The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance.

Abstract

This field study examines the joint effects of social exchange relationships at work (LMX:leader-member exchange and TMX: team-member exchange) and employee personality Existing research has demonstrated the importance of personality characteristics and social exchange relationships as predictors of task and citizenship performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991;Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990;Judge & Ilies, 2002;LePine & Van Dyne, 2001;Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). To date, however, consideration of personality characteristics and social exchange relationships as predictors of employee performance has been addressed in two predominantly separate literatures. Additionally, while teams are increasingly important in organizations (Ilgen, 1999) and the construct of team member exchange was introduced over fifteen years ago (Seers, 1989), we are aware of no research that simultaneously examines leader member exchange (LMX) and team member exchange (TMX) relationships as predictors of employee task and citizenship performance.Emphasizing the benefits of integrative research that simultaneously considers personality and social exchange predictors of performance, this field study has two primary purposes. First, we develop and test theoretical arguments that two personality characteristics (conscientiousness and agreeableness) and two social exchange relationships (LMX and TMX) interact to predict task performance and helping behavior of professionals working in teams.More specifically, based on Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), we propose and demonstrate interactions where high quality social exchange relationships weaken the positive effects of personality on performance. Second, drawing on Ajzen's (1988) principle of compatibility, we argue that LMX has special relevance to behaviors targeted at the supervisor and TMX has special relevance to behaviors targeted at coworkers. Thus, we extend past research that has demonstrated differential effects of LMX and Perceived Organizational Support (POS: Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000: Settoon et al., 1996 by considering interactive effects of personality and LMX in predicting outcomes targeted at the supervisor as 4 well as interactive effects of personality and TMX in predicting outcomes targeted at peers.We first define task and citizenship performance. We then consider personality and quality of exchange relationships as predictors of task and citizenship performance. Finally, we integrate work on personality and exchange relationships, arguing that quality of exchange relationships moderates the effects of personality on task and citizenship performance. Task Performance and Citizenship PerformancePerformance is a complex, multi-dimensional construct (Campbell, 1999). As such, finegrained conceptualizations can provide a better understanding of relationships between specific predictors and specific aspects of performance (Hogan & Holland, 2003;Johnson, 2001;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000;Rotundo & Sackett, 2002...

Two social exchanges and service personnel’s internal service behavioural intention at international tourism hotels

“…In the social exchange theory, establishing and maintaining positive relationships between interacting parties can encourage the beneficiary to give back, which enables the members in such an exchange to benefit from the relationship (Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007). Li, Sanders, and Frenkel (2012) and Kim, O'Neill, and Cho (2010) conducted research studies on the hospitality industry and found that leaders who voluntarily provided service and assistance to encourage returns or positive responses from subordinates positively stimulated workers' investment in the jobs and their willingness to assist and support each other.…”

“…Social exchange is a voluntary action that individuals demonstrate when they expect to obtain rewards from elsewhere (Kamdar and Van Dyne, 2007). From the perspective of social exchange, employees who expect support and assistance from their co-workers must also provide support and assistance to their co-workers.…”

Explaining Cohesion Linkages in Workgroups: The Cooperative Communication in Collectivism and High Power Distance Workgroup Context

“…Based on this perspective, group communication and group cohesiveness is based on group member's assessment of the overall relationship quality and influence. The development of communication exchange and cohesiveness are more likely to occur when group members are closely connected socially, and attributions of meaning are shared at a high level (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). Moreover, as above, consideration of the level of analysis at which this moderated process and associations are expected to hold is important (Yammarino et al, 2012 Hypothesis 2: The effect of cooperative communication on perceived group cohesiveness will be moderated by group members' collectivist cultural context at group level.…”

Measuring the effects of dating websites’ investments in user self-presentation and peer-interactivity on firm performance

“…24 Interactions among peers have been suggested to initiate social exchange process, promoting reciprocal behaviour, and the social exchange relationship positively relates to task performance. 25 Virtual peer interaction plays an important role in creating a healthy self-identity for young men and women. 13 It is vital to users ' online dating experience and eventually converts registered users into paid-subscribers / members.…”