نفوذ اجتماعی یک همکار: آزمون اثر کارکنان و تبادل ایدئولوژی همکار بر کیفیت تبادل کارکنان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|37266||2011||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 115, Issue 2, July 2011, Pages 226–237
Integrating social comparison and social influence perspective within a social exchange theoretical framework, we examine how the exchange ideologies of employees and their coworkers affect the quality of the employees’ social exchanges. Drawing from social exchange theory, we hypothesize that the exchange ideology of a focal employee has a negative relationship with the quality of his/her social exchange with the organization (i.e., felt obligation) and the quality of his/her social exchange with a leader (i.e., leader–member exchange), both of which are related to task performance. Furthermore, we propose that a coworker close to the employee acts as a social referent and provides cues to exert influence on these relationships. Using data collected from 374 (employee–coworker–manager) triads in Hong Kong, we find support for the aforementioned relationships as well as the moderating roles of a coworker’s exchange ideology.
The social exchange perspective provides an overarching theoretical framework for investigating relationships among various concepts such as leader–member exchange (LMX), felt obligation, and perceived organizational support (e.g., Aryee et al., 2002, Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007 and Wang et al., 2005). Although scholars have emphasized the importance of individual differences in the workplace (e.g., Hurtz and Donovan, 2000, Judge et al., 2002 and Orvis et al., 2008), the role of exchange ideology—defined as “the strength of an employee’s belief that work effort should depend on treatment by the organization” Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986, p. 503)—has not been examined in detail (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Understanding the role of exchange ideology is critical as individuals are likely to have different beliefs regarding which reciprocity norms are appropriate, based on their predisposition toward these types of exchanges. Even if a norm of reciprocity is a human universal, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) emphasized that not all individuals value reciprocity to the same degree. Thus, assuming that everyone has reciprocity norms of equal strength (i.e., a similar level of exchange ideology) may lead to incorrect conclusions about the quality of social exchange and its consequences (cf. Eisenberger et al., 2001 and Flynn and Brockner, 2003). Ignoring an individual’s exchange norm makes the examination of social exchange in the workplace incomplete. Recognizing this issue, this study examined the role of exchange ideology, i.e., individual differences regarding exchange norms, in determining the quality of social exchange in the workplace and its consequences. Social exchange theory thus comprises the underpinnings of this study, explicating (a) the relationship between employee exchange ideology and the quality of social exchanges with the organization and with the leader and (b) the mediating role this social exchange quality plays in the relationship between employee exchange ideology and employee behaviors (task performance). We select exchange ideology because it is a key individual difference construct, considered important to social exchange in the workplace (cf. Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005 and Scott and Colquitt, 2007). Furthermore, we investigate the role of one coworker, especially a coworker’s exchange ideology, as an important contextual factor that is likely to influence an employee’s perception of social exchange quality as well as the consequences of that quality. According to social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), an individual’s attitude is not only determined by his/her own needs but is also strongly shaped by the environment. When employees evaluate their exchange relationships with the organization, they are likely to be influenced by social comparison and social information cues given by immediate referents (Ho & Levesque, 2005). A coworker can be a critical source of information and an important immediate referent. We conceptualize and test the moderating effects of a coworker’s exchange ideology on the relationship between employee exchange ideology and the quality of an employee’s exchange relationships at work (felt obligation and LMX) as well as the consequences of that quality—i.e., the relationship between social exchange quality and task performance. This study, thus, contributes to the social exchange literature and the coworker influence literature in several ways. First, we highlight the important (direct as well as indirect) roles an individual employee’s exchange ideology plays in determining the quality of social exchange in the workplace and its consequences in terms of employee task performance, issues that have not been investigated to date. Second and perhaps more importantly, we develop theoretical arguments for the moderating roles of coworker exchange ideology. Specifically, we illustrate two different manners in which a coworker can exert influence on the focal employee: (1) as a social referent for the focal employee to compare his/her own standing with and (2) as a social referent for the focal employee to evaluate the appropriate amount of reciprocation. The first mechanisms explains the moderating effects of coworker exchange ideology on the relationship between the focal employee’s exchange ideology and the quality of his/her social exchanges [LMX and felt obligation to the organization] and the second mechanism explains the moderating effects of coworker exchange ideology on the relationship between the focal employee’s social exchange quality and his/her task performance. In this study, we collected data from 376 Chinese employee–coworker–manager triads using questionnaires to test these hypotheses. Fig. 1 illustrates our proposed model and the relationships we hypothesize. Coworker social referent influence model. Fig. 1. Coworker social referent influence model.