A Social Exchange Perspective of Employee–Organization Relationships and Employee Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: The Moderating Role of Individual Moral Identity
- 1.4k Downloads
Prior research on employee–organization relationships (EORs) has exclusively focused on the positive consequences of high-inducement EORs (i.e., mutual- and over-investment EORs). Drawing from social exchange theory , we develop a model theorizing employee unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) as one potential negative outcome of high-inducement EORs, as mediated by high-quality social exchange relationship between the employee and the employer. Empirical findings from two field studies provided convergent support to the mediation relationship between mutual-investment EORs and employee UPB via perceived social exchange. Moreover, the results in Study 2 further revealed that the relationship was less significant among employees with higher levels of moral identity, because the positive relationship between perceived social exchange and employee UPB was weakened by high moral identity. The theoretical and managerial implications were discussed.
KeywordsEmployee–organization relationships Unethical pro-organizational behavior Social exchange Moral identity
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71232001, 71671077, 71772072, 71772073) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (2662015PY027).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Matherne, C. F., III, & Litchfield, S. R. (2012). Investigating the relationship between affective commitment and unethical pro-organizational behaviors: The role of moral identity. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 9, 35–46.Google Scholar
- Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. In P. Z. Mark & M. O. James (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 115–155). Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees negotiate for themselves. New York: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
- Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Tsui, A., & Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer’s perspective: Current research and future directions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17, 77–114.Google Scholar
- Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–552.Google Scholar