Cropanzano Rupp 2008

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/228079669
Social Exchange Theory and Organizational Justice: Job

Performance, Citizenship Behaviors, Multiple Foci, and
a Historical Integration of Tw....
Chapter · January 2008
CITATIONS READS
97 3,920
2 authors:
Russell Cropanzano Deborah E. Rupp

University of Colorado Boulder George Mason University
147 PUBLICATIONS 31,929 CITATIONS 140 PUBLICATIONS 15,001 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
WORK-FAMILY CROSSOVER: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Russell Cropanzano on 04 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Information Age Publishing
All rights reserved
Chapter 3
©2008
Social Exchange Theory
and Organizational
Justice
Job Performance, Citizenship Behaviors,
Multiple Foci, and a Historical
Integration of Two Literatures
Russell Cropanzano
Deborah E. Rupp
ABSTRACT
In this chapter we present an integrative and historical review of two litera-

tures—organizational justice and social exchange theory. We trace the his-
tory of social exchange from an emphasis on relationships to an emphasis
on self-motivated exchanges, and back to an emphasis on relationships, and
show how social exchange research evolved in the OCB, support, commit-
ment, LMX, and trust literatures. We then show how this evolution opened
the door for justice researchers to explore how fairness engenders social
exchange relationships, and how social exchange relationships serve as a
mediator of justice’s effects on subsequent attitudes and behaviors. We then
Justice, Morality, and Social Responsibility, pages 63–99

Copyright © 2008 by Information Age Publishing
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 63
64  R. Cropanzano and D. E. Rupp
explore how this integrated research has evolved to take a multifoci perspec-
tive, whereby justice judgments made about a particular party impact the ex-
change relationship between employees and that party, which then impacts

All rights reserved
attitudes and behaviors directed at that party. Recently coined the “target
similarity effect,” this framework serves as an integrative framework for the
study of organizational behavior. We conclude by reviewing contemporary
applications of social exchange–based multifoci justice, such as the study of
multifoci justice climate.
Since the term “organizational justice” was coined by Wendell French in
©2008
1964, this literature has explored the different sorts of transactions that
occur among people at work. Fairness research is especially pertinent to
who gets what (distributive justice), how goods are assigned (procedural
justice), and the interpersonal treatment received along the way (interac-
tional justice). Whereas justice researchers acknowledge the importance of
economic self-interest in such exchanges, they go further, arguing that jus-
tice pertains to more than simply favorable or unfavorable outcomes (Skit-
ka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003; Van den Bos, Wilke, Lind, & Vermunt,
1998). To say that a transaction is “just” implies that it is consistent with
certain standards of appropriate or ethical conduct (Cropanzano, Rupp,
Mohler, & Schminke, 2001). A fair outcome might well be a favorable one,
but then again, it need not be. Giving people what they want is not the same
as giving them what they deserve.
An emphasis on the fairness of transactions can be traced far back into
history. As cultural anthropologists observed in the last century, human
beings were inveterate traders long before the development of industrial
economies, nation-states, or large-scale markets (Malinowski, 1932; Sahlins,
1972). Whether the context was kula rings in Melanesia (Malinowski, 1922)
or potlatches in the Pacific Northwest (Mauss, 1925), people improved
their economic lot from transactions. But more than that, human beings
also exchanged goods and services to cement social relationships, perform
religious duties, or express a preferred social structure (Fiske, 1991). Ex-
change, it would seem, has always been about more than merely exchange.
It was from these ethnographies that social scientists formulated social ex-
change theory.
Social exchange theory comes in numerous manifestations. The variet-
ies most common to organizational behavior share with justice research an
emphasis on interpersonal transactions (exchanges) and a belief that these
transactions are about more than simply economic self-interest. Not only
are these exchanges important, but their nature and their consequences
are believed to be shaped by the social and relational context in which they
occur. Despite this agreement on important first principles, we will soon see
that for decades, justice scholars were hesitant to integrate insights from
social exchange theory into their work. Only with time has this skepticism
Social Exchange Theory and Organizational Justice  65
been addressed, and contemporary approaches to social exchange (which

revert to the original arguments made by the classical theorists) applied to

justice theory.
All rights reserved

The purpose of this chapter is to integrate social exchange theory with
organizational justice. These two scholarly traditions share a common in-
terest in exchange transactions and human relationships. Perhaps more to
the point, each of these research literatures has special insights that could
benefit the other. We explore this issues in the pages the follow. As readers
of this volume may be more familiar with organizational justice, we first pro-
©2008
vide a brief overview of social exchange theory. Afterward, we consider the
history of social exchange theory in more detail, highlighting that where-
as classic theorists emphasized interpersonal relationships, early modern
theorists deemphasized the role of relationships in exchange, making the
theory less useful to organizational justice scholars. We trace the growth of
the theory over a number of years, illustrating how the work of Blau (1964)
encouraged social psychologists and management scientists to expand their
thinking regarding this issue (back to early propositions). As we will show,
once it became clear that social exchange theory allowed for close relation-
ships among coworkers, applications to justice developed at a rapid pace.
With this history behind us, we turn to more recent research, describing the
evidence for multifoci social exchange and unit-level fairness perceptions.
We have provided Figure 3.1 as a historical roadmap to help us through
this journey.
An Overview of Social Exchange Theory
The social sciences literature has seen many social exchange theories (see
Cropanzano, Rupp, et al., 2001; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, for more
complete reviews). These bring together different emphases and perspec-
tives. However, within the organizational sciences, modern social exchange
theory derives its explanatory power by emphasizing the type and quality
of relationships in which employees participate (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway,
2004; Rousseau, 1995; Shore et al., 2004). Building on the work of Blau
(1964) and Organ (1988a, 1990) social exchange theorists place these re-
lationships on a continuum. Anchoring one pole are economic exchange
relationships. These relationships involve the quid pro quo exchange of
concrete goods that are often economic or quasi-economic. Economic
exchange relationships tend to be short term with little if any emotional
attachment between the two parties. Anchoring the other pole are social
exchange relationships, which draw their name from that of the overall
theory. Social exchange relationships tend to be more open-ended. They
may involve more abstract socioemotional “goods,” such as support and
Social Exchange
1750s–1920s 1958 1964 1979–1982 1988–1990 1995 2003
Classic theorists (Smith, Early modern theorists Sociologist Peter Blau Social psychologists Clark Organ uses SET to develop SET is used as a foundation Supervisory- and
Chavannes, Malinowski, (Homans, Gergen), begins to discuss the & Mills refer to economic ideas about OCB (social for work on POS and LMX organizational- (multifoci)
Mauss) discuss both the discuss SET primarily as relationship aspects of and communal exchange exchange relationships (Shore, Shore, Eisenberger, sub-facets are developed
economic and relational about self-interest the exchange process as types of relationships motivate citizenship Liden, Wayne, Gerstner, for relational constructs
aspects of exchange behavior!) Day, Ilies, etc.; POS predicts such as support and
org. commitment; LMX commitment (e.g.,
predicts performance Stinghamber &
and OCB) Vandenberghe)
Organizational Justice
1964 1989 1991 1994 2001
Wendell French coined term Organ & Konovsky use SET Moorman shows that Konovsky & Pugh evidence The multifoci model of
“organizational justice” framework to predict OCB procedural justice predicts mediation: PJ→trust→OCB organizational justice first

©2008 via organizational justice OCB discussed by Cropanzano
et al. (with multifoci models
also emerging in the support,
commitment, trust, and OCB
literatures)
Integration!
2000 2001 2002–2003 2005 2007 2008
Masterson et al show that Rupp and Cropanzano Supportive findings offered Liao and Rupp show support Walumbwa & Cropanzano Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner
All rights reserved
the effect of PJ on OCBO is
mediated by POS, whereas
explicitly test and confirm a
multifoci, social exchange
by Wayne et al., Liden et al,
Cropanzano et al.
of multifoci justice at the
group level of analysis
extend findings including 4
facets of justice and social
propose the “target similarity
model,” which calls for
the effect of IJ on OCBS model of organizational (multifoci justice climate exchange constructs mapped multifoci social exchange
are mediated by LMX justice predicts multfoci DVs above to each foci. approaches to the study of
and beyond the effects of organizational behavior
individual-level justice) at large
Figure 3.1 A historical timeline tracing the integration of social exchange theory with organizational justice research.
loyalty. Social exchange relationships tend to be longer term with close at-
tachments between the parties and psychological identification with the

relationship.
All rights reserved

Theorists often discuss person-to-person relationships. These could be
between a leader and a subordinate or, for that matter, a romantic couple
(Sternberg, 1987). However, it is important to emphasize that social ex-
change theory is not limited to other people. As we have explained else-
where (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Lavelle, Rupp, &
Brockner, in press), individuals often think of organizations as possessing
©2008
human-like qualities. Consequently, workers also form relationships with
their employers as a whole (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Shore et al.,
2004). This possibility is captured by such constructs as perceptions of or-
ganizational support (POS; Shore & Shore, 1995), organizational commit-
ment (Bishop & Scott, 2000), and organizational trust (Aryee, Budhwar, &
Chen, 2002). As we will soon see, there is a good deal of predictive value
in considering both relationships between employees and their immediate
supervisors, as well as between employees and their employing organization
as a whole.
Social exchange relationships at work are often initiated when a more
powerful party, such as a boss or an organization, reaches out to a less pow-
erful party, such as an individual employee. If the employee is desirous of
such a relationship, he or she reciprocates the favorable treatment through
his or her attitudes and behaviors. This simple model has been used to ac-
count for the development of high-quality exchange relationships between
leaders and subordinates (LMX; cf. Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-
Bein, 1995). If the supervisor extends the opportunity for a quality LMX
relationship (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997;
Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000), the subordinate may respond with
more favorable work attitudes, higher job performance, and more orga-
nizational citizenship behaviors (OCB; for evidence, see Gerstner & Day,
1997; Hackett, Farh, Song, & Lapierre, 2003; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,
2007; Kaufman, Stamper, & Tesluk, 2001).
The model also seems to hold for organizations as exchange partners, as
shown by research on perceptions of organizational support (POS). Fasolo
(1995) argued that organizations should treat their employees with both
procedural justice and distributive justice. Each of these influences encour-
ages perceptions of organizational support. This support then increases
worker commitment to the organization. For its part, commitment facili-
tates job performance. Research testing these links has been supportive
(Fasolo, 1995; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001).
In their Target Similarity Model, Lavelle et al. (in press) summarize these
findings within a multistage framework, which integrates justice and social
exchange theory. These authors argue that firms can encourage social ex-
change relationships by treating their employees justly. Specifically, fairness

will tend to create a sense of support from the organization. In response to

this support, workers will become more committed, and this commitment,
All rights reserved

in turn, engenders the extra effort that results in higher job performance
and other productive work behaviors.
The work of Lavelle and his colleagues (in press) is important because
it provides a straightforward heuristic for integrating research on social ex-
change with research on justice. To state the matter broadly, social exchange
theorists have spent a good deal of time distinguishing different types of re-
©2008
lationships (e.g., social exchange and economic exchange). Among other
things, social exchange research has articulated a host of relational con-
structs, including support, identification, trust, LMX, and commitment.
These phenomena are generally understood to operate in sequence, with
the authority figure or organization proffering an opportunity (e.g., by
providing support) and the worker responding with commitment or iden-
tification. Justice theorists, on the other hand, have devoted considerable
energy to understand the causes of relationships. These causes include dis-
tributive, procedural, and interactional fairness. When these are present,
social exchange relationships are likely to develop. Very loosely speaking,
this suggests that justice and social exchange fit together as an antecedent
to criterion. (Presumably, justice might also result from high-quality social
exchange relationships, but this possibility has received less attention). As
we shall soon see, this simple mechanism—whereby justice creates high-
quality interpersonal relationships—will have many implications.
How Social Exchange Theory Became Compatible

with Organizational Justice
Despite this compatibility between the justice and social exchange litera-
tures, as well as supporting empirical evidence, the potential from integrat-
ing these two paradigms has been broadly appreciated only in the last de-
cade. Indeed, for much of its early history, organizational justice was kept
assiduously away from social exchange theory, regarding it with something
approaching suspicion.
The sections that follow trace this history. Through this account, we
show that early justice scholars were skeptical of social exchange theory, as
it was generally understood in the 1960s and 1970s to be merely about self-
interested exchanges. As we shall see, it was an expansion of social exchange
theory, occurring in the 1980s (e.g., Mills & Clark, 1982; Organ, 1988a; Or-
gan & Konovsky, 1989) and 1990s (e.g., Organ, 1990; Moorman, 1991), that
bestowed on the model its present emphasis on types of relationships. This
extension provided the impetus for explaining justice in terms of social
exchange (e.g., by Organ & Moorman, 1993; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff,
1998; and Niehoff & Moorman, 1993, among others).

All rights reserved
The First Movement: Classical and Early Modern Social
Exchange Theory
Early history: The classical theorists. Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith
(1776/1966) made the following famous remark:
©2008
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that
we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address
ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them
of our necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses [choos-
es] to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens. (Book I,
Chapter II, p. 13)
In these observations Smith lays the foundations for his doctrine of the
“invisible hand.” Individuals engage in transactions with other individuals.
If the two parties are rational, then this transaction will make both bet-
ter off. Economic systems and entire societies can develop from the rela-
tionships that these transactions establish. Based on considerations such
as these, Nord (1973) was able to maintain that Smith earned “historical
precedent in social exchange theory” (p. 421). Exchanges may carry a sig-
nificance beyond the simple transfer of goods.
In this regard, what Smith actually said has not always been the same as
what he was understood to say. Historically, various scholars have maintained
that Smith argued for an exclusively self-interested model of human motiva-
tion (e.g., Knox, 1963; Nord, 1973). While Smith’s writing was not always
consistent, this does not appear to have been the case (S. Holmes, 1990).
In his writings, Smith acknowledged the importance of justice and social
relationships, among other motives (for evidence, see Nord, 1973; see also
Smith, 1759/1953). This is evidenced by his statement, “How selfish soever
man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature,
which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness
necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure
of seeing it.” Still, it is probably fair to say that Wealth of Nations emphasized
material self-interest insofar as economic transactions were concerned
(e.g., Burnham, 1943), and Smith did not develop a complete theory of
social exchange that integrated social relationships.
A less well-known figure in the history of social exchange theory is Albert
Chavannes (1936–1903). From 1883 to 1885 Chavannes published a jour-
nal called The Sociologist. This publication has long been out of print, but
Knox (1963) provides an excellent review of Chavannes’s thinking. Like
Adam Smith, whom he cited, Chavannes argued that society is constructed

from mutually beneficial exchanges among people. Chavannes anticipated

modern thinking in two respects. First, he argued that relationships play a
All rights reserved

mediating role between exchanges and consequences. Or, as Chavannes
put it more eloquently: “profitable exchange lies at the base of the rela-
tions of men to each other, and is the ground work on which society is
built” (cited in Knox, 1963, p. 343). Second, Chavannes went on to take
issue with Adam Smith, who (Chavannes maintained) has “only taken in
consideration things of a material nature” (cited in Knox, 1963, p. 343).
©2008
In addition to material interest, Chavannes also believed that people could
be motivated by a sense of duty and by “all material products which con-
tribute to the wealth of mankind” (p. 343). In other words, obligations and
people matter. This makes sense considering that Chavannes believed that
relationships were important. It’d be difficult to establish flourishing inter-
personal relationships without a genuine concern for the other party and a
sense that one had some sort of obligations toward that individual. Indeed,
our own analysis of Adam Smith’s writings suggests he would agree with this
proposition.
In the early 20th century Chavannes’s ideas were further advanced by
cultural anthropologists who were conducting fieldwork in pre-Industri-
al, non-Western societies. Among the most notable were Polish scholar
Bronisław Malinowski (1922, 1932). Malinowski maintained that societies
must meet the needs of individuals. However, he did not identify these
needs exclusively with material interests. Rather, he recognized additional
human motives (cf. Fiske, 1991). For instance, Malinowski emphasized the
importance of reciprocity or returning favors.
A rough contemporary of Malinowski was French scholar Macel Mauss
(1925). Mauss reviewed and extended Malinowski’s (1922) work, adding his
own insights. Mauss recognized that gift-giving and other social exchanges
had a symbolic relevance in addition to their economic value. Consequent-
ly, social exchanges could serve to build various sorts of social relationships
among individuals (for a more recent view, see Fiske, 1991). Mauss’s work
was extremely influential, providing part of the intellectual foundation for
modern anarchism (Graeber, 2004).
Interestingly, all of the classical social exchange theorists were open to
the possibility that individuals had multiple concerns. Material interest was
one, but there was also an acknowledged concern with social relationships
and fairness. As we shall see, these traditions of social exchange theory, im-
portant to early scholars, were almost lost in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result
of this omission, the integration between social exchange theory and justice
was delayed for many years.
Early modern theorists: The primacy of self-interest and the absence of relation-
ships. In 1958, George Homans published his influential article “Social Be-
havior as Exchange.” Homans cited Mauss’s work. He even complemented

Mauss by identifying it as the only theoretical work to have truly made use

of social exchange theory. While it is understandable that Homans had not
All rights reserved

seen the work of Chavannes, it is surprising that he was unfamiliar with
Malinowski (1922, 1932) and Smith (1759/1953, 1776/1956). In any case,
unlike Chavannes and Mauss, Homans places social exchange squarely in
the camp of individual self-interest, though he concedes that some of these
interests might not be material (Knox, 1963). These themes were devel-
oped in Homans’s (1961) book on the same topic.
©2008
Homans (1958) was seeking to build a comprehensive exchange theory
of human behavior. He saw economics as especially important to this en-
deavor, noting that “An incidental advantage of an exchange theory is that
it might bring sociology closer to economics—that science of man most
advanced” (p. 598). As it happened, the economics of Homans’s day placed
greater emphasis on individual self-interest, and less on relationships and
moral obligations (cf. Sen, 1990). Homans seems to have imported this sort
of thinking into social exchange theory, thereby missing an earlier tradi-
tion that took a more eclectic approach to human motivation. A few years
later, Blau (1964) also presented a self-interested theory of social exchange,
though he later stated that motives other than self-interest are likely to exist
(Blau, 1986). We will return to Blau’s work in the sections that follow.
During this early modern period, social exchange theory left little to
the imagination. The currency of social exchange theory at that time was
transactions (as opposed to relationships). Rather than viewing social ex-
change as a manifestation of a trust-based social bond between two parties,
it was seen as a strategy for maximizing one’s self-interest. In other words,
whether the exchange was short or long term, quid pro quo or otherwise,
it was thought that all exchange strategies (both economic and social) were
motivated by outcome maximization. For example, Gergen (1969, p. 2)
maintained that the social exchange theory “view of man is not flattering;
he is seen as basically motivated for his own needs, utilizing all cognitive
and behavioral means at his disposal to achieve these ends in a complex
world.” In discussing equity theory and helping behavior, Hatfield, Walster,
and Piliavin (1978, pp. 128–129) went even further:
The majority of scientists—[us] included—are fairly cynical. They interpret

apparent altruism in cost-benefit terms, assuming that individuals . . . perform
those acts that are rewarded . . . and . . . avoid those acts that are not. Either
self-congratulation or external reward, then, must support apparently altruis-
tic behavior. . . . Most often scientists attribute apparent altruism to more self-
ish motives.
That is, as they say, laying it on the line.

Organizational justice researchers take their first look at social exchange theory.
Early justice researchers based their view of social exchange theory on the

research that was prominent in the 1950s and early 1960s (which was con-
All rights reserved

ducted by the early modern theorists). As we have just seen, these theorists
did not seriously consider human relationships and the accompanying mo-
tives that take us beyond individual self-interest. This would have to be over-
come before the two areas of study could benefit from one another. Con-
sider, for example, the following quotes from prominent justice scholars:
©2008
• Lind (1995): Social exchange theory and related frameworks are
“quasi-economic models of organizational behavior [that] suppose
that people conduct an analysis of the benefits and costs associated
with a given policy.”
• Tyler and Lind (1992, p. 116): “Social exchange theories . . . view
people as motivated by self-interest.”
• Konovsky (2000, p. 493): Social exchange theory is “another ex-
ample of self-interest models.”
Seen in light of more recent scholarship, these quotes share a similar

theme. In each case, the author or authors argue that social exchange the-
ory is limited due to its myopic focus on self-interest and the absence of so-
cial considerations. The irony here is that this need not have occurred. Es-
sentially, Homans (1958), and to a lesser extent Blau (1986), broke with an
earlier tradition that traces back to Adam Smith (1759/1953, 1776/1956).
When justice scholars viewed social exchange theory as focusing nar-
rowly on self-interested transactions (understood in economic or quasi-
economic terms), they were accurately repeating the views of sundry con-
temporary and near-contemporary social exchange theorists. In order to
appeal to justice researchers, social exchange theory would have to recap-
ture its traditional emphasis. In the next section we discuss changes in
social exchange theory that made it more palatable to fairness researchers.
As we will see, social exchange theory evolved to focus on how different
exchanges might manifest or be manifested by different types of relation-
ships occurring at work.
The Second Movement: How Social Exchange Theory

Came to Emphasize Interpersonal Relationships
With the exception of some work on equity theory (e.g., Hatfield et al.,
1978), early organizational justice researchers made few attempts to inte-
grate their research with social exchange theory. Put simply, a theory focus-
ing solely on individual economic interest was of little use to justice schol-
ars, as the limitations of such a perspective were well known (e.g., Lind,
1992; Tyler & Lind, 1992). To overcome this obstacle, social exchange the-

ory would have to gradually reincorporate the idea of relationships. Prob-
All rights reserved

ably the most influential scholar to deal with this issue was sociologist Peter
Blau (1964). Blau’s seminal work, which is reviewed next, launched not
one but two parallel rethinkings of social exchange theory. Within social
psychology, Mills and Clark (1982; Clark & Mills, 1979) began studying ex-
change and communal relationships. Within the organizational sciences,
Organ (1988a, 1988b, 1990) began emphasizing economic exchange and
©2008
social exchange relationships. Both of these research themes drew directly
on the work of Blau, but took his thinking in slightly different directions.
In so doing, these scholars provided the foundation for modern social ex-
change theory.
Blau and the origins of contemporary social exchange theory. In his influential
book, Blau (1964) provided a useful description of social and economic ex-
change. He did so by comparing one to the other. Blau maintained that “the
basic and most crucial distinction is that social exchange entails unspecified
obligations” (1964, p. 93, original emphasis). He also added that only social
exchange “involves favors that create diffuse future obligations . . . and the
nature of the return cannot be bargained” (p. 93). Blau went on to remark
that “only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obliga-
tions, gratitude, and trust; purely economic exchange as such does not” (p.
94). Furthermore, he opines that “in contrast to economic commodities,
the benefits involved in social exchange do not have an exert price in terms
of single quantitative medium of exchange” (p. 94).
It is important to consider Blau’s (1964) ideas carefully. He argued that
individuals engage in transactions with one other. Blau believed that social
exchange relationships were causally related to these transactions, though
the direction of the causal arrow is somewhat ambiguous. For example, on
page 97 he argues that “the character of the relationship between exchange
partners” might “affect the process of social exchange.” He concedes that
an individual could become “committed to an exchange partner” (p. 101).
In the former case, the relationship causes the type of exchange. In the lat-
ter case, the (committed) relationship is caused by the exchange. Interest-
ingly, in neither case does he use the word “exchange” to denote a type of
relationship. Rather, Blau seems to be describing a type of supportive and
generous transaction. These types of transactions, while not relationships
per se, could create or encourage close relationships with others. In other
places, his language lends itself to a different interpretation. For instance,
Blau maintains that social exchange involves “trusting others” and “per-
sonal obligations” (p. 94). This strongly implies, though does not explicitly
state, that social exchange is a sort of relationship characterized by trust
and obligation.
As one can see, much of modern social exchange theory can be found
in the work of Blau (1964). He clearly appreciated the importance of in-

terpersonal relationships, believing that their development could be influ-
All rights reserved

enced by the nature of one’s transactions. Blau also recognized that these
relationships, once in place, provided a causal impetus of their own. These
are important ideas. On the other hand, it is not entirely clear whether
Blau was using the term “social exchange” to refer to a type of relationship,
to refer to a type of transaction that may subsequently cause a high-quality
relationship, or to both. These matters would be sorted out by later scholars
©2008
in two fields—social psychology and management science. We review each
of these below.
The social psychological response to Blau: Economic and communal relation-
ships. Regardless of Blau’s (1964) intent, he was understood as maintain-
ing that exchanges were types of relationships. This idea quickly gained
currency, especially among social psychologists (e.g., J. G. Holmes, 1981).
Mills and Clark’s (1982; Clark & Mills, 1979) work was especially important
for defining our current understanding of social exchange theory. Among
other things, Mills and Clark sought to distinguish between types of trans-
actions and types of relationships. They did so by emphasizing the latter.
Specifically, Clark and Mills (1979) argued that the term “exchange rela-
tionship” was more appropriate than “economic exchange,” while “commu-
nal relationship” was more appropriate than “social exchange.” Consistent
with Blau, they argued that exchange relationships are more likely to be quid
pro quo, to demand repayment in a particular time period, to involve the
exchange of economic or quasi-economic goods, and to be motivated by
personal self-interest. Communal relationships were argued to be more open-
ended, longer term, include the exchange of socioemotional benefits, and
to place greater emphasis on the needs of the other party.
Mills and Clark’s (1982) acknowledgment that all relationships need not
have the same characteristics to the same degree upset conventional wis-
dom. To illustrate how the common sense view was upended, let us consid-
er one of their studies on reciprocity (Clark & Mills, 1979, Study 1). When
laboratory subjects were helpful to another person and were desirous of a
transactional relationship with that individual, they liked the target person
more if the favor was repaid. This is in keeping with our typical understand-
ing of reciprocity (e.g., Gouldner, 1960; Levinson, 1965). However, Clark
and Mills (1979) found that when after being helpful and desiring a com-
munal relationship, participants liked the target less if the favor was repaid.
This finding, of course, makes perfect sense if one considers that there are
different obligations and expectations in different relationships.
Clark and Mills’s (1979) subtle distinction between transactions and re-
lationships had a lasting impact. As Fiske (1991, p. 30) observed, “[Mills
and Clark] raise an extremely important issue concerning the intensity of
social relationships.” As such, research on social exchange began to place

a greater emphasis on relationship development. For example, Clark and

Pataki (1995), Murstein, Cerreto, and MacDonald (1977), and Sternberg
All rights reserved

(1987) all treated social exchange theory as a model for understanding
close, loving, and longer-term relationships. As we will now see, these de-
velopments within social psychology were paralleled by a similar evolution
within the organizational sciences.
The management science response to Blau: Social and exchange relation-
ships and organizational citizenship behaviors. The modern notion of social
©2008
exchange relationships entered the management sciences via research
on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). To understand why this
occurred, it is worthwhile to examine early models of OCB (e.g., Organ,
1988a, 1990). Originally, it was Organ’s (1988b, 1990) goal to explain why
previous research had found a weak link between job satisfaction and job
performance. To account for this modest association, Organ distinguished
between “in-role” behaviors, which were heavily regulated by the firm, and
“extra-role” behaviors for which employees were allowed more discretion.
Given the relatively close supervision of formal job duties, Organ suspected
that employees were unable to alter their performance too much, without
bringing sanctions upon themselves. On the other hand, individuals had
a good deal more latitude for adjusting their extra-role behaviors. Thus,
extra-role behaviors, but not in-role behaviors, were expected to be more
strongly impacted by job satisfaction. Beneficial extra-role activities were
termed organizational citizenship behaviors.
A number of ironies followed. As it happened, later work found that
citizenship behaviors can be in-role as well as extra-role (Organ, 1997), and
that job satisfaction is actually a useful predictor of job performance ratings
(Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Nevertheless, in the early days,
Organ’s (1988b) view of OCB as voluntary and the best predictor of satis-
faction was widely held by scholars. Consequently, Organ sought to explain
why workers would exert effort on behalf of an organization (i.e., perform
citizenship behaviors) when it was not directly rewarded by their employers
(i.e., it was an extra-role behavior). To account for what seemed to be an ec-
onomically anomalous possibility, Organ (1988a, 1990), and Konovsky (Or-
gan & Konovsky, 1989) employed Blau’s (1964) model of social exchange
theory in order to account for OCBs.
Social exchange theory provided two good reasons that employees
would engage in OCBs. First, according to Blau (1964), individuals in so-
cial exchange relationships need not behave altruistically. Assuming they
have chosen their exchange partners wisely, they are apt to be repaid, only
over an extended time horizon and not necessarily in a quid pro quo fashion.
Over the long run, effort should pay off; this possibility was emphasized
by Organ in his early work (e.g., Organ, 1990; Organ & Konovsky, 1989).
Second, according to social exchange theorists, many people are motivated

by a norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Levinson, 1965). For the most

part, we seek to repay good-with-good and bad-with-bad. Therefore, when
All rights reserved

a person is treated kindly by an institution or by another person, he or she
is apt to return the favor by working hard and going beyond the call of
duty, and this is especially so when the person has a strong reciprocation
ideology (Witt, 1991, 1992; Witt & Broach, 1993; Witt, Kacmar, & Andrews,
2001). People also repay ill treatment by resisting organizational authori-
ties (Lawrence & Robinson, 2007). This often takes the form of counter-
©2008
productive work behavior (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002) and is
stronger among those who see negative reciprocity as acceptable (Mitchell
& Ambrose, 2007).
We can summarize this thinking as follows: The possibility that work-
ers might engage in long-term, social exchange relationships with employ-
ers provides a motive for performing OCBs, even if they were extra-role.
Though repayment might not come soon, and it might not come in dollars,
it likely would come (Organ, 1990). In addition, even if one was not at-
tending to personal self-interest, by entering into a relationship, one takes
on certain obligations. At the very least, repayment of services rendered
would be an appropriate policy (Levinson, 1965). Notice the emphasis on
relationships allowed Organ to explain why workers sometimes go beyond
the call of duty.
Though Organ remained closer to the earlier terminology, his under-
standing of social exchange theory was consistent with that of Mills and
Clark (1982; Clark & Mills, 1979). Organ (1988a, p. 69) maintained that an
“exchange relationship binding an individual to a collective body can take on
the quality of a covenant” (emphasis added). He (1990) also termed social
exchange a “relationship,” and, with Konovsky (1989, p. 62), distinguished
between social exchange and economic exchange relationships. For Organ
and colleagues, social exchange theory is more than simply a set of rules for
transacting benefits; rather, these authors rearticulated concepts to focus
on the interpersonal attachment between two or more individuals.
The Third Movement: Adding Organizational Justice
By building on the work of Blau (1964), social psychologists (e.g., Mills

& Clark, 1982) and management scientists (e.g., Organ, 1988b) had moved
interpersonal relationships to the center of social exchange theory. As Or-
gan (1988a, 1990) observed, fairness plays an important role in building
strong working relationships. As we now discuss, attempts to integrate fair-
ness and social exchange theory would now come quickly.
Organ and Konovsky lay the groundwork. An especially important study was
presented by Organ and Konovsky (1989). These authors found that pay

and job cognitions predicted supervisory-rated OCB better than did work-
All rights reserved

place affect. In and of themselves, these findings may not be striking. How-
ever, the interpretation of these results (p. 162) provided a key theoretical
advance. Viewing the job and pay cognition items through a justice lens,
Organ and Konovsky argued that it might be fairness perceptions that best
predict OCB. They concluded:
©2008
[T]he frequent rendering of OCB gestures would seem to reflect mainly a
sense of social exchange relationship with the organization. . . . So long as the
individual can sustain an attitude of trust in the long-term fairness of the orga-
nization in the relationship, he or she need not worry about the recompense
for this or that specific OCB gesture. (p. 162)
In other words, justice creates trust. Trust is one index of a social ex-
change relationship (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Once a trusting relationship
exists, people can perform OCB with less fear of exploitation. To be sure,
certain particulars remained to be hammered out by later scholars, includ-
ing a greater articulation of the concept of reciprocity (cf., Bishop & Scott,
2000). Nevertheless, a solid integrative model linking social exchange and
organizational justice was available to scholars by the end of the 1980s. Jus-
tice researchers wouldn’t wait long to take advantage of it.
Justice, social exchange, and OCB. An interesting aspect of Organ’s (1988a,
1990) early work is that he was using social exchange theory to understand
the causes of OCB (for a specific statement, see Organ, 1988b). In this re-
gard, he was largely successful. Moreover, if justice can be seen as anteced-
ent to social exchange, as Organ and Konovsky (1989) maintained, then
justice should also serve as a cause of citizenship behaviors. Evidence was
consistent with this idea (e.g., Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). For exam-
ple, Moorman (1991) found that procedural justice, though not distribu-
tive justice, successfully predicted OCB (see Niehoff & Moorman, 1993, for
similar findings). An important aspect of Moorman’s work is that he drew
heavily on social exchange theory in formulating his predictions, paying
special attention to the work of Organ and Blau (1964).
These studies made important early contributions, explicitly linking
justice, social exchange theory, and citizenship behaviors. However, they
did not test the key contribution of Organ and Konovsky’s (1989) frame-
work—there was no relational mediator. In other words, although social
exchange theory provided a rationale explaining the justice–OCB link, up
to this point, social exchange had not been operationalized, measured,
and empirically tested as a causal variable. This was addressed by Konovsky
and Pugh (1994). These authors examined employees’ relationship with
their supervisor, indexing it by the amount of trust the former had in the
latter. Konovsky and Pugh found that supervisory procedural justice in-
creased trust in one’s boss. This trust, in turn, improved OCB. Moorman et

al. (1998) tested a similar framework, though using organizational support
All rights reserved

(rather than supervisory trust) as their relational mediator. Moorman and
his colleagues found that procedural justice predicted perceived organi-
zational support. Support, in turn, predicted OCB. Thus, the relationship
between an individual and employer acted as a mediator. This provided
support for the extended social exchange model.
Closing thoughts. One might say that by the end of the 1990s, manage-
©2008
ment scholars had a social exchange theory of their own. It was derived
by Organ and his colleagues (1988a, 1990; Organ & Konovsky, 1989) from
Blau’s (1964) earlier work. Additionally, it was similar to the roughly con-
temporaneous social psychological research of Mills and Clark (1982) and
Clark and Mills (1979) in that it emphasized the role of relationship forma-
tion. Also as proposed by Organ, justice was shown to be an important caus-
al antecedent of social exchange relationships, while these relationships at
least partially mediated the impact of fairness on OCB (e.g., Konovsky &
Pugh, 1994; Moorman et al., 1998). Now the two literatures would begin to
influence one another.
Multifoci Approaches to Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory has an interesting feature. It maintains that individ-

uals can form multiple relationships at work. Following from Cropanzano
and Byrne (2000) and Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) we refer to the vari-
ous potential relationship partners (whether they are individual, groups, or
social entities) as foci of exchange. One especially important focus of ex-
change is the organization; another is the supervisor. A third focus, though
a bit less widely examined by social exchange theorists, is the work team.
In the following section we review social exchange theory work pertain-
ing to each of these foci, organizing our review so as to highlight different
relational constructs. In doing so, we will show how multifoci research has
proven to be of considerable interest to organizational justice scholars.
Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange
A popular multifoci approach to social exchange integrates two rela-

tional constructs—perceived organizational support and leader–member
exchange. Historically, both of these constructs have drawn heavily from
social exchange theory. POS represents the extent to which employees
believe their organization looks out for and cares about them (Shore &
Shore, 1995). Upon experiencing support, individuals feel an obligation

to reciprocate, and this obligation is especially powerful among those with

a strong exchange ideology (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, &
All rights reserved

Rhoades, 2001). Consequently, supported employees reciprocate by dem-
onstrating more OCB (Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999; Moorman et
al., 1998), higher job performance (Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005; Eisenberger
et al., 2001; Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999; Hochwarter, Witt, Tread-
way, & Ferris, 2006; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999), su-
perior customer service (Vandenberghe et al., 2007), and more innovation
©2008
(Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990, Study 2). POS even reduces
sundry forms of withdrawal behavior, including absenteeism (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, Study 2; Eisenberger et al., Study
1), turnover (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey,
& Toth, 1993; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberge, Sucharski, &
Rhoades, 2002; Rhoades et al., 2001; Stinglhamber & Vandenberge, 2003),
and tardiness (Eder & Eisenberger, in press).
In contrast, LMX represents the quality of the relationship between
an employee and his or her supervisor (Erdogan & Liden, 2002; Liden
et al., 1997; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). When in a high-quality LMX rela-
tionship, employees show more favorable work attitudes (Gerstner & Day,
1997), as well as more citizenship behaviors (Hackett et al., 2003; Ilies et
al., 2007; Wayne & Green, 1993) and higher job performance (Chen, Lam,
& Zhong, 2007).
Indeed, some of these studies (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al.,
2007) have tested the effects of POS and LMX simultaneously, given that
they measure aspects of the distinct social exchange relationships employ-
ees have with their employing organization and supervisors, respectively.
The general supposition of these studies was that employees reciprocate
the treatment they believe they have received from others. Thus, if an or-
ganization is supportive of them, then workers are apt to report fewer turn-
over intentions and more commitment (outcomes seen to be directed at
the organization). Likewise, if one has a high-quality LMX relationship with
their boss, then the employee is apt to show more OCB and job perfor-
mance (outcomes seen to be directed at supervision).
Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996) found that POS predicted organi-
zational commitment. However, only LMX predicted OCB and job perfor-
mance. It is noteworthy that Settoon et al. operationalized OCB through
a measure of altruism. As discussed by Ilies et al. (2007), these types of
measures tend to show stronger associations to LMX. Consequently, these
findings could potentially underestimate the POS/OCB relationship. Later
research would operationalize OCB in multiple ways, allowing for a broad-
er prediction of the construct (e.g., Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000). Regardless, the work of Settoon and his colleagues is important, as it

provides solid support for a multifoci model of social exchange.

Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) tested a similar model. Most relevant
All rights reserved

to the present discussion, POS predicted affective commitment, OCB (con-
trary to the findings of Settoon et al., 1996, but consistent with the later me-
ta-analysis of Ilies et al., 2007), and turnover intentions (negatively). LMX
again predicted performance ratings, OCB, and doing favors for one’s
manager. Performance was again predicted exclusively by LMX, an issue we
return to at the end of this section.
©2008
An extension of these ideas was tested by Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski
(2001). These authors were interested in adjustment among 213 American
expatriate mangers working outside the United States. This study was some-
what complex in that the authors examined two types of support—first from
the parent company and second from the foreign facility. Kraimer and her
colleagues also looked at LMX. LMX was directly related to both task per-
formance and contextual performance (a variable conceptually similar to
OCB; see Organ, 1997). Foreign facility POS predicted task performance,
though this was mediated by work adjustment.
More recently, Wayne, Shore, Bommer, and Tetrick (2002) extended the
support/LMX model in order to include procedural and distributive justice.
These authors found that both procedural and distributive justice predict-
ed organizational support. POS then predicted both organizational com-
mitment (a finding consistent with the work of Fasolo, 1995, and Rhoades
et al., 2001) and OCB. Neither type of justice predicted LMX, though LMX
subsequently predicted OCB and job performance ratings. It is interesting
to examine the relationship of organizational support to job performance.
While these two variables exhibited a significant zero-order correlation (r
= .27) there was no evidence of a direct path from support to performance
ratings. On the other hand, there was a significant path from support to
OCB and from OCB to performance. Consequently, it is meaningful to say
that POS and performance are related, albeit only indirectly by way of OCB.
This indirect path could explain why previous work (such as that of Settoon
et al., 1996) found weak and nonsignificant associations between POS and
performance. Lacking a test of this indirect effect, the role of support could
have been understated. This possibility is an important one, and something
like it was later found by Walumbwa and Cropanzano (2007).
Varieties of Support and Their Relationship

to Commitment
Earlier we mentioned studies by Fasolo (1995) and Rhoades et al.

(2001). Consistent with Lavelle et al.’s (in press) Target Similarity Model,
POS scholars have maintained that justice (especially procedural justice)

causes workers to feel supported. Subsequently, employees reciprocate

POS by building commitment. In the final stage, commitment leads to
All rights reserved

improved job performance. A good empirical case can be made for this
model. There is a strong relationship between support and commitment
(e.g., Cropanzano et al., 1997; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Settoon et al., 1996;
Rhoades et al., 2002; Wayne et al., 1997), though the two are different
constructs (e.g., Hutchison, 1997; Rhoades et al., 2001; Shore & Wayne,
1993). For its part, commitment is also a very important workplace variable
©2008
(Meyer, 1997; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Among other things, it seems to be
related to job performance (Randall et al., 1999), as is POS (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002).
We might say that the zero-order correlations among POS, organiza-
tional commitment, and performance are well established. Fasolo (1995)
and Rhoades et al. (2001) go beyond this, arguing that support causes
commitment, which, in turn, causes performance. Justice is important, as
we have seen, since it drives this sequence by serving as an antecedent to
support. What is missing, however, is whether this model holds across mul-
tiple foci. Organizational support researchers have addressed this question
directly, taking two different approaches. First, they have compared the
supervisory focus. Second, they have compared the organizational focus
with the team focus.
Organizational support and supervisory support. Psychometrically, organi-
zational and supervisory support do not appear to be the same construct
(Hutchison, 1997; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). As the supervisor is often
seen as an organizational representative, supervisory support tends to in-
crease perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 2002, Study 1)
and this effect is even stronger when the supervisor has high status (Study
2). In any case, such findings suggest that one could modify the support/
LMX model presented above. Specifically, organizational support could be
retained, while substituting supervisory support for LMX. Evidence is lim-
ited but generally consistent with this organizational support/supervisory
support model.
In a longitudinal study, Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe (2003) as-
sessed organizational and supervisory support among 238 graduates of a
Belgium university. At a later time, the authors assessed organizational and
supervisory commitment, and still later they collected job separation data.
Consistent with predictions, POS predicted commitment to the organiza-
tion, whereas supervisory support predicted commitment to the supervisor.
Both types of commitment were subsequently related to turnover.
Organizational support and team support. Bishop, Scott, and their col-
leagues conducted a series of studies examining support and commitment
within a team environment. In their first study, Bishop and Scott (2000)
found that organizational commitment and team commitment were sepa-

rable constructs, which loaded on distinguishable factors and had distinct

antecedents. Their next study built on this preliminary evidence, proposing
All rights reserved

a multifoci version of Fasolo’s (1995) and Rhoades et al.’s (2001) model.
Specifically, Bishop, Scott, and Burroughs (2000) found that perceived
support from the organization engendered organizational commitment to-
ward the organization. This organizational commitment, in turn, reduced
turnover intentions and increased citizenship behaviors. Additionally, per-
ceived support from the team members engendered commitment toward the
©2008
team. This team commitment, in turn, boosted job performance and also
increased citizenship behaviors. These findings were replicated by Bishop,
Scott, Goldsby, and Cropanzano (2005).
In a related study of workgroups, Howes, Cropanzano, Grandey, and
Mohler (2000) proposed a slightly more elaborate model. They argued
that researchers could distinguish three support combinations—organi-
zational support for the individual, team support for the individual, and
organizational support for the team. In a study of 25 teams, Howes et al.
found that each type of support had different consequences. Organiza-
tional support for the individual was the strongest predictor of organiza-
tional commitment and intent to leave the organization; this is generally
consistent with Bishop et al. (2000). Team support for the individual was
the best predictor of team commitment, team cohesion, and intent to leave
the team. This is generally consistent with Bishop et al. (2005). Organiza-
tional support for the team was the best predictor of team performance, as
rated by upper managers.
Bishop and Scott’s work is impressive because of its cumulative nature.
This program of study lends itself to some important conclusions. First,
the team seems to be a viable focus for social exchange, separate from
(though correlated with) the overall organization. Second, Fasolo’s (1995)
and Rhoades et al.’s (2001) model seems reasonable, in that support may
be one cause of commitment (Stinghamber & Vandenberghe’s, 2003, find-
ings are also consistent with this idea). Third, this model seems to general-
ize across two different foci—organization and team. These are important
findings, though their implications have not been extensively examined
among justice researchers.
Examining the Role of Trust
As relational constructs go, trust seems a tad underappreciated by social

exchange theorists and justice researchers alike. This is surprising insofar
as trust has a long history in social exchange theory, having been discussed
by Blau (1964), J. G. Holmes (1981), and Organ (1988a). More generally,

trust is an important variable for understanding work behavior (Lewicki,

Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). Indeed, a meta-analytic study by Dirks and
All rights reserved

Ferrin (2003) determined that trust in leadership was related to OCB, turn-
over intentions, and job performance ratings.
Konovsky and Pugh (1994) ascertained that trust mediated the effect of
procedural justice on OCB, a finding generally consistent with evidence re-
ported by Pillai, Scandura, and Williams (1999). Likewise, Chen and his col-
©2008
leagues (2005) reported that perceived organizational support increased
trust in the organization. Organizational trust, in turn, led to greater com-
mitment, higher job performance, and increases in two types of citizenship
behaviors.
Indeed, trust holds promise for multifoci research. Aryee et al. (2002)
found that distributive, procedural, and interactional justice predicted or-
ganizational trust. Subsequently, organizational trust then engendered job
satisfaction, turnover intentions, and organizational commitment. Supervi-
sory trust behaved differently. It was caused by interactional justice and, for
its part, impacted job performance and OCB.
Concluding Thoughts
Research on multifoci social exchange has produced a number of prom-

ising results. First, social exchange constructs seem to be related to OCB,
job performance, and perhaps turnover. The precise pattern of relation-
ships could be debated, however. While the supervisory focus seems con-
sistently related to performance, this is less true for the organization as a
whole. Second, employees seem able to distinguish among at least two, and
possibly three, relational foci—organization, supervisor, and team (Lavelle
et al., in press). Third, relational variables tend to act as proximal causes of
work behavior.
The available models function in the same fashion, but differ as to their
choice of social exchange mediators. Probably the most common are sup-
port and its variants (organizational, supervisory, and team). LMX has also
been an effective predictor. Evidence favoring trust is sparser, but the data
are promising. Fourth, and perhaps most important here, fairness seems to
serve as an antecedent to the relational constructs (see especially Aryee et
al., 2002; Wayne et al., 2002). Taken together, these findings presented an
open invitation to justice researchers.
Multifoci Approaches to Organizational Justice

Organizational justice scholars borrowed the multifoci perspective from so-
All rights reserved

cial exchange theory and developed it considerably on their own (Lavelle
et al., in press). To illustrate this, we shall first review the application of
multifoci social exchange to workplace fairness. Afterward we will consider
two recent extensions of this basic approach—the four-factor model of fair-
ness and unit-level justice.
©2008
Justice Researchers Adopt the Multifoci Model
of Social Exchange
Among the first justice scholars to compare different sources of justice

were Masterson et al. (2000). In terms of justice, Masterson et al. were in-
terested in procedural and interactional fairness (i.e., they did not assess
distributive justice). Otherwise, their model was similar to that proposed by
Settoon et al. (1996) and Wayne et al. (1997, 2002). Employees’ relation-
ship with the organization was operationalized by POS, while employees’
relationship with the immediate supervisor was operationalized by lead-
er–member exchange. Masterson and her colleagues reasoned that since
procedures are often set by the organization, procedural justice would be
the most efficacious predictor of POS. Since interpersonal treatment often
comes from the boss, then interactional justice would be most strongly re-
lated to LMX. These predictions were supported. Also important for the
social exchange model, POS mediated the impact of procedural fairness on
OCB intended to help the organization (OCBO), turnover intentions, and
organizational commitment. LMX mediated the impact of interactional jus-
tice on OCB intended to help the supervisor (OCBS), job satisfaction, and
job performance. Unlike Fasolo (1995) and Rhoades et al. (2001), Master-
son et al. (2000) did not propose a causal link from organizational support
to performance. A smaller-scale, but generally similar, study was reported
by Cropanzano, Prehar, and Chen (2002).
Going further, Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) questioned whether proce-
dures necessarily always derived from the organization and whether interac-
tions necessarily only came from the supervisor. They reasoned that super-
visors have some discretion in setting formal policies, while firms as a whole
can be characterized by the interpersonal treatment their workers receive.
Also, omitting distributive justice, they considered four types of fairness—
organizationally focused procedural justice (OPJ), organizationally focused
interactional justice (OIJ), supervisory-focused procedural justice (SPJ),
and supervisory-focused interactional justice (SIJ). The effects of the two
organizationally focused variables, OPJ and OIJ, were expected to be medi-
ated by one’s social exchange relationship with the organization and to be

indirectly related to citizenship directed at the organization (OCBO). The

effects of the supervisory-focused variables, SPJ and SIJ, were expected to
All rights reserved

be mediated by one’s social exchange relationship with the supervisor and
to indirectly predict citizenship directed at the supervisor (OCBS) and job
performance. Arguing that supervisors play a special role in the worklife
of their reports, Rupp and Cropanzano also maintained that supervisor-
focused interactional justice, by way of supervisory social exchange, would
predict organization-directed citizenship (for more discussion of this sort
©2008
of relationship, see Ilies et al., 2007).
Results were largely, but not entirely, consistent with Rupp and Cropan-
zano’s (2002) model. Most significantly, evidence supported the predicted
effects for interactional justice but not for procedural justice. This may have
been due to the high correlations for justice within each focus. For ex-
ample, OPJ and OIJ were correlated .75, and the factor correlation was .88.
Likewise, SPJ and SIJ were correlated .79, and their factor correlation was
.91. Intercorrelations this high make it difficult to find independent effects
within each focus.
A different take on a similar model was tested by Liden, Wayne, Kraimer,
and Sparrowe (2003). Liden and his colleagues examined responses to pro-
cedural justice from contingent workers. These individuals received proce-
dural fair (or unfair) treatment from one of two organizations, rather than
from a single organization and a supervisor. Specifically, Liden et al. inves-
tigated procedural fairness from the employment agency, as well as proce-
dural fairness from the employing organization. These researchers found
that agency justice predicted perceived agency support, and perceived
agency support predicted agency commitment. Likewise, organization jus-
tice predicted organization POS, and POS predicted organizational com-
mitment. Organizational commitment engendered altruistic OCB. Notice
that the two foci under investigation here, the employment agency and the
organization, are distinct from those explored by Masterson and her col-
leagues (2001). Nevertheless, theoretically similar findings were reported.
While unanswered questions remain, these findings are quite encouraging.
Procedural justice and interactional justice, when their effects are at least
partially mediated by relational variables, are able to predict OCBO and
OCBS, respectively.
Recent Extensions #1: The Four-Factor Model of Justice
As should be apparent, all of the aforementioned justice studies em-

ployed a three-component model of justice—distributive, procedural, and
interactional—though not always measuring distributive. Historically, this
is a popular and influential model (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). How-

ever, another viable approach is to subdivide interactional justice into two

additional parts. The first part is informational justice, which refers to the
All rights reserved

appropriate openness and honesty in communication. The second is inter-
personal justice, which refers to treatment of others with dignity and re-
spect. Evidence suggests that this is a useful approach for structuring justice
(e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).
In an initial attempt to examine the four-factor model of justice within
the context of social exchange theory, Roch and Shanock (2006) surveyed
©2008
two samples of individuals—one a set of employed undergraduates and
another a set of working university alumni. Within both of these samples,
Roch and Shanock found that distributive justice predicted pay satisfaction,
while procedural justice predicted organizational support. In an explor-
atory analysis, these authors found that interpersonal justice also predicted
organizational support.
In addition to informational and interpersonal justice, Roch and Sha-
nock (2006) also considered a broad measure of interactional justice. This
measure correlated quite highly with interpersonal justice (r =.80 in sam-
ple one, and r = .81 in sample two). Separately, both interpersonal justice
and interactional justice were associated with LMX. However, when both
considered simultaneously the effect for interpersonal justice was nonsig-
nificant due to the high correlation with interactional justice. Interestingly,
the correlation between interpersonal and informational justice was less
substantial.
A similar study was conducted by Camerman, Cropanzano, and Vanden-
berghe (in press), who surveyed 162 Belgium contingent workers. As the
survey was done through an employment agency, there was no supervisor as
such. Instead, Camerman et al. examined worker response to their staffing
agents. Building on earlier work, these researchers posited that procedural
justice would predict organizational support. It was predicted that POS, in
turn, would predict organizational commitment (as suggested by Bishop
et al., 2000, 2005; Fasolo, 1995; Rhoades et al., 2001; Stinglhamber & Van-
denberghe, 2003). Taking the place of interactional fairness, informational
justice and interpersonal justice were expected to predict trust in the staff-
ing agent (as suggested by Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Trust, in turn, was
expected to predict commitment to the staffing agent. Finally, Camerman
and her colleagues also included distributive justice, but did not expect that
it would predict either of the relational variables (ie., POS or trust). Similar
to Roch and Shanock (2006), they posited that distributive justice would be
directly related to outcome satisfaction.
Results were generally supportive, though interpersonal justice was not
associated with trust in the staffing agent. The authors speculated that this
might be due to the fact that the sample was of temporary workers. Infor-
mation about job opportunities could have been more crucial than polite-
ness. Interestingly, post hoc exploratory analyses suggested that model fit

might be improved if a path was added from informational justice to POS.
All rights reserved

Such a cross-foci effect is, of course, similar to that obtained by Roch and
Shanock (2006).
In a subsequent study, Walumbwa and Cropanzano (2007) sought to in-
tegrate and extend previous work. To do so, they incorporated ideas from
several other studies. First, they employed the four-factor model of justice,
©2008
as recommended by Camerman et al. (in press). Second, they maintained
that distributive justice would predict social exchange relationships at the
organizational focus, as found by Wayne et al. (2002). Third, they used LMX
to operationalize the supervisory social exchange relationship, as done by
Masterson et al. (2000) and Cropanzano et al. (2002). Fourth, they posited
that the organizationally focused relationship would have an indirect asso-
ciation with job performance, as found by Wayne et al. Fifth, they posited
that LMX would have a direct association with job performance, as found
by Masterson et al., Cropanzano et al., and Settoon et al. (1996). Sixth, they
examined the cross-foci effects found by Rupp and Cropanzano (2002).
Specifically, Walumbwa and Cropanzano maintained by both LMX and also
POS would be associated with job performance ratings.
While Walumbwa and Cropanzano’s (2007) model had much in com-
mon with previous research, there were also some differences. These were
primarily relevant to the organizational focus. For one thing, Walumbwa
and Cropanzano employed organizational identification as the operation-
alization of an employee’s social exchange relationship with a firm as a
whole. They suspected that identification would increase voluntary learn-
ing behaviors, while these behaviors would subsequently boost job perfor-
mance. Note that learning behavior had not been examined in previous
multifoci research.
These predictions were tested in a three-wave longitudinal study of 398
employees of a large automobile dealership. Overall, the results were highly
supportive. As expected, distributive justice and procedural justice each en-
gendered organizational identification. Identification then increased both
learning behavior and job performance. Learning behavior also impacted
performance ratings. Meanwhile, at the supervisory focus, interpersonal
and informational justice both predicted LMX. Subsequently, LMX im-
pacted both learning behavior and job performance. As was true with the
Roch and Shanock (2006) and Camerman et al. (in press) studies, Walum-
bwa and Cropanzano’s (2007) results attest to the power of the four-factor
model of justice in multifoci research.
Caveat: Reconsidering the Four-Factor Model as

Hierarchically Nested within Source

All rights reserved
Despite these informative findings, it is important to note that the cor-
relations among the facets of justice, whether it be a three- or four-factor
model that is employed, are consistently high. This has led justice scholars
to recently propose that the facets of justice might be nested within a broad-
er hierarchical structure. While some researchers have called for a consid-
eration of overall justice (with the four facets of justice serving as indicators
©2008
of the construct; Ambrose & Schminke, 2007; Ambrose & Schminke, in
press; Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005), multifoci researchers have taken this is-
sue even further and argued that facet judgments made about each focus
should serve as indicators of overall justice for each focus.
Thus, procedural, informational, and interpersonal justice judgments
made about supervisors might be aggregated to form an overall “supervisor
justice” factor, whereas distributive, procedural, and informational justice
judgments made about the organization might be aggregated into an over-
all “organization justice” factor. These foci-based justice factors might then
be the most proximal antecedents of social exchange relationships with
a source. As multifoci justice (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002) and the target
similarity model (Lavelle, et al., in press) would predict, foci-specific overall
justice can be the most proximal predictors of source-directed outcomes.
This notion is illustrated in Figure 3.2. Preliminary research testing this no-
tion is promising, although much more is needed (Rupp, Bashshur, & Liao,
2007a, 2007b; Rupp, Ng, Liao, & Drasgow, 2008).
Recent Extensions #2: Unit-Level Justice and the

Multifoci Model
As should also be apparent from our review thus far, the social exchange–
based justice research to date has been conducted at the individual level of
analysis. That is, employees are asked how fairly they feel they themselves
are treated in terms of outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal treatment
by the organization, supervisor, and team. These self-based justice percep-
tions are then shown to impact social exchange relationships between the
employee making the justice judgment and focus of that judgment (be it
the supervisor, organization, or team—operationalized as POS, LMX, TMX,
trust, etc.). Finally, the quality of the social exchange relationship impacts
the employee’s subsequent attitudes, OCBs, performance, and turnover in-
tentions. Whereas this research has been crucial to our understanding of
both social exchange and fairness in its own right, a recent trend to con-
Event
Event Organizational
Event Distributive Justice
Event Social Exchange Relationship Outcomes directed
Organizational with Organization (e.g., POS, at Organization (OCBO,
Justice
Event org. trust, org. commitment) org. satisfaction)
Event Organizational
Event Procedural Justice
Event
Event
Event
Event
©2008
Supervisor
Informational Justice
Event
Event
Outcomes directed
Event Social Exchange Relationship
Supervisor Supervisor at Supervisor (OCBS,
with Supervisor (e.g., LMX,
Event Interpersonal Justice Justice performance, sup.
sup. trust, sup. commitment)
satisfaction)
Event
All rights reserved
Event
Event Note: The justice types and sources depicted here are just examples.
Supervisor The types modeled should be viable to the source measured in the
Event Procedural Justice
particular context being studied, and many more sources are possible
Event (e.g., co-workers, customers).
Figure 3.2 The formation of multifoci justice judgments and the target similarity effect.
sider justice at higher levels of analysis serves to push our awareness of these
constructs even further.

Justice climate. It was Mossholder, Bennett, and Martin (1998) who first
All rights reserved

proposed the idea of a unit-level “context for justice,” arguing that a proce-
dural justice violation directed at any individual group member might be
seen as a procedural justice violation directed at the entire group. These
authors showed that procedural justice ratings, aggregated to the branch
level, predicted 20% of the variance in employee job satisfaction (but did
not predict commitment). Naumann and Bennet (2000) coined the term
©2008
“procedural justice climate,” which refers to a distinct group-level cogni-
tion about how a work group as a whole is treated. Using data from 40
bank branches, these authors found that cohesion and visibility, but not de-
mographic similarity, predicted procedural justice climate, and procedural
justice climate predicted OCBs (but again, not commitment).
Colquitt, Noe, and Jackson (2002) showed with a sample of 88 semi-
autonomous teams within six automobile part manufacturing plants that
smaller, more collective teams were most likely to engender procedural jus-
tice climate. Furthermore, procedural justice climate predicted team per-
formance and absenteeism. Ehrhart (2004), using a sample of 249 grocery
store departments, showed servant leadership to be a significant anteced-
ent of procedural justice climate, and procedural justice climate to predict
team performance and absenteeism. Finally, Simons and Roberson (2003)
extended this burgeoning literature by measuring both procedural and in-
teractional justice climate, and testing models at the individual, group, and
organizational level of analysis. Using an impressive dataset from over 100
hotel properties, these authors found both procedural and interactional
justice climate to predict commitment and satisfaction, which in turn pre-
dicted discretionary service behavior, intent to remain, guest service satis-
faction, and turnover at multiple levels of analysis.
Multifoci justice climate. Although an important set of studies, it may seem
at first glance that this body of research is not entirely relevant to the in-
vestigation we have embarked upon in this chapter. That is, these studies
are neither based on social exchange theory, nor do they take a multfoci
perspective. It was this point exactly that led Liao and Rupp (2005) to argue
for the viability of multifoci justice climate. They argued that the multifoci,
social exchange–based phenomenon, evidenced by Rupp and Cropanzano
(2002) at the individual level of analysis, can also be manifested at the unit
level of analysis. That is, through social information processing and social-
ization processes, shared cognitions regarding the treatment of the team by
multiple foci emerge, which through group-level social exchange relation-
ships with various foci, impact attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
Using a sample of 44 work groups, Liao and Rupp (2005) aggregated six
forms of justice to the unit level of analysis, creating supervisory procedural
justice climate, supervisory informational justice climate, supervisory inter-

personal justice climate, organizational procedural justice climate, organi-

zational informational justice climate, and organizational interpersonal jus-
All rights reserved

tice climate variables. Using hierarchical linear modeling, Liao and Rupp
showed that these group-level multifoci justice climate variables predicted
multifoci commitment, satisfaction, and OCB above and beyond the effects
of individual-level multifoci justice perceptions. Furthermore, consistent
with the individual-level multifoci literature, results showed a tendency for
justice climate surrounding a particular focus (e.g., supervisor, organiza-
©2008
tion) to best predict outcomes directed at that source, further supporting
the notions of social exchange theory in a multilevel context.
Concluding Thoughts
This chapter sought to explicitly integrate the social exchange literature

with that of organizational justice. At first glance, these two research litera-
tures should have much in common. Both involve human transactions, the
give and take of social life, what we get and how we get it. Unfortunately, for
many years it was difficult to bring these two scholarly traditions together.
This was because certain social psychological versions of social exchange
theory did not provide an explicit treatment of interpersonal relationships
(e.g., Homans, 1958, 1961) preferring instead to emphasize individual
economic interests (e.g., Gergen, 1969; Hatfield et al., 1978). As a conse-
quence, social exchange theory was not seen as especially useful to students
of organizational justice.
This would begin to change when the work of Blau (1964) caused social
exchange theory to be reconceptualized by two different disciplines, social
psychology (e.g., Mills & Clark, 1982) and the organizational sciences (e.g.,
Organ, 1988a, 1988b). These two reformulations added notions of relation-
ships to the framework, making it useful for justice researchers. Organ and
his colleagues (e.g., Organ, 1990; Organ & Konovsky, 1989) immediately
began using justice as an antecedent of social exchange relationships, set-
ting off a wave of interest in justice and OCB (e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1994;
Moorman, 1991; Moorman et al., 1998; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993).
More was to follow. The then recent (but already close) connection be-
tween the two literatures allowed fairness researchers to borrow the mul-
tifoci derived from social exchange theory. Masterson et al. (2000), Cro-
panzano et al. (2002), Rupp and Cropanzano (2002), and others quickly
constructed multifoci models of organizational justice. This rich borrowing
has continued, as scholars have recently used social exchange theory to
derive unit-level models of fairness (e.g., Liao & Rupp, 2005).
Social exchange theory and organizational justice are an almost natural

pairing, with each having something important to teach the other. As one

would expect, the systematic application of social exchange principles has
All rights reserved

done much to enrich our understanding of fairness. The future continues
to look bright, as social exchange concepts open up new research ques-
tions. These efforts will keep scholars busy for years to come.
REFERENCES
©2008
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organi-
zational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover
process. Journal of Management, 29, 99–118.
Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice
conceptually distinct? In J. A. Colquitt & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational justice (pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2007). Examining justice climate: Issues of fit,
simplicity, and content. In F. Dansereau & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in
multi-level issues (Vol. 6, pp. 397–413). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the work-
place: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 89, 947–965.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relation-
ship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social ex-
change model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–286.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational trust and
team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 85, 439–450.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment,
and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26,
1113–1132.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., Goldsby, M. G., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). A construct
validity study of commitment and perceived support variables: A multi-foci
approach across different team environments. Group and Organization Man-
agement, 30, 153–180.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Burnham, J. (1943). The Machiavellians: Defenders of freedom. London: Putnam.
Camerman, J., Cropanzano, R., & Vandenberghe, C. (in press). The benefits of jus-
tice for temporary workers. Group and Organization Management.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader–member exchange and member
performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking be-
havior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
202–212.
Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C. (2005). Test of a mediation model of perceived
organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 457–470.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.
Clark, M. S., & Pataki, S. P. (1995). Interpersonal processes influencing attraction

All rights reserved
and relationships. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 282–331).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct
validation of measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
©2008
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and
consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Conway, N. (2004). The employment relationship through
the lens of social exchange theory. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Tay-
lor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining psychological
and contextual perspectives (pp. 5–28). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organi-
zational citizenship. In M. VanVugt, T. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.), Collective problems
in modern society: Dilemmas and solutions (pp. 142–161). London: Routledge.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational jus-
tice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship
of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159–180.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplin-
ary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory
to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organizational
Management, 27, 324–351.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads
to organizational justice. In J. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 1–113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings
and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
611–628.
Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R. (in press). Perceived organizational support: Reducing the
negative influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management.
Ehrhart, M.G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of
unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Re-
ciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 42–51.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational
support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 75, 51–59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived orga-
nizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades,

All rights reserved
L. (2002). Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Orga-
nizational Support and Employee Retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
565–573.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. 2002. Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of
recent development and future research directions in leader–member ex-
change theory. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp.
©2008
65–114). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fahr, J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citi-
zenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of
Management, 16, 705–722.
Fasolo, P. M. (1995). Procedural justice and perceived organizational support: Hy-
pothesized effects on job performance. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar
(Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of
work organizations (pp. 185–195). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations.
New York: The Free Press.
French, W. (1964). The personnel management process: Human resources administration.
New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Gergen, K. J. (1969). The psychology of behavioral exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member ex-
change theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827–844.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Graeber, D. (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm
Press.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bein, M. (1995). Development of leader–member exchange
(LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-do-
main perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Hackett, R. D., Farh, J., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. (2003). LMX and organization-
al citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and
Chinese samples. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity (pp. 219–264).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W., & Piliavin, J. A. (1978). Equity theory and helping rela-
tionships. In: L. Wispe (Ed.), Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and
sociological principles (pp. 115–139). New York: Academic Press.
Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). The interac-
tion of social skill and organizational support on job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 482–489.
Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior

and macromotives. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in
social behavior (pp. 261–284). New York: Plenum Press.

All rights reserved
Holmes, S. (1990). The secret history of self-interest. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Be-
yond self-interest (pp. 267–286). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63,
597–606.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Howes, J. C., Cropanzano, R., Grandey, A. A., & Mohler, C. J. (2000). Who is sup-
porting whom?: Quality team effectiveness and perceived organizational sup-
©2008
port. Journal of Quality Management, 5, 207–223.
Hutchison, S. (1997). Perceived organizational support: Further evidence of con-
struct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 1025–1034.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange
and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
269–277.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfac-
tion–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
Kaufman, J. D., Stamper, C. L., & Tesluk, P. E. (2001). Do supportive climates make
for good corporate citizens? Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 436–449.
Knox, J.B. (1963). The concept of exchange in sociological theory: 1884 and 1961.
Social Forces, 41, 341–346.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on busi-
ness organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489–511.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656–669.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and orga-
nizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. (2001). Sources of support and expa-
triate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel
Psychology, 42, 71–99.
Lavelle, J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (in press). Multifoci perspectives and target
similarity in organizational behavior: Bridging justice, commitment, and or-
ganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management.
Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2007). Ain’t misbehavin: Workplace deviance as
organizational resistance. Journal of Management, 33, 378–394.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organiza-
tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future direc-
tions. Journal of Management, 32, 991–1022.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orienta-
tion on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange
theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.) Research
in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 15, pp. 47–119). Stamford,
CT: JAI Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Kraimer, M. L., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2003). The dual com-

All rights reserved
mitments of contingent workers: An examination of contingents’ commit-
ment to the agency and the organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24, 609–625.
Lind, E. A. (1995). Justice and authority relations in organizations. In R. S. Cropan-
zano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Manag-
ing the social climate of work organizations (pp. 83–96). Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
©2008
Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support:
inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the western pacific: An account of native enterprise and
adventure in the archipelagoes of Melansian New Guinea. London: Routledge.
Malinowski, B. (1932). Crime and custom in savage society. London: Paul, Trench,
Trubner.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating
justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treat-
ment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.
Mauss, M. (1925). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York:
The Norton Library.
Meyer, J. P. (1997). Organizational commitment. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robert-
son (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
175–228). New York: Wiley.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheel-
er (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 133–156). Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace devi-
ance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organi-
zational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee
citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organiza-
tional support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of pro-
cedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131–141.
Murstein, B. I., Cerreto, M., & MacDonald, M. G. (1977). A theory and investigation
of the effect of exchange orientation on marriage and friendship. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 39, 543–548.
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Devel-
opment and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management, 43, 881–889.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship

between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.

All rights reserved
Nord, W. A. (1973). Adam Smith and contemporary social exchange theory. Ameri-
can Journal of Economics and Sociology, 32, 21–436.
Organ, D. W. (1988a). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
Organ, D. W. (1988b). A restatement of the satisfaction–performance hypothesis.
Journal of Management, 14, 547–557.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior.
©2008
In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
12, pp. 43–72). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up
time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
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 ce-
havior: What are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6, pp. 5–18.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Leadership and organizational
justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International
Business Studies, 30, 763–779.
Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organiza-
tional politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job
performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 20, 159–174.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review
of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the or-
ganization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of
Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an exchange frame-
work: Clarifying organizational justice dimensions. Journal of Management, 32,
299–322.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written
and unwritten agreement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M. R., & Liao, H. (2007a). Justice climate past, present, and
future: Models of structure and emergence. In F. Dansereau & F.J. Yamma-
rino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 6, pp. 357–396). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M. R., & Liao, H. (2007b). Justice climate: Consideration of
the source, target, specificity, and emergence. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yam-
marino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 6, pp. 439–459). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange re-
lationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational
justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Sen, A. (1990). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic

theory. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 25–43). Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.

All rights reserved
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219–22.
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organi-
zational justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational
politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of work organizations (pp.
149–164). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
©2008
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Liden, R. C., McLean-
Parks, J., et al. (2004). The employee–organization relationship: A timely con-
cept in a period of transition. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel
and human resources managemen (Vol. 23, pp. 291–370). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Compari-
son of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774–780.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The
effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and out-
come favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic
review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309–341.
Smith, A. (1966). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. New Ro-
chelle, NY: Arlington House. (Original work published 1776)
Smith, A. (1953). A theory of moral sentiments. London: Henry G. Bohn. (Original
work published 1759)
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader–member
exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). The triangle of love: Intimacy, passion, commitment. New York:
Basic Books.
Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as
sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 24, 251–270.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In: M.
P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (2000). Implications of leader–mem-
ber exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems:
Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 18, pp. 137–185).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating out-
comes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in
fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1493–1503.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., Michon, R., Chebat, J-C., Tremblay, M., & Fils, J-F.
(2007). An examination of the role of perceived support and employee com-
mitment in employee–customer encounters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,

All rights reserved
1177–1187.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Cropanzano, R. (2007, August). Doing well by doing good: Effects
of multi-foci justice on performance and organizational learning. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader–member exchange on
employee citizenship and impression management. Human Relations, 46,
1431–1440.
©2008
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair
treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–
member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590–598.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational sup-
port and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes: Organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
21, 1490–1501.
Witt, L. A. (1992). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the relationships between
importance of participation in decision making and job attitudes Human Rela-
tions, 45, 73–85.
Witt, L. A., & Broach, D. (1993). Exchange ideology as a moderator of the procedur-
al justice–satisfaction relationship. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 97–103.
Witt, L. A., Kacmar, K. M., & Andrews, M. C. (2001). The interactive effects of proce-
dural justice and exchange ideology on supervisor-rated commitment Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 22, 505–515.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Erik Young for his assistance with this man-
uscript.
AU queries:
Add Ambrose & Schminke (in press) and Rupp, Ng, Liao, & Drasgow
(2008) to Refs.
Page nos. for Nord (1973)?
View publication stats

Cropanzano Rupp 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Cropanzano Rupp 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cropanzano Rupp 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Social Exchange Theory and Organizational Justice: Job

Chapter · January 2008

Russell Cropanzano Deborah E. Rupp

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

WORK-FAMILY CROSSOVER: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

In this chapter we present an integrative and historical review of two litera-

Justice, Morality, and Social Responsibility, pages 63–99

Information Age Publishing

Since the term “organizational justice” was coined by Wendell French in

been addressed, and contemporary approaches to social exchange (which

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

An Overview of Social Exchange Theory

Information Age Publishing

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

change relationships by treating their employees justly. Specifically, fairness

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

How Social Exchange Theory Became Compatible

Information Age Publishing

Adam Smith, whom he cited, Chavannes argued that society is constructed

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

havior as Exchange.” Homans cited Mauss’s work. He even complemented

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

The majority of scientists—[us] included—are fairly cynical. They interpret

That is, as they say, laying it on the line.

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

Seen in light of more recent scholarship, these quotes share a similar

The Second Movement: How Social Exchange Theory

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

social relationships.” As such, research on social exchange began to place

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

Second, according to social exchange theorists, many people are motivated

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

The Third Movement: Adding Organizational Justice

By building on the work of Blau (1964), social psychologists (e.g., Mills

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved

Multifoci Approaches to Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory has an interesting feature. It maintains that individ-

Organizational Support and Leader-Member Exchange

A popular multifoci approach to social exchange integrates two rela-

Shore, 1995). Upon experiencing support, individuals feel an obligation

Information Age Publishing

All rights reserved