Respect in Organizations: Feeling Valued as "We" and "Me"

Abstract

Research suggests that organizational members highly prize respect but rarely report adequately receiving it. However, there is a lack of theory in organizational behavior regarding what respect actually is and why members prize it. We argue that there are two distinct types of respect: generalized respect is the sense that “we” are all valued in this organization, and particularized respect is the sense that the organization values “me” for particular attributes, behaviors, and achievements. We build a theoretical model of respect, positing antecedents of generalized respect from the sender’s perspective (prestige of social category, climate for generalized respect) and proposed criteria for the evaluation of particularized respect (role, organizational member, and character prototypicality), which is then enacted by the sender and perceived by the receiver. We also articulate how these two types of respect fulfill the receiver’s needs for belonging and status, which facilitates the self-related outcomes of organization-based self-esteem, organizational and role identification, and psychological safety. Finally, we consider generalized and personalized respect jointly and present four combinations of the two types of respect. We argue that the discrepancy between organizational members’ desired and received respect is partially attributable to the challenge of simultaneously enacting or receiving respect for both the “we” and the “me.”

Full text

http://jom.sagepub.com/
Journal of Management
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/10/30/0149206314557159
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314557159
published online 31 October 2014Journal of Management
Kristie M. Rogers and Blake E. Ashforth
Respect in Organizations: Feeling Valued as ''We'' and ''Me''
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association
can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for
http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Oct 31, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1 –31
DOI: 10.1177/0149206314557159
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1
Respect in Organizations: Feeling Valued as “We”
and “Me”
Kristie M. Rogers
University of Kansas
Blake E. Ashforth
Arizona State University
Research suggests that organizational members highly prize respect but rarely report ade-
quately receiving it. However, there is a lack of theory in organizational behavior regarding
what respect actually is and why members prize it. We argue that there are two distinct types of
respect: generalized respect is the sense that “we” are all valued in this organization, and par-
ticularized respect is the sense that the organization values “me” for particular attributes,
behaviors, and achievements. We build a theoretical model of respect, positing antecedents of
generalized respect from the sender’s perspective (prestige of social category, climate for gen-
eralized respect) and proposed criteria for the evaluation of particularized respect (role, orga-
nizational member, and character prototypicality), which is then enacted by the sender and
perceived by the receiver. We also articulate how these two types of respect fulfill the receiver’s
needs for belonging and status, which facilitates the self-related outcomes of organization-
based self-esteem, organizational and role identification, and psychological safety. Finally, we
consider generalized and personalized respect jointly and present four combinations of the two
types of respect. We argue that the discrepancy between organizational members’ desired and
received respect is partially attributable to the challenge of simultaneously enacting or receiv-
ing respect for both the “we” and the “me.”
Keywords: respect; identity; status; belonging; organization-based self-esteem; identifica-
tion; psychological safety
Acknowledgments: We would like to express our gratitude to all who helped us develop and refine the ideas in
this article, especially Jean Bartunek, Kevin Corley, Amy Hillman, Peter Hom, Steve Neuberg, and Beth Schinoff.
We also thank Michelle Duffy and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which greatly improved
the manuscript. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2012 Academy of Management meetings in
Boston.
Corresponding author: Kristie M. Rogers, School of Business, University of Kansas, 1300 Sunnyside Ave., Law-
rence, KS 66045-7601, USA.
E-mail: kristie.rogers@ku.edu
557159JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314557159Journal of ManagementRogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations
research-article2014
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Many employees desire far more respect at work than they receive. When asked to rate
characteristics employees valued most in their job, respect—defined below as the “[per-
ceived] worth accorded to one person by one or more others” (Spears, Ellemers, Doosje, &
Branscombe, 2006: 179)—was ranked among the highest, above income, career opportuni-
ties, and the amount of leisure time afforded by the job (van Quaquebeke, Zenker, & Eckloff,
2009). Likewise, in a study of what employees view as characteristics of excellent managers,
“it was found that trust and respect dominated all other categories of managerial behavior”
(Drehmer & Grossman, 1984: 763). Yet, despite the reported importance of respect, van
Quaquebeke and Eckloff (2010) found a disconnect between employees’ desired respect and
the respect they report actually receiving at work. Furthermore, research indicates that this
discrepancy is especially salient in low-status or “dirty” work (e.g., Henry, 2011; Hodson,
2001; Sanders & Campbell, 2007), suggesting that those who receive the least respect at
work desire it most. Indeed, respect “seems to be somewhat of a blind spot within organiza-
tional priorities” (van Quaquebeke et al., 2009: 429).
Social psychologists suggest that receiving respect is critical to both the functioning of
collectives and the well-being of individuals (Huo & Binning, 2008). But what makes respect
particularly important in organizational contexts? Among the many social contexts where
respect cues are potentially sought, we suggest that respect is particularly powerful when
received at work because employment is based on an exchange relationship, where tangible
and intangible rewards signal the value of a contribution (Shore et al., 2004) and, indirectly,
the value of the person making the contribution. This salience of organizational members’
worth in a work context may motivate them to confirm their worth based on the respect they
receive. Indeed, Ellingsen and Johannesson (2007) suggest that employees wish to be com-
pensated with, and are highly motivated by, respect cues from the organization and its mem-
bers. We argue that respect is among the most important of all social cues that employees
receive from their work environment, as it validates their worth and meets universal human
needs. Thus, building a theoretical model focusing on the nuances and dynamics of this con-
struct will improve the field’s grasp on how and why such affirmations of worth matter.
Given that respect is so central to employees’ work experiences, how has respect been
examined in organizational research? To date, the topic has received only modest direct
attention.1 However, respect has been a common element underlying well-established
research areas, particularly leadership and justice. The leadership literature’s acknowledg-
ment of respect dates back to the consideration dimension in the Ohio State leadership stud-
ies (Fleishman & Harris, 1962) and also includes research on charismatic leadership (Conger
& Kanungo, 1987), ethical leadership (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005), servant leader-
ship (van Dierendonck, 2011), and positive leader–member exchange (Gerstner & Day,
1997), which together indicate that (a) leaders serve as important sources of respect for indi-
viduals and (b) effective leadership involves, in part, expressions of respect. In addition,
respect and organizational justice (Greenberg, 1987) are inextricably linked in the justice
literature because organizational processes (i.e., procedural justice; Lind & Tyler, 1988), how
one is treated (i.e., interactional justice; Bies & Moag, 1986), and the outcomes one receives
(i.e., distributive justice; Folger & Konovsky, 1989) provide strong signals of one’s worth.
Perhaps most important, these literatures stress the relevance of respect across relationships,
perceptions, and behaviors in organizations and also help convey that respect in organiza-
tions is ultimately a social phenomenon. However, these literatures have stopped short of
elucidating the nuances of respect as a construct in its own right. As Langdon (2007: 470)
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 3
notes, despite the widespread use of the term respect in the popular press and academic
research, “an overarching theory of respect and its complements, including a uniform defini-
tion, is absent from the literature.”
We aim to move theory forward regarding how respect works in organizations by focusing
on two key theoretical issues. First, we seek to lay the foundation for what respect means in
the organizational context. Our read of the literature suggests that there is much conceptual
confusion surrounding the construct, as respect (a) is studied from the sender’s perspective at
times and from the receiver’s perspective at other times and (b) is used in ways that muddle
two very distinct types of respect experiences. As described in detail later, these two types or
“parts” appear to make up the respect “whole.” The first type of respect is equally accorded
to all individuals in a social category regardless of individuating attributes, behaviors, or
achievements, fostering a sense that “we” are all valued as members (what we will call “gen-
eralized respect”). The second type is earned by the receiver on the basis of his or her valued
attributes, behaviors, and achievements, fostering the sense that the individual, or “me,” is
valued (“particularized respect”).
Second, given the multidimensional nature of respect, there are likely unique bases for
each type of respect, and unique mediators between each type and various self-related out-
comes. Thus, we seek to build a theoretical model that details the particular bases for general-
ized respect and particularized respect, and the psychological processes through which each
type of respect affects individuals’ sense of themselves. We draw on respect research in the
social sciences to suggest that employees highly prize respect because it satisfies certain
universal human needs and that several self-related outcomes flow from the fulfillment of
these needs. In addition, while the outcomes of receiving respect have garnered modest atten-
tion in the literature, the antecedents of respect have garnered even less, begging a question:
How is respect assessed and enacted in organizations in the first place? Finally, we extend
theory by jointly considering generalized and particularized respect.
Our article is organized as follows. First, in the next section we highlight the lack of con-
ceptual clarity surrounding the construct, posit the definition of Spears et al. (2006) as a
helpful formulation, and extend this formulation in certain ways. Second, in “A Model of
Generalized and Particularized Respect in Organizations,” the major section of the article,
we focus on how and why respect is sent and received. We present a theoretical framework
that includes the antecedents of each form of respect, how each form is enacted, and the
impact of each form. Next, we consider how generalized and particularized respect may
operate together. Finally, in the discussion section we offer implications for future research
and managerial practice.
Defining Respect
Although respect has long had a tacit presence in various areas of organizational research,
there is not a widely accepted definition of the construct, which remains a roadblock to
understanding the role that respect plays in organizational life. There are numerous defini-
tions of respect across various disciplines, leaving scholars contemplating whether respect is
“an attitude, a mode of conduct, a feeling, a form of attention, a mode of valuing, a virtue, a
duty, an entitlement, a tribute, [or] a principle” (Dillon, 2007: 201). Furthermore, a difference
in lay usage of the term respect appears across individuals, and even within individuals
across situations, such as a mother who desires respect from her child as obedience, respect
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
from her husband as giving space to maintain individuality, and respect from her employer
as appreciating her work (Simon, 2007). Definitions have also been presented in the organi-
zational literature (see Grover, 2014, for a review). Spears et al. (2006: 179) provide a simple
and clear definition that captures the spirit of other definitions, which we, as noted, are adopt-
ing here: Respect is the “[perceived] worth accorded to one person by one or more others.”
This general definition serves as the core to conceptualizing respect because it can be applied
to generalized and particularized respect, self-respect, and the sender’s or the receiver’s per-
spective. However, we wish to elaborate on this definition in two important ways.
Two Definitional Extensions
Reviewing various definitions of respect suggests two very important extensions to the
definition of Spears et al. (2006). First, scholars in various disciplines distinguish between
respect based simply on one’s humanity and respect based on one’s socially valued attributes,
behaviors, and achievements (Grover, 2014). For example, in philosophy, Darwall (1977)
and Dillon (2007) distinguish between “recognition respect” and “appraisal respect.”
Criminal justice researchers Butler and Drake (2007) divide respect into “respect-as-consid-
eration” and “respect-as-esteem.” And political scientist Bird (2004) writes that research is
divided into two reinterpretations of historical conceptualizations of respect: a focus on
human equality and a more recent focus on attributes that differentiate individuals. In orga-
nizational studies, van Quaquebeke, Henrich, and Eckloff (2007) and Grover (2014) follow
Darwall (1977) in utilizing “recognition” and “appraisal” respect, and Lalljee, Laham, and
Tam (2007) distinguish between “unconditional” and “achieved” respect. Thus, various lit-
eratures suggest related terms for the same idea that respect falls into two basic categories:
generalized respect and particularized respect. Both generalized and particularized respect
include the basic definition noted above: “[perceived] worth accorded to one person by one
or more others” (Spears et al., 2006: 179); the differentiation comes from what the respect is
based on. Hence, we define generalized respect as the worth accorded by one or more others,
which “is owed to everyone [in a social category] simply as a function of their being persons.
It is not conditional on a person’s status or achievements. It cannot be acquired and cannot be
lost” (Lalljee et al., 2007: 452). Generalized respect is sent to all members of a social cate-
gory, where a category refers to a particular way of grouping people (e.g., organization, work
group, occupation, gender).2 Particularized respect, in contrast, is the worth accorded by one
or more others, which is based on the target’s attributes, behaviors, and achievements.
The second definitional extension is that the point of view from which respect is perceived
varies across the definitions. According to De Cremer and Mulder (2007: 441), “respect is
considered not as something that people simply intuit by themselves, but rather as a judgment
that emerges from the treatment they receive from others,” making the role of each party
important to clarify. Some scholars define respect from the sender’s perspective (e.g., “a
behavioral manifestation of believing another person has value”; Grover, 2014: 28), some
define it from the receiver’s perspective (e.g., “an individual’s assessment of how they are
evaluated by those with whom they share common group membership”; Huo & Binning,
2008: 1571), and for others it is not clear whether respect resides in the sender or receiver.
And, indeed, important and unique research questions are associated with each perspective
that we broach in this article (e.g., What criteria does the sender use in assessing respect?
How does receiving respect cues affect the receiver’s sense of self?). Following Katz and
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 5
Kahn’s (1978) distinction between sent roles and received roles, we distinguish between sent
respect (the expression of worth by one party) and received respect (the perception of imputed
worth by the receiving party). Senders include any actor that directly or indirectly interacts
with a given social category member—in this case, an organizational member—as a category
member. Senders can be individuals acting on the basis of their own conclusions, or as a
representative of the organization or other collective level of analysis. The organization (or
another collective) itself can also be a sender of respect, as when, for example, human
resource management policies institutionalize practices that convey generalized and/or par-
ticularized respect.
Each of these two extensions to the basic definition of respect—generalized versus par-
ticularized respect and sent versus received respect—play a prominent role in our theory
building.
Nomological Network
The construct of respect is often confounded with similar sounding constructs, making it
important to articulate how respect differs from related constructs. We distinguish respect
from the closely related constructs of trust, interactional justice, civility, status, and dignity.
Table 1 defines each construct and explains how it differs from respect.
Of the various constructs listed in Table 1, respect is perhaps most easily confused with
organizational justice, particularly interactional justice. Bies and Moag (1986: 44) state that
“[B]y interactional justice we mean that people are sensitive to the quality of interpersonal
treatment they receive during the enactment of organizational procedures.” We view respect
as a root or foundational construct, that is, one that underlies and helps inform certain con-
structs in the organizational studies literature, particularly organizational justice (and more
specifically, interactional justice), civility, empowerment, and compassion. Respect, as the
worth accorded by one or more others, is manifested and inferred via various means such as
displays of fairness (the hallmark of justice) and expressions of sympathy and support (the
hallmarks of compassion). Indeed, some definitions of justice convey the imputed worth that
accompanies just treatment (e.g., “In all cases, of course, justice consists in giving a person
his due”; Feinberg, 1974: 298). It is perhaps because of its foundational role that the term
respect crops up in operationalizations not only of justice (“Has [he/she] treated you with
respect?”; Colquitt, 2001: 389) and civility (“People treat each other with respect in my work
group”; Osatuke, Moore, Ward, Dyrenforth, & Belton, 2009: 406), but of various other orga-
nizational constructs, such as transformational leadership (“[I]nstills pride and respect in
others . . .”; Carless, Wearing, & Mann, 2000: 396) and learning organization (“In my
organization, people treat each other with respect”; Marsick & Watkins, 2003: 144).
Furthermore, because of the foundational role of respect, exploring the dynamics of respect
in organizational contexts will also help inform our understanding of justice and other con-
structs that manifest respect.
To visually illustrate this point, Figure 1 depicts a bidirectional line from observable
behaviors to perceptions to the self. The figure can be interpreted in two ways regarding
respect. First, the figure suggests a process. Others’ behaviors toward oneself (displays of, for
example, justice, civility, empowerment, and compassion) are perceived as cues signaling
respect (or lack of), which affect one’s sense of self. As Sayer (2007: 565) suggests, “Our
self-respect depends so much on how others treat us, particularly others with whom we
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Table 1
Construct Definitions and Relationships to Respect
Respect Respect is the “[perceived] worth accorded to one person by one or more
others” (Spears et al., 2006: 179).
Generalized respect is the worth accorded by one or more others, which “is
owed to everyone [in a social category] simply as a function of their being
persons. It is not conditional on a person’s status or achievements. It cannot
be acquired or lost” (Lalljee et al., 2007: 452).
Particularized respect is the worth accorded to one person by one or more
others, which is based on attributes, behaviors, and achievements.
Trust Trust is a willingness to be vulnerable in a relationship (Cronin, 2003; Mayer,
Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) or
“the extent to which a person is confident in, and willing to act on the basis
of, the words, actions, and decisions of another” (McAllister, 1995: 25). Trust
implies taking a risk in a relationship, whereas respect is the value or worth
accorded to a person (Cronin, 2003; Ramarajan, Barsade, & Burack, 2008).
From the sender’s perspective, particularized respect is a likely antecedent
to trust because individuals are less inclined to be vulnerable with someone
whom they do not value (Cronin, 2003). Thus, the sender’s assessment of
one’s unique worth (particularized respect) would typically precede and
inform one’s willingness to be vulnerable with another person (trust).
Interactional Justice Interactional justice is a fairness judgment based on the quality of interpersonal
communication and treatment that one receives (Bies & Moag, 1986).
According to Bies and Moag (1986), and Colquitt’s (2001) operationalization
of interpersonal justice, respectful treatment is an input for fairness
judgments, making received respect a likely antecedent to perceived justice.
Civility “. . . a behavior involving politeness and regard for others in the workplace,
within workplace norms for respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999: 454).
Civility focuses on behaviors that uphold workplace norms or convey respect.
It is likely that civility is a behavioral manifestation of sent respect, such that
sent respect is conveyed, at least in part, through civility.
Status Status is “the extent to which an individual or group is respected or admired
by others” (Magee & Galinsky, 2008: 359) or “the respect, prominence,
and influence individuals enjoy in the eyes of others” (Anderson, Brion,
Moore, & Kennedy, 2012: 718). Generalized respect and status clearly differ,
as generalized respect is equally due to all members of a social category,
regardless of individuating attributes, behaviors, and achievements. Our take
is that particularized respect and status can be viewed as synonymous insofar
as both are defined narrowly as the value accorded to a person in a particular
context. However, status is often defined not simply as the value accorded to
a person but as a social stratification or one’s position in a hierarchy, such that
status “ranks people vertically” (Fiske, 2010: 941). In contrast to this status
as social stratification, particularized respect is assessed relative to standards
rather than against others per se. Accordingly, organizational members of any
hierarchical status or rank (e.g., frontline employee, top executive, novice
manager) have the potential to be seen as respectworthy.
Dignity Hodson (2001: preface) defines dignity as “the ability to establish a sense
of self-worth and self-respect and to enjoy the respect of others.” Given
this definition, we view dignity as a perception about oneself that is based
on signals of worth from others. That is, enactments of respect—of being
valued—are internalized by the receiver, fostering a sense of dignity.
Perceived respect is thus an antecedent of dignity.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 7
associate on a regular basis.” In this processual interpretation of Figure 1, the self is in part
an amalgam of the myriad instances in which respect cues were perceived.3 The second inter-
pretation of the figure suggests interdependent phenomena that are most stable at the base of
the pyramid (i.e., the self) and most variable at the top (i.e., others’ behaviors toward one-
self). Whereas behaviors and perceptions are momentary and shift with the vicissitudes of a
given situation, aggregated perceptions over time (schema) about one’s general respectability
tend to be far more stable, and the underlying substrate of self, more stable still (cf. Swann &
Bosson, 2010). The more experience one has in an organization, the more behaviors bearing
respect cues one has been exposed to and, thus, the more stable one’s respect schema and
sense of self tend to be in that particular context (assuming some consistency in cues across
senders and over time).
A Model of Generalized and Particularized Respect in Organizations
As noted, scholars in social psychology, political science, and so on use the word respect
to describe two distinct types: generalized and particularized (cf. Grover, 2014). We system-
atically examined research on respect through this lens, dividing it into these categories. We
also explain the connection between the two types of respect and social needs. In their
research on receiving respect, De Cremer and Mulder (2007: 441), along with Huo and
Binning (2008; Huo, Binning, & Molina, 2010), discuss the universal social needs for
belonging and status and suggest that “respect specifically fulfils these needs,” which in turn
Figure 1
The Internalization of Respect Cues
The Self
Others’ behaviors toward oneself
(displays of, e.g., justice, civility,
empowerment, compassion)
Perceptions and aggregated
perceptions (schema) of respect
(i.e., imputed worth from one or more
others)
The self
(e.g., identity, self-esteem)
Perceptions
Observable Behaviors
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
fosters well-being. We argue below that generalized respect helps satisfy the receivers’ need
for belonging and particularized respect helps satisfy the need for status, and that several
self-related outcomes flow from the fulfillment of each need.
In this section, we describe the nature and antecedents of generalized respect, how gener-
alized respect is enacted, the impact of received generalized respect on the need for belong-
ing, and subsequent self-related outcomes. Given that our model is contextualized in
organizations, these outcomes include organization-based self-esteem, organizational and
role identification, and psychological safety. Next, we describe the ways in which particular-
ized respect is earned, how particularized respect is enacted, the impact of particularized
respect on the need for status, and subsequent self-related outcomes. Figure 2 summarizes
our resulting model. Although our propositions focus only on self-related outcomes, we also
note adjustment variables that are positively related to these outcomes.
Generalized Respect
Notions of respect involving consideration and human equality speak to a treatment of all
individuals as inherently valuable. Respect is “generalized” in the sense that it does not dis-
tinguish between individuals within a given collective. Scholars trace this form of respect to
philosopher Immanuel Kant (1785/2002: 46-47), who wrote, “Act so that you use human-
ity . . . always at the same time as end [sic] and never merely as means” (see also Hill, 2000,
Figure 2
Generalized and Particularized Respect in Organizations
The Self
Perceptions
Observable Behaviors
P1a
Climate for
Generalized Respect
Prestige of
Social Category
Org.
Member
Prototype
Character
Prototype
Assessed
Particularized Respect
Enacted
Particularized Respect
Enacted
Generalized Respect
Received Generalized
Respect
Received
Particularized Respect
Satisfaction of Need
for Status
Satisfaction of Need
for Belonging
•Organization-based
self-esteem
•Identification
with the collective
Psychological Safety Identification with
the work role
Sender
Receiver
P1b
P2
P3
P4a, b, c
P5a
P5b
P6
P7
Role
Prototype
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 9
and Simon, 2007). But what does this look like, specifically, in an organizational setting? We
argue that generalized respect is the worth assigned to members of a social category. Social
categories vary from broad (e.g., all members of this organization) to narrow (e.g., those who
occupy management roles; those in a particular functional area). Following self-categoriza-
tion theory (Hornsey, 2008; J. C. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), indi-
viduals make sense of their social world by organizing themselves and others into meaningful
categories. In organizational settings, such categories typically include role, department,
hierarchical level, and demographic differences (e.g., gender, tenure). Regardless of the
scope of the category, the idea is that all individuals who occupy the category are accorded
the same level of respect—hence its “generalized” quality. For pedagogical purposes, our
discussion focuses on the organizational member category, such that all members of the orga-
nization are given a common level of generalized respect.4
Prestige of social category. Not only do individuals make sense of their social world
by organizing themselves and others into categories, they derive a sense of self from their
membership in these categories (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). A major motive for identifying with
a particular social category is the enhancement of self (Capozza, Brown, Aharpour, & Falvo,
2006). A given category is therefore attractive to the extent that it compares favorably with
other categories in its comparison set (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, categories that are per-
ceived to have relatively high prestige tend to be more attractive to their members (e.g., Mael
& Ashforth, 1992; Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001).
We argue that the prestige of a social category—in our running example, the organization
itself—is associated with enacted generalized respect, that is, expressions of generalized
respect toward category members. An organization that is perceived to have a positive reputa-
tion when compared to its peers is likely to help foster a sense that members are, collectively,
inherently valuable. The importance of this sense of inherent value is suggested by classic
studies that document the trauma that organizational members tend to experience when the
prestige of their organizations is severely threatened and the lengths that members often go to
defend against those threats (e.g., Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). In
sum, the greater the prestige of the social category, the greater the enacted generalized respect.
Climate for generalized respect. Does it make sense to speak of a collective-level—here,
an organizational-level—orientation toward generalized respect, such that all members of
the collective share a sense of the worth accorded to members? When respondents from
diverse organizations were asked to identify attributes that characterized their organization,
O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) found that respect for individuals clearly emerged
as one dimension. The respondents were asked not about their own experiences with the
organization, but rather about the overall feel of the place, suggesting that individuals can
gain a general sense of the respect for employees. According to Dutton (2003: 144), organi-
zations differ in “how much they value the worth and dignity of every individual regardless
of rank or position.” Ramarajan, Barsade, and Burack (2006) posit that employees sense a
level of respect from their organization that is sent to all members. Likewise, Osatuke et al.
(2009: 386) suggest that respect and civility in organizations “may be best conceived at the
organizational rather than purely individual level” because respect and civility jointly consti-
tute an “interactive process occurring within a situational context . . . rather than single static
events between separate individuals.” These authors conducted organization-level respect
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
and civility interventions and found significant differences in pre- and postintervention col-
lective respect at intervention sites but not at control sites (sample item: “people treat each
other with respect in my work group”; Osatuke et al., 2009: 406; see also Leiter, Laschinger,
Day, & Oore, 2011).
In short, research suggests that a “climate for respect” can be said to exist (Ramarajan et
al., 2008; Singh & Winkel, 2012), defined by Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, and Umphress
(2003: 294) as “shared perceptions regarding the extent to which individuals within their
organization are esteemed, shown consideration, and treated with dignity.”5 Kuenzi and
Schminke (2009) point out that climate is perceptual rather than objective, collective rather
than individual, and, most important for our purposes, grounded in concrete activities. In
sum, climate is a shared inference based on past activities.
Enacting and receiving generalized respect. To truly sense generalized respect—a sense
that all are valued—one must look at how oneself and others are treated. In other words, a
given individual’s inference of generalized respect is not based simply on how he or she
is treated. Consistent with climate research (e.g., Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009; Naumann &
Bennett, 2000), individuals also rely on observations of how others are treated to inform
their perceptions because it provides information about how they will likely be treated (Lind
& Tyler, 1988; Ramarajan et al., 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Thus, while we noted that
senders of respect include any actor that directly or indirectly interacts with a given orga-
nizational member as a member, in the case of generalized respect, senders also include
any actor that directly or indirectly interacts with other organizational members. Although
generalized respect is likely perceived from many senders, one is likely to put more weight
on how salient others send generalized respect, particularly senior managers (who are seen
to personify the organization) and one’s direct manager and peers (Ashforth & Rogers, 2012;
Eisenberger et al., 2010).
We argue that senders of generalized respect take their cue from the prestige of the social
category (the organization, in our example) and the climate for generalized respect in decid-
ing how to treat all members. Based on prestige and a climate for generalized respect, how,
then, do senders enact generalized respect? That is, what specific behaviors and practices are
likely to result that signal generalized respect to members? Figure 1 lists, as general exam-
ples, behaviors that display justice, civility, empowerment, and compassion. Such behaviors
qualify to the extent they are targeted at the collective or at least members generally rather
than at individual members idiosyncratically. Regarding, more specifically, the prestige of
the social category, behaviors and practices may include soliciting advice and involvement,
augmenting resources, displaying “honorific deference” (Berger, Ridgeway, Fisek, &
Norman, 1998: 397), and bestowing “prestige goods” (i.e., “material items whose primary
function . . . is to signal elevated social status as well as to assist in augmenting status”;
Plourde, 2008: 374) such as awards.
Turning to the empirical literature on climate for respect, Ramarajan and colleagues
(2008) conducted a quasi-experiment in hospital subunits seeking to treat their employees
more respectfully. Results indicate that a flatter and more team-based structure (where
employees had more opportunities for involvement), along with a greater emphasis on active
listening and the valuing of diversity, led to greater perceptions of (generalized) respect for
employees. Fuller and colleagues (2006) also examined a health care setting, finding that
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 11
perceived opportunities for growth and participation in decision making were related to
employee perceptions of (generalized) respect. And Takeuchi, Chen, and Lepak (2009: 3)
found that specific human resource management practices such as developmental perfor-
mance appraisals were associated with a sense of “concern for employees.” In addition,
Southwest Airlines “consistently tries to convey that all people are important and that every-
one should be treated with dignity and respect” (O’Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000: 33) and empha-
sizes egalitarianism and teamwork in its daily practices (Gittell, 2002). These examples
suggest that a climate for generalized respect is enacted via behaviors and practices directed
toward all members of the organization as well as via interpersonal interactions, such as one-
on-one respectful engagements where an individual communicates appreciation of one’s
inherent worth (Dutton, 2003). In short, it is the ongoing direct and indirect enactments of
generalized respect that communicate that the respect is “real.”
Our discussion thus suggests the following:
Proposition 1: (a) The prestige of a social category and a climate for generalized respect are each
positively associated with the enactment of behaviors and practices that signal generalized
respect; (b) enacted generalized respect is positively associated with received generalized
respect.
Received generalized respect and the need for belonging. Research indicates that the
experience of receiving respect is closely tied to the fulfillment of certain universal social
needs. De Cremer and Tyler (2005) concluded from six experiments that feeling respected
addresses concerns for belonging and status. Huo and colleagues (Huo & Binning, 2008;
Huo et al., 2010; see also De Cremer & Mulder, 2007, and Ellemers, Sleebos, Stam, & de
Gilder, 2013) essentially formalized this finding in their dual-pathway model of respect,
where they found that receiving respect is important to individuals because it satisfies these
two core social needs.6
According to Baumeister and Leary (1995: 522; see also Baumeister, 2012, and Gere &
MacDonald, 2010), “human beings are fundamentally and pervasively motivated by a need
to belong.” Following social identity theory, there are two forms of belonging: personalized
and depersonalized (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
Personalized belonging refers to the deep social bond a person feels from sensing that one or
more others like him or her as an individual; depersonalized belonging refers to the social
bond a person feels from sharing a valued social identity with other members (Cooper &
Thatcher, 2010; Mael & Ashforth, 2001; Riketta, 2008), which is dependent not on specific
interpersonal relationships but on seeing oneself as a member of a valued collective.
By recognizing the organization itself as a relatively desirable employer (prestige) and/or
by recognizing all organizational members as inherently valued parts of the collective (cli-
mate for respect)—and thereby implicitly promoting an organizational identity that many
members would find attractive—generalized respect helps foster depersonalized belonging.
Thus, we argue that generalized respect helps meet the universal need for belonging.
Proposition 2: Received generalized respect helps satisfy the need for belonging.
Outcomes. We posit that major self-related outcomes of satisfying the need for belong-
ing include organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), organizational identification, and
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
psychological safety. OBSE is “one’s belief about his or her self-worth . . . specifically
within the context of the workplace” (Bowling, Eschleman, Wang, Kirkendall, & Alarcon,
2010: 601-602), and self-esteem is occasionally referred to as self-respect. Given the impor-
tance of the need for belonging, it is not surprising that a sense that one is accepted and
included—that one matters to others (in this case, as reflected through enacted generalized
respect)—has been linked to one’s general self-esteem (Gorrese & Ruggieri, 2013; Gro-
ver, 2014; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, &
Scabini, 2006; however, see Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009). As Koch and
Shepperd (2008: 55) note, “self-esteem serves as a gauge of others’ acceptance or rejection.”
Indeed, these researchers found that positive feedback concerning acceptance had a greater
influence on self-esteem than did positive feedback concerning competence. These dynam-
ics are likely no less true of OBSE because satisfying the need for belonging in a specific
domain such as the workplace is most likely to enhance self-esteem in that same domain. In
turn, a meta-analysis by Bowling et al. (2010) reported positive associations between OBSE
and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, organizational citizenship
behaviors, and employee health.
Individuals tend to define themselves in part through affiliations that address their needs
(Pratt, 1998). Thus, in helping satisfy the need for belonging, generalized respect is likely to
foster identification with the organization. Indeed, organizational identification has been
described partly in terms of a sense of belonging (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Davenport &
Daellenbach, 2011; Dávila & García, 2012). While no research that we are aware of directly
assesses the link between a sense of belonging and organizational identification, Easterbrook
and Vignoles (2012) found that positive changes in the satisfaction of the need for belonging
predicted concurrent positive changes in students’ identification with members of their dor-
mitory. And Singh and Winkel (2012), as well as Fuller and colleagues (2006), found a posi-
tive association between generalized (“mutual”) respect at work and organizational
identification. Research clearly indicates that organizational identification is, in turn, associ-
ated with a variety of positive outcomes, from organizational citizenship behaviors to orga-
nizationally beneficial decision making (see Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008, for a
review).
Finally, generalized respect, via helping satisfy the need for belonging, is also likely to
foster a sense of psychological safety. Psychological safety is “feeling able to show and
employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career”
(Kahn, 1990: 708). In viewing all members as inherently worthy, generalized respect fosters
a sense of belonging to a community that accepts individuals as they are, encouraging mem-
bers to feel secure. For example, Carmeli and Gittell (2009) found that high-quality relation-
ships (a composite of generalized [“mutual”] respect, shared goals, and shared knowledge)
were strongly associated with psychological safety (see also Singh & Winkel, 2012). Research
indicates that psychological safety may, in turn, foster positive outcomes such as learning,
collaboration, and creativity (e.g., Edmondson, 2004; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2012).
Perhaps most important for our focus on the self, psychological safety encourages individu-
als to experiment with “provisional selves” (Ibarra, 1999)—to try new ways of enacting their
roles, of “being”—such that the collective provides an incubator for the evolving workplace
self.
In sum, our arguments suggest the follow proposition:
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 13
Proposition 3: Satisfaction of the need for belonging mediates the relationship between received
generalized respect and (a) organization-based self-esteem, (b) organizational identification, and
(c) psychological safety.
Particularized Respect
Notions of respect involving appraisal (Darwall, 1977; Dillon, 2007), achievement
(Lalljee et al., 2007), esteem (Butler & Drake, 2007), and individuating attributes (Bird,
2004) speak to the act of explicitly differentiating among actors within a social category and
viewing their worth according to some metric. Respect is “particularized” in the sense that it
varies across actors.7 Unlike generalized respect, which applies universally to category mem-
bers as members, particularized respect is earned, as reflected in the sender’s assessment of
the individual receiver. But in an organizational context, how does one earn particularized
respect? Specifically, what criteria are used by a sender to make a particularized respect
assessment? We argue below that assessed particularized respect is contingent on role, orga-
nizational member, and character prototypical standards.
We noted that anyone who directly or indirectly interacts with an individual as a member
of a social category is a potential sender of respect, but that individuals place more weight on
salient and/or proximal others. In the case of particularized respect, we add two caveats: (a)
such respect is most appropriately sent and received when both parties share an understanding
of respect criteria (Cranor, 1975; van Quaquebeke et al., 2007) and (b) a sender needs to have
sufficient information about a receiver’s attributes, behaviors, and achievements vis-à-vis the
prototypical standards discussed below to make an informed judgment (Cranor, 1975). For
example, “typically only doctors could respect other doctors as good doctors and patients
could not, since they typically lack the knowledge and appreciation of what it is to be a good
doctor that is essential to respect” (Cranor, 1975: 313). Thus, the senders of particularized
respect tend to include one’s manager, peers, and—if applicable—subordinates, as well as
knowledgeable clients and other informed parties with whom one has important interactions.
Criteria for Assessing Particularized Respect
Bartel, Wrzesniewski, and Wiesenfeld (2012: 745) suggest that particularized (“earned”)
respect is based on “the extent to which employees are viewed as prototypical organizational
members.” Furthermore, Tyler and Blader (2002) note that in groups and organizations the
criteria for respect are derived from collective schemas, which are based on the prototypical
attributes of members who are in good standing. A prototype is “an abstracted list of features
that are typical of category members” (Kunda, 1999: 30) and prototypicality, by extension, is
the extent to which an individual matches such features. Prototypes tend not to be definitive
sets of standards with hard and clear boundaries; rather, they tend to be “fuzzy sets” in that their
standards form a loose configuration that may blur at the boundaries (Fiske & Taylor, 2008).
Prototypes are shaped by direct experiences with concrete exemplars and by various indirect
experiences, such as workplace socialization, through which collectives facilitate shared expec-
tations among their members (Dickson, Resick, & Goldstein, 2008). Because prototypes are
context-dependent, respectworthy criteria tend to vary somewhat across organizations.
It is because particularized respect represents an assessment of value that enactments of
respect are reserved for those individuals whose qualities are perceived to be similar to
abstracted and/or actual individuals in good standing (Tyler & Blader, 2002). By “qualities”
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
we mean behaviors and achievements that signal understanding, acceptance, and fulfillment
of the relevant prototype, as well as attributes that suggest the potential for these behaviors
and achievements (e.g., prior work experience, educational attainments).8 For example,
Sypher and Zorn (1988: 39) found that “the prototypic liked co-worker emerged as one who
is considerate and personable, has integrity, has leadership and communication skills, and is
assertive but also open to others’ ideas and opinions.” Generally, individuals who exceed the
“standards” (Boldero & Francis, 2002) are accorded more respect and may serve as exem-
plars.9 Indeed, it seems likely that the standards for respect are an amalgam of what is normal
or descriptive (and can therefore be expected of typical members) and what is aspired to or
prescriptive (and can therefore be hoped for; Bartel et al., 2012; see Higgins, 1989, for a
related discussion of ought vs. ideal standards). After all, what is “normal” in a given setting
may fall below accepted notions of respectworthy behavior, achievements, and attributes.
We argue that standards in one’s work role, standards as an organizational member, and
standards for one’s character as a person jointly constitute the prototypical features to which
a person is compared in order to earn particularized respect.
Role prototypicality. Due to the interdependent nature of work relationships, people within
organizations are motivated to attend to information that suggests how well a given colleague
will fulfill his or her role responsibilities (Burke & Stets, 2009; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).
Observable indicators of fulfilling one’s role responsibilities include behavior (e.g., task
activities, conformity to norms), performance outcomes (e.g., quality and quantity of output,
role innovation), and identity markers (e.g., attire, use of jargon; Ashforth, 2001). Evaluating
a receiver based on person-specific information pertinent to his or her role enables a sender
to assess how well the receiver matches the role’s prototype. The more that the receiver is
seen to match the prototype, the more likely he or she will be accorded (earn) particularized
respect. For instance, van Quaquebeke, van Knippenberg, and Brodbeck (2011) found that
the more subordinates perceived their supervisor as matching their notion of an ideal leader,
the more they respected him or her as a leader.
Organizational member prototypicality. There are also standards for earning particular-
ized respect that apply to all members of the organization. Thus, this broader set of valued
criteria transcends any given role. In particular, an organization’s identity defines the central,
distinctive, and more or less enduring nature of the organization—“whom we are as an orga-
nization” (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000)—and an organization’s
culture includes the values, beliefs, and assumptions that typify the organization (Schein,
2010). The more that a receiver enacts valued aspects of the organization’s identity and cul-
ture, the more prototypical he or she will be perceived to be. Observable indicators include
behaviors that demonstrate an understanding and acceptance of the organization’s identity
and culture (e.g., deference to rank in an army; Keijzer, 1978), as well as identity markers
that typify the organization rather than simply one’s role (e.g., using company products). For
example, Bartel et al. (2012) argue that virtual work is contrary to the prototypical expecta-
tions of some organizations and found a negative association between virtual workers’ per-
ceptions of being physically isolated and being respected.
Character prototypicality. We follow past research that suggests (particularized) respect
is earned in part for valued character standards that tend to be deeply held and transcend
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 15
the organizational context (Cranor, 1975; Cronin, 2003; Sennett, 2003). The question of
what actually constitutes “character” has been pondered since at least the time of Aristotle,
and many views have been offered (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Sennett, 2003). Fur-
thermore, perceptions of morality, ethicality, and character vary somewhat across cultures
(Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), making any given
typology inherently problematic. Thus, rather than provide a definitive and universal typol-
ogy of character-based respectworthy attributes, behaviors, and achievements, we provide
an illustration.
Sennett’s (2003) formulation of character provides a good example of how character may
be demonstrated and judged in workplaces—at least in Western, industrialized nations. His
formulation closely parallels three dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
as outlined by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000). The first character con-
sideration suggested by Sennett, “self-development of skills and abilities,” corresponds to
the OCB named self-development: “voluntary behaviors employees engage in to improve
their knowledge, skills, and abilities” (Podsakoff et al., 2000: 525). The second consideration
suggested by Sennett, “avoiding reliance on others,” relates to the individual initiative OCB
(Podsakoff et al., 2000), which implies independence, persistence, and “self-starter” behav-
iors. Finally, Sennett’s third consideration, “giving back to others,” parallels the OCB termed
helping behaviors, for instance, assisting with or preventing coworkers’ problems. The clear
ties between Sennett’s dimensions and the OCB dimensions raises the question of whether
the remaining OCB dimensions in the formulation of Podsakoff et al.—sportsmanship, loy-
alty, organizational compliance, and civic virtue—also speak to prototypical character stan-
dards in many organizations. We see no reason to suspect otherwise.
Moreover, demonstrations of one’s character outside the organization may also impact
judgments of one’s character-based respect. Unlike role and organizational membership stan-
dards, because character standards may also apply to nonwork contexts, a display of particu-
larly good or bad character in a nonwork context may alter a sender’s evaluation of a receiver
(Cronin, 2003). For example, knowledge that a receiver volunteers at a homeless shelter may
enhance the particularized respect earned from a sender.
Proposition 4: Assessed particularized respect is a function of the extent to which an individual
enacts prototypical standards for his or her (a) role, (b) organizational membership, and (c)
character.
Enacting and Receiving Particularized Respect
What specific cues are likely to signal particularized respect to a receiver? The key dif-
ferentiations between expressions of generalized and particularized respect are that signals of
the latter are individualized and contingent on valued attributes, behaviors, and achieve-
ments. Van Quaquebeke and Eckloff (2010) conducted interviews about leader behaviors that
expressed respect. Several of the themes are specifically relevant to particularized respect.
For example, informants report feeling respected when a leader shows trust, confers respon-
sibility, appreciates and rewards performance, and seeks input on decisions. Each behavior
speaks specifically to a valued or prototypical behavior, attribute, or achievement and is
therefore likely to be interpreted as particularized respect. Clearly, though, the more explicit
the contingency between a receiver’s attributes, behaviors, and achievements and the
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
expression of respect, the more likely the receiver is to construe the expression as particular-
ized rather than generalized respect. In sum,
Proposition 5: (a) Assessed particularized respect is positively associated with enacted particular-
ized respect, and (b) enacted particularized respect is positively associated with received particu-
larized respect.
How Might Role, Organizational Member, and Character Prototypicality Interact?
Thus far we have discussed the three prototypes separately. Generally, the standards asso-
ciated with each of the three prototypes are quite complementary. Because roles are nested
within the organization (March & Simon, 1958), fulfilling role standards contributes to per-
ceptions that a receiver is also a solid organizational member—and vice versa. Similarly, our
use of OCBs as illustrations of character standards suggests that fulfilling such standards also
contributes to a receiver being seen as a solid organizational member and, possibly, role
incumbent (e.g., Vilela, González, & Ferrín, 2008). This inherent complementarity suggests
a synergy among the prototypes where fulfilling the standards for one tends to facilitate ful-
fillment of the standards for the others. In the discussion section, we speculate about organi-
zational contexts where such complementarily is lacking.
Received Particularized Respect and the Need for Status
The second need addressed by receiving respect is what Huo and Binning (2008: 1572)
call the universal status motive. Following past research, we define this need for status as a
desire for acknowledgment of one’s worthiness or value relative to a standard that is deemed
important in the given context (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Huo et al., 2010). According to
Anderson, Brion, Moore, and Kennedy (2012: 719), “the desire for high status is widely
considered a universal human motive.” This need is variously labeled as the need for social
status, recognition, positive public appearance, or positive reputation (e.g., De Cremer &
Mulder, 2007; Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, & Ames, 2006; Huo & Binning, 2008; Ross &
Zander, 1957), and is empirically assessed with items such as “I want my peers to respect me
and hold me in high esteem” and “Being a highly valued member of my social group is
important to me” (Flynn et al., 2006: 1137).
Research on the need for status suggests that sent particularized respect may serve as a
social cue that helps address this need. According to Maslow (1954/1970: 46, his emphasis),
fulfillment of the need for status (esteem) is most stable when it “is based on deserved respect
from others.” Similarly, Ryan and Deci (2000) note that social-contextual cues such as posi-
tive feedback meet the need to feel recognized as competent. As noted, our definition of
particularized respect is the worth accorded by one or more others that is based on attributes,
behaviors, and achievements. Precisely because particularized respect is earned on an indi-
vidualized basis, it helps address one’s need for status by clarifying one’s value and provid-
ing the commensurate social reward. As Huo et al. (2010: 202) put it, respect based on the
evaluation of individuals is a “social currency—a reward or recognition that the group gives
to members who contribute or has [sic] the potential to contribute to the group’s success.”
Thus, we posit that receiving particularized respect is positively related to satisfying the need
for status.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 17
Proposition 6: Received particularized respect helps satisfy the need for status.
Outcomes
We argue that satisfaction of the need for status is likely to foster two of the same out-
comes as the need for belonging, OBSE and organizational identification, as well as a unique
outcome, role identification. Regarding OBSE, Grover (2014: 37) argues that “[S]uccessful
performance in an organization as demonstrated by external cues, such as objective out-
comes, awards, raises, public recognition, or promotion, generate explicit self-esteem
because they are self-relevant indicators proximal to the individual.” Also, a meta-analysis
by Bowling et al. (2010) found that more indirect external cues such as job complexity,
autonomy, and salary were each positively associated with OBSE. Furthermore, given the
need for status, individuals are motivated to seek and internalize positive feedback, which
reinforces their self-esteem (e.g., Hepper, Hart, Gregg, & Sedikides, 2011; Kuhnen &
Tymula, 2012). Although need for status was not assessed, Ellemers et al. (2013: 26) found
that (particularized) respect was associated with OBSE (where the focus was on one’s team;
e.g., “I am important for the good functioning of my team”).
Regarding organizational identification, we noted that individuals are inclined to define
themselves partly in terms of affiliations that address their needs (Pratt, 1998)—which is why
identification is argued to be an outcome of both forms of respect. Prior research found that
status partially mediated the relationship between particularized respect (“authority treat-
ment,” “peer treatment”) and organizational identification (“social engagement”; Huo et al.,
2010). Furthermore, we also noted that one of the major motives for identification with a
collective is self-enhancement (Capozza et al., 2006), which clearly shares conceptual space
with the need for status. In addition, to the extent that respect is earned by fulfilling the orga-
nizational prototype, the desirability of the organization will be affirmed as an identification
target. Indeed, particularized respect has been found to be associated with organizational
identification (Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2014; Bartel et al., 2012; Stürmer, Simon, & Loewy, 2008),
although status was not assessed as a potential mediator.
Finally, regarding role identification, to the extent that respect is earned by fulfilling the
role prototype, the importance and desirability of the role will be affirmed as a target of iden-
tification. Indeed, because individuals are hired into organizations to fulfill a particular role
such as accountant or waitress, the role tends to be highly salient to both the sender and
receiver of respect and particularized respect is often heavily contingent on role performance.
Thus, Hayase, Sakata, and Hiroshi (2011) found that (particularized) respect was positively
related to occupational identification among nurses. Indirect support for this relationship is
suggested by a meta-analysis that found positive associations between performance-contin-
gent rewards, such as recognition, and positive job attitudes (e.g., Podsakoff, Bommer,
Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). What we are adding to the literature on the relationship
between particularized respect and role identification is the argument that—just as with the
above discussion regarding organizational identification—the relationship is mediated by
satisfaction of the need for status. In turn, role identification has been positively associated
with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and negatively associated with emo-
tional exhaustion and intention to quit (Grawitch, Barber, & Kruger, 2010; Loi, Ngo, &
Foley, 2004). Our discussion thus suggests the following proposition:
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Proposition 7: Satisfaction of the need for status mediates the relationship between received particu-
larized respect and (a) organization-based self-esteem, (b) organizational identification, and (c)
role identification.
Considering Generalized and Particularized Respect Jointly
How does the theoretical model presented above help us to better understand the discon-
nect noted in our introduction between the amount of respect that is desired at work and the
amount that is actually received? According to Ryan and Deci (2000: 75), well-being requires
the satisfaction of all needs; a social environment that satisfies some needs but not others “is
expected to result in some impoverishment of well-being.” Thus, for organizational members
to feel adequately respected it is likely that they need to feel valued as “we” (generalized)
and as “me” (particularized), necessitating the simultaneous presence of generalized and
particularized respect. Below we consider generalized and particularized respect jointly and
identify how our theoretical advances clarify the differing logics underpinning each type,
which in turn sheds further light on the disconnect noted.
Our model indicates that organizations providing both generalized and particularized
respect will help address members’ needs for both belonging and status, and realize subse-
quent self-related outcomes. However, the institutional logic underlying the provision of
each form of respect is somewhat different. Following Kabanoff (1991), an organization’s
technical subsystem is concerned with task accomplishment, whereas its maintenance sub-
system is concerned with cohesiveness, solidarity, and a sense of common fate (cf. Katz &
Kahn, 1978; Polley, 1987). The technical subsystem often utilizes the equity principle in that
resources (rewards) are allocated in proportion to individuals’ accomplishments (Deutsch,
1985). The allocation of particularized respect clearly follows the equity principle in that the
greater one’s fulfillment of role, organizational, and character prototypes, the more respect
one earns. Conversely, in the maintenance subsystem, the allocation of resources is more
egalitarian in order to reinforce a sense of cohesion (Kabanoff, 1991). This is often referred
to as the equality principle in that the allocation of resources is not predicated on individual
differences in need or accomplishment (Deutsch, 1985). The allocation of generalized respect
clearly follows this principle.
Thus, a major reason why employees report a discrepancy between the respect they desire
and the respect they receive may be that the inherent tension in the simultaneous provision of
generalized and particularized respect (“we are all equal” vs. “we are not all equal”) undermines
the provision of both. We elaborate on this argument below as we consider combinations of the
two types. We discuss the organization’s perspective as well as implications for the individual.
Possible Combinations of Generalized and Particularized Respect
As summarized in Figure 3, when considering generalized and particularized respect
jointly, there are four distinct possibilities for organizations (with gradations in between; see
Grover, 2014, for a related model). For each cell, Figure 3 includes the governing principle
(equality, equity), major characteristics, examples, self-related outcomes, and pros and cons.
The pros are derived from our model in Figure 2, which shows the salutary impact of general-
ized respect and particularized respect, considered independently, on individual self-related
outcomes. However, as we argue below, when generalized and particularized respect are
considered jointly, certain cons emerge from their interaction.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 19
In the top-left cell of Figure 3 are organizations that strongly favor equality (generalized
respect) over equity (particularized respect) as a governing principle. This scenario appears
most likely when the organization is characterized by strong interdependence, a reliance on
teamwork for task accomplishment, a clan culture (Cameron, Quinn, Degraff, & Thakor,
2006; Ouchi, 1980), being somewhat protected from competitive market forces (e.g., govern-
ment agencies, monopolies), and/or being founded on egalitarian values (e.g., unions, co-
ops). Following our earlier propositions, the strong emphasis on generalized respect likely
helps satisfy the need for belonging and thereby fosters the self-related pros indicated in
Figure 2: OBSE, organizational identification, and psychological safety. However, the weak
emphasis on particularized respect likely does not meet the need for status and thereby some-
what undermines OBSE and organizational identification. Thus, on balance, these pros are
likely to be moderate. It should be recognized, though, that individuals may be somewhat
flexible in addressing their needs such that an unmet need may be satisfied in other domains
(e.g., family) and thereby become less important in organizations (e.g., Sherman & Cohen,
2006; cf. Knowles, Lucas, Molden, Gardner, & Dean, 2010). Finally, on the con side, an
unmet need for status likely undermines role identification, although alternative avenues to
role identification may exist (e.g., an intrinsically motivating job). In addition, high general-
ized respect coupled with low particularized respect may foster a strong concern with cohe-
sion at the expense of constructive task conflict; the result may be groupthink, poor
Figure 3
Combinations of Generalized and Particularized Respect
Governing Principle:
High equality, low equity
Major Characteristics:
Strong interdependence, reliance on teamwork, clan culture
Examples:
Monopolies, unions
Self-related Outcomes:
Organization-based self-esteem, organizational identification,
psychological safety
Pros
Moderately positive self-related outcomes (above)
Cons
Undermined role identification, lack of constructive conflict,
potential groupthink
Governing Principle:
High equality, high equity
Major Characteristics:
Valuing cohesiveness and achievement
Examples:
For-profit organizations concerned with employee well-being,
non-profits concerned with employee accountability
Self-related Outcomes:
Organization-based self-esteem, organizational and role
identification, psychological safety
Pros
Positive self-related outcomes (above)
Cons
Potential for mixed messages, givencontradictory nature of
equality and equity principles
Governing Principle:
Low equality, low equity
Major Characteristics:
Exploitive organizations, reliance on individuals with limited
job opportunities, possible hierarchy culture
Examples:
“Soul-deadening” bureaucracies and production facilities
Self-related Outcomes:
Low organization-based self-esteem, low organizational and
role identification, low psychological safety
Pros
Possible efficiency
Cons
Negative self-related outcomes (above), cost to society
Governing Principle:
Low equality, high equity
Major Characteristics:
Emphasis on individual achievement, market culture, highly
competitive industry
Examples:
Brokerage firms, sales forces
Self-related Outcomes:
Organization-based self-esteem, organizational and role
identification
Pros
Moderately positive self-related outcomes (above)
Cons
Low psychological safety, potential burnout, turnover
Generalized Respect
Particularized Respect
Low
Low
High
High
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
collaboration, and impaired innovation (e.g., Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; M. E. Turner,
Pratkanis, & Struckman, 2007). In short, generalized respect—in the absence of the moderat-
ing effect of particularized respect—may reach a tipping point where the positive self-related
outcomes are eclipsed by negative system dynamics.
At the other extreme, the bottom-right cell, are organizations that strongly favor equity
over equality as a governing principle. This is perhaps most likely when the organization’s
characteristics include an emphasis on individual achievement, a market culture (Cameron
et al., 2006), existing in a highly competitive industry, and/or being founded on equity prin-
ciples. A prime example is the star system of the brokerage industry, where high producers
are accorded the lion’s share of resources and low producers are accorded less respect of any
sort (Lewis, 1990). While the strong emphasis on particularized respect likely helps satisfy
the need for status, fostering the self-related pros of OBSE, organizational identification, and
role identification, the weak emphasis on generalized respect likely does not meet the need
for belonging, somewhat weakening OBSE and organizational identification. As for cons,
low generalized respect undermines psychological safety (although alternative paths to
safety may be evident, such as tolerating failure as a necessary byproduct of innovation).
Furthermore, the ongoing emphasis on performance and accountability, without the moderat-
ing role of generalized respect, may foster burnout and high turnover (Grover, 2014;
Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Once again, the interaction of the two forms of respect may
result in a tipping point where the positive outcomes of particularized respect morph into
negative outcomes. Such organizations may rely on “churn,” that is, a constant supply of
newcomers eager to earn the rewards associated with high performance—albeit at a longer
term social cost (Casserley & Megginson, 2009).
In the bottom-left cell are organizations that eschew either equality (except, perhaps,
equally poor treatment) or equity as a governing principle, and thus offer little of either gen-
eralized or particularized respect. Such organizations are apt to be uncommon because, given
the needs for belonging and status, individuals tend to expect a modicum of at least some
form of respect; thus, they are unlikely to be attracted to or remain in these organizations.
Accordingly, such organizations are characterized by an exploitive view of human capital
and a reliance on individuals with limited job alternatives (due to, for example, low skill or
lack of mobility; e.g., Shipler, 2004; Thompson, 2010). Organizations in this cell tend to have
a hierarchy culture (Cameron et al., 2006) that prioritizes control over people. Examples
include stereotypically “soul-deadening” bureaucracies and production operations (Morgan,
1997). Not surprisingly, such organizations are likely to have significant cons: members with
low OBSE, organizational and role identification, and psychological safety. On the pro side,
these organizations are geared toward efficiency—producing the most output for the least
cost; however, the cost of maintaining the necessary system of controls is considerable
(Edwards, 1979).
Finally, in the top-right cell are organizations that rely on both equality and equity as gov-
erning principles and thus provide both high generalized and particularized respect. As vari-
ous scholars have noted, because organizations are simultaneously concerned with both the
technical and maintenance subsystems—with achievement and cohesiveness—most typi-
cally use a mix of equality and equity (e.g., Kabanoff, 1991; Mannix, Neale, & Northcraft,
1995). Thus, in terms of characteristics, this may constitute the normative or aspirational cell
if an organization does not have one or more characteristics that typify membership in one of
the other cells. Similarly, we expect the examples to be quite diverse, from for-profit firms
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 21
concerned with employee well-being (e.g., Sisodia, Sheth, & Wolfe, 2014) to nonprofits
concerned with employee accountability for performance (e.g., Kearns, 1996). The pros are
considerable, including all of the self-related outcomes noted in Figure 2: OBSE, organiza-
tional and role identification, and psychological safety. Moreover, the two forms of respect
may interact such that generalized respect provides a social safety net of sorts for the perfor-
mance-centric excesses of unalloyed particularistic respect, just as particularistic respect
encourages individuals to thrash out the task-focused differences that may otherwise be sup-
pressed with unalloyed generalized respect.
That said, we noted that many employees desire more respect than they actually receive,
suggesting that organizations often fall short of realizing both equality and equity as govern-
ing principles. We also noted that a major reason may be that equality and equity are predi-
cated on divergent values, such that a considerable con may be caused by the interaction of
the two forms of respect: sending a mixed message. George Orwell (1946/2003: 92) offered
a cynical reading of this message in his famous line from Animal Farm: “All animals are
equal but some animals are more equal than others.” Similarly, generalized and particular-
ized respect together may send the message that “all members of this organization are equally
valued but your attributes, behaviors, and achievements make you more valued than others.”
This poses a challenge for organizations: to effectively facilitate generalized and particular-
ized respect simultaneously. Generalized respect implies a certain egalitarianism, in that all
individuals are worthy of respect, whereas expressions of particularized respect may result in
some individuals faring better than others. Accordingly, it seems likely that the greater the
climate for generalized respect, the more that particularized respect will be expressed in pri-
vate and less boisterously in public. Furthermore, individuals may be encouraged to compete
against standards of excellence rather than one another. Such finessing of particularized
respect upholds the equity principle without directly challenging the equality principle.
Conversely, generalized respect appears to be less of a threat to particularized respect than
vice versa. To be sure, strong expressions of egalitarianism can undermine allegiance to the
equity principle. However, generalized respect provides a foundation for basic civility and
trust, which in turn likely enhances (a) the very desire to enact role, organizational, and char-
acter prototypes (since they express and strengthen the individual’s attachment to the collec-
tive) and (b) the appreciation of social rewards (since they are conferred by valued others; cf.
Leiter et al., 2011; Osatuke et al., 2009). Under such conditions, the mixed message is miti-
gated such that members can simultaneously feel respected as part of the organization (“we”
are valued) and as an individual (“I” am valued), allowing the pros to flourish.
In sum, generalized and particularized respect are rooted in seemingly contradictory insti-
tutional logics (equality and equity), fostering consequential interactions. Proposition 8 per-
tains to the high–low and low–high combinations of generalized and particularized respect
(the upper-left and bottom-right cells of Figure 3), whereas Proposition 9 pertains to the
high–high—and, implicitly, low–low—combinations (the upper-right and bottom-left cells):
Proposition 8: (a) Generalized respect, without the moderating influence of particularized respect,
and (b) particularized respect, without the moderating influence of generalized respect, will
foster various negative outcomes that may offset positive self-related outcomes.
Proposition 9: The high–high coexistence of generalized and particularized respect will foster the
most positive outcomes and the least negative outcomes, provided that enactments of respect do
not strongly undermine either the equality or equity principle.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Discussion
Existing research suggests a substantial disconnect between desired and received respect
in organizations. We sought to build theory on respect in order to provide a better understand-
ing of the construct, and create a theoretical model detailing how and why positive self-
related outcomes flow from respect. As summarized in Figure 2, we discussed antecedents of
generalized respect from the sender’s perspective (prestige of social category, climate for
generalized respect) and proposed criteria for the evaluation of particularized respect (role,
organizational member, and character prototypicality), which is then enacted by the sender
and perceived by the receiver. We clarified the role that respect plays in fulfilling social
needs, such that receiving generalized respect helps meet the need for belonging and receiv-
ing particularized respect helps meet the need for status. We also articulated how fulfillment
of these needs may facilitate positive self-related outcomes. Finally, we considered general-
ized and personalized respect jointly and presented the implications of four combinations of
the two types of respect in Figure 3.
Implications for Research
A first step for future research is to empirically assess our propositions. Several method-
ological considerations pertaining to collective-level constructs are warranted, given the role
in our model of prestige of a collective (in our running example, the organization) and the
climate for generalized respect. Such constructs are often assessed via a “referent-shift con-
sensus model” (Chan, 1998: 238) where individual perceptions of the collective are aggre-
gated. Of course, if the collective of interest is indeed the organization, the burden of
collecting data on member perceptions can be quite daunting because of the need for variance
across organizations. In such cases, researchers often replace member perceptions with the
perceptions of a limited number of key informants (e.g., senior managers). Member and/or
key informant perceptions could also be triangulated with organizational artifacts (such as
progressive human resources practices in the case of climate) and reputational rankings
appearing in the media (in the case of prestige). The remainder of our model focuses on the
individual level and, given the intrapsychic nature, is perhaps best assessed through
self-reports.
An extension of our theoretical model could explore crossover effects of the distinct gen-
eralized and particularized respect paths in Figure 2. The model posits that generalized
respect provides a foundation for respectful interactions in organizations and communicates
a genuine valuing of all organizational members, helping to address a member’s need for
belonging, whereas particularized respect involves individuating information and therefore
is more relevant to meeting a person’s need for status. We speculate that there may be weaker
crossover effects, such that generalized respect for being part of a valued social category
helps satisfy the need for status by acknowledging one’s worthiness, even if in the context of
acknowledging others’ worthiness as well, and particularized respect awarded for demon-
strated prototypicality helps satisfy the need for belonging by recognizing one as a bona fide
member of the relevant category (cf. Huo et al., 2010). These crossover effects would likely
be weaker than the direct effects proposed in Figure 2, but certainly worthy of empirical
attention, as this would also inform implications for the self in the high–low and low–high
quadrants of Figure 3.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 23
Future research should also flesh out important unanswered questions about the dynamics
of sent and received respect, whether generalized or particularized. For example, are a series
of small, periodic gestures of respect as meaningful as large, occasional ones? To what extent
might one significant instance of poor treatment undo many instances of respect? Does
respect from different sources (e.g., manager, peer, subordinate, client) produce different
self-related outcomes (cf. Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2014)? What specific organizational policies and
practices may institutionalize respect in ways that employees will feel valued even when the
faces of the organization, such as top managers or immediate supervisors, change? Under
what conditions are individuals most likely to perceive sent respect accurately?
Our argument regarding particularized respect assessments can be extended in various
ways. For one, we discussed how a receiver is evaluated relative to role, organizational mem-
ber, and character prototypes. We implicitly assumed that the prototypes are weighted
equally, but what contextual and individual difference factors influence how the criteria for
particularized respect are combined to form an overall respect assessment, and what happens
if the assessments conflict (e.g., a strong role performer displays poor person-organization
fit)? Furthermore, depending on the organizational context, prototypes may be compensa-
tory, as in the star system of the brokerage industry mentioned above, where strong role
performance allows brokers to become prima donnas, essentially exempting them from the
normal expectations of organizational members (Lewis, 1990). Finally, although unusual,
there may be instances where the prototypes are actually antagonistic, such as when role
standards of intraorganizational competitiveness interfere with a character standard of help-
ing. Perhaps the most common kind of antagonism involves means versus ends. As research
on unethical organizational practices indicates (e.g., Baucus, 1994; Piccolo, Greenbaum, &
Eissa, 2012), organizations often emphasize the bottom line and send mixed messages about
the importance of prototype standards concerning how one’s role and organizational mem-
bership are enacted. In such organizations, particularized respect often depends more on
achievement (what) than behavior (how).
Another extension would be to explore disrespect as a construct in its own right, as this
would further illuminate our conceptual and phenomenological understanding of respect.
Indeed, as Miller (2001) notes, it is often difficult for individuals to articulate what it means
to be treated respectfully, but they can readily provide examples of experiencing the oppo-
site. The term disrespect implies the denial of perceived worth in a way that devalues an
individual. Behaviors toward those who are disrespected in organizations tend to violate the
norms of civility and are characterized by “rudeness and disregard” (Pearson & Porath, 2005:
8). A low level of respect, in contrast, implies an absence of respect and may occur if an
individual has not done anything notable enough to earn the imputed worth that is central to
our definition of particularized respect, but also has not violated respect criteria, or if mem-
bership in a salient category is not particularly respectworthy. But what attributes, behaviors,
and (lack of) achievements are most likely to trigger perceptions that a receiver has not
merely fallen short of prototypical standards for particularized respect, but has violated
them? How might the social-psychological dynamics of disrespect play out differently than
those of respect? Finally, given the importance that individuals ascribe to the needs for
belonging and status, research suggests that received disrespect may spawn anger and humil-
iation, and ultimately a desire to reciprocate the disrespect (Andersson & Pearson, 1999;
Miller, 2001; Montgomery, Kane, & Vance, 2004). Indeed, initial expressions of disrespect
may quickly escalate into a disrespect spiral (cf. Andersson & Pearson, 1999). However, it is
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
possible that received disrespect could motivate an individual to try harder to earn respect
(e.g., Sleebos, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 2006). Thus, future research should explore moderators
that explain differing reactions to disrespect.
Implications for Practice
We seek to help practitioners understand what it means to meet employees’ desire to feel
respected, how this is accomplished, and how to foster organizations that are simultaneously
focused on valuing organizational members as a group (generalized respect) and as proto-
typical employees (particularized respect).
We noted at the outset that research indicates a major disconnect in organizations between
members’ desire for respect and the amount of respect they actually receive. We also noted
that respect is associated with various positive self-related outcomes, which have been found
to be associated with secondary benefits (e.g., OCBs, collaboration); indeed, De Cremer and
Mulder (2007: 444) refer to respect as “social glue.” Thus, managers should help clarify and
promulgate the prototypical standards that typify role incumbents, organizational members,
and persons “in good standing.” This requires thinking through what it means to be a solid
organizational member above and beyond what is required in particular roles, and how char-
acter may be reflected via one’s behavior both inside and outside of the organization.
Although there are usually synergies among (and within) the three prototypes, managers
should be vigilant for mixed messages (e.g., extolling cooperation as an organizational mem-
ber but then mandating competition between role incumbents).
Many managers seem to implicitly operate on the dictum that “no news is good news”
(Komaki, 1982). We recommend that managers make their assessments explicit in an ongo-
ing fashion by actively recognizing individuals who are judged respectworthy. As noted in
Table 1, organizational members of any rank, from entry-level employee to CEO, have the
potential to be seen as highly respectworthy. Members tend to especially value respect from
those to whom they are accountable (cf. Tetlock, 1992). Managers should understand that
they are often the face of the organization for employees, and therefore hold a great deal of
power in enacting respect that meets employees’ needs for belonging and status. Research
indicates that employees infer respect from such seemingly prosaic leader behaviors as
expressing trust, being friendly and supportive, and promoting development (van Quaquebeke
& Eckloff, 2010). It is especially important that managers remain attuned to the needs for
belonging and status for newcomers and for individuals in low-status or tainted jobs, where
the absence of institutionalized respect makes need satisfaction more problematic (Ashforth,
Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007).
Conclusion
Despite the importance of respect to organizational members, it is rarely explored as a
construct in its own right. Our hope is that, through articulating the dynamics of both general-
ized and particularized respect, we make respect less of a “blind spot” (van Quaquebeke et
al., 2009: 429) for organizational research and managerial practice. Generating further
research on the “we” and “me” of respect will establish an understanding of respect as a
resource that is highly valued by receivers and, in turn, produces value for the sending
organization.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 25
Notes
1. Notable exceptions are Cronin (2003), van Quaquebeke and colleagues (2007, 2009, 2010), Ramarajan,
Barsade, and Burack (2008), Clarke (2011), Bartel, Wrzesniewski, and Wiesenfeld (2012), and Grover (2014),
which we draw on later in theorizing about respect in organizations.
2. We use the organization throughout the article as our running example of a social category. However, our
theorizing about generalized respect applies to any category within an organization.
3. Our intent is to show perceptions of respect as critical to one’s sense of self, not to imply that respect is the
only perception that mediates between observable behaviors and the self.
4. It should be noted that to the extent that membership in a particular category is dependent on attributes,
behaviors, and achievements, then entry can be said to be a reward—that is, earned. For example, a salesperson
may be promoted to sales manager because of his or her stellar performance. However, the promotion itself, in our
terminology, would actually be an expression of particularized respect because it is dependent on the individual. In
contrast, generalized respect focuses on the treatment of extant members as members, not as individual performers.
5. Given our argument that generalized respect constitutes a collective-level construct, we reserve the term cli-
mate for respect for generalized respect, that is, where respect is not conditional on personal attributes, behaviors,
and achievements. Individuals vary in their enactments of the criteria that we argue are the basis for particularized
respect. Some individuals may, therefore, be accorded low particularized respect while others are accorded high,
such that it does not make sense to refer to a “climate for particularized respect” (other than as a way of referring
to a shared belief in the importance of making particularized assessments and the appropriate criteria for doing so).
6. It should be noted that Huo and colleagues did not include generalized respect in their model, arguing instead
that the needs are met through particularized respect from two sources: peers and group leaders (Huo & Binning,
2008). Similarly, De Cremer and Tyler (2005) implicitly draw on particularized respect in their theorizing, and the
respect manipulations in their experiments involved particularized respect or were unclear about the form of respect.
7. Note that this formulation applies to comparisons between actors at various levels of analysis, for example,
between individuals within a team, between teams within a department, and between departments within an orga-
nization. Thus, an individual, team, or department can each be said to earn actor-specific respect. For pedagogical
purposes, we focus on individuals.
8. However, it should be noted that a given sender may also weight demographic and other individual difference
variables that are not directly relevant to prototypic attributes, behaviors, and achievements (see Jackson, Esses,
& Burris, 2001, for evidence of higher respect for males leading to hiring recommendations for men rather than
women).
9. For some standards, however, conformity is prized more than “overachievement.” For example, employees
who regularly exceed workgroup productivity norms are often punished by their coworkers (Dalton, 1974).
References
Al-Atwi, A. A., & Bakir, A. 2014. Relationships between status judgments, identification, and counterproductive
behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29: 472-489.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263-295.
Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. 2012. A status-enhancement account of overconfidence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103: 718-735.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy
of Management Review, 24: 452-471.
Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four
fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-374.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. 2007. Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for
countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 149-174.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,
14: 20-39.
Ashforth, B. E., & Rogers, K. M. 2012. Is the employee-organization relationship misspecified? The centrality of
tribes in experiencing the organization. In L. M. Shore, J. A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The
employee-organization relationship: Applications for the 21st century: 23-53. New York: Routledge.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. 2012. Knowing where you stand: Physical isolation, per-
ceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees. Organization Science, 23: 743-757.
Baucus, M. S. 1994. Pressure, opportunity and predisposition: A multivariate model of corporate illegality. Journal
of Management, 20: 699-721.
Baumeister, R. F. 2012. Need-to-belong theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
The handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 2: 121-140. London: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497-529.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. 1998. The legitimation and delegitimation of power and
prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63: 379-405.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation
in Organizations, 1: 43-55.
Bird, C. 2004. Status, identity, and respect. Political Theory, 32: 207-232.
Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. 2009. Rejection elicits emotional reactions
but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social
exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13: 269-309.
Boldero, J., & Francis, J. 2002. Goals, standards, and the self: Reference values serving different functions.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6: 232-241.
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., & Alarcon, G. 2010. A meta-analysis of the predictors
and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
83: 601-626.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct
development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 117-134.
Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. 2009. Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Butler, M., & Drake, D. H. 2007. Reconsidering respect: Its role in Her Majesty’s Prison Service. Howard Journal
of Criminal Justice, 46: 115-127.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., Degraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. 2006. Competing values leadership: Creating value in
organizations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Capozza, D., Brown, R., Aharpour, S., & Falvo, R. 2006. A comparison of motivational theories of identification.
In R. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional and cultural influences: 51-72.
Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. 2000. A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 14: 389-405.
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. 2009. High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in
work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 709-729.
Casserley, T., & Megginson, D. 2009. Learning from burnout: Developing sustainable leaders and avoiding career
derailment. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A
typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246.
Clarke, N. 2011. An integrated conceptual model of respect in leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 316-327.
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86: 386-400.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational set-
tings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647.
Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2010. Identification in organizations: The role of self-concept orientations and
identification motives. Academy of Management Review, 35: 516-538.
Cranor, C. 1975. Toward a theory of respect for persons. American Philosophical Quarterly, 12: 309-319.
Cronin, M. A. 2003. The effect of respect on interdependent work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. 2003. Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fair-
ness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 1019-1024.
Dalton, M. 1974. The ratebuster: The case of the saleswoman. In P. L. Stewart & M. G. Cantor (Eds.), Varieties of
work experience: The social control of occupational groups and roles: 206-214. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Darwall, S. L. 1977. Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88: 36-49.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 27
Davenport, S., & Daellenbach, U. 2011. “Belonging” to a virtual research centre: Exploring the influence of social
capital formation processes on member identification in a virtual organization. British Journal of Management,
22: 54-76.
Dávila, M. C., & García, G. J. 2012. Organizational identification and commitment: Correlates of sense of belonging
and affective commitment. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15: 244-255.
De Cremer, D., & Mulder, L. B. 2007. A passion for respect: On understanding the role of human needs and moral-
ity. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38: 439-449.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. 2005. Am I respected or not? Inclusion and reputation as issues in group membership.
Social Justice Research, 18: 121-153.
Deutsch, M. 1985. Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Goldstein, H. W. 2008. Seeking explanations in people, not in the results of their
behavior: Twenty-plus years of the attraction-selection-attrition model. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The people make
the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations: 5-36. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dillon, R. S. 2007. Respect: A philosophical perspective. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38:
201-212.
Drehmer, D. E., & Grossman, J. H. 1984. Scaling managerial respect: A developmental perspective. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 44: 763-767.
Dutton, J. E. 2003. Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high-quality connections at work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adapta-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517-554.
Easterbrook, M., & Vignoles, V. L. 2012. Different groups, different motives: Identity motives underlying changes
in identification with novel groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38: 1066-1080.
Edmondson, A. C. 2004. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In R. M.
Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches: 239-272. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Edwards, R. 1979. Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. New York:
Basic Books.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-
Mueller, M. 2010. Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of
supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1085-1103.
Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., Stam, D., & de Gilder, D. 2013. Feeling included and valued: How perceived respect
affects positive team identity and willingness to invest in the team. British Journal of Management, 24: 21-37.
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. 2007. Paying respect. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21: 135-149.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and
countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 442-476.
Feinberg, J. 1974. Noncomparative justice. Philosophical Review, 83: 297-338.
Fiske, S. T. 2010. Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.), vol. 2: 941-982. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. 1990. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating
processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 23: 1-74.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 2008. Social cognition: From brains to culture. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. 1962. Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover.
Personnel Psychology, 15: 43-56.
Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., Amanatullah, E. T., & Ames, D. R. 2006. Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors
achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91: 1123-1137.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise deci-
sions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115-130.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. 2006. Perceived external prestige and internal
respect: New insights into the organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59: 815-846.
Gere, J., & MacDonald, G. 2010. An update of the empirical case for the need to belong. Journal of Individual
Psychology, 66: 93-115.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

28 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and con-
struct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827-844.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. 2000. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy
of Management Review, 25: 63-81.
Gittell, J. H. 2002. The Southwest Airlines way: Using the power of relationships to achieve high performance. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Gorrese, A., & Ruggieri, R. 2013. Peer attachment and self-esteem: A meta-analytic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 55: 559-568.
Grawitch, M. J., Barber, L. K., & Kruger, M. H. 2010. Role identification, community socio-economic status
demands, and stress outcomes in police officers. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23: 165-180.
Greenberg, J. 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12: 9-22.
Grover, S. L. 2014. Unraveling respect in organization studies. Human Relations, 67: 27-51.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. 2004. Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30: 859-879.
Hayase, R., Sakata, K., & Hiroshi, K. 2011. Effect of pride and respect on occupational identity and cooperative
behavior of nurses. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50: 135-147.
Henry, P. J. 2011. The role of group-based status in job satisfaction: Workplace respect matters more for the stigma-
tized. Social Justice Research, 24: 231-238.
Hepper, E. G., Hart, C. M., Gregg, A. P., & Sedikides, C. 2011. Motivated expectations of positive feedback in
social interactions. Journal of Social Psychology, 151: 455-477.
Higgins, E. T. 1989. Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 22: 93-136.
Hill, T. E., Jr. 2000. Respect, pluralism, and justice: Kantian perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hodson, R. 2001. Dignity at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group
processes. London: Routledge.
Hornsey, M. J. 2008. Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2: 204-222.
Huo, Y. J., & Binning, K. R. 2008. Why the psychological experience of respect matters in group life: An integrative
account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2: 1570-1585.
Huo, Y. J., Binning, K. R., & Molina, L. E. 2010. Testing an integrative model of respect: Implications for social
engagement and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 200-212.
Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44: 764-791.
Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. 2001. Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of
respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27: 48-61.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-
outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 187-242.
Kabanoff, B. 1991. Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Academy of Management Review, 16: 416-441.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 33: 692-724.
Kant, I. 1785/2002. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (A. W. Wood, Ed. & Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Kearns, K. P. 1996. Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Keijzer, N. 1978. Military obedience. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Knowles, M. L., Lucas, G. M., Molden, D. C., Gardner, W. L., & Dean, K. K. 2010. There’s no substitute for
belonging: Self-affirmation following social and nonsocial threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
36: 173-186.
Koch, E. J., & Shepperd, J. A. 2008. Testing competence and acceptance explanations of self-esteem. Self and
Identity, 7: 54-74.
Komaki, J. 1982. Managerial effectiveness: Potential contributions of the behavioral approach. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 3: 71-83.
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. 2009. Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research
agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management, 35: 634-717.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 29
Kuhnen, C. M., & Tymula, A. 2012. Feedback, self-esteem, and performance in organizations. Management
Science, 58: 94-113.
Kunda, Z. 1999. Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lalljee, M., Laham, S. M., & Tam, T. 2007. Unconditional respect for persons: A social psychological analysis.
Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38: 451-464.
Langdon, S. W. 2007. Conceptualizations of respect: Qualitative and quantitative evidence of four (five) themes.
Journal of Psychology, 141: 469-484.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. 1995. Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The
sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 518-530.
Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. 2011. The impact of civility interventions on employee
social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1258-1274.
Lewis, M. 1990. Liar’s poker: Rising through the wreckage on Wall Street. New York: Penguin.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Loi, R., Ngo, H.-Y., & Foley, S. 2004. The effect of professional identification on job attitudes: A study of lawyers
in Hong Kong. Organizational Analysis, 12: 109-128.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organi-
zational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 103-123.
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Identification in work, war, sports, and religion: Contrasting the benefits and
risks. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 31: 197-222.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy
of Management Annals, 2: 351-398.
Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. 1995. Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational
culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
63: 276-286.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. 2003. Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimen-
sions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5: 132-151.
Maslow, A. H. 1954/1970. Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20: 709-734.
McAllister, D. J. 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organiza-
tions. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24-59.
Miller, D. T. 2001. Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 527-553.
Montgomery, K., Kane, K., & Vance, C. M. 2004. Accounting for differences in norms of respect: A study of assess-
ments of incivility through the lenses of race and gender. Group & Organization Management, 29: 248-268.
Morgan, G. 1997. Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. 2000. A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel
model. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 881-889.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. 2012. Psychological safety: A foundation for speaking up, collaboration, and
experimentation in organizations. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship: 490-503. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. 1991. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison
approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 487-516.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Pfeffer, J. 2000. Hidden value: How great companies achieve extraordinary results with
ordinary people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Orwell, G. 1946/2003. Animal farm: A fairy story. New York: Plume/Harcourt Brace.
Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R., & Belton, L. 2009. Civility, respect, engagement in the
workforce (CREW): Nationwide organization development intervention at Veterans Health Administration.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45: 384-410.
Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129-141.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. 2005. On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time
for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1): 7-18.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. 2004. Character strengths and virtues: A handbook of classification. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

30 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R. L., & Eissa, G. 2012. Ethical leadership and core job characteristics: Designing jobs
for employee well-being. In N. P. Reilly, M. J. Sirgy, & C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work and quality of life: Ethical
practices in organizations: 291-305. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Plourde, A. M. 2008. The origins of prestige goods as honest signals of skill and knowledge. Human Nature, 19:
374-388.
Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Relationships between leader
reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review
of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99: 113-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors:
A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
Management, 26: 513-563.
Polley, R. B. 1987. Exploring polarization in organizational groups. Group and Organization Studies, 12: 424-444.
Pratt, M. G. 1998. To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C.
Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations: 171-207. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ramarajan, L., Barsade, S. G., & Burack, O. 2006. What makes the job tough? The influence of organiza-
tional respect on burnout in the human services. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Atlanta, GA.
Ramarajan, L., Barsade, S. G., & Burack, O. R. 2008. The influence of organizational respect on emotional exhaus-
tion in the human services. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3: 4-18.
Riketta, M. 2008. “Who identifies with the group?” The motive-feature match principle and its limitations. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 38: 715-735.
Ross, I. C., & Zander, A. 1957. Need satisfactions and employee turnover. Personnel Psychology, 10: 327-338.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view
of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393-404.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social devel-
opment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55: 68-78.
Sanders, T., & Campbell, R. 2007. Designing out vulnerability, building in respect: Violence, safety and sex work
policy. British Journal of Sociology, 58: 1-19.
Sayer, A. 2007. Dignity at work: Broadening the agenda. Organization, 14: 565-581.
Schein, E. H. 2010. Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sennett, R. 2003. Respect in a world of inequality. New York: Norton.
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. 2006. The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 38: 183-242.
Shipler, D. K. 2004. The working poor: Invisible in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle Shapiro, J. A.-M., Liden, R. C., McLean Parks, J., Morrison, E.
W., Porter, L. W., Robinson, S. L., Roehling, M. V., Rousseau, D. M., Schalk, R., Tsui, A. S., & Van Dyne,
L. 2004. The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23: 291-370.
Simon, B. 2007. Respect, equality, and power: A social psychological perspective. Gruppendynamik und
Organisationsberatung, 38: 309-326.
Singh, B., & Winkel, D. E. 2012. Racial differences in helping behaviors: The role of respect, safety, and identifica-
tion. Journal of Business Ethics, 106: 467-477.
Sisodia, R., Sheth, J., & Wolfe, D. B. 2014. Firms of endearment: How world-class companies profit from passion
and purpose (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. 2006. The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected group members’
engagement in group-serving efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 413-427.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. 2001. The impact of employee communication and perceived
external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1051-1062.
Spears, R., Ellemers, N., Doosje, B., & Branscombe, N. R. 2006. The individual within the group: Respect! In T.
Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity: 175-195. London: Sage.
Stürmer, S., Simon, B., & Loewy, M. I. 2008. Intraorganizational respect and organizational participation: The
mediating role of collective identity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11: 5-20.
Swann, W. B., & Bosson, J. K. 2010. Self and identity. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook
of social psychology (5th ed.), vol. 1: 589-628. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Rogers, Ashforth / Respect in Organizations 31
Sypher, B. D., & Zorn, T. E., Jr. 1988. Individual differences and construct system content in descriptions of liked
and disliked co-workers. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 1: 37-51.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. 2009. Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects of
high-performance work systems on employees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62: 1-29.
Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. E. 2003. Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical
infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16: 285-307.
Tetlock, P. E. 1992. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 331-376.
Thompson, G. 2010. Working in the shadows: A year of doing the jobs (most) Americans won’t do. New York:
Nation Books.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. 1987. Rediscovering the social group:
A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., & Struckman, C. K. 2007. Groupthink as social identity maintenance. In A.
R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress: 223-246. New York:
Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2002. Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good
about ourselves? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89: 813-838.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2003. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 349-361.
van Dierendonck, D. 2011. Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37: 1228-1261.
van Quaquebeke, N., & Eckloff, T. 2010. Defining respectful leadership: What it is, how it can be measured, and
another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics, 91: 343-358.
van Quaquebeke, N., Henrich, D. C., & Eckloff, T. 2007. “It’s not tolerance I’m asking for, it’s respect!” A concep-
tual framework to differentiate between tolerance, acceptance and (two types of) respect. Gruppendynamik und
Organisationsberatung, 38: 185-200.
van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Brodbeck, F. C. 2011. More than meets the eye: The role of subordi-
nates’ self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. Leadership Quarterly, 22: 367-382.
van Quaquebeke, N., Zenker, S., & Eckloff, T. 2009. Find out how much it means to me! The importance of inter-
personal respect in work values compared to perceived organizational practices. Journal of Business Ethics,
89: 423-431.
Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., & Scabini, E. 2006. Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple
motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 308-333.
Vilela, B. B., González, J. A. V., & Ferrín, P. F. 2008. Person-organization fit, OCB and performance appraisal:
Evidence from matched supervisor-salesperson data set in a Spanish context. Industrial Marketing Management,
37: 1005-1019.
at ARIZONA STATE UNIV on November 3, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from