Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Shelley E. Taylor wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Impression formation wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Internet relationship wikipedia , lookup
Group dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Mnemic neglect wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
James M. Honeycutt wikipedia , lookup
Belongingness wikipedia , lookup
NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS IN ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE FOR NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY IN SOCIAL NETWORKS Giuseppe Labianca A.B. Freeman School of Business Tulane University New Orleans, LA 70118-5669 and Daniel J. Brass Department of Management & Organization Smeal College of Business Administration The Pennsylvania State University 403 Beam BAB University Park, PA 16802 August 16, 1999 Revise and resubmit: Academy of Management Review EXPLORING THE SOCIAL LEDGER: NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS IN ORGANIZATIONS ABSTRACT We explore the role of negative relationships in social networks at work. Network researchers have mainly focused on the benefits and opportunities derived from positive relationships. We, instead, emphasize that some interpersonal relationships can be social liabilities. We further argue that, under certain circumstances, these negative relationships will have greater power in explaining organizational attitudes, behaviors and outcomes than will positive relationships. This argument is rooted in theory and research on a general negative asymmetry bias. We offer a processual description of how negative relationships occur in the workplace, and a conceptual model to guide future research. 3 “A man’s stature is determined by his enemies, not his friends.” -- Al Pacino, City Hall People are embedded within networks of interrelationships with other people. These networks can provide opportunities and benefits such as job attainment, job satisfaction, power, and promotions in organizations (e.g., Brass, 1984; Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973). Although early social exchange theorists and network researchers considered both the positive and negative aspects of relationships (e.g. Homans, 1961; Tagiuri, 1958; Thibault & Kelley, 1959), research over the past two decades has focused almost exclusively on the positive aspects of network relationships to the point that social network research has become equated with research on social capital. Social capital refers to the idea that one’s social contacts convey benefits that create opportunities for competitive success for individuals and for the groups in which they are members (i.e., Burt, 1992, 1997; Coleman, 1988, 1990)1. The overemphasis on researching the positive aspects of networks comes at the expense of fleshing out what we term the “social ledger” – both the potential benefits, as well as the potential liabilities of social relationships. Just as a financial ledger records financial assets and liabilities, the social ledger is an accounting of social assets (social capital derived from positive relationships) and social liabilities derived from negative relationships. To understand the complete social ledger, we address the role of negative relationships in organizations – on-going relationships in which at least one person has a negative affective judgment (dislike) of the other. For example, just as an employee’s friends and acquaintances may help the employee get promoted by providing such things as critical information, mentoring, and good references, negative relationships with others may prevent promotion if these people withhold critical information or provide bad references. Thus, it is important to consider the negative side of the social ledger: social liabilities as well as the frequently researched social capital. 4 Social liabilities become particularly important when we consider the possibility of negative asymmetry: negative relationships may have greater explanatory power than positive relationships in certain circumstances. Negative stimuli have been found to have greater explanatory power than positive or neutral stimuli in a diverse range of situations, including person perception and social judgment (see Taylor, 1991 for a review). Extending this negative asymmetry argument to social relationships in organizations, we propose that, under certain circumstances, negative relationships may have a greater effect on organizational attitudes (e.g., affective attachment to the job and organization), behaviors (e.g., withdrawal behaviors, job performance), and outcomes (e.g., job stress, and promotion and income attainment) than positive relationships. We begin by defining negative relationships and presenting research and theoretical explanations for a generalized negative asymmetry in humans, and then present specific evidence of negative asymmetry in social relationships, including those in work organizations. We then present a model of the formation of negative relationships in the workplace. We conclude by developing a research framework for investigating the antecedents, moderators and consequences of negative relationships in organizations. NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS We define negative relationships as on-going relationships in which at least one person has a negative affective judgment of another person2. We distinguish negative relationships from brief negative encounters, cognitions, affect, or behaviors which may happen on occasion in any relationship, even a strong, positive relationship. Although negative relationships likely involve negative cognitions and behaviors, we focus on affect because it is a more enduring component of 5 the relationship and thus better suited to describe an on-going relationship rather than just an encounter3. Negative relationships can characterized by at least four dimensions that may affect the extent to which they result in liabilities for the employees and the organization. First, the relationship’s strength refers to intensity of the negative affect (disliking). Although social network researchers have often investigated the strength of positive relationships (e.g., strong ties are friends, weak ties are acquaintances), we extend strength of ties to include negative relationships. Strong disliking should exacerbate the social liabilities of negative ties. Directionality refers to whether an individual is the object or source of negative affect, or if it is reciprocated. A negative affective judgment does not have to be reciprocated in order for it to be a liability. For example, even if you like a person who dislikes you, that person may make it more difficult for you to accomplish your tasks by withholding important information, by failing to provide a reference for you when needed, or by spreading negative gossip about you. However, we expect that a reciprocated tie will be most disruptive. The third characteristic, awareness, refers to whether each person knows that the other person dislikes him or her. For example, a lack of awareness that another person dislikes you may result in little discomfort or dissatisfaction, but it may result in high vulnerability to harmful covert actions by the other person. On the other hand, awareness may lead to attempts to improve the relationship or, conversely, reciprocal feelings of dislike and negative behavior toward the other person. Finally, we go beyond the dyad to add a network characteristic – proximity. Proximity refers to whether the negative tie is direct (you are part of the dyad with a negative relationship) or indirect (you are connected to a person who has a negative relationship with another person). We expect that direct involvement in a negative relationship will 6 result in increased social liabilities, but we do not ignore the possibility that indirect relationships may also produce social liabilities. For example, being a friend of a person who is disliked may be a liability because you are associated with the disliked person and treated similarly. Throughout the paper, we assume that negative affective relationships are detrimental both to the individuals involved in the relationships, as well as to the organization as a whole; hence the label “social liability.” We propose that negative relationships adversely affect individual outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, stress, promotions, etc.), but they also adversely affect the ability of individuals to coordinate activities and cooperate to achieve group and organizational goals. For example, recent research has shown that affective conflict (as contrasted with task conflict) is detrimental to the overall performance of a group (Jehn, 1995, 1997; see also Wall & Callister, 1995 for a review). Although we do not equate negative relationship with conflict, negative affect can lead to both covert and overt behavior that is disruptive to the effective functioning of an organization. Negative relationships are the opposite of social capital because of their potential liabilities or hindrances to individuals and organizations4. NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY We focus on negative relationships not only because they have been ignored in research on organizations, but also because negative relationships may have greater power in explaining some attitudes, behaviors and outcomes in organizations than positive relationships. In this section, we briefly present evidence for negative asymmetry and summarize the theoretical arguments that have been offered to explain this phenomenon. 7 Negative event asymmetry Taylor (1991) summarizes evidence that indicates that negative events elicit greater physiological, affective, cognitive, and behavioral activity and lead to more cognitive analysis than neutral or positive events. For example, studies have found that subjects experience stronger physiological arousal when presented with opinions that disagree with their own as compared to opinions that agree or are neutral, or when they are interacting with persons they dislike as compared to those they like or are neutral toward (e.g., Burdick & Burnes, 1958; Clore & Gormly, 1974; Dickson & McGinnies, 1966; Gormly, 1971, 1974; Steiner, 1966). Taylor (1991) also argued that negative events are stronger determinants of mood and affect than positive events. For example, research indicates that negative events are more strongly associated with distress and predict depression better than do positive events (e.g., Myers, Lindenthal, Pepper, & Ostrander, 1972; Paykel, 1974; Vinokur & Selzer, 1975). Additional research has found that negative affective states lead people to narrow and focus their attention (e.g., Broadbent, 1971; Easterbrook, 1959; Eysenck, 1976), particularly on the negative information that may have been seen as causing that negative affective state (Schwarz, 1990). Positive events and information do not seem to have the same effect on cognitive processing (see Kanouse & Hanson, 1972; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Negative stimuli also lead to more cognitive work and produce more complex cognitive representations than do positive stimuli (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Research also has shown that people assign relatively more importance to negative information, including social information, than to positive information (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984; see Czapinski & Peeters, 1990; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989, for reviews). Likewise, studies in impression formation, person 8 perception, and morality judgments have found that negative information is weighted more heavily than positive information in social judgments (see Fiske & Taylor, 1984, 1991; Kanouse & Hanson, 1972, for reviews). Negative asymmetry in social relationships In addition to negative events, negative interactions have been found to have a disproportionately greater effect on such variables as life satisfaction, mood, illness, and stress than do positive interactions (e.g., Finch, Okun, Barrera, Zautra, & Reich, 1989; Hirsch & Rapkin, 1986; Rook, 1984, 1990; Stephens, Kinney, Norris & Ritchie, 1987). For example, Rook (1984) found that negative aspects of social relationships are more strongly related to psychological well-being than are the positive aspects. In a longitudinal study of spouses caring for Alzheimer’s patients, Pagel, Erdly, and Becker (1987) found that negative aspects of the caretaker’s network were strongly associated with increased depression over a ten-month period. However, positive aspects of the network were not associated with lower depression. In a network study of social relationships at work, Burt and Knez (1995, 1996) found that if an individual was already inclined to trust another party, positive third party gossip amplified that trust. However, this amplification effect was much more pronounced for negative gossip than it was for positive gossip. Labianca, Brass and Gray (1998) found that negative interpersonal relationships between members of different organizational groups were related to perceptions of intergroup conflict, but strong friendship ties had no relationship to perceptions of intergroup conflict. Strong positive relationships did not dampen or counterbalance the effects of negative relationships. 9 Theoretical explanations of negative asymmetry Why do negative events and relationships have more impact than positive events and relationships? Evolutionary psychologists explain the negative asymmetry by noting that it is adaptive to respond quickly to negative events in order to enhance survivability (e.g., Cannon, 1932; see LeDoux, 1996, for a more recent neurobiological perspective). Developmental psychologists suggest that negative events are discriminated and evaluated earlier by children than are positive events because negative events are more likely to interrupt action. Children learn the rules governing negative behavior before those governing positive behavior and, thus, become punishment-oriented (cf., Piaget, 1932). Nature and nurture combine to make humans risk-averse (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). In seeking to theoretically explain negative asymmetry, Skowronski and Carlston (1989) summarize a number of theories that fall into two broad categories: discrepancy and ambiguity. Discrepancy theorists (e.g., Fiske, 1980; Helson, 1964; Jones & Davis, 1965; Jones & McGillis, 1976; Sherif & Sherif, 1967) argue that negative events dominate social judgment because of the contrast effects with positive events that people typically experience and expect. Positive or neutral responses are subject to strong social desirability norms. These positive expectations have been found consistently and are referred to as “The Pollyanna Principle” (e.g., Matlin & Stang, 1978), and they are an example of a broader positivity bias in expectations (e.g., Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1995; see Markus & Zajonc, 1985, for a discussion of positivity biases). Interactions tend to be polite and continued interaction tends to breed friendship (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950). People rarely intend to make enemies. Since people expect positive information, negative information stands out against the background and is weighted more heavily in impression 10 formation. Recent research (Baldwin, Bedell, & Johnson, 1997; Labianca, et al., 1998; Labianca, 1998) found that negative affective relationships are indeed rare and unexpected, involving only 17% of the possible relationships in a network. Thus, the relative rarity of negative events and relationships may be the very force behind the greater relative impact of that negativity on individuals. Ambiguity theorists (e.g., Birnbaum, 1972; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Wyer, 1973, 1974) argue that negative information is more closely attended to because it is less ambiguous than positive information. Because negative information cannot be discounted as a socially desirable response, it allows people to make social judgments more easily. Several studies have shown that negative behavioral cues are perceived as less ambiguous than positive behaviors (e.g., Birnbaum, 1972; Reeder, Henderson, & Sullivan, 1982; Reeder & Spores, 1983; Wyer, 1974). NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS AT WORK While a great deal of research has been conducted on friendship formation, interpersonal attraction, and the evolution of friendships (see Berscheid & Walster, 1978, and Hays, 1988 for reviews), little has been conducted on the formation and development of negative relationships (Wiseman & Duck, 1995). The evolution of negative relationships may be very different than positive relationships. Friendship development is viewed as a gradual process. According to social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), friendship development proceeds from superficial interaction in narrow areas of exchange to increasingly deeper interaction in broader areas. Perceptions of the rewards and costs of interacting with a potential friend drive this progression – if you feel that the rewards from a relationship outweigh the costs, you will continue to progress towards closer friendship. However, Wiseman and Duck’s (1995) qualitative work on negative 11 relationships indicates that negative relationship development is a much faster process that tends to lead to the other person being included in an all-or-nothing negative category such as “enemy.” By contrast, fine-grained ranking distinctions are created for friends as they move through a relationship progression from casual acquaintances to close friends. Based on the available empirical evidence and theoretical explanations for negative asymmetry, we offer the following processual description of how negative relationships occur in the workplace. We use the language of symbolic interactionism (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1978; Earley, 1997; Goffman, 1959) and combine it with research on person perception and interpersonal expectations to describe how encounters can lead to positive and negative relationships. When two employees interact on the job, each is projecting a public self-image (or face) to the other. The employees are driven by two particular wants (Brown & Levinson, 1978) – the want to be unimpeded (negative face) and the want to be approved of in certain respects (positive face). Everyone has these wants, and every other person they interact with knows that they have these wants. Brown and Levinson argued that it’s in everyone’s mutual interest to maintain each other’s face. Thus, people come to expect that this equilibrium will be maintained and that their interactions with others will likely be neutral or pleasant (Goffman, 1959). However, there are sometimes face-threatening acts that send the system into a disequilibrium. One employee’s opinions or actions may appear to another employee to be either threatening his or her self-image or threatening to interrupt or block that person’s actions. The threatened employee experiences heightened physiological arousal (e.g., Clore & Gormly, 1974), which generates a preliminary negative affective judgment of the threatening employee. Because this negative event is relatively rare and unexpected, the threatened employee increases his or her 12 cognitive scanning of the threatening employee. Attention is narrowed to focus on the negative information because it is viewed as unambiguous and more diagnostic in determining whether the face-threatening act is intentional or unintentional, and therefore whether the threatening person is someone to be disliked (e.g., Skowronski & Carlston, 1989). As Earley (1997: 70) noted: “People are often concerned more with the avoidance of losing face than with gaining it, and a loss of face has a stronger impact on people’s perceptions of a person.” If the threatening person undertakes corrective actions to repair any damage to face after it has occurred (Goffman, 1959), the incident may be ignored. The threatened party may also discount a particular negative episode by attributing the behavior to external causes. Likewise, the threatened individual may go out of his way to overcome the negative affect caused by any one encounter. However, if corrective actions are not undertaken, the threatened person will create a negative affective judgment of the threatening person, ultimately resulting in a negative relationship. The strong physiological, affective, and cognitive response to the threatening person creates negative expectations for their future interactions (see Fiske & Taylor, 1991, for a review). This cognitive bias makes it more likely that future interactions will be viewed negatively, thus confirming and maintaining the negative view or dislike (e.g., Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978). Even a relatively neutral or potentially positive interaction may be interpreted negatively, reinforcing the dislike judgment. In anticipation of negative actions by the threatening person, the employee may strengthen and confirm the expectations by acting negatively toward that person, thereby eliciting further negative actions by the other person (e.g., Curtis & Miller, 1986). 13 Beyond the dyadic relationship Dyadic encounters do not occur in isolation; they occur within a network of relationships. For example, information about the threatening person can be transmitted to the employee via others (third-parties). We expect that when a negative interaction occurs, the threatened employee will perceive and even seek out more negative information about the threatening person from third parties. This is done to confirm his or her negative expectations and to seek social support in dealing with the threatening person. Reciprocally, third parties who know about the employee’s dislike of the threatening person are more likely to confirm that social judgment by passing on negative gossip about the threatening person to the employee (Burt & Knez, 1995, 1996). Friendships grow stronger when there is an increase in the feeling that two people share a common frame of reference (Hays, 1988). Identification of common negative feelings toward the same person helps solidify that common frame of reference and strengthen the relationship between those gossiping. Even in the situation where the employee does not know or directly interact with the threatening employee, negative social judgments may occur based on negative gossip from a third party. Information from negative gossip is more closely attended to because it is more diagnostic than positive information in determining interpersonal judgments (e.g., Birnbaum, 1974; Fiske, 1980). Once the employee has a negative affective judgment about another person, the employee may also form negative judgments about that person’s friends. Kilduff and Krackhardt (1994) showed that public association with a highly reputable person could enhance an individual’s reputation (“basking in the reflected glory”). Conversely, association with a disreputable person may lead to “guilt by association.” One possible mechanism behind such an effect is the stress 14 toward balance. If you dislike another person, your judgment of that person’s friends should tend to be negative (e.g., Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1961). Although Kilduff and Krackhardt were studying reputation, we expect similar results in the study of interpersonal affect. Dislike may spread to others in an organization in a manner similar to the spread of conflict. For example, Smith (1989) found the conflict between two persons spread as each solicited support for his or her point of view from others in the organization. Similarly, negative dyadic relationships may become negative intergroup relationships, amplified by typical ingroup/out-group biases as more people become involved. For example, Labianca, et al. (1998) found that negative dyadic relationships and third parties increase perceptions of intergroup conflict. If left unchecked, the result can be two large opposing camps of employees who dislike each other. Such a situation will likely interfere with task accomplishment and organizational performance. We do not mean to suggest that all negative relationships develop in the above manner or that every negative relationship escalates into intergroup hostility. We can think of people that we disliked at first, but who eventually developed into friends. However, the process outlined above is not atypical of what occurs in many relationships, especially those within the workplace. The workplace offers an environment where the degree of threat to an individual from a negative relationship can be greater than in other settings. Negative relationships in the work setting can be a major threat to one’s financial livelihood and emotional well-being. Unlike non-work situations, required workflow and hierarchical responsibilities may make it particularly difficult to avoid interacting with disliked others. 15 ANTECEDENTS In this section, we turn our focus to describing factors that affect the formation of negative relationships in organizations. The initial formation of a friendship occurs when various personal factors (e.g., loneliness, martial status, social skills, competence), dyadic factors (physical attractiveness, similarity in attitudes, behavioral preferences, and/or demographics), and situational factors (e.g., physical proximity, job and workplace design, time schedules) converge (see Hays, 1988 for a review). Although negative relationships may involve similar factors, we do not assume that the formation of negative relationships is merely the opposite of friendship formation. Rather, different factors may be differentially weighted in making a negative interpersonal judgment, as opposed to a positive one. For example, whereas physical attractiveness may play a larger role in explaining interpersonal attraction, it may play a relatively minor role in explaining the formation of negative relationships. Below we present some individual (personality), dyadic (similarity in demographic characteristics and status differences, multiplexity), and situational factors (network and organizational context) that may affect the development of negative relationships in an organization. These factors are not meant to be comprehensive, but are intended to illustrate how a variety of levels of analyses must be studied in order to understand negative relationships at work. Individual level Personality. Although the structural perspective in most social network analyses ignores individual characteristics, personality traits may affect the composition of one’s social network (cf., Kilduff, 1992). Recent theoretical work on the structure of personality has converged around a five-factor model (Digman, 1990; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1989). Of those five factors, we 16 focus on negative affectivity (neuroticism) because it is the most theoretically relevant negative affect-based personality factor. Negative affectivity (NA) is defined as a mood-dispositional dimension that reflects pervasive individual differences in negative emotionality and self-concept (Watson and Clark, 1984). High-NA individuals tend to be distressed, upset, have a negative view of self and are generally dissatisfied with life, whereas Low-NA individuals are content, secure, and generally satisfied with themselves and their lives. High-NA individuals tend to focus on the negative side of others and the world in general. Negative affectivity may affect attitudes and emotions (and negative relationships) in two ways (McCrae & Costa, 1991; Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995). First, because high NA employees tend to dwell on failures and shortcomings, they “may act in ways that alienate their co-workers, resulting in more negative interpersonal interactions,” (Brief, Butcher, and Roberson, 1995: 56). Second, high NA individuals may be more sensitive to negative stimuli, and may react with more extreme emotion when experiencing a negative event (McCrae and Costa, 1991; Brief et al, 1995), thus precipitating negative relationships. Proposition 1: High NA individuals will have more negative relationships than low NA individuals. Dyadic level Similarity in demographic characteristics. The effects of demographic diversity in organizations are likely to be more intense when an attribute or social category is underrepresented in a given group or organization (Kanter, 1977), and when those characteristics are more visible and salient under most circumstances (e.g., Pelled, 1996; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Attributes that 17 are readily visible, such as race and gender, are more likely to be used for categorization, and we expect them to have an impact on the frequency of negative relationships. Although negative relationships have not been addressed directly in these studies, social network researchers have found that women and minorities have fewer work-related friendships than white males (Lincoln & Miller, 1979), that they are forced to rely on a greater number of different people in order to satisfy their instrumental and socioemotional needs (e.g., Ibarra, 1995), and that they have fewer connections to those in powerful positions within the organization (Brass, 1985; McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). While blatant discrimination may no longer be tolerated in modern organizations, subtler forms of discrimination and intergroup conflict still take place (Brief, 1998; Brief & Hayes, 1997), and may result in women and minorities having a higher number of negative relationships in organizations. Proposition 2: Women and minority employees will have a larger number of negative relationships than white or male employees. Status differences. Job-related characteristics such as organizational level may also be very salient and are likely to be positively related to negative ties. For example, we expect that a disproportionate number of negative ties will be from lower-level employees to higher-level employees because the higher level employees often have the authority to thwart the lower employees’ goals (e.g., Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939) or create some other type of face threatening act. Proposition 3: A disproportionate number of negative relationships will be from lower-level employees to higher-level employees. 18 Organizational and network context Density and interdependence. In a high-density network (e.g., where most actors know and interact with most other actors), it may be difficult for an employee to engage in self-serving, normdefying, or face-threatening behavior that might be detrimental or threatening to the other members of the group because that person’s actions are monitored and sanctioned by the other network members. The network’s high density allows for greater monitoring. Similarily, Coleman (1988, 1990) argued that high density networks (high “closure” networks) encourage three forms of social capital: mutual obligations, trustworthiness, and the existence of norms and sanctions. In addition, we suggest that networks with high task interdependence will produce similar effects. Because of the greater potential disruptions to the network as a whole, members of highly interdependent networks will exercise greater pressure to prevent negative relationships and to resolve them quickly if they do occur. We, therefore, expect that density and task interdependence will be negatively associated with the frequency of negative relationships. Proposition 4: Negative relationships will be less frequent when the overall network is relatively dense and there is a high level of task interdependence. Organizational context. Other organizational-level variables may also affect the frequency of negative relationships. For example, an organizational climate or culture that focuses on competition rather than cooperation (either between individuals or between groups) may encourage the formation of negative relationships, particularly between peers in competition for the same resources. This is especially true if the reward systems are set up in a win-lose fashion, because it will make the potential threat to one’s goals more salient to the organizational members (see Thomas, 1992, for a discussion). Also, cultures that are stability and direction-oriented, such as 19 mission and consistency cultures (Denison & Mishra, 1995), may produce fewer negative relationships because of greater normative integration. The lack of strong, positive ties across departments may exacerbate ingroup/outgroup biases that may encourage the formation of negative relationships at the dyadic level. For example, Nelson (1989) found that high-conflict organizations had fewer cross-departmental friendships. The combination of these two factors – an organizational culture or climate that promotes competition and the lack of strong, positive ties across groups – may lead to a high frequency of negative relationships. Proposition 5: Negative relationships will be more frequent where the organizational culture encourages competition between individuals or groups and when there are few strong, positive intergroup relationships. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS In this section we consider the consequences of negative relationships by illustrating how the negative asymmetry hypothesis can be applied to commonly studied work attitudes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment), behaviors (absenteeism and turnover), and workplace outcomes (stress, power, and promotion and income attainment). We argue that negative relationships will be more strongly related to these attitudes, behaviors and outcomes than will positive relationships. In the next section, we will qualify this general negative asymmetry argument by looking at moderating variables that might determine when the negative asymmetry between workplace relationships and these workplace attitudes, behaviors and outcomes is likely to occur. 20 Job attitudes Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is one of the most-researched attitudes in organizations (Brief, 1998) and is considered a main attitudinal component of organizational attachment (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). The quality of one’s interpersonal relationships at work is an important factor in job satisfaction (e.g., Crosby, 1982) and is considered one of the basic needs that is fulfilled through work (e.g., Maslow, 1943). Self-report assessments of job satisfaction such as the Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) ask respondents to assess their overall satisfaction with their social relationships (e.g., co-workers and supervisors) often without separating out the effects of negative and positive relationships on this evaluation. This approach may obscure a finer-grained understanding of the relationship between social relationships and job satisfaction. Negative relationships may have a disproportionately greater effect on job satisfaction than do positive relationships in much the same way that they’ve been found to have a greater effect on overall life satisfaction (e.g., Rook, 1984; Brenner, Norvell, & Limacher, 1989). Particularly in the workplace, where interactions often cannot be avoided and where the stakes can be very high, negative relationships can be so threatening, create so much physiological and cognitive activity, and can be so stressful (Taylor, 1991), that they may have a more profound effect on job satisfaction than positive relationships. The failure to investigate negative relationships in addition to positive or neutral relationships may explain the equivocal findings of social network researchers who have attempted to relate one’s network position in an organization with job satisfaction. Early laboratory studies of small groups found that central actors were more satisfied than peripheral actors (see Shaw, 1964, for a review). However, Brass (1981) found no relationship between being central to an 21 organization’s workflow network and job satisfaction, and Kilduff and Krackhardt (1993) found that high betweenness centrality in a friendship network was negatively related to job satisfaction. Investigating negative relationships in addition to positive relationships might help to resolve these equivocal findings. For example, if being highly central in a network also increases the number of negative affective relationships an employee accumulates, including negative relationships may explain some of the inconsistent findings, particularly if negative asymmetry holds true. Proposition 6: An employee’s negative ties will be more strongly related to job satisfaction than that employee’s positive relationships. Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment refers to employees’ internalization of the company’s goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the firm, and a desire to remain a member, and has often been conceptualized as having three components: affective, continuance, and normative commitment (see Mathieu & Zajac, 1990, for a review; Meyer & Allen, 1984; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). Social relationships are considered most strongly related to affective (or “cohesion”) commitment (e.g., Kanter, 1968). We propose that constructs as diffuse as the company’s goals and values are embedded in the actions of its members (Schneider, 1983, 1987), and one’s relationships with those members will affect one’s acceptance of those goals and values. This follows from Reichers’ (1985) conceptualization of organizational commitment as commitment to the multiple constituencies (e.g., co-workers, top managers) that constitute the organization in the employee’s mind. Thus, for example, researchers have found that new members join religious groups because of positive ties with current members, and then adopt the goals and values of that group, rather than vice versa 22 (e.g., Williams, 1994). Yoon, Baker, and Ko (1994) found that interpersonal attachment to those in different hierarchical levels is positively related to organizational commitment. While little social network research has looked at organizational commitment, Roberts and O’Reilly (1979) found that persons who were relatively isolated in the organization’s communication network were less committed than those with two or more links. Similarly, the development of negative relationships with others in the organization, particularly those above them in the hierarchy, may reduce the employee’s desire to remain a member and exert considerable effort on behalf of the firm. Because those in higher levels of an organization may be viewed as exemplars of what the organization values (Schneider, 1983, 1987), a disliked person in a high level position may be reason to reject the company’s goals and values. The disliked high level employee may be viewed as a symbol of what the organization and its members value, or his or her promotion may be viewed as an unfair distributive outcome, thereby decreasing employees’ commitment to the organization (cf., Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998). Because these negative actions and outcomes will tend to dominate what employees perceive and think about (Taylor, 1991), and what they gossip about with others (Burt & Knez, 1995, 1996), we expect that a negative asymmetry will apply to organizational commitment5. Proposition 7: An employee’s negative relationships (especially with hierarchical superiors) will be more strongly related to affective organizational commitment than an employee’s positive relationships. Job-related behaviors Social psychological research has generally established that there is a weak relationship between attitudes and their subsequent behaviors (see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, for a review). 23 However, various attitude qualities, such as attitude strength, certainty, clarity and extremity, as well as the degree of threat to the individual’s outcomes and self-interest have been show to increase the magnitude of the attitude-behavior relationship significantly (Boninger, Krosnick, & Berent, 1995; Petty & Krosnick, 1993; Raden, 1985). Thus, we expect that negative interpersonal attitudes and relationships, because they are more extreme, unambiguous, and threatening to the individual, will be more strongly related to job behaviors than positive ones. In the extreme case, negative affect may result in physical harm. However, we focus on more typical behaviors, such as turnover and absenteeism because they are considered the behavioral manifestations of affective organizational attachment (job satisfaction and organizational commitment) (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). According to the Mobley framework, job satisfaction and the probability of finding acceptable job alternatives lead to thoughts of quitting, which in turn lead to the intention to search for a new job and then the intention to quit (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978; Hom, Caranikas-Walder, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992). Ultimately, this leads to the employee’s volitional departure from the organization. We argue that negative relationships lead to job dissatisfaction, which in turn leads to withdrawal cognitions, and eventually to turnover and absenteeism. Negative relationships with those higher in the hierarchy may be more likely to lead to job dissatisfaction and withdrawal, and will be more difficult to resolve because of status differences. The negative job attitudes generated by negative relationships will be stronger than the counterbalancing positive job attitudes generated by positive relationships. Ultimately, we expect to see a stronger attitude-behavior relationship where negative ties are 24 present, resulting in greater explanation of turnover and absenteeism than we would see from only studying positive relationships. Proposition 8: An employee’s negative relationships (especially with hierarchical superiors) will be more strongly related to turnover and absenteeism than that employee’s positive relationships. Career and job consequences In this section, we turn to a discussion of the consequences of negative ties for individuals. We illustrate how the negative asymmetry hypothesis can be applied at the physiological and cognitive level (e.g, stress), at the individual level (e.g, performance, promotion and income attainment), and at the relational level (e.g., power). Stress. Negative social relationships in organizations can be considered chronic strains because of their recurring nature. Because the organizations’ hierarchy and workflow requirements often make it difficult to minimize these relationships, they place persistent demands on an individual to readjust behavior patterns and to deal with the associated emotional arousal, i.e., they create a great deal of stress (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Thoits, 1995). Many of the physiological reactions to negative relationships are similar to those typically classified as stress (Taylor, 1991). While social support researchers have found that, in general, positive social relationships reduce stress (see Thoits, 1995, for a review), there has been little research on the nature of one’s network at work and work-related stress. Although we expect that large networks full of friends may be beneficial in avoiding or reducing stress (cf., Lin & Westcott, 1991), we propose that the number of negative relationships one has within the organization will be positively related to both 25 physiological and cognitive manifestations of stress. Based on the negative asymmetry argument we propose the following: Proposition 9: An employee’s negative ties will be more strongly related to workplace stress than the employee’s positive relationships. Performance, Promotion and Income Attainment. Numerous sociological studies have noted the importance of social resources in job seeking and status and income attainment in one’s career (Boxman, DeGraaf, & Flap, 1991; Bridges & Villemez, 1986; Campbell, Marsden & Hurlbert, 1988; DeGraaf & Flap, 1988; Granovetter, 1973, 1974; Lin & Dumin, 1986; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981; Lin, Vaughn, & Ensel, 1981; Marsden & Hurlbert, 1988; Requena, 1991; Wegener, 1991). Despite some contradictory findings, overall it appears that high-prestige persons gain benefits from both close, frequent, emotionally-involving relationships (strong ties) as well as weaker, more transient and less emotionally-involving relationships (weak ties), but low-prestige persons gain benefits mainly from weak ties. This research has only considered strong and weak positive relationships, which are assumed to provide critical information, mentorship, and good references that both enhance performance and eventually lead to promotion. However, one’s negative relationships within the organization may be a stronger predictor of one’s performance and eventual promotion, particularly if those negative relationships are with influential people. The people may withhold critical information or resources that worsens one’s performance in the short-term and may prevent promotion in the long-term. Negative relationships, particularly those with your supervisor (the rater) or with a close friend of the supervisor, will most likely affect subjective performance ratings 26 most directly. But we also expect that negative relationships, including those outside your department or with peers, will negatively affect objective performance as well. Proposition 10: An employee’s negative ties will be more strongly related to performance, promotion, and income attainment than an employee’s positive relationships. Power. Power is often conceived of as the ability of a person to overcome social resistance to achieve a desired result (e.g., House, 1988; Pfeffer, 1981). Social network researchers have found that centrality in friendship and communication networks is related to power in organizations (see Brass, 1995, for a review). Connections to friends and indirect connections to friends of friends is related to one’s power because of the possible assistance and information that these connections may provide. However, it is likely that one’s enemies and friends of those enemies may also determine the amount of power one holds in an organization. Enemies might actively attempt to thwart one’s efforts in the organization, or withhold important information in the hope of diminishing one’s power. This is especially true if the negative tie is to a hierarchical superior who has more power to potentially thwart an employee and actively keep an employee out of an important information “loop” because of a negative affective relationship. Proposition 10: An employee’s negative ties (especially to hierarchical superiors) will be more strongly related to power than that employee’s positive relationships. MODERATORS In this section, we develop a contingency argument that recognizes that there will be circumstances where positive relationships may have a greater impact than negative relationships, and vice versa. This section focuses on situational (network-level variables) and dyadic 27 (demographics and relative hierarchical status) factors that may affect the impact of negative relationships in networks. Network moderators We argued that when the overall network is relatively dense and there is a high level of task interdependence, there are likely to be fewer negative relationships because it is easier to monitor and sanction someone who is breaking norms or acting in a threatening manner. But this same situation can magnify the effects of negative relationships if the social pressures against the negative tie break down. If a negative affective relationship develops between two employees in a dense network, several third parties may be quickly drawn into the negative experience and conflicting sub-groups may form (Smith, 1989). Thus, the reverberations from the negative relationship will be felt through a dense network more quickly and to a greater degree than a sparse network with fewer connections. By contrast, where these conditions do not exist, negative relationships may have little impact. For example, the literature on job seeking has focused exclusively on positive and neutral relationships and their utility in obtaining a job (e.g., Granovetter, 1973; Lin & Dumin, 1986). Because most of the job hunting studied by researchers occurs in relatively sparse networks, negative relationships developed in one organization will often have little impact on being hired by another organization. This is an example of a research arena where we expect negative ties to play only a minor role. Proposition 12: Negative relationships will have a greater negative impact when the overall network is relatively dense and/or there is a high level of task interdependence. 28 Dyadic moderators Demographics and career and socioemotional outcomes. Researchers have increasingly noted that women’s and minorities’ formal and informal networks in the workplace are related to differential career and socioemotional outcomes (e.g., Brass, 1985; Burt, 1992; Ibarra, 1993; Jackson, Stone, & Alvarez, 1993). For example, Burt (1992) found that white males were promoted more rapidly when their networks contained bridging ties to diverse groups in the organization. However, females were promoted more rapidly when their networks contained strong ties to influential others, typical of mentor relationships. In another example, the tendency for people to have relationships with similar others (homophily) has been found to have detrimental effects on women’s promotions because of a lack of connections to influential members of the organization, who generally tend to be male (Brass, 1985). Negative relationships may also have a differential impact on females or racial minorities. For example, Kanter (1977) argued that any negative information about minorities is weighted more heavily against them because it is seen as confirming pre-existing negative stereotypes. In the same manner, we expect that negative relationships and negative gossip will be more detrimental to women and minorities than to white males in terms of performance appraisal and eventual promotion. Proposition 13: Negative relationships will have a greater negative impact on women and minorities than on males and whites. Relative status. We propose that the relative hierarchical position of those to whom one is negatively tied will moderate the relationship between negative ties and the dependent variables. We have noted several examples in the previous hypotheses. We expect that negative relationships 29 with those higher in the hierarchy will intensify stress, job dissatisfaction, lack of organizational commitment, turnover, and absence. For example, supervisor support has been found to be more strongly associated with job satisfaction than has coworker support (e.g., Repetti & Cosmas, 1991). Likewise, contacts with supervisors have been found to be a major determinant of power and promotion in organizations (Brass, 1984). Higher-level individuals have more power to potentially thwart a promotion or substantially reduce an individual’s influence in the organization. We also expect that the previously proposed indirect effects may be more predictive when they involve high-status positions. For example, career success may be hampered when your immediate supervisor has a negative relationship with a higher-level manager. Outside of the formal hierarchy, people might find that direct and indirect negative ties with individuals who are in central positions in the informal social hierarchy to be a major threat, because these individuals could potentially mobilize greater social resources against a person they dislike. Proposition 14: The relative formal and informal status of those to whom one is negatively tied will moderate the relationship between negative ties and their consequences. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Although our hypotheses refer to the number of negative relationships in one’s network, this may not be as important as the presence or absence of a single negative relationship. In other words, negative relationships may exhibit a category boundary effect. Range theories predict that one piece of information biases impression formation, but additional pieces of negative information may have no additive effect (Birnbaum, 1972; Wyer, 1973, 1974). For example, the major negative effect on job satisfaction may be determined by whether a single negative relationship is present at work, rather the total number of negative relationships. Brenner, et al.’s (1989) study of 30 supportive and problematic interactions among second-year medical students found that the presence of at least one individual who consistently provoked negative feelings among the respondents was most predictive of lower life satisfaction. It is also possible that the total number of negative relationships may not be as important as the ratio of negative relationships to the overall size of one’s network. This ratio type variable may be more predictive of outcomes if positive relationships are able to counteract the effects of a negative relationship. In addition, it is important to note that measuring negative relationships in work organizations may be difficult. As noted by White: “Managers in [Company A] were loath explicitly to indicate various kinds of clearly negative feelings for a colleague (1961: 194).” This reticence has led some researchers to ask about negative relationships using related terminology like “who do you prefer to avoid” (e.g., Labianca, et al, 1998) or “with whom do you have an adversarial or difficult” relationship (e.g., Baldwin, et al, 1997). But the validity of these measures is open to interpretation. For example, you may prefer to avoid co-workers that you like because you can’t get any work done they are present. We urge the use of measures with greater face validity. Measuring negative relationships also requires attention to prior debates on continuum (bipolar) and bivariate (orthogonal) approaches to measuring positive and negative attitudes and emotions (see Barrett & Russell, 1998; Cacioppo, Gardner, & Bernston, 1997, for a discussion). Underlying the orthogonal approach is the assumption that every relationship contains both positive and negative aspects, that these aspects are independent, and should therefore be measured independently (e.g., Rook, 1984). The continuum approach (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1969; Newcomb, 1961; Tagiuri, 1958) acknowledges that all personal relationships 31 have both positive and negative aspects, but adds the assumption that people form a global bipolar judgment of others that can be captured by such terms as “like” and “dislike” that are on opposite ends of a continuum. The most recent work on attitudes and emotions (Barrett & Russell, 1998; Cacioppo, et al., 1997) has sought to create a rapprochement between the two sides by recognizing that there are aspects of affect that should be conceptualized and measured in an orthogonal fashion, while there are other aspects that are on a continuum. When one is describing the underlying physical and motivational “paths” of affect, an orthogonal (bivariate) approach is more appropriate. Thus, we expect that negative aspects of persons we meet will be captured differently in our minds than positive aspects of persons. But when it comes to conceptually organizing our thoughts about a person, we tend to default towards a continuum (bipolar) approach. Thus, dichotomies such as “like” and “dislike” are meaningful and appropriate. This continuum/orthogonal debate is an area that needs more research, specifically as it relates to interpersonal affect and judgments in organizations. It is also likely that the history of the relationship will affect the impact of negative ties. For example, there may be a “spurned lover” effect – that is, a relationship where one person really wanted to forge a friendship but was spurned by the other may create a highly negative relationship with a great deal of social liability. Another possibility may come from investigating relationships that were previously positive, but that have subsequently turned negative. Positive relationships often involve a great degree of trust and vulnerability which, when violated, may create an extremely negative affective response (cf., Jones & Burdette, 1994; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). 32 CONCLUSIONS This paper attempts to move beyond the exclusive consideration of positive relationships to a more general consideration of individuals’ social ledgers -- the effects of both positive and negative affective relationships in organizations. The relative lack of research on negative relationships leaves a great deal of work to be done in this area. To date, the practical implications of social network research on individuals’ career management have focused only on positive or neutral ties in building larger and more diverse networks (e.g., Baker, 1994). For example, Burt (1992) argued that persons who were able to bridge diverse groups that had little or no interaction would gain large benefits by virtue of their ability to bring information from one group to the other. These persons can act as entrepreneurs, exploiting what he labeled “structural holes” and bringing together disparate information from the two groups to create a new synergy. The structural holes argument is limited to thinking about holes in a structure arising from the lack of connections between two groups. By expanding the social ledger we consider the possibility of structural holes that arise due to negative ties between members of two groups -ties that limit the interaction and information flow between the groups. Individuals attempting to broker this negative-tie structural hole may find more conflict than synergy; mediation skills may be more useful than brokering or entrepreneurial skills. Awareness of negative relationships between individuals or groups may also prove to be a source of power in organizations, just as awareness of positive relationships has been found to be related to power (Krackhardt, 1990). Knowing one’s enemies may be as important, or more important, than knowing one’s friends. Although we have emphasized the role of negative relationships, we do not mean to imply that positive relationships are not beneficial or important. Indeed, much of social network research 33 suggests that they are important. However, our review of theory and research suggests that negative relationships may be more important than positive relationships in explaining various outcomes of interest to organizational researchers, especially in dense social structures with high work interdependence -- conditions that characterize many organizations. 34 ENDNOTES 1. Social capital is a broad, multi-level term. It has been described as an attribute of nations and geographic regions (Fukuyama, 1995), communities (Putnam, 1995), and organizations (Leana & Buren, 1999). Our definition focuses on individuals’ positions within a social network and their potential ability to improve their own outcomes, as well as those of their group, because of their social contacts (Burt, 1992, 1997; Coleman, 1988, 1990). 2. Social exchange theorists (e.g., Emerson, 1972) define negative ties differently. They view a negative tie from a resource dependence perspective -- if you occupy a position that person B can easily bypass to get a needed resource, then you have a negative tie with person B. Our definition of negative ties, however, is an affective judgment of another person, without regard to the relative dependence of that person on you for resources. 3. Attitudes towards others have historically been a broad construct used to denote cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of a relationship (Staw & Barsade, 1993). Using this definition, one’s attitudes toward his or her co-workers could include a set of beliefs about them, affective reactions to them, and behavioral intentions towards them. However, it is difficult to know where the attitudinal construct leaves off and behavior begins (Staw & Barsade, 1993). As a result, many researchers have followed Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) recommendation that cognition, affect, and behavior be separated as much as possible and that attitudes primarily reflect the affective component of the person-object relationship. Thus, we focus on affect in our definition of a negative relationship. 4. Other researchers have described the “dark side” of social capital as opportunity costs (e.g., Gargiulo & Benassi, 1999; Leana & Van Buren, 1999). It is important to note that we focus on 35 the social liabilities created by negative relationships rather than the opportunity costs of building positive relationships or social capital. As Granovetter (1985) noted, the obligations and expectations of strong, positive, long-lasting relationships may prevent a person from realizing greater economic opportunities by constraining the search for, and development of new trading partners. Thus, there may be “opportunity costs” and tradeoffs associated with building positive relationships and social capital. We have chosen to focus on recurring negative affective relationships. These do not represent lost opportunities, or the indirect cost of accruing social capital by having some positive relationships rather than other positive relationships, or pursuing weak ties rather than strong ties. Rather, they are the potential liabilities or hindrances that result from negative relationships. 5. Because continuance commitment is mainly an evaluative judgment of whether the employee has enough “side bets” in place outside the organization in order to risk leaving the organization, we do not expect to see a negative asymmetry effect on continuance commitment that is based on social relationships within the organization. However, if research is being conducted on a small community (e.g., a small professional community of researchers), it may be possible that a negative asymmetry may exist with continuance commitment as well. If a researcher has a number of negative ties in the small community, this may limit his or her side bets in that community. 36 REFERENCES Altman, I., & Taylor, D.A. 1973. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Baker, W.E. 1994. Networking smart: How to build relationships for personal and organizational success. NY: McGraw-Hill. Baldwin, T.T., Bedell, M.D., & Johnson, J.L. 1997. The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1369-1397. Barrett, L., & Russell, J.A. 1998 Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 967-984. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E.H. 1969. Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E.H. 1978. Interpersonal attraction, second edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Birnbaum, M.H. 1972. Morality judgments: Tests of an averaging model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93: 35-42. Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. 1995. Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination: The impact of stimulus valence and size and status differentials on intergroup evaluations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34: 409-419. Boninger, D.S., Krosnick, J.A., & Berent, M.K., Fabrigar, L.R. 1995. The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In R.E. Petty, & J.A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Boxman, E.A.W., DeGraaf, P.M., & Flap, H.D. 1991. The impact of social and human capital on the income attainment of Dutch managers. Social Networks, 13: 51-73. Brass, D.J. 1981. Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 331-348. Brass, D.J. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 518-539. Brass, D.J. 1985. Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 327-343. 37 Brass, D.J. 1995. A social network perspective on human resources management. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 39-79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Brenner, G.F., Norvell, N.K., Limacher, M. 1989. Supportive and problematic social interactions: A social network analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17: 831-836. Bridges, W.P., & Villemez, W.J. 1986. Informal hiring and income in the labor market. American Sociological Review, 51: 574-582. Brief, A.P. 1998. Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brief, A.P., Butcher, A.H., & Roberson, L. 1995. Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62: 55-62. Brief, A.P., & Hayes, E.L. 1997. The continuing ‘American dilemma:’ Studying racism in organization. In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior, 4. London: Wiley & Sons. Broadbent, D.E. 1971. Decision and stress. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. 1978. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press. Burdick, H.A., & Burnes, A.J. 1958. A test of “strain toward symmetry” theories. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57: 367-370. Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R.S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339-365. Burt, R.S., & Knez, M. 1995. Kinds of third-party effects on trust. Rationality and Society, 7: 255-292. Burt, R.S., & Knez, M. 1996. Trust and third-party gossip. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L., & Bernston, G.G. 1997. The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 839-855. 38 Campbell, K.E., Marsden, P.V., & Hurlbert, J.S. 1986. Social resources and socioeconomic status. Social Networks, 8: 97-117. Cannon, W.B. 1932. The wisdom of the body. New York, NY: Norton. Clore, G.L., & Gormly, J.B. 1974. Knowing, feeling, and liking: A psychophysiological study of attraction. Journal of Research in Personality, 8: 218-230. Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-S120. Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard University Press. Crosby, F. 1982. Relative deprivation and working women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Curtis, R.C., & Miller, K. 1986. Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 284-290. Czapinski, J., & Peeters, G. 1990. “Cold” and “hot” explanations of the negativity effect. Unpublished manuscript. DeGraaf, N.D., & Flap, H.D. 1988. “With a little help from my friends”: Social resources as an explanation of occupational status and income in West Germany, The Netherlands, and the United States. Social Forces, 67: 452-472. Denison, D.R., & Mishra, A.K. 1995. Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6: 204-223. Dickson, H.W., & McGinnies, E. 1966. Affectivity in the arousal of attitudes as measured by galvanic skin response. American Journal of Psychology, 79: 584-589. Digman, J.M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 417-440. Dollard, J., Miller, N.E., Doob, L.W., Mowrer, O.H., & Sears, R.R. 1939. Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Earley, C.P. 1997. Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of organizational behavior across cultures. NY: Oxford University Press. 39 Easterbrook, J.A. 1959. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66: 183-201. Emerson, R.M. 1972. Exchange theory, part II: Exchange relations and network structures. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, Jr., & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress, 58-87. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Eysenck, M.W. 1976. Arousal, learning, and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83: 389-404. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. 1950. Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. NY: Harper. Finch, J.F., Okun, M.A., Barrera, M., Jr., Zautra, A.J., & Reich, J.W. 1989. Positive and negative social ties among older adults: Measurement models and the prediction of psychological distress and well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17: 585-605. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske, S.T. 1980. Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 889-906. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. 1984. Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. 1991. Social cognition, second edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Fukuyama, F. 1995. Social capital and the global economy. Foreign Affairs, 5: 89-103. Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. 1999. The dark side of social capital. In S. Gabbay & R. Leenders (Eds.), Corporate social capital and social liability. Boston: Kluwer. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Gormly, J. 1971. Sociobehavioral and physiological responses to interpersonal disagreement. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 5: 216-222. Gormly, J. 1974. A comparison of predictions from consistency and affect theories for arousal during interpersonal disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 658663. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. 1974. Getting a job. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 40 Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510. Hays, R.B. 1988. Friendship. In S. Duck, D.F. Hay, S.E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B.M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions. Chichester, England: Wiley. Helson, H. 1964. Adaptation-level theory. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Heider, F. 1958. Perceiving the other person. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hirsch, B.J., & Rapkin, B.D. 1986. Social networks and adult social identities: Profiles and correlates of support and rejection. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14: 395412. Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, R.H. 1967. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11: 213-218. Hom, P.W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G.E., & Griffeth, R.W. 1992. A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 890-909. Homans, G.C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. House, R.J. 1988. Power and personality in complex organizations. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 10: 305-357. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ibarra, H. 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18: 56-87. Ibarra, H. 1995. Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 673-703. Jackson, S.E., Stone, V.K., & Alvarez, E.B. 1993. Socialization amidst diversity: The impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 15: 45-109. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Jehn, K.A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256-282. 41 Jehn, K.A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 530-557. John, O.P. 1989. Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. 1965. From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 2: 219-266. Jones, E.E., & McGillis, D. 1976. Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research, 1: 390-420. Jones, W., & Burdette, M.P. 1994. Betrayal in relationships. In A. Weber & J. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships: 243-262. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39: 341-350. Kanouse, D.E., & Hanson, L.R., Jr. 1972. Negativity in evaluations. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior: 47-62. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Kanter, R.M. 1968. Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33: 477-507. Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kilduff, M. 1992. The friendship network as a decision-making resource: Dispositional moderators of social influences on organizational choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62: 168-180. Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. 1993. Schemas at work: Making sense of organizational relationships. Unpublished manuscript. Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. 1994. Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 87108. Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342-369. 42 Labianca, G. 1998. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Labianca, G., Brass, D.J., & Gray, B. 1998. Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 55-67. Leana, C.R., & Van Buren, H.J. III. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24: 538-555. LeDoux, J. 1996. The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. NY: Simon & Schuster. Lee, T.W., & Mitchell, T.R. 1994. Organizational attachment: Attitudes and actions. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lin, N., & Dumin, M. 1986. Access to occupations through social ties. Social Networks, 8: 365-385. Lin, N., Ensel, W.M., Vaughn, J.C. 1981. Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46: 393-405. Lin, N., Vaughn, J.C., & Ensel, W.M. 1981. Social resources and occupational status attainment. Social Forces, 59: 1163-1181. Lin, N., & Westcott, J. 1991. Marital engagement/disengagement, social networks, and mental health. In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping, 213-237. New York: Plenum. Lincoln, J.R., & Miller, J. 1979. Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 181-199. Mansour-Cole, D.M., & Scott, S.G. 1998. Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence of source, leader-relations, and legitimacy on survivors' fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 51: 25-54. Markus, H., & Zajonc, R.B. 1985. The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 1: Theory and Method. NY: Random House. Marsden, P.V., & Hurlbert, J.S. 1988. Social resources and mobility outcomes: A replication and extension. Social Forces, 66: 1038-1059. Maslow, A.H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50: 370-396. 43 Matlin, M.W., & Stang, D.J. 1978. The Pollyanna Principle: Selectivity in language, memory, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 171-194. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. 1989. Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57: 17-40. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. 1991. Adding Liebe and arbeit: The full five factor model and well-being. Bulletin of Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 227-232. McPherson, J.M., & Smith-Lovin, L. 1987. Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Journal of Sociology, 52: 370-379. Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. 1984. Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 372-378. Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H.H., & Meglino, B.M. 1979. Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 493-522. Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O., & Hollingsworth, A.T. 1978. An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 408-414. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. 1982. Employee organizations linkages. New York, NY: Academic Press. Mowday, R.T., Steers., R.M., & Porter, L.W. 1979. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247. Myers, J.K., Lindenthal, J.J., Pepper, M., & Ostrander, D.R. 1972. Life events and mental status: A longitudinal study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 13: 398-406. Nelson, R.E. 1989. The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 377-401. Newcomb, T. 1961. The acquaintance process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 44 Pagel, M.D., Erdly, W.W., & Becker, J. 1987. Social networks: We get by with (and in spite of) a little help from our friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 793-804. Paykel, E.S. 1974. Recent life events and clinical depression. In E.K. Gunderson & R.H. Rahe (Eds.), Life stress and illness. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. 1990. Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, 1: 33-60. Pelled, L.H. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7: 615-631. Petty, R.E., & Krosnick, J.A. (Eds.). 1993. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Piaget, J. 1932. The moral judgment of the child. London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Trubner. Putnam, R.D. 1995. Bowling alone, revisited. The Responsive Community: 18-33. Raden, D. 1985. Strength-related attitude dimensions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48: 312-330. Reeder, G.D., Henderson, D.J., & Sullivan, J.J. 1982. From dispositions to behaviors: The flip side of attribution. Journal of Research in Personality, 16: 355-375. Reeder, G.D., & Spores, J.M. 1983. The attribution of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44: 736-745. Reichers, A.E. 1985. A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10: 465-476. Repetti, R.L., & Cosmas, K.A. 1991. The quality of the social environment at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21: 840-854. Requena, F. 1991. Social resources and occupational status attainment in Spain: A cross-national comparison with the United States and the Netherlands. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 32: 233-242. Roberts, K.H., & O’Reilly, C.A. III. 1979. Some correlates of communication roles in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 22: 42-57. 45 Rook, K.S. 1984. The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 1097-1108. Rook, K.S. 1990. Parallels in the study of social support and social strain. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9: 118-132. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. 1978. Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3: 377-415. Schneider, B. 1983. Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 5: 1-31. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453. Schwarz, N. 1990. Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In R. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, 2: 527-561. Shaw, M.E. 1964. Communication networks. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 1: 111-147. New York: Academic Press. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. 1967. Attitudes as the individualÆs own categories: The social judgment approach to attitude change. In C.W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego involvement, and change, 105-139. New York, NY: Wiley. Skowronski, J.J., & Carlston, D.E. 1989. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105: 131-142. Smith, K.K. 1989. The movement of conflict in organizations: The joint dynamics of splitting and triangulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 1-20. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. 1969. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally. Staw, B.M., & Barsade, S.G. 1993. Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-butwiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 304-331. Steiner, I.D. 1966. The resolution of interpersonal disagreements. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 3: 195-240. Stephens, M.A.P., Kinney, J.M., Norris, V.K., & Ritchie, S.W. 1987. Social networks as assets and liabilities in recovery from stroke by geriatric patients. Psychology and Aging, 2: 125129. 46 Tagiuri, R. 1958. Social preference and its perception. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Taylor, S.E. 1991. Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilizationminimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110: 67-85. Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. 1959. The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Thoits, P.A. 1995. Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36: 53-79. Thomas, K.W. 1992. Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, second edition, 3: 651-717. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., & O'Reilly, C.A. 1992. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549-579. Vinokur, A., & Selzer, M. 1975. Desirable versus undesirable life events: Their relationship to stress and mental distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32: 329-337. Wall, J.A., & Callister, R.R. 1995. Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21: 515-558. Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. 1984. Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 465-490. Wegener, B. 1991. Job mobility and social ties: Social resources, prior job, and status attainment. American Sociological Review, 56: 60-71. White, H.C. 1961. Management conflict and sociometric structure. American Journal of Sociology, 67: 185-199. Williams, R.H. 1994. Movement dynamics and social change: Transforming fundamentalist ideology and organizations. In M.E. Marty & R.S. Appleby (Eds.), Accounting for fundamentalisms. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wiseman, J.P., & Duck, S. 1995. Having and managing enemies: A very challenging relationship. In S. Duck & J.T. Wood (Eds.), Confronting relationship challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 47 Wyer, R.S. 1973. Category ratings for “subjective expected values”: Implications for attitude formation and change. Psychological Review, 80: 446-467. Wyer, R.S. 1974. Cognitive organization and change: An information processing approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Yoon, J., Baker, M.R., & Ko, J.W. 1994. Interpersonal attachment and organizational commitment: Subgroup hypothesis revisited. Human Relations, 47: 329-351.