姝 Academy of Management Review

2005, Vol. 30, No. 4, 737–750.

IDENTITY ORIENTATIONS AND FORMS OF

SOCIAL EXCHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS
FRANCIS J. FLYNN
Columbia Business School

I attempt to explain why employees prefer different forms of social exchange by

proposing that such preferences align with their identity orientations. I also develop
a model outlining how identity orientations play an important role in developing
employee exchange relations and how they may help predict the consequences of
exchange dynamics. By identifying linkages between identity orientations and forms
of social exchange, I hope to stimulate future research on the connections between
social exchange theory and the identity orientation framework.

Members of organizations often request and
provide help, but the process by which this help
is granted may vary. Two employees might
agree to help each other on a quid pro quo
basis—“I’ll help you with your task if you help
me with mine.” Alternatively, they may choose
not to discuss the terms of the exchange but
assume that reciprocation will be forthcoming
at some point in the future. As a third option, a
group of employees might develop a pattern of
helping in which they provide assistance unilat-
erally, without any concern about immediate or
direct reciprocation. Each of these cases exem-
plifies a different form of social exchange, in
which the specific motives and behavior of the
actors involved follow a unique, and clearly
identifiable, pattern.
Researchers who study employee exchange
behavior have tended to concentrate on one
form of exchange or another (organizational cit-
izenship behavior, leader-member exchange,
bargaining). This specialization has improved
our understanding of each exchange form, but it
also prompts us to ask several questions about
why employees prefer specific forms of ex-
change. Why do some employees choose to per-
form favors for only a select few of their cowork-
ers, whereas others are inclined to make
contributions that benefit the collective (e.g., or-
ganizational citizenship behavior)? What leads
employees to move from one form of exchange to
another as their exchange relations develop
over time? Do these differences in employee
preferences for exchange correspond to different
outcomes? Managers need answers to these im-
portant questions in order to develop an optimal
pattern of resource sharing among their employ-
737
ees— one in which resources are shared freely
and efficiently (Blau, 1964).
In this article I propose that employees prefer
different forms of social exchange because they
relate to or identify with one another in different
ways. Identity orientations help employees de-
fine themselves in relation to other entities by
situating them in a given context (Alpert, Ash-
forth, & Dutton, 2000). Depending on which iden-
tity orientation is activated—personal, rela-
tional, or collective— certain phenomena, such
as ingroup attraction, depersonalization, and
identity-based conflict, may lead employees to
differentiate their self-concepts from others in
specific ways (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Recent
research emphasizes the importance of identity
orientations in predicting employees’ willing-
ness to interact and cooperate (Chatman &
Flynn, 2001; Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale,
1998; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Flynn,
Chatman, & Spataro, 2001). The way in which
employees choose to cooperate may also de-
pend on their identity orientations. By the same
token, patterns of exchange may activate or
strengthen employees’ identity orientations.
In the following sections I aim to explain how
identity orientations can elicit and reinforce em-
ployee preferences for different forms of social
exchange. I begin by delineating three specific
forms of exchange (negotiated, reciprocal, and
generalized) and three different types of identity
orientations (personal, relational, and collec-
tive), describing the psychological process by
which each identity orientation can elicit a pref-
erence for a particular form of exchange. I then
draw on the identity orientation framework to
help explain how exchange relations develop
738 Academy of Management Review
and how different patterns of exchange can lead
to different outcomes (e.g., commitment). Finally,
I conclude by discussing the implications of
these ideas and avenues for future research on
exchange dynamics in organizations.
IDENTITY ORIENTATIONS AND PREFERENCES
FOR EXCHANGE
According to Brewer and Gardner (1996), peo-
ple may adopt one of three identity orientations:
personal, relational, or collective. The funda-
mental difference among these three is how the
focal person defines him/herself. Defining the
self as a unique individual reflects a personal
identity orientation, defining the self as a mem-
ber of an interpersonal relationship reflects a
relational identity orientation, and defining the
self as a member of a social group reflects a
collective identity orientation (collective iden-
tity orientations may correspond to many differ-
ent levels of analysis, including the group, de-
partment, organization, profession, industry,
nation, race, etc.). Each of these identity orienta-
tions is distinct, possessing unique bases of
self-evaluation (sources of self-esteem or self-
worth), frames of reference (filters used to pro-
cess information related to one’s self-concept),
and basic social motivations (guidelines that
direct behavior in social interaction).
The bases of evaluation, frames of reference,
and goals that define identity orientations
closely relate to the criteria that distinguish
forms of social exchange (these specific connec-
tions between identity orientations and forms of
social exchange are summarized in Table 1).
TABLE 1
Clarifying Linkages Between Forms of Social Exchange and Identity Orientations in
Organizations
Identity Frame of
Orientation Basis of Evaluation Reference
Personal Personal traits or Self-other
characteristics comparisons
Relational Consideration of Fulfillment of role- Self-interest Reciprocal
role-appropriate appropriate
behavior behavior
Collective Embodiment of group Group-group
characteristics comparisons
October
Research on social exchange focuses on unique
forms of exchange that possess a coherent ac-
count of each individual’s motives and behavior,
as well as ample empirical evidence of their
specific consequences (commitment, power
structure, satisfaction, etc.). These different
forms of social exchange include negotiated ex-
change, reciprocal exchange, and generalized
exchange.1 Below I describe each of these three
forms of exchange and identify examples of
them in organizations. Further, I propose link-
ages between identity orientations and ex-
change forms that may help explain why differ-
ent forms of social exchange exist across
employees, workgroups, and organizations.
Personal Identity Orientation and Negotiated
Exchange
Negotiated exchange is distinct from other
forms of social exchange in that the terms of the
exchange are openly discussed and the giving
and receiving of benefits are direct and often
1
Some exchange theorists have also examined a fourth
form of exchange—productive exchange. Emerson (1976) first
introduced the concept of productive exchange to refer to
interactions in which all parties contribute to and benefit
from one socially produced event. One example might be a
group of unions deciding on a common approach to negoti-
ating with the city government (Lawler, Thye, & Yoon, 2000).
Exchange theorists seem to disagree about whether produc-
tive exchange is truly a unique form of exchange. Many
believe it is merely a specific type of generalized exchange,
sometimes called “group-generalized exchange.” Given the
lack of consensus about its unique character, I have chosen
not to include productive exchange in this discussion.
Implicit/Explicit
Discussion of
Preferred Direct/Indirect Exchange
Goal/Motive Exchange Form Reciprocation Terms
Solely self- Negotiated Direct Explicit
interest
Direct Implicit
as well as
other’s
interest
Group interest Generalized Indirect Implicit
2005
immediate (Malhotra & Murnighan, 2002; Molm,
Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000). Although the per-
formance of each transaction is not necessarily
simultaneous, the terms of each transaction are
decidedly so. The goals of actors involved in
negotiated exchange are different from those
involved in other forms of exchange. In an epi-
sode of negotiated exchange, actors focus on the
tangible benefits they may gain from participat-
ing in the exchange, rather than the social re-
wards (positive affect) they may derive from par-
ticipating in additional episodes of exchange
with the same partner.
Studies of negotiated exchange in organiza-
tions have primarily examined it in the context
of economic transactions (Bazerman, Curhan,
Moore, & Valley, 2000), but the rules of negoti-
ated exchange may apply to social relations as
well. Two coworkers might explicitly agree to
help each other by exchanging work shifts (“I’ll
cover for you next weekend if you cover for me
this weekend”). In this case, the exchange struc-
ture remains transparent in that the expectation
of direct reciprocation is clear and the nature of
such reciprocation is identifiable.2
Employees who identify at the personal level
will likely prefer negotiated exchange to other
forms of social exchange. These individuals de-
rive feelings of self-worth from the evaluation of
their personal traits or characteristics (e.g., “I
feel better about myself if I believe that I am
smart or an outstanding performer”) and by
making comparisons between themselves and
other individuals (e.g., “Am I relatively more
successful than my colleagues?”). In negotiated
exchange, such comparisons are relatively easy
because the terms of the exchange are explicit.
In fact, participants in episodes of negotiated
exchange often determine their level of satisfac-
tion with the exchange by comparing the out-
comes they received with the outcomes the other
party received (Bazerman et al., 2000). Further,
having a personal identity orientation suggests
the focal individual is motivated to act solely on
behalf of his or her own interests rather than on
behalf of others’ interests. Because people with
a personal identity orientation are almost en-
2
Negotiated exchange is not limited to one type of bar-
gaining issue or another (e.g., distributive, integrative, or
complementary). It refers to any transaction that involves
open discussion of the terms of the exchange and the values
of the goods exchanged.
Flynn 739
tirely motivated by self-interest, they will prefer
direct, explicit episodes of exchange that ensure
the performance of each transaction and allow
each actor to monitor the repayment of any out-
standing debts.
Consider two employees who need to sched-
ule a regular meeting time, either early in the
morning or at lunch. One prefers early morning
meetings because she is an exercise fanatic
who runs during her lunch break. The other pre-
fers lunch meetings because he likes to be at
home with his kids before they go off to school.
The two employees might reach an agreement
by deciding to hold early morning meetings one
month and lunch meetings the following month.
In reaching this agreement, the first employee
has remained true to her identity as an avid
runner, while the second employee has re-
mained true to his as a caring father. Consistent
with a personal identity orientation, in which
the self is conceptualized as unique and differ-
entiated from others, both parties’ primary ob-
jective in negotiating the transaction is ensur-
ing their personal interests are met, rather than
sacrificing those interests entirely to the benefit
of the other party. This need to maintain a dif-
ferentiated identity establishes and reinforces
the individual’s preference for negotiated ex-
change.
Proposition 1: Employees who adopt a
personal identity orientation will pre-
fer negotiated exchange to other
forms of social exchange.
Relational Identity Orientation and Reciprocal
Exchange
Reciprocal exchange refers to dyadic ex-
change relations in which contributions are
made unilaterally in separate episodes (Emer-
son, 1976). Direct reciprocation characterizes the
exchange relation over time, but such reciproca-
tion is not necessarily immediate (e.g., Flynn,
2003b). In reciprocal exchange, explicit bargain-
ing about the nature and timing of reciprocation
is taboo. Rather than discuss the terms of the
exchange and the values of the goods ex-
changed, the actors leave implicit the expecta-
tion of reciprocity— one actor begins the process
without knowing for certain if and when he or
she can expect reciprocation (Heath, 1976).
In organizations, reciprocal exchange plays
an important role in shaping employees’ im-
740 Academy of Management Review October

pressions of one another and in increasing pro- parties involved spend less time bargaining
ductivity (Blau, 1963; Flynn, 2003a). Particularly over the terms of the exchange and the values of
in interdependent task environments, reciprocal the goods exchanged.
exchange provides a means for employees to
Proposition 2: Employees who adopt a
obtain cooperation, even if they lack authority.
relational identity orientation will
Through the giving and receiving of favors over
prefer reciprocal exchange to other
time, employees can acquire valued resources
forms of social exchange.
or services that increase their productivity, not
by way of hierarchical authority or contractual
obligations but because the norm of reciprocity Collective Identity Orientation and
is so strongly upheld. Generalized Exchange
Employees who identify at the relational level
In generalized exchange, the giving and re-
will likely prefer reciprocal exchange to other
ceiving of benefits occur among three or more
forms of social exchange. Interpersonal identi-
people who are members of the same social
ties are frequently rooted in dyadic relations
group. Reciprocation is indirect so that Paul may
(e.g., hierarchical, parent-child, client), but they
receive a benefit from Heather but may recipro-
might also be derived from membership in
cate by giving to Eric, rather than to Heather.
small, face-to-face groups that are essentially
Eventually, Heather can expect reciprocation
networks of such dyadic relationships (Brewer &
from someone other than Paul (or Eric, for that
Gardner, 1996). People who identify at the rela-
matter). Generalized exchange therefore stipu-
tional level are not only self-interested but mo-
lates repayment of a kind deed, but not neces-
tivated to procure benefit for the other party in
sarily by the original recipient or to the original
their exchange relations (this may be consistent
giver (Yamagishi & Cook, 1993).
with self-interest). Thus, one of the expectations
Research on generalized exchange has
they must fulfill is to be responsive to the other
tended to examine specific patterns of giving
party’s needs, even if the other party cannot
(e.g., Malinowski, 1922), but there may be forms
immediately repay such favors. Instead, those
of generalized exchange that follow no specific
who adopt a relational identity orientation will
order. In organizations, extrarole behavior3 (e.g.,
rely on the norm of reciprocity to facilitate their
organizational citizenship behavior) is compati-
exchanges (Gouldner, 1960). That is, they will
ble with the notion of generalized exchange,
trust the other party to provide reciprocation in
because reciprocation is indirect and the nature
the future, even if the value and timing of such
of reciprocation one receives is ambiguous (Van
reciprocation are unclear.
Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995; Wil-
Consider a consultant who performs a service
liams & Anderson, 1991).
free of charge for a client. The consultant may
Employees who identify at the collective level
not press the client for immediate reciprocation
will likely prefer generalized exchange to other
because that would violate expectations of close
forms of social exchange. To limit exploitation, a
social relations. Instead, the consultant may ex-
system of generalized exchange requires adher-
pect (and hope) the client will feel obligated to
ence to a collective norm of unilateral giving
reciprocate that favor in the future, perhaps by
(Ekeh, 1974; Yamagishi & Cook, 1993) and a gen-
hiring the consultant for future engagements.
eral concern for others’ well-being (Bearman,
The need for employees with a relational iden-
1997; Sahlins, 1972). A concern for the welfare of
tity orientation to satisfy role-specific expecta-
others is consistent with a collective identity
tions, particularly trusting the other party to pro-
orientation. People who identify at the collective
vide reciprocation, will predispose them to
prefer reciprocal exchange, even if such ex-
change presents a risk. Previous research sug- 3
Extrarole behavior represents a particular type of gen-
gests that people who adopt a relational iden- eralized exchange called “net” or “network” generalized ex-
tity orientation often are willing to assume such change (Bearman, 1997: 1389). This specific form refers to
exchanges between an individual and a group. The network
risk (e.g., Appleby, Miller, & Rothspan, 1999). Al-
generalized exchange process may form a consistent pat-
though it may be unsettling at first, this willing- tern, but such a pattern is not required. The journal review
ness to assume risk can eventually lead to a process is another example of network-generalized ex-
more efficient pattern of exchange, because the change.
2005
level evaluate their self-worth as the extent to
which they become assimilated into their social
group and the extent to which the group and its
members are successful (Tajfel, 1972). Part of
ensuring the success of fellow group members is
offering them assistance freely. Indeed, re-
search suggests that people are more willing to
cooperate with others whom they categorize as
members of the same social group (Chatman &
Flynn, 2001; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989).
People who adopt a collective identity orien-
tation are also likely to develop and maintain a
norm that emphasizes unilateral giving without
direct reciprocation. Consider those individuals
who contribute to open-source code. They are
highly motivated to protect and advance the in-
terests of their social group (fellow users). Be-
cause they have a collective identity orientation,
they are willing to sacrifice their personal inter-
ests, at least in the short term, for the benefit of
the collective. In fact, contributions to open-
source code often are made with no means of
tracking who benefits whom. Contributors, how-
ever, are not motivated to closely monitor their
contributions and others’ direct reciprocation.
Rather, they provide help to benefit all users
because the open-source code community
serves as a powerful target of identification
(e.g., O’Mahony, 2001). At the same time, how-
ever, these contributors expect reciprocation at
a later date, because they assume that other
contributors are similarly motivated. They ex-
pect reciprocation for the help they give, but
they do not necessarily expect it from those
whom they have helped in the past.
Proposition 3: Employees who adopt a
collective identity orientation will
prefer generalized exchange to other
forms of social exchange.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYEE
EXCHANGE DYNAMICS
In the previous section I described how iden-
tity orientations relate to employees’ prefer-
ences for different forms of social exchange. Al-
though these preferences may be somewhat
stable, they are not set in stone. Employees may
emphasize multiple forms of exchange in the
same relationship. For example, two colleagues
might negotiate the terms of one episode of di-
rect exchange and not another, thereby enacting
Flynn 741
both negotiated and reciprocal exchange. Like-
wise, a team member may not expect direct re-
ciprocation when dealing with other team mem-
bers on personal matters, but may prefer it when
dealing with them on work-related matters. Em-
ployees’ preferences for particular forms of ex-
change might also change as their exchange
relations develop. Dyadic exchange relations
that were initially based on episodes of direct
exchange could evolve into relations based on
indirect exchange as the actors involved de-
velop greater trust and appreciation for their
common interests.
Identity orientations may help explain the ef-
fect of exchange behavior on changing prefer-
ences for forms of exchange. Like exchange
forms, identity orientations are unfixed. People
can identify themselves as individuals, relation-
ship partners, or group members in different
contexts. Although we may be disposed toward
one identity or another, we can easily adopt
other identities when our circumstances change
(Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002). In orga-
nizations, several unique relational identity ori-
entations (e.g., client-service provider, mentor-
protégé, supervisor-subordinate, etc.) and
collective identity orientations (e.g., department,
organization, profession) can become activated
at different times, depending on their momen-
tary salience. Brickson (2000), for example, sug-
gests that salient features of organizational de-
sign, task structure, and reward systems could
prime any identity orientation by changing an
individual’s sense of independence. Demo-
graphic characteristics may also activate differ-
ent identity orientations, because salient social
categories provide surrogate measures for the
common experiences and backgrounds (or lack
thereof) that prompt and support interpersonal
interaction (Pfeffer, 1983).
I propose that identity orientations may
change depending on the dynamics of employee
exchange. In the following section I describe
how certain types of exchange behavior (e.g.,
conflict, increased frequency, etc.) can lead to
the emergence and evolution of exchange forms.
What takes place in an exchange relation may
activate specific identity orientations. If these
orientations differ from the focal employee’s
original orientation, the employee may be led to
change his or her preferences for a particular
form of exchange. Thus, the influence between
identity orientations and social exchange is
742 Academy of Management Review
likely reciprocal—patterns of social exchange
influence identity orientations, just as identity
orientations influence patterns of social ex-
change (cf. Burke, 1997).
Initial Preferences for Negotiated Exchange
Members of organizations sometimes engage
in social exchange with others they perceive to
be unfamiliar or unaffiliated. Even members of
the same organization might perceive a lack of
familiarity and affiliation, either because they
have no history of interaction or because they
invoke a social category other than common or-
ganizational membership (e.g., Chatman et al.,
1998). These individuals are not likely to adopt a
collective identity orientation toward their ex-
change relation, nor are they likely to adopt a
relational identity orientation, because they
lack the motivation to respond to one another’s
needs (Latane & Darley, 1970). Instead, they will
approach an episode of exchange with a per-
sonal identity orientation because they are pri-
marily concerned with their own interests. Hav-
ing a personal identity orientation will lead
them to prefer direct, explicit episodes of ex-
change that help ensure the performance of
each transaction and that allow them to monitor
the repayment of outstanding debts. Thus, em-
ployees who are unfamiliar with one another
and categorize themselves as members of differ-
ent social groups will emphasize the principles
of negotiated exchange in their exchange rela-
tions.
Proposition 4: The lower the perceived
level of common affiliation and famil-
iarity, the greater the likelihood of ne-
gotiated exchange.
The Impact of Increased Frequency of
Exchange
Employees who initially engage in negotiated
exchange are not wedded to it. Many employees
prefer negotiated exchange because it reduces
risk and uncertainty in an exchange relation
(Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Klein, 1993; William-
son, 1979). A frequent pattern of exchange, how-
ever, may also reduce risk and uncertainty
while minimizing the social and economic costs
of explicit bargaining. The most salient risk in
reciprocal exchange or generalized exchange is
October
the possibility that reciprocation will not occur,
but a frequent pattern of exchange mitigates the
perceived threat of delayed reciprocity—to the
extent that episodes of exchange recur between
the same giver and receiver, or the same set of
givers and receivers, receivers have more oppor-
tunity to reciprocate previously rendered favors,
and givers have more opportunity to enforce re-
ciprocation.
To explain how frequency of exchange causes
employees to change their preferences for ex-
change forms, I turn once again to the identity
orientation framework. According to this per-
spective, a crucial difference between a per-
sonal identity orientation and an interpersonal
identity orientation (either relational or collec-
tive) is that the focal individual who adopts an
interpersonal identity orientation tends to de-
fine and see him/herself less as a unique person
and more as an individual fulfilling a role in a
relationship or in a social group (Brewer & Gard-
ner, 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This
change in one’s self-concept may be triggered
by a more frequent pattern of exchange. Fre-
quent interaction can lead people to develop
personalized bonds of attachment (e.g., Lawler &
Yoon, 1993). The strengthening of these bonds
may activate a relational identity orientation, in
which the focal individual places the role expec-
tations he or she must fulfill above immediate
needs. The individual’s self-worth is judged ac-
cording to the fulfillment of these role-specific
expectations (e.g., “Am I being responsive
enough to my client’s needs?”).
For some individuals, increased frequency of
exchange will not reinforce personal bonds of
attachment but, instead, will reinforce a sense
of common identity. This may lead to deperson-
alization, which is the subjective stereotyping of
the self in terms of membership in a social
group. Depersonalization may be driven by per-
ceived mutualism—the extent to which ex-
change partners share similar interests and val-
ues. Because repeated exchange is an indicator
of exchange success, more frequent exchange
suggests that those interests and values are
aligned or compatible (Lawler & Yoon, 1993;
Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1954). This
enhanced sense of mutualism will likely acti-
vate a different identity orientation— one in
which the self is viewed less as a unique person
and more as an individual fulfilling a role in a
2005
social group or as an interchangeable represen-
tative of a shared social category.
For employees whose exchanges are limited
to particular individuals, more frequent ex-
change will activate a relational identity orien-
tation, which, in turn, may lead them to prefer
reciprocal exchange. For those whose ex-
changes are limited to members of a particular
social group, a frequent pattern of exchange
may activate a collective identity orientation,
which will lead them to emphasize the princi-
ples of generalized exchange.
Proposition 5: As exchange frequency
increases, employees engaged in ne-
gotiated exchange will begin to prefer
a different form of social exchange. If
an increase in frequency occurs with a
particular individual, the focal em-
ployee will prefer reciprocal ex-
change with that person. If an in-
crease occurs with fellow members of
a social group, the focal employee
will prefer generalized exchange with
members of that group.
Identity Conflict and Preferences for Exchange
Forms
If two employees prefer different forms of so-
cial exchange, they might have different expec-
tations about proper exchange behavior. In par-
ticular, they will have dissimilar preferences for
direct or indirect reciprocation or for explicit or
implicit discussion of the terms of the exchange.
Such differences might lead to some misunder-
standing (e.g., Gergen, Ellsworth, Maslach, &
Seipel, 1975). For example, Anne may need help
proofreading a document and decide to ask one
of her coworkers, Steve, for assistance. If Steve
prefers to help Anne by adhering to the rules of
negotiated exchange, he may expect to have
some discussion about possible reciprocation
before complying with such a request. If Anne
prefers to enact a different form of exchange,
such as reciprocal exchange, an explicit discus-
sion might seem off-putting. Given their differ-
ent expectations of proper behavior, Anne and
Steve may eventually encounter some conflict in
their exchange relation, if not in this particular
episode.
Flynn 743
As proposed earlier, identity orientations are
linked to preferences for specific forms of social
exchange. When these preferences differ, em-
ployees’ expectations of appropriate behavior
might not be met. Instead, they may experience
identity-based conflict,4 in which at least one
individual perceives a threat posed by the other
(Rothman, 1997). Identity-based conflicts reflect
one actor’s (or both actors’) concerns that the
other’s motives are incompatible with his or her
own. That is, the other actor may appear to be
solely concerned with his or her own interests
(personal identity orientation), rather than the
interests of another party or the focal group (re-
lational and collective identity orientations). If
the other actor’s motives are perceived to be
different, this may jeopardize the intrinsic value
of the social referent with which the focal actor
primarily identifies—the self, a relationship, or
the collective.
Proposition 6: Employees who adopt
different preferences for forms of ex-
change are more likely to experience
identity-based conflict during an epi-
sode of exchange.
Episodes of conflict are highly salient to peo-
ple engaged in social interaction. Such episodes
raise both parties’ awareness of differences of
opinion and may stimulate their interest in re-
structuring the exchange relation or perhaps
dissolving it. For an employee who prefers re-
ciprocal exchange, episodes of conflict can be
driven by a host of factors, including a perceived
failure on the part of an exchange partner to
provide full reciprocation. Consider a mentor
who has continually provided sound counsel for
her protégé but recently discovered that the pro-
tégé had disparaged the mentor’s work in the
presence of others. Such a failure on the part of
the protégé to uphold his role-specific obliga-
tions may lead the mentor to question having a
relational identity orientation toward the pro-
tégé. Even if an exchange partner reciprocates,
4
Conflict typically refers to either an overt conflict or a
conflict of interest. An overt conflict is a physical, verbal, or
symbolic confrontation, in which one actor openly opposes
another’s opinions or actions. In contrast, a conflict of inter-
est is not explicit; rather, it refers to a situation in which two
parties’ goals are incongruous. These two types of conflict
are related, of course, in that a conflict of interest, if severe
enough, may eventually lead to an overt conflict.
744 Academy of Management Review
but does so indirectly (i.e., through generalized
exchange), the focal employee will be disap-
pointed and will likely experience some identity-
based conflict. If this conflict is sufficiently unset-
tling, the employee may adopt a personal
identity orientation instead, which will precipi-
tate a change in preference from reciprocal ex-
change to negotiated exchange.
For an employee who prefers generalized ex-
change, episodes of conflict can be equally dis-
concerting. Generalized exchange is a delicate
social system because it depends on the tacit
coordination of several people who must adhere
to a norm of unilateral giving without the expec-
tation of direct reciprocation. A focal employee
with a collective identity orientation will expe-
rience considerable frustration if he or she con-
tributes repeatedly but receives no (indirect) re-
ciprocation for these contributions. Consider a
professor who continually agrees to provide
feedback on her colleagues’ work because she
values being a fellow member of the depart-
ment. A lack of similar treatment in return may
engender a sense of injustice, or identity-based
conflict. The professor may begin to question the
practicality of having a collective identity orien-
tation toward her colleagues. She might choose
to adopt a personal identity orientation instead,
which would bring about a change in her behav-
ior from generalized exchange to negotiated ex-
change. She might also choose to adopt a rela-
tional identity orientation toward a limited
number of colleagues who have provided recip-
rocation in the past. This would bring about a
change in her behavior from generalized ex-
change to reciprocal exchange.
Proposition 7: When employees who
prefer reciprocal exchange experi-
ence identity-based conflict during an
episode of exchange, they will change
their exchange preference to negoti-
ated exchange. Likewise, when em-
ployees who prefer generalized ex-
change experience identity-based
conflict during an episode of ex-
change, they will change their ex-
change preference to either reciprocal
exchange or negotiated exchange.
Employees engaged in negotiated exchange
may also experience conflict (Lawler & Ford,
1995). A business partner may default on an in-
October
formal contract, or a colleague may fail to keep
his or her explicit promise of reciprocation.
These scenarios represent a potential threat to
the focal employee. Although generosity can en-
hance one’s reputation, employees who are
overly generous (i.e., they give more than they
get) decrease their productivity because they
deprive themselves of valuable resources
(Flynn, 2003a). Thus, failure to obtain reciproca-
tion may be unsettling for employees who are
trying to perform their jobs well. Unfortunately,
the options for restructuring the exchange rela-
tion are not appealing. An employee who has
encountered problems negotiating episodes of
exchange with a particular individual will not
be inclined to engage in reciprocal exchange or
generalized exchange with that person. This
would require an advanced level of trust that
two people who have experienced conflict prob-
ably lack. Instead, the focal employee may dis-
solve the relation and look for another exchange
partner.
Proposition 8: When an employee who
emphasizes negotiated exchange ex-
periences identity-based conflict, he
or she will seek out another exchange
partner.
Identity Orientations and Employee
Commitment
Employees can be committed to several differ-
ent foci, including unions, professions, organi-
zations, and individual coworkers (Becker, Bill-
ings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Flynn & Brockner,
2003). Which foci they choose to commit them-
selves to will likely depend on their identity
orientations. Whereas commitment, particularly
affective commitment (Kanter, 1968; Meyer,
Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989), re-
fers to the strength of social relations, identity
orientation refers to how an individual chooses
to relate to others in his or her environment.
Identity orientations may have strong implica-
tions for affective responses to episodes of ex-
change, because they provide unique frames of
reference that help direct such feelings (Brewer
& Gardner, 1996). Depending on his or her iden-
tity orientation, an employee’s frame of refer-
ence may be him/herself (personal), an ex-
change relation (relational), or a social group
(collective).
2005
Social exchange theorists assert that people
learn to establish exchange relations with oth-
ers when they believe the reciprocal exchange
of valued benefits can occur (Molm & Cook,
1995). Successful episodes of exchange often
lead to future episodes, because success makes
people feel good, whereas failure makes them
feel bad (Willer, Lovaglia, & Markovsky, 1997).
As the number of successful episodes relative to
the number of failed episodes increases, em-
ployees will experience higher levels of positive
affect (Lawler & Yoon, 1993). The concept of re-
lational cohesion suggests that these positive
emotions will be “attributed in part to the rela-
tions or groups that constitute the context for
exchange” (Lawler et al., 2000: 623). Knowing
whether the positive emotions are more likely to
be attributed to the relation or to the group may
depend on the identity orientation of the focal
individual. Given their unique frames of refer-
ence, those with an interpersonal identity orien-
tation may be relatively more inclined to direct
positive affect toward their exchange partners
(relational identity orientation) or other mem-
bers of their social group (collective identity ori-
entation). Those with a personal identity orien-
tation may be relatively less inclined to direct
positive affect toward other individuals and, in-
stead, may direct it toward the exchange rela-
tion.
The literature on employee exchange rela-
tions provides some support for this idea. Mal-
hotra and Murnighan (2002), for example, found
that people engaged in negotiated exchange
tended to attribute success to the constraints
imposed by an explicit contract. They attributed
little of the success to the other individual in-
volved in the exchange, which prohibited the
development of trust between the two parties. In
contrast, participants in successful episodes of
reciprocal exchange were inclined to make at-
tributions of success to the other individual’s
cooperativeness rather than to any implicit con-
tract. This, in turn, strengthened the develop-
ment of trust between the two parties. Again,
this difference may be explained by differing
identity orientations. Those involved in epi-
sodes of reciprocal exchange adopt a relational
identity orientation, whereas those involved in
negotiated exchange adopt a personal identity
orientation; the former are more inclined to in-
voke the other party as a target of positive atti-
Flynn 745
tudes, including commitment, whereas the latter
are not.5
Proposition 9: Following successful
episodes of exchange, employees en-
gaged in negotiated exchange will in-
crease their affective commitment to
the exchange relation, employees en-
gaged in reciprocal exchange will in-
crease their affective commitment to
their exchange partners, and employ-
ees engaged in generalized exchange
will increase their affective commit-
ment to the collective.
DISCUSSION
Our understanding of the process by which
employees develop preferences for different
forms of social exchange can be improved by
considering the impact of individual identity
orientations. In this article I propose that iden-
tity orientations lead employees to prefer a par-
ticular form of exchange. Specifically, those who
identify at the personal level will prefer negoti-
ated exchange, in which the nature of recipro-
cation is direct and explicitly discussed. Em-
ployees who identify at the relational level will
prefer reciprocal exchange, in which reciproca-
tion is direct but open discussion of the terms
and value of reciprocation is not permitted. Em-
ployees who identify at the collective level will
prefer generalized exchange, in which recipro-
cation is expected but its origin and nature are
unknown. These different forms will emerge be-
cause employees will establish a pattern of ex-
change that is compatible with the bases of
evaluation, frames of reference, and motives
made salient by their identity orientations.
I suggest that identity orientations may also
help explain changes in employee preferences
for different forms of exchange and the conse-
quences of exchange dynamics. Identity orien-
tations are continually changing as they be-
come activated by social stimuli and perceived
changes in our environment. Depending on
5
Molm et al. (2000) found a similar pattern of results in a
controlled experiment with subjects whose identity orienta-
tions were not manipulated across conditions. Although
their results do not eliminate the possibility that different
identity orientations can elicit different attributions of affec-
tive commitment, they do suggest that such differences in
identity orientations may not be required.
746 Academy of Management Review
which identity orientation is activated, certain
phenomena, such as ingroup attraction, deper-
sonalization, and identity-based conflict, may
lead an employee to prefer an alternative form
of exchange that suits his or her momentary
identity. By the same token, patterns of ex-
change can strengthen employees’ identity ori-
entations, particularly toward certain exchange
partners. Thus, it is critical for scholars inter-
ested in employee exchange dynamics to recog-
nize how identity orientations relate to different
forms of exchange in order to recognize how
employee exchange relations emerge and shift
from one form to another.
Theoretical Implications
Social exchange theory has provided a solid
foundation for empirical research on employee
exchange behavior, but previous studies of so-
cial exchange in organizations have tended to
invoke only the fundamental assumptions of ex-
change theory, such as equivalence in the giv-
ing and receiving of benefits, operant condition-
ing, and rational action (Blau, 1964; Emerson,
1976; Homans, 1958). In this past research schol-
ars often considered multiple forms of exchange
relations simultaneously, thereby treating dif-
ferent exchange forms as equivalent (Van Dyne
et al., 1995). However, social exchange theory
stipulates different assumptions for each form of
exchange. Even the universal norm of reciproc-
ity, which is a cornerstone of all exchange re-
search, varies across exchange forms (Gould-
ner, 1960). Reciprocity may be direct or indirect,
and the implications of whether it is one or the
other are critical. One purpose of this paper,
then, is to clarify the criteria that distinguish
these forms of exchange.
Greater theoretical clarity surrounding the
concept of social exchange in organizational re-
search is important for two particular reasons.
First, without recognizing the criteria that dis-
tinguish multiple forms of employee exchange,
it becomes increasingly difficult to generalize
findings from research on one type of exchange
behavior to other, related forms of exchange. For
instance, how do the findings from studies of
leader-member exchange relate to the findings
from studies of organizational citizenship be-
havior, if they relate at all? Second, it is unclear
why so many different types of exchange rela-
tions exist. Why do some employees feel the
October
need to explicitly state the terms of a tit-for-tat
exchange while others do not? Here, the identity
orientation framework makes a unique concep-
tual contribution by suggesting a way in which
employees are motivated to choose particular
forms of exchange.
By establishing strong connections between
identity orientations and forms of social ex-
change, I hope to integrate theory and research
on exchange in sociology with work in psychol-
ogy that focuses on different levels of identifica-
tion. If identity orientations relate to preferences
for different forms of social exchange, this rep-
resents a potential link between two highly in-
fluential theoretical perspectives: social ex-
change theory and the identity orientation
framework. Social exchange theory explains
how people obtain valued resources (informa-
tion, status, love) through their interactions with
others (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958; Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959). In contrast, the identity orientation
framework describes how our need to maintain
positive self-representations influences our per-
ceptions of, and interactions with, other people
(Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Put
differently, social exchange theorists tend to ex-
amine the structure and consequences of our
social interactions, whereas identity research-
ers focus more on the antecedents of such inter-
actions. Although these two theories seem to
have a natural connection, there have been few
attempts to connect them.
These conceptual linkages may help answer
nagging questions for researchers interested in
either exchange dynamics or identity issues. For
example, recent work by Chen and Chen (2003)
suggests that Asian employees are more toler-
ant of an exchange partner’s failure to recipro-
cate than are American employees. Given that
Asians are purportedly more attuned to feelings
of indebtedness and reciprocity (Triandis, 1995),
this result might seem counterintuitive. How-
ever, when you consider the identity orientation
perspective presented here, this result begins to
make more sense. Asians tend to be more col-
lectivistic, whereas Americans tend to be more
individualistic—that is, Asians are more in-
clined to adopt a collective identity orientation
than are Americans. Because a collective iden-
tity orientation corresponds to a preference for
generalized exchange, it makes sense that
Asians are more tolerant than Americans of per-
ceived inequity in an exchange relation. They
2005
are more tolerant because they expect that re-
ciprocation will be indirect, rather than direct.
The linkages between identity orientations
and forms of social exchange may also help lay
the groundwork for future research on employee
exchange. For example, negotiation researchers
are interested in understanding why some mem-
bers of organizations are less inclined to engage
in explicit bargaining. Recent research suggests
that women, in particular, are less likely than
men to initiate negotiations with their supervi-
sors (for a summary, see Babcock & Laschever,
2003). This finding may be partly explained by
considering the identity orientations of male
and female members of organizations. Women
may be more disposed toward a relational iden-
tity orientation than men, and men may be more
disposed toward a personal identity orientation
than women. If so, this would suggest that men
prefer the explicit nature of negotiated ex-
change, whereas women prefer to avoid such
explicitness and hope, instead, that their contri-
butions will be recognized and eventually recip-
rocated.
Disciplinary scholars may also benefit from
considering the linkages between identity ori-
entations and exchange forms. For example, ex-
change researchers and identity researchers
both study the impact that frequency of interac-
tion has on future cooperation and cohesion.
Social exchange researchers who study the ef-
fect of frequency (e.g., Lawler & Yoon, 1993)
might find it helpful to review research on the
contact hypothesis (Miller & Brewer, 1984), which
suggests that the positive effects of frequent ex-
change depend on certain contextual features,
such as the presence of equal-status member-
ships, opportunities for self-revealing interac-
tions, egalitarian norms, and a focus on tasks
that require cooperative interdependence (for a
review, see Slavin, 1983). Conversely, contact
hypothesis researchers might attend to some of
the recent developments in the social exchange
literature, which highlight the different types of
benefits people gain from increased participa-
tion in different forms of exchange (Lawler et al.,
2000; Lawler & Yoon, 1993).
Practical Implications
Linking the identity orientation framework
and social exchange theory may improve on
previous models of social exchange by outlining
Flynn 747
a more dynamic perspective. Whereas social ex-
change theory emphasizes the stability of social
structures and exchange relations, the identity
orientation framework suggests that such rela-
tions may continually be changing. Indeed,
identity researchers argue that social identities
exist only ephemerally in the minds of their ad-
herents (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). This suggests
that how employees decide to identify with one
another could depend, in part, on the momen-
tary salience of social or contextual character-
istics (Brickson, 2000; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
This level of dynamism may be of particular
interest to organizational leaders, given that or-
ganizations can often manipulate the salience
of social situations (e.g., social and contextual
characteristics) with relative ease (Chatman et
al., 1998).
If managers can prime identity orientations
that correspond to particular exchange forms,
they may be able to elicit particular types of
exchange behavior at appropriate times. For ex-
ample, in competitive environments where the
potential for opportunistic behavior is clear (e.g.,
collective bargaining procedures), negotiated
exchange may be encouraged in order to ensure
reciprocation. Managers may prefer that em-
ployees emphasize reciprocal exchange in other
situations, such as soliciting new clients. In this
case, fewer costs, such as negotiating the terms
of a resource transfer, are incurred, and the ini-
tial demonstration of trust may go a long way
toward establishing a long-term exchange rela-
tion. In workgroups, generalized exchange may
be preferred because it helps to ensure a smooth
distribution of valued resources to people in the
group who need them most (e.g., Blau, 1963).
Further, a pattern of generalized exchange may
serve as a means to build a collegial environ-
ment that will heighten employees’ sense of at-
tachment to one another and that will promote
their cooperation.
Directions for Future Research
Although these theoretical and practical con-
tributions are important, many intriguing issues
remain. For example, the model of employee
exchange dynamics presented in this article
suggests that exchange forms can be classified
in a hierarchical order. Employees may decide
to move up or down this hierarchy— enacting a
different form of exchange— depending on
748 Academy of Management Review
whether their exchange relations improve or
worsen. Those emphasizing negotiated ex-
change may eventually prefer reciprocal ex-
change if they begin to develop a relational
identity orientation toward their exchange part-
ner. Likewise, employees who engage in recip-
rocal exchange may revert to negotiated ex-
change if they no longer adopt a relational
identity orientation. The placement of general-
ized exchange in this hierarchy of exchange re-
lations is more ambiguous. When generalized
exchange fails, employees will perhaps revert to
reciprocal exchange with those employees who
activate a relational identity orientation, and to
negotiated exchange with those employees who
activate a personal identity orientation. The no-
tion of hierarchal order in employee exchange
relations seems promising but requires more
theoretical and empirical attention.
A hierarchy of exchange forms suggests that
clear boundaries separate negotiated, recipro-
cal, and generalized exchange in organizations.
In many cases, however, these boundaries may
be blurred. Negotiated exchange and reciprocal
exchange, for example, are distinct, because
employees engaged in the former explicitly dis-
cuss the terms of the exchange, whereas those
engaged in the latter do not. Explicitness, how-
ever, is not a discrete variable. Rather, in estab-
lishing the terms of an exchange, employees
can adopt varying degrees of explicitness. Giv-
ers might say, “You owe me one,” to establish an
expectation of direct reciprocation, or say, “You
owe me a big one,” to clarify that such recipro-
cation should be significant. In either case, it
seems unclear whether the terms of the ex-
change are explicit, because the nature of recip-
rocation remains ambiguous. All we can sug-
gest here is that reciprocal exchange becomes
more similar to negotiated exchange as the
terms of the exchange become more explicit. In
future research scholars might consider the crit-
ical points at which exchange relations trans-
form from one form to another.
In future research scholars might also con-
sider the specific behaviors that trigger a
change in identity orientation, which, in turn,
elicits a change in employees’ preferred forms of
social exchange. For example, a pair of employ-
ees who are strangers to each other will prefer
negotiated exchange, but as they develop a rap-
port over the course of multiple episodes of ex-
change, they may begin to prefer reciprocal ex-
October
change instead. Moving the exchange relation
from one form to another might require certain
behavior, such as subtle manipulations of lan-
guage. For example, Gardner et al. (2002) have
shown that simply using the expression “we”
more frequently can prime a collective identity
orientation. Perhaps this terminology can acti-
vate a relational identity orientation as well.
Researchers interested in employee exchange
dynamics might scrutinize these behavioral tac-
tics that can be used to transform employee ex-
change relations.
Finally, the influence of patterns of social ex-
change on identity orientations may not be lim-
ited to the actors involved in an exchange rela-
tion. Rather, we may learn about our coworkers’
preferences for social exchange by observing
their exchange behavior with others. If such ob-
servations engender an identity-based conflict,
they may also activate a change in our identity
orientations. If an employee possesses, say, a
collective identity orientation and a correspond-
ing preference for generalized exchange, he or
she may be disappointed to see a fellow group
member behaving as a free rider, even if he or
she has never exchanged resources with this
colleague before. Given information that the
norm for unilateral giving has been repeatedly
violated by at least one group member, the em-
ployee may begin to question his or her collec-
tive identity orientation and preference for gen-
eralized exchange. Future research should
explore the strength of audience effects such as
these. Perhaps they are meaningful, but not as
powerful as the effects derived from one’s per-
sonal experience.
CONCLUSION
My primary purpose in writing this article has
been to link two powerful theoretical para-
digms—social exchange theory and the identity
orientation framework—which, taken together,
may offer valuable insight into the emergence
and development of employee exchange rela-
tions. Whereas social exchange theory exam-
ines the functions and consequences of different
forms of exchange relations, the identity orien-
tation framework considers how our need to pur-
sue positive self-representation influences our
perceptions of and interactions with other peo-
ple. This article suggests that the way in which
people are primed to pursue positive self-
2005
representations may influence the emergence of
different forms of social exchange and help ex-
plain the dynamics and consequences of ex-
change relations. I hope this idea will stimulate
future research and thinking about patterns of
exchange in organizations.
REFERENCES
Alpert, S., Ashforth, B., & Dutton, J. 2000. Organizational iden-
tity and identification: Charting new waters and build-
ing new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25:
13–18.
Appleby, P. R., Miller, L. C., & Rothspan, S. 1999. The paradox
of trust for male couples: When risking is part of loving.
Personal Relationships, 6: 81–93.
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. 2003. Women don’t ask. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L.
2000. Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 279 –
314.
Bearman, P. 1997. Generalized exchange. American Journal
of Sociology, 102: 1383–1415.
Becker, T., Billings, R., Eveleth, D., & Gilbert, N. 1996. Foci and
bases of employee commitment: Implications for job
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 464 –
482.
Blau, P. M. 1963. The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of
interpersonal exchange in two government agencies.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New
York: Wiley.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this “we”?: Levels
of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93.
Brickson, S. 2000. The impact of identity orientation on indi-
vidual and organizational outcomes in demographically
diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25:
82–101.
Burke, P. J. 1997. An identity model for network exchange.
American Sociological Review, 62: 134 –150.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2001. The influence of demo-
graphic heterogeneity on the emergence and conse-
quences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy
of Management Journal, 44: 956 –974.
Chatman, J., Polzer, J., Barsade, S., & Neale, M. 1998. Being
different yet feeling similar: The influence of demo-
graphic composition and organizational culture on work
processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 43: 749 –780.
Chen, X., & Chen, Y. 2003. Responding to “inequitable” offers:
Culture, emotion, and reciprocity. Working paper, Uni-
versity of Washington, Seattle.
Dukerich, J., Golden, B., & Shortell, S. 2002. Beauty is in the
eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational iden-
tification, identity, and image on the cooperative behav-
Flynn 749
iors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47:
507–533.
Ekeh, P. 1974. Social exchange theory: The two traditions.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Emerson, R. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 2: 335–362.
Flynn, F. J. 2003a. How much should I help and how often?
Tradeoffs between social status and productivity. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 46: 539 –553.
Flynn, F. J. 2003b. What have you done for me lately? Tem-
poral changes in subjective favor evaluations. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91:
38 –50.
Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. 2003. It’s different to give than to
receive: Asymmetric reactions of givers and receivers to
favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 1–13.
Flynn, F. J., Chatman, J. A., & Spataro, S. A. 2001. Getting to
know you: The influence of personality on the impres-
sion formation and performance of demographically dif-
ferent people in organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46: 414 – 442.
Gardner, W., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. 2002. When you
and I are “we,” you are not threatening: The role of
self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 82: 239 –251.
Gergen, K. J., Ellsworth, P., Maslach, C., & Seipel, M. 1975.
Obligation, donor resources, and reactions to aid in
three cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 31: 395– 400.
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161–178.
Heath, A. 1976. Rational choice and social exchange: A cri-
tique of exchange theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. 2000. Social identity and self-
categorization processes in organizational contexts.
Academy of Management Review, 25: 121–140.
Homans, G. C. 1958. Social behavior as exchange. American
Journal of Sociology, 63: 597– 606.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm:
Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership
structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305–360.
Kanter, R. M. 1968. Commitment and social organization: A
study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communi-
ties. American Sociological Review, 33: 499 –517.
Klein, B. 1993. Contracts and incentives: The role of contract
terms in assuring performance. In L. Werin & H. Wij-
kander (Eds.), Contract economics: 149 –172. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. 1970. The unresponsive bystander: Why
doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lawler, E., & Ford, R. 1995. Bargaining and influence in
conflict situations. In K. Cook, G. Fine, & J. House (Eds.),
Sociological perspectives on social psychology: 236 –255.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lawler, E., Thye, S., & Yoon, J. 2000. Emotion and group
750 Academy of Management Review October

cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of
Sociology, 106: 616 – 657.
Lawler, E., & Yoon, J. 1993. Power and the emergence of
commitment behavior in negotiated exchange. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 58: 465– 481.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O., White, B., Hood, W., & Sherif, C. 1954.
Experimental study of positive and negative intergroup
attitudes between experimentally produced groups:
Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Okla-
homa Press.

Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, K. 2002. The effects of contracts
on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 47: 534 –559.
Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An
account of native enterprise and adventure in the archi-
pelagos of Melanesian New Guinea. New York: Dutton.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Impli-
cations for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psycho-
logical Review, 98: 224 –253.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S., Gellatly, I., Goffin, R., & Jackson, D.
1989. Organizational commitment and job performance:
It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74: 152–156.
Miller, N., & Brewer, M. 1984. Groups in contact: The psychol-
ogy of desegregation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Molm, L., & Cook, K. 1995. Social exchange and exchange
networks. In K. Cook, G. Fine, & J. House (Eds.), Socio-
logical perspectives on social psychology: 209 –235. Bos-
ton: Allyn and Bacon.
Molm, L., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. 2000. Risk and trust in
social exchange: An experimental test of a classic prop-
osition. American Journal of Sociology, 105: 1396 –1427.
O’Mahony, S. 2001. The emergence of a new commercial
actor: Community managed software projects. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stan-
ford, CA.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. 1983. Organizational demography. Research in Or-
ganizational Behavior, 3: 1–52.
Rothman, J. 1997. Resolving identity-based conflict in na-
tions, organizations, and communities. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Sahlins, M. D. 1972. Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine-
Atherton.
Slavin, R. E. 1983. Co-operative learning. New York: Long-
man.
Tajfel, H. 1972. Social categorization. In S. Moscovici (Ed.),
Introduction to social psychology, vol. 1: 272–302. Paris:
Larousse.
Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. 1959. The social psychology of groups.
New York: Wiley.
Triandis, H. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Oxford:
Westview Press.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra-
role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional
clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Or-
ganizational Behavior, 17: 215–285.
Willer, D., Lovaglia, M., & Markovsky, B. 1997. Power and
influence: A theoretical bridge. Social Forces, 76: 571–
603.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1998. Forty years of
diversity research: A review. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 20: 77–140.
Williams, L., & Anderson, S. 1991. Job satisfaction and orga-
nizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Manage-
ment, 17: 601– 617.
Williamson, O. E. 1979. Transaction cost economics: The gov-
ernance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and
Economics, 22: 3– 61.
Yamagishi, T., & Cook, K. S. 1993. Generalized exchange and
social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56: 235–
248.
Zenger, T., & Lawrence, B. 1989. Organizational demography:
The differential effects of age and tenure distributions
on technical communications. Academy of Management
Journal, 32: 353–376.

Francis J. Flynn is an associate professor of management at Columbia Business

School, Columbia University. He earned his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the
University of California, Berkeley. His research interests focus on social influence in
organizations, particularly how employees can obtain help from one another and how
they can develop healthy patterns of cooperation.