recently, however, Bartels and colleagues (2006) suggested that people man-
agement factors are often the cause of unsuccessful changes. Indeed, poor people
management during change has been shown to reduce employees commitment
to their organization (Rousseau, 1998) and increase cynicism toward organiza-
tional change (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). Affective commitment,
employees emotional attachment to their organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990),
is critical during organizational change as it influences an employees intention to
leave and organizational turnover (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,
2002). Employees who are cynical about organizational change are pessimistic
about the likely success of change and are more likely to believe changes will fail
(Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 1994). Cynical employees are also less motivated
to keep trying to make changes work and as such contribute to the likely failure
of change (Wanous et al., 1994).
Given that failed organizational change frequently occurs as a result of poor
people management practices, there is a need for researchers to further investi-
gate the conditions that influence employee behaviors and attitudes toward change.
While communication has been show to have positive effects on employee atti-
tudes and behaviors, the mechanisms through which communication acts to
influence attitudes to change remains less understood. Similarly, although some
researchers have helped progress the theoretical underpinning of social network
analysis (e.g., Contractor & Monge, 2002), the theoretical underpinning of
employee reactions to broad scale organizational change is less understood.
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides a useful framework for under-
standing how organizational practices influence employee attitudes. Social exchange
MEASURING SOCIAL EXCHANGE CONSTRUCTS 203
theory was developed to explain the initiation, development, and ongoing mainte-
nance of interpersonal relationships (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch,
1997) and as such provides the basis for understanding employee-organization
relations. Social exchange theory contends that the more frequently, sincerely,
and intensely expressions of support are perceived by employees, the more likely
they will be to reciprocate with prosocial attitudes and behaviors (Eisenberger
et al., 1997). Employees have been shown to reciprocate their organizations sup-
port with increased affective commitment and reduced cynicism toward organi-
zational change (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998; Settoon, Bennett, &
Linden, 1996).
Researchers have identified a key set of social exchange constructs that influence
the process of reciprocation, with perceived organizational support and procedural
justice being the most widely researched exchange constructs in organizational
contexts (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Organizational
support theory explains the dynamics of employee-organization relationships
by describing how employees commitment is based on their global beliefs
concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and
cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501). Eisenberger
and colleagues suggested that perceptions of organizational support give
employees an index of how committed the organization is to them through dis-
plays of appreciation and caring (Hutchison, 1997; Rhoades, Eisenberger &
Armeli, 2001).
Perceived organizational support primarily has been recognized as an important
social exchange construct due to its strong influence on affective commitment.
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), for example, in their meta analysis aggregating
the results of 42 studies reported a strong average weighted corrected correlation
between perceptions of organizational support and affective commitment (rc = .67).
Rhoades and Eisenberger also reported that perceived organizational support has
an important influence on job satisfaction (rc = .62), turnover intention (rc = .51),
positive mood (rc = .49), job involvement (rc = .39), workplace strain (rc = .32),
and extra role performance (rc = .22).
In light of meta analytic support highlighting the importance of perceived
organizational support in influencing employee attitudes and behaviors, it remains
important to investigate variables that influence organizational support. Rhoades
and Eisenberger (2002) identified fairness perceptions as the one of strongest
predictors of organizational support (rc = .68). More specifically, Rhoades and
Eisenberger identified procedural justice as the strongest precursor to perceived
organizational support (rc = .59). This suggests that employees who believe that
changes to policies and procedures are fair and just are more likely to feel sup-
ported by their organization. Other key antecedents of organizational support
include supervisor support (rc = .64) and organizational rewards (rc = .54)
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Justice theory is concerned with the extent to which employees perceive that
work related processes and outcomes are managed and distributed in a way that
is fair and just. Procedural justice refers to employee perceptions about the fair-
ness of decision-making processes (Colquitt, 2004, p. 634). Adding support for
procedural justice as a social exchange construct, Masterson and colleagues
explained that justice perceptions are important inputs into employees judg-
ments of the quality of their social exchange relationships with their supervisors
and organizations (2000 p. 740). Furthermore, Ambrose and Schminke (2003)
reported that procedural justice influences exchange related variables including

perceived organizational support and trust and is a key determinant of the
strength and direction of social exchange relationships.
Daly and Geyer (1994) proposed voice and justification as two communi-
cation related correlates of procedural justice. Voice relates to the extent that
employees perceive they have input into decision making prior to the decision
makers final decision. Justification refers to the extent to which management
adequately explains the reasons for decisions (Daly & Geyer, 1994). In essence,
voice relates to an employees opportunities to participate in two-way communi-
cations with their organization, while justifications are the change related com-
munications through which employees learn about the reason for decisions.
While Daly and Geyer establish voice and justification related to procedural jus-
tice, other prominent justice researchers such as Colquitt and colleagues have not
researched communication as a potential justice-related variable (Colquitt, 2002,
2001). As such, the relationship between communication and justice warrants
further research.
Similar to organizational support, procedural justice has been show to influ-
ence many important employee attitudes and behaviors, including commitment
(b = .21), job satisfaction (r = .51), organizational citizenship behaviors (r = .23),
and trust in senior management (r = .30) (Colquitt et al., 2001; Gopinath &
Becker, 2000). Masterson and colleagues (2000) established that employees react
to perceived injustice by seeking out a party to which injustices can be ascribed.
In change contexts, this may mean that employees who perceive changes to be
unfair will develop negative attitudes toward their organization, senior manage-
ment, managers, and change managers (Anderson, 1996). More generally,
Anderson established that perceived violations of procedural justice are linked to
employee cynicism toward change, which, according to Wanous and colleagues
(1994), results in reduced commitment (r = .46), poor job satisfaction (r = .32),
and negative mood (r = .21).
Calls have been made for researchers to focus on an expanded set of social
exchange constructs in order to develop a more complete understanding of
exchange relationships and their impact on employee attitudes (Ambrose &
Schminke, 2003; Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). Masterson and
colleagues (2000) suggested that research which neglects potentially relevant
social exchange-related constructs may be compromised because the omission

of one of these variables may lead researchers to find significant relationships
that would not otherwise exist if the omitted variable were included (p. 738). In
light of this, any research examining social exchange should incorporate both
perceptions of organizational support and procedural justice as well as less
researched constructs in a holistic model.
Broadening the nomological social exchange network, Chawla and Kelloway
(2004) reported that employees who are engaged in two way communications
with their organization are more likely to feel supported by their organization.
These researchers established that the experience of support, deriving from two-
way communication, resulted in increased commitment, improved performance,
and reduced organizational cynicism. Chawla and Kelloway subsequently
showed that employee participation (r = .51), openness to change (r = .38), and
intentions to turnover (r = .27) were all influenced by managerial communica-
tions. Similarly, Gopinath and Becker (2000) reported positive associations
between organizational communication and procedural justice (r = .43), com-
mitment (r = .37), and trust in management (r = .33). Taken together, these
findings clearly implicate communication climate as an important element of a
social exchange system that can serve, in part, to explain employee attitudes
and behaviors.
While many researchers have long acknowledged the importance of commu-
nication during broad-scale organizational change (Fairhurst & Wendt, 1993;
Lewis, 1999), there has been limited research focused specifically on determin-
ing the influence of change communication as an independent construct (e.g.,
Kitchener & Daly, 2002; Mills, 2007). While some researchers have shown that
communication about successful changes can reduce cynicism toward change
(Wanous et al., 2000) and influence perceptions of managements ability to com-
petently manage change (r = .35) (Stanley et al., 2005), the body of research
examining the influence of change communication on attitudes, behaviors, and
outcomes is not well developed.
Furthermore, it is important to comment on the distinction between communi-
cation climate and change communication. While communication climate and
change communication are clearly related constructs, a case can be made that
they are conceptually distinct and distinguishable in organizational practice.
Communication climate refers to a general climate of organizational communica-
tion (Pincus, 1986), which is influenced by both the perceived quality of commu-
nications and the amount of communication in the workplace (Jones, Watson,
Gardier, & Galois, 2004). Change communication, on the other hand, is a more
targeted form of communication that relates to the introduction and explanation
of new initiatives (Barrett, 2002). Change communication is critical during orga-
nizational change, and a lack of communication about change has been identified
as the key reason for failed organizational change (Kotter, 1995). However,
while there are theoretical, conceptual, and practical reasons which support a
distinction between communication climate and change communication, further
empirical research is warranted to establish that such closely related constructs
can be measured independently as useful and distinct constructs (Kitchener &
Daly, 2002; Mills, 2007).
Further to the call for an expanded set of social exchange constructs, researchers
also have called for the measurement of social exchange variables to be reviewed
(Cropanzano et al., 2001; Stanley et al., 2005). Moreover, in light of the gener-
ally strong associations reported between social exchange constructs, including

perceived organizational support and procedural justice, authors such as Siegel
et al. (2005) have argued that researchers should continue to refine measures and
distinguish between these variables before testing hypothesized models. Anderson
and Gerbing (1988) argued that the use of confirmatory factor analysis provides a
comprehensive means for assessing and modifying measures and theoretical
models. Anderson and Gerbing asserted that the social sciences can make signifi-
cant gains in theory testing and assessing construct validity through estimation of
measurement models prior to testing hypothesised structural models. This is
because measurement modeling assists construct validation by enabling tests of
divergent and convergent validity and scale refinement where required (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).
The aim of this study is to investigate the measurement properties of well-
established social exchange variables, including perceived organizational
support, procedural justice, affective commitment, and cynicism toward organi-
zational change, as well as less researched constructs including communication
climate and change communication. This study aims to establish that such vari-
ables can be reliably distinguished from each other as psychometrically defensible
constructs. Specifically, this study aims to extend the organizational communication
and the social exchange literatures by investigating whether employees distin-
guish between change specific communications and the more general communi-
cation climate. This study also aims to establish whether communication climate
and change communication are related to key social exchange variables and
outcomes.
METHOD
Participants
The sample (N = 500) comprised employees from a multi-national manufacturing
company (72% male, 17% female, and 11% unknown gender). Ages ranged from
2064 with an average age of 41 years (SD = 10.20). Tenure ranged from new
employees to 47 years, with an average employment length of 8 years.
Procedure
Data from employees in Australia and New Zealand were collected using pen and
paper employee opinion surveys and returned in self-addressed envelopes.
Employees were informed about the survey objectives, administration, and col-
lection details via multiple global e-mails, as well as printed signage distributed
to sites with limited Internet connectivity. Employees were informed that their
participation was voluntary and responses were confidential. Data were collected
centrally and entered into SPSS version 15 for preliminary analyses.
Measures
All scales used in the study were responded to on a five-point Likert scale.
Responses ranged from Strongly Disagree = 1 to Strongly Agree = 5. The
full set of survey scale items are shown in the Appendix.
Communication climate was measured using five items developed by Goldhaber,
Dennis, Richetto, and Wiio (1979). An example item includes people say what
they mean and mean what they say. Albrecht and Travaglione (2003) reported a
reliability of a = .92 for this scale.
Change communication was measured with four items developed by Goldhaber
et al. (1979) and three change communication items adapted from existing scales
or developed by the researchers to meet the needs of the host organization. Exam-
ple items include people are kept informed about changes in the workplace and
before changes are brought in, I am informed about why those changes are nec-
essary. Albrecht and Travaglione (2003) reported a reliability of a = .92 for
Goldhaber et al.s scale.
Procedural justice was measured with four items developed, or adapted
from existing measures, to suit the requirements of the host organization. As
a result, no reliability or validity information was available for these items
prior to this study. Example items include the process used to address any
concerns or complaints I voice about this organization is fair and standards
and criteria are applied consistently across the organization when evaluating
peoples performance.
The 14-item version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support
(SPOS) was used to measure organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
An example item includes the organization values my contribution to its wellbeing.
Researchers have consistently shown variants of the SPOS to have high reliability
(e.g., Hutchison, 1997; a = .92).
The Affective Commitment Scale measured employee commitment (Allen &
Meyer, 1990). The ACS has been shown to have high convergent validity (r = 0.83)
with the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Porter, & Steers,
1979; Rhoades et al., 2001) and high reliability a = 0.87 (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
An example item includes I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization

(reverse coded).
Cynicism toward organizational change was measured with three items from
the pessimism toward change scale developed by Wanous and colleagues (2000).
An example item from the scale includes attempts to make things better around
here wont produce good results. Wanous, Reichers, and Austin (2004) reported
reliabilities for the pessimism subscale ranging from a = .75 to a = .82 across a
range of occupational groupings.
RESULTS
As a first step in the analysis, descriptive statistics, alpha reliabilities and the dis-
tributional properties of the proposed scales were examined in SPSS version
15.0. The distribution of the data met the requisite assumptions of normality and,
as shown in Table 1, the alpha reliability estimates for each scale exceeded the
commonly accepted criterion of a = .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Next, given that confirmatory factor analysis has been widely used to assess
the factorial validity of measurement models (Williams, Fletcher, & Ronan,
2007), the measurement properties of the known and proposed social exchange
variables were assessed within a series of confirmatory factor analytic models
using AMOS 7.0. The models assessed include the originally proposed six factor
model (see Figure 1, Model 1.a), a re-specified six factor model (Model 1.b), a
single factor model (Model 1.c) and a five factor model, where the communica-
tion climate and change communication scale items were specified to load on a
single factor (Model 1.d). A second order model (Model 1.e) encompassing the
four social exchange-related constructs was also assessed.
The competing models were compared across a range of goodness-of-fit indices
with a view to identifying the best fitting and most parsimonious model (Marsh,
Balla, & Hau, 1996; Williams et al., 2007). Using the raw data as the input, the
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Reliabilities
Mean SD a
1. Communication climate 3.10 .79 .88

2. Change communication 3.10 .83 .91
3. Procedural justice 3.16 .70 .76
4. Perceived organizational support 3.23 .84 .91
5. Affective commitment 3.25 .80 .88
6. Hange cynicism 2.63 .67 .81
C CL1 C C
CL1 CL1 CL1
L L O
I CL2 CL1
I CL2 CL2 M CL2 C
M CL3 M M
CL3 CL3 L CL2
A A CL3 U
CL4 I
T T CL4 N CL4 CL3
CL4 M
E E I A
CL5 CL4
CL5 CL5 C CL5
T
CH1 A E CL5
T CH2
C CH2 C CH2 CH2 I CH3
H H O
CH3
A A CH3 CH3 N CH4
N CH4 N
CH4 CH4 CH5
G CH5 G
E E CH5 CH5
CH6
CH7
J C
JU1 CH2
J JU1 U H
U JU1 J JU1 A
S JU2 CH3
S U JU2 T N
JU2 S JU2
T I JU3 G CH4
I T JU3
JU3 C E
C I JU3 JU4 CH5
JU4 E
E JU4 C
E JU4
SU1
SU2
SU3 Single Second
SU4 Factor
S S SU8 S SU8 Order
U SU8 U
U SU5
P SU9 P SU9 Factor
P SU9
SU6 P P
P SU11 SU11
O SU7 O SU11 O
R R SU12 R SU12
SU8 SU12 J
T T T U JU1
SU9 S JU2
T
SU10
I JU3
SU11 C
E JU4
SU12
SU13 C C
O O
SU14 C06
M M
M C06 C06
C C07 M
CO1 I C07 C07
O C08 I
CO2 T T
M C08 C08
M M S
M CO3 SU8
E E U
I
CO4 N N P
T SU9
T T P
M CO5
E O SU11
N CO6 R
T SU12
T CO7
C
CY1
C CY1 CY1 Y
C CY1 N CY2
Y
Y CY2 CY2
CY2 N
N CY3
CY3 CY3
CY3
Model 1.a Model 1.b Model 1.c Model 1.d Model 1.e
FIGURE 1 Original six factor, respecified six factor, single factor, respecified five factor, and second order models.
209
Normed Fit Index (NFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were
used to assess goodness of fit. NFI and TLI values equal to or above .90 and CFI
values at .93 or above suggested a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). RMSEA values
of .08 and below suggested reasonable fit and RMSEA values of .05 or less indi-
cated good fit (Kline, 1998). RMSEA confidence intervals below .05 suggested
good fit, intervals straddling .05 suggested plausible fit, and interval statistics
above .05 did not indicate good fit (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).
As shown in Table 2, the originally proposed six factor model (Model 1.a)
resulted in a ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom, a NFI, a CFI and RMSEA
statistics which did not meet criterion levels, suggesting the model did not
provide a good fit to the data. Given that measurement models usually benefit
from some refinement or re-specification (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), the mod-
ification indices and standardized regression weights from this initial analysis
were reviewed with a view to improving the model. Ten SPOS items, five ACS
items, and three change communication items were identified as items that could
usefully be deleted from the model. All items from the original communication
climate, procedural justice, and cynicism toward organizational change scales
were retained.
The re-specified six factor model (Model 1.b) was then estimated, and all
point estimate fit statistics exceeded criterion values (see Table 2). It is noteworthy
that none of the error terms were correlated as a means to artificially promote
model fit. Although the RMSEA upper confidence interval of .054 was slightly
in excess of MacCallum et al.s (1996) criterion of .05, these researchers indicate
intervals straddling .05 indicate plausible fit. All remaining fit statistics clearly
suggest the model provides a good fit. Furthermore, the PCLOSE statistic associ-
ated with RMSEA (p = .717) was well above the p > .50 recommended by
Jreskog and Srbom (1996), also suggesting a good fitting model. Table 2 also
shows that the re-specified six factor model provided a better fit to the data than
TABLE 2
Fit Indices of Competing Models
Model c2 DF NFI TLI CFI RMSEA RMSEA (90% CI)
Null model 6134.392 215

Six factor model (1.a) 1901.140 764 .843 .900 .899 .058 (.055.061)
Re-specified six factor 429.650 215 .930 .957 .964 .048 (.041.054)
model (1.b)
One factor model (1.c) 1639.873 230 .733 .736 .760 .118 (.113.123)
Re-specified five factor 659.918 265 .903 .940 .939 .058 (.053.064)
model (1.d)
Second order model (1.e) 298.796 115 .937 .961 .960 .060 (.052.069)
the null model, a one factor model (Model 1.c), and a five factor model where the
communication climate and change communication items were specified as indica-
tors of a single communication construct (Model 1.d).
The single factor model (Model 1.c) was tested to assess whether an individual
factor could account for the variance between the constructs (Andersson & Bateman,
1997). This single factor test is in effect equivalent to Harmons One Factor
Model Test and is widely used to assess common method variance (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Method variance compromises the inter-
pretation of relationships between measures because such interpretations may not

reflect the actual substantive relationships among the constructs but rather the
influence of some extraneous factor influencing the measures (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). As shown in Table 2, none of the fit statistics for the single factor model
met criterion levels, clearly suggesting that the single factor model did not pro-
vide a satisfactory account of the data.
The re-specified five factor model (Model 1.d) was assessed in order to deter-
mine whether communication climate and change communication may better be
measured by a single overarching communication construct. While the NFI, TLI,
and CFI fit statistics for the model were all above .90 suggesting acceptable fit,
the RMSEA point estimate and confidence intervals did not meet the recom-
mended criteria. Furthermore, the PCLOSE statistic (p = .008) did not exceed the
p > .50 criterion recommended by Jreskog and Srbom (1996), suggesting this
model does not provide a good fit for the data.
The second order factor model (Model 1.e) was assessed to test whether an
overarching factor could account for the variance and relationships between the
social exchange related constructs. The high correlations between some of the
constructs (see Figure 2) attest to the utility of conducting such an analysis. As
shown in Table 2, the NFI, TLI, and CFI fit statistics for the higher order model
all met criterion levels. Again, however, the RMSEA point estimate and confi-
dence intervals did not meet criterion levels and thereby do not suggest a good
fitting solution. Further, the PCLOSE statistic associated with this model (p = .022)
did not exceed the p > .05 minimum criterion (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996).
Overall, Table 2 shows that the re-specified six factor model provides the best
fit to the data and can be accepted as the model that best represents the relation-
ships in the data. Furthermore, despite the reduction in the number of items in
some scales, all recalculated alpha reliability estimates exceeded Nunnally and
Bernsteins (1994) criterion of a = .70. Cronbachs alpha for communication cli-
mate was a = .88; for change communication, a = .87; for perceived organiza-
tional support, a = .91; for procedural justice, a = .76; for cynicism toward
organizational change, a = .81; and for affective commitment, a = .82.
Furthermore, and as shown in Figure 2, the standardized regression weights
for all items in the re-specified six factor model loaded significantly on their des-
ignated construct, ranging in value from .584 to .863. Also as shown in Figure 2
.751 CM1
C
L .772 CM2
I
M .774 CM3
A
T .757 CM4
.87 E
.794 CM5
.80 C .730 CH2

H
A .809 CH3
.74 N
G .857 CH4
E
.74 .795 CH5
.60
J
U .584 JU1
.73 S
T .754 JU2
I
.39 C .755 JU3
E
.79 .588 JU4
.54
S .832 SU8
U
.36 .65 P .840 SU9
P
O .863 SU11
R
.65 T .838 SU12
.38
C
O .710 CO6
M
M
.39 I .840 CO7
T
.30 .863 CO8
C .651 CY1
Y
N .834
I CY2
C
.837 CY3
I
S
M
FIGURE 2 Measurement model correlations and standardized regression weights of items

on their designated constructs.
and as expected, communication climate and change communication were

strongly related to the well-established social exchange constructs of procedural
justice and perceived organizational support, with these correlations ranging
between r = .73 and r =.87. Communication climate and change communication
were less strongly related to the social exchange related outcomes of affective
commitment and cynicism toward organizational change, with the significant
correlations ranging from r = -.36 to .60. The correlations between procedural
justice and perceived organizational support with the attitudinal outcomes of
affective commitment and cynicism ranged from r = -.38 to r = .65 and were
not sufficiently high as to suggest multicolinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2000).
Correlations between communication climate, change communication, proce-
dural justice, and organizational support were strong and suggest the need to con-
duct tests of discriminant validity.
Discriminant validity among constructs can be tested by comparing chi-square
values when covariances between the latent constructs are first fixed to one and
again when the covariances are freely estimated. A significant difference between
the chi-square values indicates discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Anderson and Gerbing argued that the tests should be conducted separately for
each pair of constructs rather than a simultaneous test of all constructs because a
nonsignificant value for one pair of constructs can be obscured by other pairs that
have significant differences in chi-square. Table 3 shows that the difference in
chi-square for each of the pairs of constructs was greater than the unadjusted cri-
terion of 3.84, suggesting that survey respondents could clearly discriminate
TABLE 3
Chi-square Discriminant Validity Tests
Freely Covariance
Estimated equals 1 Difference
2 2 2
Model c Df c Df c Df
Communication climate 117.07 26 186.56 27 69.49 1

Change communication
Procedural justice
Organizational support
Change communication 51.90 19 166.83 20 114.93 1
Procedural justice
Change communication 46.50 19 118.67 20 72.17 1
Procedural justice 43.88 19 141.60 20 97.72 1
between the constructs. The differences in chi-square remained significant after

applying the more stringent Bonferroni adjusted criterion value of p < .008. In
summary, the fit statistics presented in Table 2, combined with the results of the
tests for discriminant validity, provide evidence to support communication cli-
mate and change communication being regarded as two distinct communication
constructs.
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to examine the scale measurement and dimensionality of an

expanded nomological network of social exchange constructs (Siegel et al., 2005)
differentiating between communication climate and change specific communica-
tions. Communication climate and change communication were examined alongside
the established social exchange variables of perceived organizational support and
procedural justice. In addition, the measurement of well- known exchange related
outcomes, including cynicism toward organizational change and affective com-
mitment were assessed. The measurement properties of the scales were analyzed
with confirmatory factor analysis. A multiple models approach (William et al.,
2007) was adopted, and, as such, the six factor, respecified six factor, one factor,
five factor, and second order models were tested. The competing models were
compared over a range of goodness-of-fit indices to determine the model with the
best and most parsimonious fit (Williams et al., 2007).
The fit statistics for the initial six factor model did not suggest a good fitting
model. Examination of regression weights and the modification indices estab-
lished that the model could be improved by deleting 18 items. The fit statistics
for the re-specified six factor model suggested strong fit. The re-specified model
was also shown to provide superior fit compared to a single factor model, a five
factor model examining a single communication construct, and a second order
model. Furthermore, given that the single factor test is also commonly used to
test for common method variance, the absence of fit for the one factor model pro-
vides some preliminary evidence that common method variance did not affect the
data.
Correlations between the social exchange variables (communication climate,
change communication, procedural justice, and perceived organizational support)
with the exchange outcomes affective commitment and cynicism were significant
but not sufficiently high as to suggest multicolinearity. However, the relation-
ships between communication climate, change communication, organizational
support, and procedural justice were strong, suggesting the need for tests of dis-
criminant validity. Tests of discriminant validity clearly established that partici-
pants could reliably distinguish between the constructs. Of particular relevance to
communication researchers and practitioners, the findings suggest that employees
could reliably differentiate between change specific communications and the

general communication climate. These findings provide additional support for the
re-specified six factor model, which identifies communication climate and change
communication as distinguishable constructs.
More generally, the correlations between change communication and commu-
nication climate with procedural justice (r = .74 and r = .80) and perceived orga-
nizational support (r = .73 and r = .74) provide preliminary evidence for the
communication variables as relevant social exchange constructs. The results also
established that the communication variables had strong associations with social
exchange related outcomes of affective commitment (r = .54 and r = .60) and
cynicism toward organizational change (r = .36 and r = .39). This suggests that
communication climate and change communication may impact these employee
attitudes toward change. While it is beyond the scope of this measurement article
to further explore and model the relationships among these variables, future
social exchange research would benefit from the elaboration of these relation-
ships. The strong significant relationships between the communication variables
and social exchange constructs and outcomes clearly suggest that communication
climate and change specific communications may play a central role in the devel-
opment and maintenance of social exchange relationships during change.
Consistent with arguments proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), it is
important to the progress of social exchange theory and research that the mea-
surement properties of social exchange related variables be established before the
relationships between these variables can accurately be modeled and used to
inform organizational practice. This study has established short and valid scales
that reliably measure the underlying variables they are designed to measure. As
such, these scales could be included in employee opinion surveys to accurately
gauge employee views about their work environment. The scales could also
prove useful for researchers interested to examine the structural relations
between an expanded set of social exchange related constructs.
This study has practical implications for organizations seeking to assess com-
munication climate, change communication, perceptions of organizational sup-
port, justice, commitment, and cynicism in organizational contexts. This research
has established that employees distinguish between the general communication
climate and change specific communications and organizations may benefit from
developing targeting change communication strategies when attempting to influ-
ence employee attitudes to change. Finally, this study has established that com-
munication climate and change related communications may contribute to
employees perceptions of organizational support and justice perceptions and
may influence employee attitude to change. Future research might be focused on
generalizing this single sample study to other samples and on the multi-level
modeling of structural relations between such constructs, preferably within a lon-
gitudinal design.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public sector senior management. International Jour-
nal of Human Resources Management, 14, 7692.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship
between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support and supervisory
trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295305.
Anderson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 449469.
Anderson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation framework.
Human Relations,49, 13951418.
Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423.
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and
police performance: The moderating influence of socio-emotional needs. Journal of Applied
Psychology,83, 288297.
Axtell, C., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner, P., & Bolden, R. (2002). Familiarity
breeds content: The impact of exposure to change on employee openness and well-being. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 217231.
Barrett, D. J. (2002). Change communication: Using strategic employee communication to facilitate
major change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7, 219231.
Bartels, J., Douwes, R., Jong, M., & Pruyn, A. (2006). Organizational identification during a merger:
Determinants of employees expected identification with the new organization. British Journal of
Management, 17, S49S67.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. (1993). The role of culture compatibility in successful organizational
marriage. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 5770.
Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. The Leader-
ship and Organization Development Journal, 25, 485498.
Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of one interact with the justice of many? Reactions to proce-
dural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 633646.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millen-
nium: A meta analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 425445.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences
of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83100.
Contractor, N. S., & Monge, P. R. (2002). Managing knowledge networks. Management Communica-
tion Quarterly, 16, 249258.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuris-
tics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
58, 164209.
Daly, F., Teague, P., & Kitchen, P. (2003). Exploring the role of internal communication during orga-
nizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8, 153162.
Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change:
Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 15, 623638.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support:
Discretionary treatment and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812820.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500507.
Elving, W. (2005). The role of communication in organizational change. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 10, 129138.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Wendt, R. F. (1993). The gap in total quality: A commentary. Management Com-
munications Quarterly, 6, 441451.
Goldhaber, G. M., Dennis, H. S., Richetto, G. M., & Wiio, O. (1979). Information strategies: New
pathways to corporate power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice and employee attitudes:
Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 6384.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equations Modelling, 6, 155.
Hutchison, S. (1997). Perceived organizational support: Further evidence of construct validity. Edu-
cational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 10251034.
Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organizational communication: Challenges
for the new century. International Communication Association, 722750.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL8: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.
Kitchener, P. J., & Daly, F. (2002). Internal communication during change management. Corporate
Communications, 7, 4653.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformational efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73, 5967.
Lewis, L. K. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational
change: Implementers targets, sources, and channels for communicating. Management Communi-
cation Quarterly, 13, 4374.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification
of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.),
Advanced structural equation modelling (pp. 315352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, S. M. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 738748.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modelling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130149.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and conse-
quences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 2052.
Mills, C. E. (2007). A window of sensemaking about change communication. Australian Journal of
Communications, 34, 1338.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1979). The measurement of organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Pincus, D. J. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12, 395419.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The
contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825836.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 217233.
Setton, R. P., Bennet, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organiza-
tional support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 219227.
Siegel, P. A., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., & Garden, C. (2005). The moderating influence
of procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1324.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organiza-
tional change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 429459.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (1994). Organizational cynicism: An initial study.
Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 269273.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change. Group
and Organization Management, 25, 132154.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2004). Cynicism about organizational change: An
attribution process perspective. Psychological Reports, 94, 14211434.
Williams, M. A., Fletcher, R. B., & Ronan, K. R. (2007). Investigating the theoretical construct and
invariance of the self-control scale using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice,
35, 205218.
Zorn, T. E., & Cheney, G. (2000). Multiple perspectives on change-oriented communication in a public
sector organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 515566.
APPENDIX
Survey Scale Items
Perceived Organizational Support
The <organization> . . . . . 1 . . . has clear goals

2 . . . has a strong, independent identity
3 . . . encourage people to develop and improve themselves
4 . . . demonstrates respect for employees
5 . . . values my contribution to its wellbeing

6 . . . fails to appreciate any extra effort from me
7 . . . is willing to help when I need a special favour
8 . . . cares about my opinions
9 . . . takes pride in my accomplishments at work
10 . . . tries to make my work as interesting as possible
11 . . . considers my goals and values
12 . . . helps when I have a problem
13 . . . cares about my general satisfaction at work
14 . . . would not ignore any complaint from me
Affective Commitment
1 . . . I enjoy discussing the company with people outside it
2 . . . I feel as though the company problems are my own
3 . . . I could easily become attached to another organization
4 . . . I dont feel part of the family at <organization>
5 . . . I dont feel emotionally attached to this organization
6 . . . I would be happy to spend the rest f my career with the
company
7 . . . The <company> has a lot of personal meaning to me
8 . . . I feel a strong sense of belonging to the <company>
Communication Climate
People within the <company> . . . 1 . . . say what they mean and mean what they say
2 . . . are encourages to be really open and candid with each
other
3 . . . freely exchange information and opinions
4 . . . are kept informed about how well work goals and
objectives are being met
5 . . . are provided with the kinds of information they really want
and need to do their job
Change Communication
People within the <company> . . . 1 . . . are kept up to date on developments that relate to future
plans
2 . . . are informed about the direction the organization is taking
3 . . . are kept informed about changes within the workplace
4 . . . receive timely advice on changes which might impact their
jobs
5 . . . I know how the changes that are happening now fit into the
long term direction of <company>
(Continued)
APPENDIX (Continued)
Perceived Organizational Support
6 . . . I have some say in changes which affect me

7 . . . Before the changes are brought in, I am informed about
why those changes are necessary
Cynicism towards Organizational Change
1 . . . Most of the programs around here that are supposed to
solve problems wont do much good

2 . . . Attempts to make things better around here wont produce
good results
3 . . . Plans for future improvements wont amount to much
Procedural Justice
1 . . . My performance ratings represent a fair and accurate
picture of my actual job performance
2 . . . The process used to address any concerns or complaints I
voice about this organization is fair
3 . . . Standards and criteria are applied consistently across the
organization when evaluating peoples performance
4 . . . I am advised Promptly when there is a change in policy,
rules or regulations which affect me

Measuring Social Exchange Constructs in Organizations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Measuring Social Exchange Constructs in Organizations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Communication Methods and Measures

ISSN: 1931-2458 (Print) 1931-2466 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcms20

Measuring Social Exchange Constructs in

Kelly McMillan & Simon Albrecht

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19312450903378909

Published online: 09 Sep 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 141

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Measuring Social Exchange Constructs

Kelly McMillan and Simon Albrecht

Although social exchange has been frequently referred to as a framework for

Organizations today engage in continuous and incremental change in response to

Correspondence should be addressed to Kelly McMillan, Psychology Department, Monash University,

commitment, trust in management, intentions to turnover, employee participa-

reported that procedural justice influences exchange related variables including

social exchange-related constructs may be compromised because the omission

ally strong associations reported between social exchange constructs, including

centrally and entered into SPSS version 15 for preliminary analyses.

An example item includes I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization

1. Communication climate 3.10 .79 .88

Model c2 DF NFI TLI CFI RMSEA RMSEA (90% CI)

Null model 6134.392 215

pretation of relationships between measures because such interpretations may not

.80 C .730 CH2

FIGURE 2 Measurement model correlations and standardized regression weights of items

and as expected, communication climate and change communication were

Communication climate 117.07 26 186.56 27 69.49 1

between the constructs. The differences in chi-square remained significant after

This study aimed to examine the scale measurement and dimensionality of an

could reliably differentiate between change specific communications and the

Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26, 6384.

ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1324.

Perceived Organizational Support

The <organization> . . . . . 1 . . . has clear goals

5 . . . values my contribution to its wellbeing

Perceived Organizational Support

6 . . . I have some say in changes which affect me

solve problems wont do much good

Вам также может понравиться