Content uploaded by Travis J. Grosser
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Travis J. Grosser
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Applied Psychology
Positive and Negative Workplace Relationships, Social
Satisfaction, and Organizational Attachment
Vijaya Venkataramani, Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca, and Travis Grosser
Online First Publication, August 5, 2013. doi: 10.1037/a0034090
CITATION
Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G. (J.), & Grosser, T. (2013, August 5). Positive and Negative
Workplace Relationships, Social Satisfaction, and Organizational Attachment. Journal of
Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0034090
Positive and Negative Workplace Relationships, Social Satisfaction, and
Organizational Attachment
Vijaya Venkataramani
University of Maryland
Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca and Travis Grosser
University of Kentucky
We examine how employees’ centrality in the networks of positively valenced ties (e.g., friendship,
advice) and negatively valenced ties (e.g., avoidance) at work interact to affect these employees’
organizational attachment. Using 2 different samples (154 employees in a division of a food and animal
science organization and 144 employees in a product development firm), we found that employees’
centrality in positive and negative tie networks at work were related to their organizational attachment
indirectly via their impact on employees’ satisfaction with their workplace relationships. Further,
interaction results in both studies suggest that the effect of employees’ centrality in positive tie networks
on their satisfaction with workplace social relationships was stronger when employees had more negative
relationships but was irrelevant when employees had fewer negative ties. Implications for theory and
practice are discussed.
Keywords: negative relationships, network centrality, work attitudes, organizational attachment
Informal workplace social networks influence a broad range of
important outcomes for employees, including their performance
and career progression (e.g., Brass, 1984; Seibert, Kraimer, &
Liden, 2001). However, the effect of such networks on employees’
organizational attachment and withdrawal is still an understudied
area. Given that employee attachment/withdrawal has enormous
cost and performance implications for organizations (Hom & Xiao,
2011) it is important to understand how employees’ social net-
works may affect these outcomes.
We adopt a social ledger approach (Labianca & Brass, 2006) to
examine this relationship and to shed light on its intervening
processes and boundary conditions. This approach suggests that
each employee’s network of personal relationships should be
viewed as being similar to a financial ledger that documents
financial assets and liabilities. An individual’s social ledger com-
prises both their positive and negative social ties (recurring social
ties accompanied by positive or negative affect and an intention to
help or harm the other), which provide not only social capital but
also social liabilities (Labianca & Brass, 2006). This approach
further suggests that because these positive and negative ties may
clash with or serve to offset the effects of each other in influencing
employee outcomes, they must be studied together. However, most
network research has almost exclusively focused on the social
capital benefits associated with positive social ties, largely ignor-
ing individuals’ negative ties (e.g., Adler & Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998; Payne, Moore, Griffis, & Autry, 2011).
We argue that understanding employees’ organizational attach-
ment or withdrawal solely based on the benefits offered by their
embeddedness in positive interaction networks (e.g., Mossholder,
Settoon, & Henagan, 2005), without also examining the social
liabilities associated with having negative ties, will only provide an
incomplete (and possibly inaccurate) picture of the social reality of
their workplaces. For example, as research on the “positivity bias”
(e.g., Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Matlin & Stang, 1978) has sug-
gested, people generally expect their interactions and relationships
with coworkers to be polite, friendly, or neutral and not to be
negative or antagonistic; as a result, positive interactions simply
confirm such expectations and thus might not always be very
salient by themselves in strongly affecting work attitudes. How-
ever, when individuals also experience expectation-disconfirming
information in the form of negative interactions (such as being
excluded or avoided by others in the workplace; Labianca, Brass,
& Gray, 1998), the diagnosticity of positive ties in providing cues
regarding their overall social standing may be higher.
Along these lines, we examine how employees’ centrality in
positive networks (i.e., the extent to which they are sought after by
others for ties such as advice and friendship; Kilduff & Krack-
hardt, 1994) and their negative interactions at work may impact
their organizational attachment, indicated by their job satisfaction,
affective commitment, and turnover intentions. Specifically, we
propose that employees’ positive and negative ties indirectly im-
pact these outcomes via a more proximal mechanism— employ-
ees’ satisfaction with their workplace relationships. We also pro-
pose that individuals’ centrality in positive and negative networks
combine interactively such that positive network centrality is more
salient in affecting attitudes especially when these individuals have
more negative ties. Figure 1 illustrates our model.
Vijaya Venkataramani, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University
of Maryland; Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca, LINKS Center for Social Network
Analysis, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Ken-
tucky; Travis Grosser, Gatton College of Business and Economics, Uni-
versity of Kentucky.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vijaya
Venkataramani, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Mary-
land, 4544, Van Munching Hall, College Park, MD 20742-2056. E-mail:
vvenkata@rhsmith.umd.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 98, No. 6, 000 0021-9010/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034090
1
Theory and Hypotheses
The nature of employees’ social environments at work has been
shown to significantly affect their organizational attachment and
withdrawal (e.g., Beehr, 1986; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Pol-
lock, Whitbred, & Contractor, 2000). As such, central positions
held by individuals in positive interaction networks such as friend-
ship or advice giving, which indicate the extent to which they are
valued and respected by coworkers, should be especially important
in affecting their attachment-related attitudes (e.g., Kahn, 1998).
However, the limited empirical evidence linking employees’ net-
work positions to these attitudes has been equivocal at best (see
Brass, 2012, for a review). For example, Mossholder et al. (2005)
found that employees’ centrality in communication networks was
negatively related to turnover but was unrelated to job satisfaction.
Although early lab studies of small groups of people (e.g., Shaw,
1964) found that central actors were more satisfied, Brass (1981)
found no relationship between employee centrality and job satis-
faction.
One important reason for these inconsistent results could be the
sole focus of these past studies on positively valenced relationships
without examining them in the context of negative ties that indi-
viduals might also have. As the social ledger argument suggests, in
the absence of many negative ties in one’s network, a person’s
positive ties are not as diagnostic and useful as cues around which
to form judgments about others and about one’s status within the
group (Fiske, 1980; Reeder & Spores, 1983; Skowronski & Carl-
ston, 1989). Thus, it might be more accurate to study the impact of
such positive ties in the context of one’s negative relationships.
Relatedly, the types of networks (e.g., required task ties, friend-
ship, advice ties, communication ties) that these studies examined,
might also explain these inconsistent findings. For example, “com-
munication networks” might confound task-related interactions
with more discretionary social interactions like friendship or ad-
vice seeking, which could have different effects on work attitudes.
Unlike work-related interactions that are mandated by workflow
requirements, voluntary ties such as friendship or advice are based
on genuine liking and/or respect for the other person, and might
provide a more accurate indicator of one’s value to the organiza-
tion, and hence better predict work attitudes related to attachment
and withdrawal. A final reason for the mixed findings in prior
research could also be that network positions are distal predictors
of broad work attitudes and may be strongly related to them only
via intervening processes. This in turn indicates the need for
examining more proximal intervening mechanisms related to so-
cial ties at work that may link network positions with work
attitudes.
In addressing all these issues together, we examine how em-
ployees’ centrality in the networks of positively valenced volun-
tary interactions at work (such as friendship and advice), along
with their negative interactions (characterized by interpersonal
avoidance or exclusion) might impact their organizational attach-
ment related work attitudes through their effects on a proximal
intervening mechanism, employees’ general satisfaction with
workplace relationships.
Positive and Negative Network Ties at Work
Employees are involved in various types of informal dyadic
relationships with others at work (e.g., friend, advisor, adversary).
Whereas negatively valenced ties between two individuals at work
are characterized by animosity, exclusion or avoidance of the other
party, positive ties are characterized by liking and respect, where
one individual is motivated to seek out the other for resources
including friendship and general advice (Krackhardt, 1992). Al-
though prior network research has tended to focus predominantly
on the benefits of having positive ties for the concerned individ-
uals, recent research has begun to rectify this serious omission by
also examining negative ties (e.g., Baldwin, Bedell, & Johnson,
1997; Casciaro & Lobo, 2008; Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008;
Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001; Venkataramani &
Dalal, 2007) from a social ledger perspective.
The social ledger model (Labianca & Brass, 2006) argues that
individuals generally have both types of ties in the workplace,
which may serve to highlight or contrast the effects of each other
in influencing their attitudes and behaviors, and that they must be
studied in combination in order to accurately reflect the social
reality of their workplace. We extend this argument to suggest that
when employees experience negative ties, they are motivated to
more comprehensively evaluate their social environment and as-
sess their overall social standing (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990) by
more carefully considering their positive ties, in turn also increas-
ing the salience of these positive ties in affecting their attitudes and
outcomes. To study this, we examine employees’ positions (i.e.,
centrality) in positive and negative social networks together to
understand how they may impact their organizational attachment.
Further, we examine the intervening mechanism through which
such network positions impact attachment. Specifically, we argue
Centrality in
Voluntary
Positive Tie
Networks
Satisfaction
with Workplace
Relationships
Organizational
Attachment
• Job Satisfaction
• Affective
Commitment
• Turnover
Intentions
Centrality in
Negative Tie
Network
+ +
−
+
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2VENKATARAMANI, LABIANCA, AND GROSSER
that the effects of individuals’ positions in positive and negative
networks may be transmitted to broad outcomes such as attach-
ment via more proximal, but less narrow mechanisms such as their
general satisfaction with social relationships, an important factor
affecting their experience at work (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996).
Satisfaction With Social Relationships
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the relational systems
perspective (e.g., Kahn, 1998) suggest that employees’ satisfaction
with the relational systems in which they are embedded acts as a
strong buffer against shocks and forces that may erode organiza-
tional attachment (Burt, 2001) and motivate employees to with-
draw (Mitchell & Lee, 2001). Satisfaction with social relationships
indicates the extent to which employees perceive that they are
treated with liking, friendliness, and warmth by their coworkers
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983) and are accorded
due respect and regard in their professional and social interactions
with each other. Thus, it captures individuals’ overall feelings of
contentment with both the positive affective and instrumental
aspects of workplace relationships (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins,
& Klesh, 1979; Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1982). An
employee’s positions in the network of informal interactions at
work, such as friendship, advice, or animosity, can be important
determinants of his or her social satisfaction because they provide
strong cues of one’s overall value and importance to the organi-
zation and to other organizational members. In the following
sections, we describe how individuals’ positions in networks of
positive and negative interactions are related to their social satis-
faction.
Centrality in positive tie networks. An individual’s in-
degree centrality in positive networks captures the extent to which
others in the network seek out this person for voluntary positive
ties such as friendship and advice (Freeman, 1979). Occupying a
central network position in the workgroup means the person is
bestowed greater attention and recognition by other workgroup
members and is valued and respected for their expertise and/or
personal characteristics. Due to being the object (or target) of
network ties from several other members, central positions are also
associated with greater social prestige (Anderson, John, Keltner, &
Kring, 2001; Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and voice in workgroup
decisions (e.g., Venkataramani & Tangirala, 2010). Employees
occupying such central positions are also more likely to receive
task and socioemotional support, as well as discretionary help from
others (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007). Such interactions are likely
to make these individuals feel that their coworkers are friendly and
supportive, and in turn feel valued, respected, and included in
important workgroup activities. All this makes them more likely to
evaluate their workplace social relationships as being of higher
quality, and to be more satisfied with them. Thus,
Hypothesis 1. Employees’ centrality in the positive ties net-
work will be positively related to their satisfaction with their
workplace relationships.
Centrality in negative networks. Negative ties are character-
ized by animosity and/or avoidance of at least one of the individ-
uals in the dyad by another (Labianca & Brass, 2006; Venkatara-
mani & Dalal, 2007). In-degree centrality in the negative network
indicates the extent to which an individual is the target of negative
ties from several other workgroup members. In such situations, the
individual is likely to perceive being socially excluded and ostra-
cized (e.g., Grosser, Sterling, Scott, & Labianca, 2010). Prior
research suggests that these negative ties often lead to personaliz-
ing conflict and subsequent attempts to harm the other party both
overtly and surreptitiously (e.g., Pondy, 1967; Pruitt & Rubin,
1986). Coworkers’ dislike for and/or preference to avoid a focal
employee may be manifested in their behaving rudely toward
them, engaging in negative gossip about the person, deliberately
hindering or interfering in their work, and refusing to help them.
This is because, negative relationships lack the empathy and psy-
chological proximity found in positive ties, and thus remove any
social constraints on engaging in such behaviors (Brass, Butter-
field, & Skaggs, 1998). Having many incoming negative ties is
also likely to cut off individuals’ access to important information
that is making its way around the workgroup (Ellwardt, Labianca,
& Wittek, 2012), as well as potentially necessary social support.
Working with people that prefer to avoid them might be annoying
and burdensome to employees, leading to frustration with these
coworkers (Labianca & Brass, 2006). Such experiences have also
been shown to have a disproportionately large negative effect on
one’s mood and stress levels (Rook, 1984; Skowronski & Carlston,
1989; Taylor, 1991), which affect one’s attitudes about work and
coworkers. In all, these arguments suggest that an employee ex-
periencing incoming negative ties is likely to feel disrespected and
undervalued by his or her coworkers. In turn,
Hypothesis 2. Employees’ in-degree centrality in negative
networks will be negatively related to their satisfaction with
their workplace relationships.
Interactive Effects of Positive and Negative
Relationships
In the previous sections, we discussed how being central in
positive or negative networks might, separately, influence employ-
ees’ satisfaction with their relationships at work. We now turn to
discussing how they may combine interactively in predicting so-
cial satisfaction. We propose that centrality in positive networks,
though important, may not be as salient in predicting social satis-
faction when one has few or no negative relationships. However,
when employees have more incoming negative ties, the extent to
which these individuals are also sought after as friends and advi-
sors may be more salient as a determinant of their social satisfac-
tion.
Prior research suggests that there tends to be a general positivity
bias in people’s expectations regarding their social relationships,
often referred to as the “Pollyanna principle” (e.g., Markus &
Zajonc, 1985; Matlin & Stang, 1978). People generally expect
their interactions and relationships with coworkers to be polite,
friendly or neutral and not to be negative or antagonistic. In
situations where individuals have few or no incoming negative ties
from coworkers, their positive interactions with workgroup mem-
bers (as indicated by their positive network centrality) may not be
very salient in predicting their social satisfaction, because such
interactions would simply confirm their prior positive expectations
(e.g., Fiske, 1980). That is, if everyone seems to be friendly toward
employees in the workplace, then employees don’t necessarily
interpret this as a very positive environment or that the relation-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WORKPLACE TIES
ships are particularly strong because it is what is generally ex-
pected. Their normally positive interactions would not provide
enough unambiguous or diagnostic information to be able to
strongly influence their social satisfaction (e.g., Reeder & Spores,
1983). However, this positivity bias might weaken in the presence
of more negative relationships.
When individuals have more negative relationships with co-
workers, they might experience negative moods, emotions and
other adverse outcomes such as social ostracism, hindrance, and
undermining (e.g., Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Venkataramani &
Dalal, 2007). Such negative experiences are not common, and
therefore, are expectation-disconfirming (Taylor, 1991). As a re-
sult, individuals engage in sense-making to try and better under-
stand their social environment as well as to comprehensively
process available cues regarding their overall social standing in the
group (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990; Pickett & Gardner, 2005).
Further, individuals have a strong need to feel included and re-
spected by others around them (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
If employees perceive that, irrespective of their negative interac-
tions, they are still valued as friends and respected as advisors by
other colleagues as indicated by their centrality in positive net-
works, such positive ties can be very diagnostic in providing
information regarding their overall social status in the group and
thus reduce any frustration or dissatisfaction they may experience.
In other words, the impact of holding central positions in positive
tie networks on employees’ satisfaction with social relationships
will be stronger when they also have more incoming negative
relationships at work. Thus:
Hypothesis 3. Employees’ centrality in positive networks will
interact with in-degree centrality in negative networks such
that positive centrality will be more strongly related to their
satisfaction with workplace relationships as their negative
centrality increases.
Satisfaction With Workplace Relationships and
Organizational Attachment
An important goal for organizations is to enhance their employ-
ees’ overall job experience that helps maintain their psychological
attachment with the organization. In this section, we extend our
previous arguments by investigating whether the benefits and
liabilities of centrality in positive networks and negative networks,
respectively, can extend to their organizational attachment—indi-
cated by their job satisfaction, affective commitment and turnover
intentions—through their effects on employees’ satisfaction with
their workplace relationships.
Job satisfaction has been defined as a psychological state rep-
resented by cognitive and affective indicators resulting from the
evaluation of one’s job experiences (Brief & Weiss, 2002). Affec-
tive commitment indicates the extent to which employees value,
feel attached to, and included in the organization (Meyer & Allen,
1991). Intentions to turnover indicate employees’ evaluation re-
garding whether to stay with the organization. Thus, these three
constructs are fundamental evaluations of one’s job experiences
and attachment with one’s organization and share strong concep-
tual and empirical commonalities (e.g., Hulin, 1991; Mathieu &
Zajac, 1990). In line with these overlaps, some scholars (e.g.,
Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006)
have suggested combining satisfaction and affective commitment
into an overall job attitude measure. Similarly, others have con-
ceptualized affective commitment and turnover intentions together
as a measure of attachment (e.g., Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009). Lee
and Mitchell (1994) have also conceptualized these constructs
together in their view of organizational attachment.
The quality of interpersonal relationships experienced by
employees is an important determinant of their overall attach-
ment with their organizations (e.g., Crosby, 1982). People have
an inherent need to form satisfying social relationships with
others around them (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). When employ-
ees are satisfied with the quality of their relationships with
coworkers, prior research suggests that they are also more
satisfied with their overall job experience (e.g., Camman et al.,
1983; Ng & Sorensen, 2008) and reciprocate by being more
affectively attached to the organization (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990). In addition, the respect and feeling of inclusion gener-
ated as a result of such satisfaction are likely to make them less
likely to think of leaving the organization (Winstead, Derlega,
Montgomery, & Pilkington, 1995). Given the similarity of the
conceptual arguments relating social satisfaction with these
three constructs and the strong overlaps among them as sug-
gested by other scholars, in the interest of theoretical parsi-
mony, we conceptualize satisfaction, affective commitment,
and turnover intentions together as indicators of broader orga-
nizational attachment and propose that:
Hypothesis 4. Employees’ satisfaction with their workplace
relationships will be positively related to their overall attach-
ment with their organization, indicated by their job satisfac-
tion, affective commitment, and intentions to remain with the
organization.
Hypotheses were tested using two field studies, a primary study
and a replication study.
Primary Study
Method
For the main study, surveys were administered to 183 em-
ployees working in a division of a midsize company involved in
the manufacture and sales of food and animal safety products in
the Midwestern United States. Of the 183 employees in this
division, 154 employees returned usable responses (84% rate).
Fifty percent of the respondents were female, and 87% were
Caucasian. The average age of these respondents was 38.7 years
(SD ⫽11.4), and their average tenure was 4.1 years (SD ⫽4.2);
52.9% of these employees had a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Measures. Unless otherwise specified, all constructs were
measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(Strongly disagree)to5(Strongly agree).
Organizational attachment. This was measured as the mean
of 12 items capturing job satisfaction, affective commitment
and turnover intentions (reverse coded). Job satisfaction was
measured using the three-item Michigan Organizational Assess-
ment Questionnaire job satisfaction subscale (MOAQ; Cam-
mann et al., 1983). A sample item is “All in all, I am satisfied
with my job.” Affective commitment was measured using six
items from Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) scale. A sample
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4VENKATARAMANI, LABIANCA, AND GROSSER
item is, “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career
in this organization.” Turnover intention was measured using
the three-item Intention to Turnover subscale from the MOAQ
(Cammann et al., 1983). A sample item is, “I often think about
quitting my job.”
Satisfaction with workplace relationships. The three-item So-
cial Relationships Satisfaction Scale from the MOAQ (Cammann
et al., 1983) was used. A sample question is, “How satisfied are
you with the way you are treated by the people you work with?”
Respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Very
Dissatisfied)to5(Very Satisfied).
Centrality in positive tie networks. This was measured by
combining the in-degree centrality scores of respondents in the friend-
ship and advice networks (i.e., the extent to which a focal individual
is sought after by other members for friendship and for advice; Bell,
2005). A roster of all division members was provided, and partici-
pants were asked to respond to specific questions about each person
(e.g., Marsden, 1990). Friendship networks were measured by asking
them “Do you consider this person to be a close friend (e.g., confide
in this person)?” (Brass, 1985). Advice ties were measured by asking,
“Do you go to this person for work-related advice and knowledge?”
(e.g., Krackhardt, 1990). These data were assembled into two 154 ⫻
154 cell matrixes (one for each type of relationship) and the in-degree
measure of centrality in each network was calculated in UCINET
(Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) and summed up.
Centrality in the negative tie network. Following past re-
search (e.g., Labianca et al., 1998), we measured negative ties by
asking respondents to answer the following question for each of
their fellow division members: “Sometimes people at work make
us feel uncomfortable or uneasy and, therefore, we try to avoid
interacting with them. Do you avoid interacting with this person?
yes/no” We then calculated the in-degree centrality measure in
UCINET (i.e., the number of division members who indicated that
they avoid the focal individual).
Interaction terms. Interaction terms were formed by mean-
centering the respective independent variables and then taking
their product terms.
Control variables. We controlled for several variables that have
been shown to influence employees’ organizational attachment, such
as the respondents’ age, gender, job status (i.e., part-time or full-time),
grade (managerial or nonmanagerial), education, ethnicity as well as
organizational tenure (cf. Brush, Moch, & Pooyan, 1987). In addition,
we controlled for respondents’ general trait positive and negative
affectivity (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993). These were each
measured using seven-item scales from Watson, Clark, and Telle-
gen’s (1988) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Re-
spondents indicated, on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all
or very slightly)to5(Extremely), the extent to which they generally
experienced different emotional descriptors (e.g., “enthusiastic,” “ir-
ritable”). Employees were physically located in six buildings, so we
controlled for their location. Finally, given our focus on voluntary
positive ties, we controlled for the required work ties between indi-
viduals (“Are you required to work directly with this person in order
to get your work done [e.g., receiving inputs or providing outputs?]
yes/no”; Umphress, Labianca, Brass, Kass, & Scholten, 2003). We
also controlled for their number of outgoing positive and negative
ties—the extent to which they sought out other coworkers for friend-
ship or advice and the number of coworkers that the focal individual
avoids at work, respectively.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables (Primary Study)
Variable MSD 123456789101112131415161718
1. Age 38.7 11.4
2. Gender
a
0.49 0.50 .20
ⴱ
3. Organizational Tenure 4.12 4.18 .39
ⴱⴱ
.15
4. Positive Affect 3.63 0.55 .20
ⴱ
.02 .06 (.82)
5. Negative Affect 2.30 0.60 ⫺.01 ⫺.16
ⴱ
⫺.03 ⫺.27
ⴱ
(.80)
6. Education
b
0.53 0.50 ⫺.01 .26
ⴱ
.14 ⫺.08 ⫺.09
7. Ethnicity
c
0.87 0.34 .03 .07 .10 ⫺.07 .05 .18
ⴱ
8. Job Status
d
0.03 0.16 ⫺.05 ⫺.16
ⴱ
.04 ⫺.05 .07 ⫺.01 .06
9. Grade
e
0.13 0.11 .12 .12 ⫺.02 .09 .01 .12 .04 .02
10. Outgoing Positive ties 6.29 5.30 ⫺.16
ⴱ
⫺.03 .09 .09 .02 .18
ⴱ
.21
ⴱ
⫺.06
11. Centrality in Positive Network 6.29 4.70 .12 .01 .39
ⴱⴱ
.06 ⫺.06 .22
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱ
⫺.11 ⫺.05 .27
ⴱ
12. Centrality in Negative Network 0.66 0.99 .20
ⴱ
⫺.05 .12 .05 .13 .01 .10 .02 .10 .01 .13
13. Outgoing Negative Ties 0.66 1.12 ⫺.17
ⴱ
⫺.16
ⴱ
⫺.01 ⫺.16 .25
ⴱⴱ
⫺.07 .11 .16
ⴱ
⫺.07 .35
ⴱⴱ
.09 ⫺.11
14. Social Satisfaction 3.98 0.70 ⫺.02 .08 .06 .25
ⴱⴱ
⫺.27
ⴱⴱ
.05 .06 .03 ⫺.01 .08 .20
ⴱ
⫺.19
ⴱ
⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
(.84)
15. Turnover Intentions 2.92 0.84 ⫺.22
ⴱⴱ
⫺.05 ⫺.19
ⴱ
⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
.32
ⴱⴱ
.04 ⫺.13 ⫺.11 ⫺.13 ⫺.09 ⫺.06 .01 .12 ⫺.31
ⴱⴱ
(.79)
16. Job Satisfaction 3.87 0.84 .12 .01 .09 .41
ⴱⴱ
⫺.09 ⫺.09 .06 .16
ⴱ
.13 .06 .07 .01 ⫺.15 .41
ⴱⴱ
⫺.61
ⴱ
(.90)
17. Affective Commitment 3.14 0.81 .18
ⴱ
.11 .31
ⴱ
.36
ⴱⴱ
.00 .00 .13 .11 .22
ⴱ
.11 .08 .12 ⫺.08 .30
ⴱⴱ
⫺.60
ⴱⴱ
.67
ⴱⴱ
(.85)
18. Overall Organization Attachment 3.38 0.76 .20
ⴱ
.08 .25
ⴱⴱ
.42
ⴱⴱ
⫺.30
ⴱⴱ
⫺.03 .12 .15 .20
ⴱ
.09 .09 .07 ⫺.14 .38
ⴱⴱ
⫺.79
ⴱⴱ
.86
ⴱⴱ
.92
ⴱⴱ
(.92)
19. Required Work Ties 5.43 4.50 .01 ⫺.02 .14 .04 .18
ⴱ
.03 .26
ⴱⴱ
.01 .03 .54
ⴱ
.39
ⴱ
.11 .45
ⴱ
⫺.03 ⫺.02 .04 .11 ⫺.07
Note. N ⫽154. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses along the diagonal.
Dummy coded:
a
0⫽female, 1 ⫽male.
b
1⫽bachelor’s degree and higher, 0 ⫽other.
c
1⫽White, 0 ⫽other.
d
0⫽full time, 1 ⫽part time.
e
0⫽Nonmanagerial, 1 ⫽Managerial.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WORKPLACE TIES
Results
Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and
bivariate correlations among the study variables. Table 2 provides the
results of our stepwise ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regres-
sion analyses. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated discriminant
validity of the following: centrality in positive and negative networks,
social satisfaction, and organizational attachment (as a higher order
factor representing job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turn-
over intentions).
1
Hypothesis 1 stated that employees’ centrality in positive networks
would be positively related to their social satisfaction. As Model 2
(Table 2) indicates, this was supported (b⫽.04, p⬍.01).
Hypothesis 2, that employees’ centrality in negative tie networks
would be negatively related to their social satisfaction, was also
supported (b⫽–.11, p⬍.01).
Hypotheses 3 proposed that centrality in positive networks would
interact with in-degree centrality in negative networks to predict
satisfaction with workplace relationships such that the relationship
between centrality and social satisfaction would be stronger when
centrality in the negative network is higher. As Model 3 indicates, this
interaction term was significant (b⫽.03, p⬍.01). This interaction is
plotted in Figure 2. Further, a simple slopes test (Aiken & West, 1991)
indicated that the relationship between centrality in positive networks
and satisfaction was stronger for individuals who had greater (b⫽.06,
p⬍.01; t⫽3.80) compared to fewer (b⫽.02, p⬎.05; t⫽0.24)
numbers of incoming negative ties, thus confirming our predicted
pattern.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that employees’ social satisfaction would
be positively related to their organizational attachment. As our results
indicate, this was supported (b⫽.25, p⬍.01; Model 6), controlling
for the effects of all network-related independent variables. We also
ran our analyses separately for job satisfaction, affective commitment,
and turnover intentions. The pattern of results in all three cases was
identical to the overall attachment measure.
Estimation of indirect effects. Our hypotheses (H1–H4), taken
together, suggest that centrality in positive networks influenced em-
ployees’ organizational attachment through its effects on their satis-
faction with workplace relationships and that this is moderated by
centrality in negative networks, thus suggesting a moderated media-
tion model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). As the results in Table 2
suggest, centrality in positive networks was not significantly related to
attachment directly (b⫽.02, p⬎.05; Model 4), potentially due to
lower power in our sample to detect it (MacKinnon, Lockwood,
Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002) but was related to it indirectly via its
effects on social satisfaction (e.g., Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). We
tested this indirect effect and estimated the confidence intervals using
bootstrapping procedures (e.g., Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Shrout &
Bolger, 2002). There were significant unconditional indirect effects of
centrality in positive networks on attachment (.03; 95% confidence
interval [CI] ⫽[.01, .03]; effect size ⫽.08) via social satisfaction.
2
We used a bootstrapping-based approach (e.g., Edwards & Lambert,
2007) to also examine whether the sequence of processes linking
centrality in positive networks to outcomes was different at high or
1
The results of the comparative factor analysis are available on request
from the first author.
2
Completely standardized indirect effect size; see MacKinnon (2008);
Preacher and Kelley (2011).
Table 2
Results of the OLS-Based Regression Analyses (Primary Study)
Predictor variables
Criterion variables
Satisfaction
with Social
Relations
(Model 1)
Satisfaction
with Social
Relations
(Model 2)
Satisfaction
with Social
Relations
(Model 3)
Organizational
Attachment
(Model 4)
Organizational
Attachment
(Model 5)
Organizational
Attachment
(Model 6)
Intercept 4.33
ⴱⴱ
4.22
ⴱⴱ
3.93
ⴱⴱ
.94
ⴱⴱ
1.81
ⴱⴱ
.83
ⴱⴱ
Control variables
Age ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 0.01 .01
Gender .04 .07 .09 .05 .10 .07
Organizational Tenure .01 ⫺.01 ⫺.01 .03 .03 .03
ⴱ
Positive Affectivity .15
ⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱ
.19 .40
ⴱⴱ
.48
ⴱ
.43
ⴱ
Negative Affectivity ⫺.19
ⴱⴱ
⫺.14
ⴱ
⫺.12 ⫺.27
ⴱⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱ
Education ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 ⫺.13 ⫺.15 ⫺.13
Ethnicity .12 .11 .16 .10 .19 .16
Job Status .51 .60 .64 .74
ⴱ
.90
ⴱ
.80
ⴱ
Grade ⫺.01 ⫺.01 ⫺.02 .12
ⴱ
.10
ⴱ
.10
ⴱ
Outgoing Positive Ties .02 .01 .02 .01 .01 .01
Required Work Ties .01 .01 ⫺.01 .01 .02 .02
Outgoing Negative Ties ⫺.25
ⴱⴱ
⫺.24
ⴱ
⫺.23
ⴱ
⫺.02 ⫺.00 ⫺.03
Independent variables
Centrality in Positive Tie Networks .04
ⴱⴱ
.03
ⴱⴱ
.02 ⫺.01 .02
Centrality in Negative Tie Network ⫺.11
ⴱⴱ
⫺.13
ⴱⴱ
.06 .01 .03
Interaction terms
Centrality in Positive Network ⫻Centrality
in Negative Network .03
ⴱⴱ
.04
ⴱ
.03
ⴱ
Intervening mechanism
Satisfaction with Social Relationships .29
ⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱ
⌬R
2
.07 .02 .04
R
2
.24
ⴱⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱ
.33
ⴱⴱ
.46
ⴱⴱ
.45
ⴱⴱ
.49
ⴱⴱ
Note. OLS ⫽ordinary least squares. Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients. We also controlled for the six different buildings in which
respondents were located. To simplify the Table, these coefficients are not reported.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6VENKATARAMANI, LABIANCA, AND GROSSER
low levels of the moderator (see Table 3). This analysis indicated that
the indirect effect of positive network centrality on attachment via
social satisfaction was significantly stronger at higher levels of in-
coming negative ties (effect size of indirect effect ⫽.15) than at lower
levels (effect size ⫽.01). Thus, this integrative analysis provided
additional support for our model.
Replication Study
Method
This second sample comprises employees of a product devel-
opment firm headquartered in the Southeastern United States. Of
the 185 surveys distributed, 144 usable surveys were returned
(78% rate). The average tenure of respondents was 63.2 months
(SD ⫽50.3), and the average age was 43.5 years (SD ⫽8.8 years).
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Among Replication Study Variables
Variable MSD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Grade (Junior Manager)
a
0.17 0.37
2. Grade (Senior Manager)
b
0.26 0.44 ⫺0.27
ⴱⴱ
3. Age 43.51 8.78 ⫺0.34
ⴱⴱ
0.33
ⴱⴱ
4. Gender
c
0.71 0.46 ⫺0.16 0.11 0.04
5. Organizational Tenure 63.22 50.31 0.04 0.14 ⫺0.03 0.03
6. Education
d
0.80 0.40 ⫺0.15 0.26
ⴱⴱ
0.10 0.09 ⫺0.24
ⴱⴱ
7. Ethnicity
e
0.87 0.34 ⫺0.10 0.19
ⴱ
0.13 0.02 0.14 ⫺0.02
8. Outgoing Positive Ties 10.47 8.61 ⫺0.21
ⴱ
0.27
ⴱⴱ
0.24
ⴱⴱ
0.08 ⫺0.08 0.18
ⴱ
0.08
9. Centrality in Positive Ties Network 10.47 7.22 ⫺0.14 0.38
ⴱⴱ
0.09 0.02 0.21
ⴱ
0.25
ⴱⴱ
0.16 0.40
ⴱⴱ
10. Centrality in Negative Ties 1.01 1.46 ⫺0.20
ⴱ
0.23
ⴱⴱ
0.24
ⴱⴱ
0.03 0.04 0.29
ⴱⴱ
0.13 0.19
ⴱ
0.09
11. Outgoing Negative Ties 1.01 2.11 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.18
ⴱ
0.01 0.11 0.01 0.19
ⴱ
0.17
ⴱ
0.03
12. Social Satisfaction 5.91 1.01 ⫺0.02 0.23
ⴱⴱ
0.15 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.08 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.23
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.14 ⫺0.20
ⴱ
(.91)
13. Turnover Intentions 3.61 1.24 0.00 ⫺0.11 ⫺0.16 0.10 ⫺0.05 0.15 0.08 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.14 0.19
ⴱ
0.21
ⴱ
⫺0.35
ⴱⴱ
(.62)
14. Job Satisfaction 5.80 1.08 ⫺0.05 0.20
ⴱ
0.17
ⴱ
⫺0.09 ⫺0.01 0.03 ⫺0.03 0.19
ⴱ
0.22
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.04 ⫺0.10 0.40
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.70
ⴱⴱ
(.82)
15. Affective Commitment 5.37 1.30 ⫺0.05 0.27
ⴱⴱ
0.08 ⫺0.16 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.26
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.04 ⫺0.18
ⴱ
0.48
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.54
ⴱⴱ
0.59
ⴱⴱ
(.80)
16. Overall Organizational Attachment 5.19 1.03 ⫺0.04 0.23
ⴱⴱ
0.15 ⫺0.14 0.05 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.04 0.15 0.24
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.10 ⫺0.20
ⴱ
0.48
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.87
ⴱⴱ
0.87
ⴱⴱ
0.84
ⴱⴱ
(.87)
17. Required Work Ties 29.75 15.84 ⫺0.22
ⴱⴱ
0.45
ⴱⴱ
0.22
ⴱⴱ
0.16 0.03 0.38
ⴱⴱ
0.12 0.54
ⴱⴱ
0.66
ⴱⴱ
0.33
ⴱⴱ
0.17
ⴱ
0.11 0.01 0.12 0.16 0.10
Note. n ⫽144. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses along the diagonal.
Dummy coded:
a
1⫽junior manager, 0 ⫽other.
b
1⫽senior manager and above, 0 ⫽other.
c
0⫽female, 1 ⫽male.
d
1⫽bachelor’s degree and higher, 0 ⫽other.
e
1⫽White/Caucasian,
0⫽other.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
Figure 2. Interaction plot of Centrality in Positive Networks (N/W) and
Centrality in Negative Networks predicting Satisfaction with Workplace
Social Relationships (primary study).
Table 3
Summary of Total and Indirect Effects of Centrality in Positive
Networks on Organizational Attachment (Primary Study)
Variable
Organizational Attachment
(Job Satisfaction and
Affective Commitment and
Turnover Intentions [reverse
coded])
Effects
Indirect Total
Unconditional .01
ⴱ
.01
Moderator variable: Centrality
in Negative Network
High .02
ⴱⴱ
.04
ⴱⴱ
Low .001 ⫺.02
Difference .019
ⴱ
.042
ⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽154. Table entries were computed using the constrained
nonlinear regression (CNLR) procedure using 1,000 data draws (cf. Ed-
wards & Lambert, 2007).
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WORKPLACE TIES
Seventy-one percent were male, 87% were Caucasian, and 80% of
them had completed at least a bachelor’s degree.
Measures. All constructs in this study, except the ones de-
scribed below, were measured using the same measures as in the
main study. In the case of affective commitment, three items from
the Meyer et al. (1993) affective commitment subscale were used.
All attitudinal variables were measured using a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree).
Advice ties were measured by asking “Whom do you typically turn
to when you need help thinking through a new or challenging
problem at work?” Respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (I never turn to this person)to5(I constantly turn
to this person). Because “weak ties” lack interpersonal closeness
(Granovetter, 1973), network data pertaining to this question were
dichotomized such that ties of strength 4 (I usually turn to this
person) and above were retained in our analyses. As in the main
study, we combined the in-degree centrality scores in the friend-
ship and advice networks.
Control variables. Similar to the main study, we controlled for
the following demographic variables: tenure (in months), gender,
age (in years), race, and education. We also controlled for grade
and geographic location since employees in this organization came
from multiple locations. We controlled for outgoing positive and
negative ties as well as required work ties.
Results
The results found in this replication study are consistent with
those in the main study. Table 4 provides the means, standard
deviations, reliabilities and bivariate correlations among the rep-
lication study variables. Table 5 contains the results of the stepwise
OLS regression analyses.
As seen in Model 2 of Table 5, centrality in the positive tie
network is positively related to social satisfaction (b⫽.31, p⬍
.01), thus supporting Hypothesis 1. There is also a significant
negative relationship between centrality in the negative tie network
and satisfaction (b⫽–.18, p⬍.05), supporting Hypothesis 2.
Further, in support of Hypothesis 3, the interaction between cen-
trality in the positive tie network and centrality in the negative tie
network is positive and significant (Model 3; b⫽.21, p⬍.01; see
Figure 3). A simple slopes test indicated that the relationship
Table 5
Results of the OLS-Based Regression Analyses (Replication Study)
Variable
Satisfaction
with Social
Relations
(Model 1)
Satisfaction
with Social
Relations
(Model 2)
Satisfaction
with Social
Relations
(Model 3)
Organizational
Attachment
(Model4)
Organizational
Attachment
(Model 5)
Organizational
Attachment
(Model 6)
Intercept 6.15
ⴱⴱ
6.10
ⴱⴱ
6.08
ⴱⴱ
5.84
ⴱⴱ
5.91
ⴱⴱ
5.85
ⴱⴱ
Control variables
Grade (Junior Manager) 0.18 0.14 0.09 ⫺0.01 0.05 0.01
Grade (Senior Manager) 0.41 0.30 0.25 0.26 0.37 0.27
Age 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.05
Gender ⫺0.18 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.30 ⫺0.34 ⫺0.27
Organizational Tenure ⫺0.17 ⫺0.19
ⴱ
⫺0.18 0.03 ⫺0.04 0.03
Education ⫺0.23 ⫺0.17 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.38 ⫺0.44 ⫺0.38
Ethnicity 0.01 ⫺0.07 0.14 ⫺0.23 ⫺0.21 ⫺0.27
Outgoing Positive Ties 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.15
Required Work Ties 0.05 ⫺0.10 ⫺0.10 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.04
Outgoing Negative Ties ⫺0.18 ⫺0.21
ⴱ
⫺0.20
ⴱ
⫺0.18
ⴱ
⫺0.26
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.17
ⴱ
Independent variables
Centrality in Positive Tie Networks 0.31
ⴱⴱ
0.33
ⴱⴱ
0.16 0.27
ⴱ
0.14
Centrality in Negative Tie Network ⫺0.18
ⴱ
⫺0.23
ⴱ
⫺0.11 ⫺0.18 ⫺0.09
Interaction term
Centrality in Positive Tie Network ⫻Centrality
in Negative Tie Network 0.21
ⴱⴱ
⫺0.02 ⫺0.10
Mediator
Satisfaction with Social Relationships 0.36
ⴱⴱ
0.39
ⴱⴱ
⌬R
2
0.08 0.04 0.08
R
2
0.15 0.23 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.37
Note. OLS ⫽ordinary least squares. Table entries are unstandardized regression coefficients. We also controlled for the four geographic locations in
which respondents were located. To simplify the table, these coefficients are not reported. n⫽143.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
Low Centrality in Positive
Networks
High Centrality in Positive
Networks
Satisfaction with Social Relationships
Low Centrality in
Negative N/W
High Centrality in
Negative N/W
Figure 3. Interaction plot of Centrality in Positive Networks (N/W) and
Centrality in Negative Networks predicting Satisfaction with Workplace
Social Relationships (replication study).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8VENKATARAMANI, LABIANCA, AND GROSSER
between centrality in positive networks and satisfaction was stron-
ger for individuals who had greater (b⫽.54, p⬍.01; t ⫽3.74)
compared to fewer (b⫽.12, p⬎.05; t⫽0.95) numbers of
incoming negative ties. As seen in Model 6 of Table 5, satisfaction
with social relations is positively related to organizational attach-
ment (b⫽.39, p⬍.01) while controlling for network centrality,
providing support for Hypothesis 4. Analyses of the indirect ef-
fects in this replication sample were identical to that of the main
study.
General Discussion
Supporting our overall model, we found, across two field stud-
ies, that employees’ centrality in positive networks had beneficial
effects and centrality in negative networks had deleterious effects
on their social satisfaction, and in turn on their organizational
attachment. Further, the indirect effect of positive centrality on
organizational attachment was stronger in the presence of more
negative ties. Taken together, these findings make a number of
contributions.
First, the current article extends research on the social ledger
model (Labianca & Brass, 2006) by investigating the interactive
effects of positive and negative ties in impacting various outcomes.
The social ledger model (Labianca & Brass, 2006) was advanced
to encourage researchers not to consider each type of workplace
social relationship in isolation, but rather to consider them as
inextricably linked. Yet the original theory itself did not ade-
quately predict whether the effects of positive and negative ties
would be entirely independent or will interact in determining
outcomes. The social ledger model is based on psychological
principles involving negative asymmetry (Skowronski & Carlston,
1989), which argue that individuals’ positive relationships are not
as diagnostic in determining their judgments and attitudes, such as
their social satisfaction, in the absence of negative relationships
(e.g., Wyer, 1974). It is precisely because negative ties are rare and
counternormative that they draw an inordinate amount of individ-
uals’ attention, and cause them to more carefully weigh their social
situation (Fiske, 1980; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Wyer,
1973). Indeed, our results suggest that the more that an individual
confronts negative ties at work, the more important that employ-
ee’s positive ties become in affecting their social satisfaction and
attachment. This suggests that it is important to study these ties
together in order to get an accurate picture of the social reality of
workplaces.
Second, we elucidate the intervening mechanisms through
which employees’ network positions affect their work attitudes.
We argued that some of the inconsistent results of past research
could be potentially addressed by studying broader, but more
proximal linking mechanisms such as social satisfaction that cap-
ture employees’ evaluation of their workplace relationships, an
important determinant of their attachment. For example, as our
results also indicate, although centrality in positive networks was
not significantly related to organizational attachment directly, it
was indirectly linked to attachment through its effects on social
satisfaction. In doing so, we address calls from job attitude re-
searchers to study the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
with workplace relationships that have largely been ignored by
past research (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). We also con-
tribute to the network literature wherein the underlying processes
through which network variables impact various outcomes have
been seldom examined (cf. Brass, 1981; Venkataramani & Tangi-
rala, 2010).
Our study’s implications for future network research in organi-
zational behavior are clear—we need to consider the positive and
negative side of individuals’ social ledger together. We also need
to consider that these differently valenced ties might not always
operate separately but do so in combination with each other in a
number of ways. One way, as we have shown is that individuals’
centrality in positive and negative tie networks can interact to
predict employees’ outcomes. Another way is to take a network
approach to consider how these positive and negative ties are
structurally embedded. For example, understanding whether a neg-
ative tie with someone who, in turn, has a lot of negative ties
affects the focal individual’s outcomes as much as having a neg-
ative tie with someone who is popular seems a promising avenue
for future research. Current research on indirect positive and
negative ties has been limited to the triad (e.g., Oldroyd, Hendron,
& Labianca, 2008), but ties beyond the triad might also be impor-
tant and warrant further research (e.g., Smith et al., in press).
Limitations
Due to our study’s cross-sectional nature, we cannot rule out
reverse causality. For example, individuals who are committed to
the organization might begin feeling satisfied with their social
relationships at work. This in turn might help them develop more
positive (and fewer negative) ties. However reverse causality can-
not adequately explain the interaction patterns found in this study.
If social satisfaction increases, it isn’t clear why individuals might
increase both their positive and negative ties in reaction. It would
be productive to employ longitudinal network research in disen-
tangling this (cf. Huitsing et al., in press). Further, the effect sizes
of our indirect effects were low. It is important for future studies
to examine employees from a diverse set of organizations to help
establish more generalizable estimates of these effects and confirm
the utility of satisfaction with social relationships as a mediator.
Practical Implications
These findings suggest that employees who are satisfied with
the overall quality of their workplace relationships are more at-
tached to the organization. Managers who encourage informal
interactions among their employees (e.g., via social gatherings or
get-togethers) can foster the development of more positive ties and
thereby influence employees’ satisfaction. Managers should also
try to minimize the number of negative interactions occurring in
their workgroups by proactively mediating to resolve differences
early on and building a culture of open communication that fosters
trust and relationship building. Whenever possible, managers can
even consider revising the required workflow and communication
patterns in the workgroup such that two individuals who have
negative ties do not interact with each other.
As our interaction findings indicate, individuals with fewer
incoming negative ties are generally satisfied with their workplace
relationships irrespective of their centrality in positive networks.
The importance of being central in positive networks is more
evident in situations where one has more incoming negative ties.
This suggests that employees involved in many negative ties may
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WORKPLACE TIES
need to work hard at developing other valued positive relationships
rather than retreat into a defensive cocoon. For example, employ-
ees could not only maintain warm and positive interactions with
many coworkers such that they will be motivated to seek out the
focal employee for friendship but also develop expertise in specific
areas so that they become the “point person” for other coworkers
to seek advice from on work matters. Employees may also need to
proactively minimize their negative ties because being disliked by
several coworkers has reputational consequences that may ad-
versely affect their promotion and other developmental prospects
in the organization. Employees may also use negative ties as an
opportunity to become aware of the need for personal change
because these ties may provide feedback regarding how others
view them (Labianca & Brass, 2006).
Conclusion
Our study moves research on employee personal networks for-
ward by emphasizing the need to capture both the positive and
negative relational affect and behavioral intentions flowing
through the individual’s network ties. Only by moving beyond the
dominant social capital metaphor, which views networks as assets
and overemphasizes positive ties in individuals’ personal net-
works, to a more balanced view of both social assets and liabilities
can we begin to understand the subtle complexities associated with
social ledgers in the workplace.
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new
concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17– 40.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D. K., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who
attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in
social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116 –
132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116
Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace
victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic rela-
tionships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.89.6.1023
Baldwin, T., Bedell, M., & Johnson, J. (1997). The social fabric of a
team-based MBA program: Network effects on student satisfaction and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1369 –1397. doi:
10.2307/257037
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Beehr, T. A. (1986). The process of retirement: A review and recommen-
dations for future investigation. Personnel Psychology, 39, 31–55. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00573.x
Bell, G. G. (2005). Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic
Management Journal, 26, 287–295. doi:10.1002/smj.448
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for
Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic
Technologies.
Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker
satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26,
331–348. doi:10.2307/2392511
Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of
individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 29, 518 –539. doi:10.2307/2392937
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. doi:10.2307/256204
Brass, D. J. (2012). A social network perspective on organizational psy-
chology. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organi-
zational psychology (Vol. 1; pp. 667– 695). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0021
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and
unethical behavior: A social network perspective. The Academy of
Management Review, 23, 14 –31.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the
workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279 –307. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.53.100901.135156
Brush, D. H., Moch, M. K., & Pooyan, A. (1987). Individual demographic
differences and job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8,
139 –155. doi:10.1002/job.4030080205
Burt, R. S. (2001). Attachment, decay, and social network. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22, 619 – 643. doi:10.1002/job.106
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1979). The
Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished man-
uscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983).
Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In
S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. C. Cammann (Eds.),
Assessing organizational change (pp. 71–138). New York, NY: Wiley.
Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role
of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 53, 655– 684. doi:10.2189/asqu.53.4.655
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place?
Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on percep-
tions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 1082–1103. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
Chua, R., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. (2008). From the head and the heart:
Locating cognition-and affect-based trust in managers’ professional net-
works. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 436 – 452. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2008.32625956
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional
affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595– 606. doi:10.1002/job.4030140609
Crosby, F. 1982. Relative deprivation and working women. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moder-
ation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated
path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. doi:10.1037/1082-
989X.12.1.1
Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of
positive and negative gossip at work? A social network perspective on
workplace gossip. Social Networks,. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarifi-
cation. Social Networks, 1, 215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-
8733(78)90021-7
Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography
and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effective-
ness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21– 40. doi:10.1002/job
.498
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology, 78, 1360 –1380. doi:10.1086/225469
Grosser, T. J., Sterling, C. M., Scott, K. D., & Labianca, G. (2010). Social
networks, groups, and social exclusion: Combining sociometric and
psychometric approaches to understanding social exclusion in organiza-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 VENKATARAMANI, LABIANCA, AND GROSSER
tional settings. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), The “dark”
side of management: Research in management (Vol. 8, pp. 143–191).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. I. (2006). How important are
job attitudes? Meta analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral out-
comes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–
325. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786077
Hom, P. W., & Xiao, Z. (2011). Embedding social networks: How guanxi
ties reinforce Chinese employees’ retention. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 116, 188 –202. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp
.2011.06.001
Huitsing, G., van Duijn, M. A. J., Snijders, T. A. B., Wang, P., Sainiod, M.,
Salmivalli, C., & Veenstra, R. (in press). Univariate and multivariate
models of positive and negative networks: Liking, disliking, and bully–
victim relationships. Social Networks.
Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organi-
zations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 445–505). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 341–367. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-
120710-100511
Kahn, W. A. (1998). Relational systems at work. In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp.
39 –76). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A
structural analysis of the market for reputation in organizations. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 37, 87–108. doi:10.2307/256771
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cog-
nition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
35, 342–369. doi:10.2307/2393394
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance ofphilos
in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and orga-
nizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216 –239). Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative
relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organiza-
tions. The Academy of Management Review, 31, 596 – 614. doi:10.5465/
AMR.2006.21318920
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. doi:10.2307/
256897
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). Organizational attachment: Attitudes
and actions. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of
the science (pp. 83–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. doi:
10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social
psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology. Vol. 1: Theory and method (3rd ed., pp. 137–229). New
York, NY: Random House.
Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of
Sociology, 16, 435– 463. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.002251
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision
points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–1056. doi:10.1002/job.406
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commit-
ment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. doi:10.1037/0033-2909
.108.2.171
Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1978). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity
in language, memory, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization
of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review,
1, 61– 89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to orga-
nizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component
conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538 –551. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2001). The unfolding model of voluntary
turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations for a comprehensive the-
ory of attachment. In B. M. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 189 –246). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23006-8
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational
perspective on turnover: Examining structural, attitudinal, and behav-
ioral predictors. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 607– 618. doi:
10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843941
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and
the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23,
242–266.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding
of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes:
A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33, 243–268.
doi:10.1177/1059601107313307
Oldroyd, J., Hendron, M., & Labianca, G. (2008). Peacemaking at a price:
The performance effects of brokering negative affect relationships. Paper
presentation at the Intra-Organizational Networks Conference, Lexing-
ton, KY.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in
personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 17, 609 – 626. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199611)17:6⬍609::AID-JOB1828⬎3.0.CO;2-K
Payne, G. T., Moore, C. B., Griffis, S. E., & Autry, C. W. (2011).
Multilevel challenges and opportunities in social capital research. Jour-
nal of Management, 37, 491–520. doi:10.1177/0149206310372413
Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in eval-
uations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity
effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33– 60. doi:10.1080/
14792779108401856
Pickett, C. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). The social monitoring system:
Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an adaptive response to social
exclusion. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The
social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp.
213–226). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Pollock, T. G., Whitbred, R. C., & Contractor, N. (2000). Social informa-
tion processing and job characteristics: A simultaneous test of two
theories with implications for job satisfaction. Human Communication
Research, 26, 292–330.
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 12, 296 –320. doi:10.2307/2391553
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple me-
diator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 – 891. doi:10.3758/
BRM.40.3.879
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation
models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psy-
chological Methods, 16, 93–115.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate,
and settlement. New York, NY: Random House.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WORKPLACE TIES
Reeder, G. L., & Spores, J. M. (1983). The attribution of morality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 736 –745. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.44.4.736
Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on
psychological well being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46, 1097–1108. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.1097
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of
politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes,
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 211–220.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211
Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.). (1982).
Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field prac-
tice. New York, NY: Wiley.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, M., & Liden, R. (2001). A social capital theory of
career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219 –237. doi:
10.2307/3069452
Shaw, M. E. (1964). Communication networks. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 1, 111–147. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60050-7
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7, 422– 445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity
biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological
Bulletin, 105, 131–142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131
Smith, J. M., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Halgin, D. S., Labianca, G., Brass, D. J.,
& Borgatti, S. P. (in press). Power in politically charged networks.
Social Networks.
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001).
Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 44, 316 –325. doi:10.2307/3069458
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events:
The mobilization minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
67– 85. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67
Umphress, E. E., Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., Kass, E., & Scholten, L.
(2003). The role of instrumental and expressive social ties in employees’
perceptions of organizational justice. Organization Science, 14, 738 –
753. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.738.24865
Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. (2007). Who helps and harms whom?
Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organi-
zations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 952–966. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.4.952
Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central
employees speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating
variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 582–591. doi:10.1037/
a0018315
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and
applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:
10.1017/CBO9780511815478
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Pilkington, C.
(1995). The quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 199 –215. doi:10.1177/
0265407595122003
Wyer, R. S. (1973). Category ratings for “subjective expected values”:
Implications for attitude formation and change. Psychological Review,
80, 446 – 467. doi:10.1037/h0035455
Wyer, R. S. (1974). Cognitive organization and change: An information
processing approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Received February 22, 2012
Revision received June 3, 2013
Accepted June 13, 2013 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 VENKATARAMANI, LABIANCA, AND GROSSER
