ArticlePDF Available


From the Center for
Positive Organizational Scholarship
Enabling Positive Social Capital
in Organizations =
Wayne Baker
Professor of Management and Organizations; Director, Center for
Positive Organizational Scholarship; Professor of Sociology; Faculty
Associate, Institute for Social Research; Faculty Associate, Nonprofit
and Public Management Center
Jane E. Dutton
William Russell Kelly Professor of Business Administration;
Professor of Management and Organizations; Professor of Psychology
Released 09/16/2005
Chapter to appear in
Exploring Positive
Relationships at Work:
Building a Theoretical and
Research Foundation. J.
Dutton and B. Ragins
(Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum,
Inc., 2006.
Enabling Positive Social Capital in Organizations
Revised August 2005
Chapter to appear in Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a
Theoretical and Research Foundation. J. Dutton and B. Ragins (Eds.). Lawrence
Erlbaum, Inc., 2006
Wayne Baker and Jane Dutton
This chapter identifies and elaborates organizational practices and social
mechanisms that create and sustain positive social capital in work organizations. It adds
to the understanding of positive relationships at work by considering the resource-
producing capabilities of high-quality connections and reciprocity. By being in this form
of connection and practicing this type of interaction, dyads, teams, and organizations
create valuable assets, such as trust, confidence, affirmation, energy, and joy. These are
durable resources that have impact beyond the initial connecting point between two or
more individuals (Fredrickson, 1998). This chapter shows how two forms of positive
social capital (high-quality connections and reciprocity) expand the capacities of both
individuals and groups. Further, it identifies key enablers of each form of positive social
capital. Finally, it articulates the underlying mechanisms (motivation and opportunity
structures) linking enablers and outcomes.
Social capital refers to the resources that inhere in and flow through networks of
relationships (Coleman, 1988; Adler and Kwon, 2002). These resources include
knowledge, information, ideas, advice, help, opportunities, contacts, material goods,
services, financial capital, emotional support, and goodwill (Adler and Kwon, 2002).
Social capital can be positive or negative. For example, a group inside a company can
band together and use their collective power for their own gain, as engineers in a tobacco
plant did (Crozier, 1964).1 Or, investment managers may favor their friends and family
in the allocation of profits to investors, using money stolen from other investors (Baker
and Faulkner, 2004). To be positive, we must consider the means by which social capital
is created, and the ends to which social capital is used. Social capital is positive if the
means by which social capital is created expands the “generative capacity” of people and
groups. “Capacity” refers to the abilities of people and groups to achieve their personal
and professional goals. Capacity is “generative” when it is able to reproduce and renew
itself, expand abilities, and enable the combination and recombination of resources in
new and novel ways. Social capital is positive if helps people grow, thrive, and flourish
in organizations and thereby achieve their goals in new and better ways. For example,
acts of kindness and generosity between two people expand each person’s emotional
resources (e.g., joy or gratefulness) and openness to new ideas and influences (Dutton
and Heaphy, 2003). If a pair uses this openness to innovate, create better solutions to
problems, or work more efficiently or effectively, then this dyadic interaction has created
positive social capital that was used for positive purposes. Even if these ends are
achieved only in part, social capital is still positive if the purpose is positive.
Our chapter is organized around two fundamental forms of positive social capital
in organizations: high-quality connections and reciprocity. In brief, a high-quality
connection or HQC refers to a particular form of positive connection between two people.
Like any HQC, a work relationship can be high-quality even if the interaction is short.
Basic or two-party reciprocity involves the mutual exchange of aid and benefit between
1 In this case, the plant had recently automated. The engineers threw out the operation manuals and made
modifications to the machinery. This way, they could not be replaced, and management was forced to rely
on the engineers and acquiesce to their demands.
two people; generalized reciprocity is a system of mutual exchange, aid, and benefit
among members of a network. There are, of course, other forms of positive social
capital. We focus on these forms for two reasons. First, each describes a pervasive form
of social capital. For example, all treatments of social capital, regardless of discipline,
identify reciprocity as an essential element. Second, while rarely explicitly defined, all of
the forms of human ties that compose social capital vary in quality. Together, both forms
link micro (the dyad) and macro (the system), revealing the essential complementary of
the two. HQCs and reciprocity are mutually reinforcing: HQCs foster the practice of
reciprocity; reciprocity builds new connections and improves the quality of connections.
They both represent forms of “positive deviance” in organizations (see Figure 1). Positive
deviance is a term used in Positive Organizational Scholarship to refer to extraordinary
positive outcomes and the means that produce them (Cameron, Dutton, and Quinn 2003).
Applied to social capital, positive deviance means that social capital is used to achieve
extraordinary results, and that it does so by building and broadening the generative
capacity of individuals and groups. After defining each form of positive social capital
below, we identify several key practices that enable it by increasing the motivation to
engage in HQCs and reciprocity, and by creating opportunity structures for both forms of
social capital.
High-Quality Connections
HQCs are connections made between two people that are marked by vitality,
mutuality and positive regard (Dutton and Heaphy, 2003). We intentionally use the word
connection instead of relationship to assert that these interactions can be momentary and
short-term, rather than being enduring and lasting. In a high quality connection, both
participants feel more alive and experience a heightened sense of energy. High quality
connections are marked by a particular subjective experience for both people in them, and
connection is distinguished by several capacities (Dutton and Heaphy, 2003). First, high
quality connections have higher emotional carrying capacity which is indicated by both
the expression of more emotion by people in this kind of a tie, and more variety in the
emotions expressed when compared to people in a lower quality tie. Second, a high
quality connection has greater levels of tensility which is the capacity to bend and
withstand stress in the face of setback or challenges. Finally, a high quality connection
between two people is marked by a higher capacity for connectivity. Connectivity is a
term used by Losada (1999) and Losada and Heaphy (2004) to capture a connection’s
generativity and openness to new ideas and influences, and its capacity to deflect actions
or behaviors that would stifle or hinder these generative processes.
As implied by their defining features, high quality connections have lasting
impact on people and organizations (Dutton, 2003) as they enhance physiological
functioning (Heaphy and Dutton, 2005; Reiss, Sheldon, Gable. Roscoe and Ryan, 2000),
enable heightened engagement in work (Kahn, 1990), facilitate coordination of
interdependent people or units (Gittell, 2003), promote learning through heightened
positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998), strengthen organizational attachment and
commitment (Labianca, Umpress and Kaufmann, 2000), foster individual resilience and
growth (Carmeli, 2005)and facilitate individual and project performance (Cross, Baker
and Parker, 2002; Losada and Heaphy, 2004).
The reciprocity principle operates when a person does something of value for you
“without expecting anything immediately in return and perhaps without even knowing
you, confident that down the road you or someone else will return the favor” (Putnam,
2000:134). Reciprocity is a form of cooperation that involves the exchange of resources
between two or more people. Reciprocity does not involve legal contracts or formal
agreements; often, the expectation of repayment is vague, undefined, or tacit. Because
future repayment is not formally specified, reciprocity is sometimes defined as a
combination of short-term altruism and long-term self interest (Taylor, 1982). However,
it is not necessary to invoke altruism to define reciprocity. Systems of reciprocity can
arise and thrive even when all participants are only self-interested (e.g., Axelrod, 1984;
Seabright, 2004).
Reciprocity can be present in varying degrees, and it can involve varying numbers
of people. Basic reciprocity involves the exchange of resources between two people.
This is also called “two-party” reciprocity because the exchange and expectation of
repayment are limited to two people. Generalized reciprocity occurs in larger systems
and involves more people. Generalized reciprocity is sometimes called “third-party
reciprocity” because the exchange of help and assistance takes place between three or
more people in a chain of reciprocity. For example, when John Clendenin managed the
logistics group at Xerox, he instituted a practice called “huddles” (Podolny 1992). If a
person needed help, he or she could round up the people needed and request a 15-minute
huddle. Those asked to help dropped what they were doing and participated, knowing
that when they needed help in the future, they too could call huddles. Generalized
reciprocity exists in degrees. At the pinnacle, people willingly help anyone who needs
it—even if it hasn’t been requested yet. For example, at IDEO, people routinely offer
their expertise and insight to others, even if they are not officially assigned to these
projects (Gada, Glover, and Tsai 2004). Generalized reciprocity is a hallmark of
communities of practice. “Members of a healthy community of practice have a sense that
making the community more valuable is to the benefit of everyone,” notes Wenger,
McDermott, and Snyder 2002:37). “They know that their contributions will come back
to them. This is not a direct exchange mechanism of a market type where commodities
are traded. Rather, it is a pool of goodwill—of ‘social capital’ to use the technical term—
that allows people to contribute to the community while trusting that at some point, in
some form, they too will benefit.” Simply put, people help others, knowing that others
will help them when they need it.
The practice of generalized reciprocity expands capacity by increasing the
volume, velocity, and efficiency of exchanges. It expands capacity by increasing the
flow of resources through networks, by enabling the combination and recombination of
resources, and by increasing the probability that the right resource will get to the
appropriate need. Finally, it increases capacity by elevating trust and improving the
connectivity and cohesion of a group. A wealth of research demonstrates the vital role of
generalized reciprocity for the health of communities and organizations, as well as for
individual health and well-being (e.g., Brown, Nesse, Vinokur, and Smith, 2003).
Generalized reciprocity is essential for the strength of democracy and the economic
development of nations (e.g., Putnam, 2000). Similarly, it is essential for healthy
corporate cultures and business performance, and leadership plays a key role in creating it
(Adler and Kwon, 2002; Baker 2000; Cohen and Prusak, 2000; Flynn, 2003; Kouses and
Posner, 2002). For example, reciprocity improves productivity, promotes learning, and
builds a climate and culture of trust (Flynn, 2003). By implementing some of the
enablers we discuss below, such as collaborative practices and technologies, we have
observed that generalized reciprocity improves the efficiency and effectiveness of
resource exchange. It enables groups to discover new resources, solve more problems
faster, and save time and money.
In general, an enabler is any practice or condition that makes a process or state
more likely to occur. Enablers differ from causes in that they suggest a probabilistic but
not deterministic connection between one condition and another. We propose that
enablers of positive social capital work through two major means: motivation and
opportunity structures. More specifically, the enablers impact positive social capital by
either increasing employees’ motivation to engage in HQCs or in reciprocity, and/or by
providing opportunities for employees to engage in HQC and/or generalized reciprocity.
We focus on clusters of organizational practices that promote positive social
capital. By practices we mean the recurrent, materially bounded, situated activities of a
particular unit or organization (e.g., Orlikowski, 2002). Practices refer to routine ways of
doing in an organization that create and are created by structures (Giddens, 1984). More
recently, there is recognition that everyday practices in organizations cultivate resources
and resourcefulness in organizations (Feldman, 2004; Spreitzer et al., 2004; Worline et
al., 2004). Consistent with these perspectives, the practices we consider are patterns of
“everyday doing” that produce positive social capital in organizations by motivation for
or opportunity to engage in HQCs and/or reciprocity.
We argue that various organizational practices activate and affirm employees’
motivation to participate in connections and a system of relationships that are generative.
For example, organizational practices that foster employee recognition motivate HQC
and generalized reciprocity by affecting people’s perceptions of each other , attracting
them to each other and instilling expectations of mutual regard. In addition, we assume
that the motivation to relate or connect in a certain way is more likely to create positive
social capital if employees have the means and chance to connect which is captured by
the idea of “opportunities to engage”. The motivation and opportunity to engage in high
quality connections increase when a practice facilitates respectful engagement
(interacting in a way that communicates a sense of worth and value), evokes higher
trusting (interacting in way that communicates a belief in the integrity and reliability of
another’s actions) or strengthens task enabling (interacting in a way that facilitates the
other person’s capacity to perform their task more effectively). All three of these forms of
interacting make higher quality connections more likely (Dutton, 2003) and thereby
explains why some organizational practices build this form of positive social capital.
Reciprocity is natural: people are “hard wired” for it; it is rooted in evolution,
because it improves survival; and many argue that is it was what made society possible
(e.g., Seabright, 2004; Gouldner, 1960; Leakey, 1978; Cialdini. 1993). Yet many
obstacles get in the way, such as incentive systems that measure and reward only
individual efforts, separation in time and space, negative cultures, and so forth. These
obstacles reduce the motivation to engage in generalized reciprocity and decrease the
opportunities to do so. However, the natural tendency to engage in reciprocity can
overcome obstacles to it. For example, business unit managers at British Petroleum have
developed an informal system of reciprocity, evident in their informal “peer assists” and
“personnel transfers” (Pfeffer and Sutton 2000:216-7). Unit heads will loan their talented
people to other units. BP, however, does not provide formal incentives for these
practices and does not measure the results. Furthermore, the lender loses the
contributions of the people on loan. By making loans, unit leaders know they can make
requests for people when they need them. Though people can overcome obstacles and
still engage in reciprocity, enablers increase the frequency and extent of these forms of
Enablers exert their positive effects when they increase motivation, opportunities,
or both. A specific enabler may affect only one—motivation or opportunities. For
example, the establishment of a formal system to measure and reward collaboration will
increase the motivation to engage in reciprocity, but (without other changes) opportunity
structures would remain the same as before. Participatory selection practices increase
opportunities for reciprocity (because these practices expand social networks and
awareness of others’ needs) but they do not by themselves increase the motivation to
engage in reciprocity. Of course, the most potent enablers increase motivation and
opportunities (see below for examples).
Table 2 summarizes the arguments for the “main effects” of six clusters of social
capital enablers. (A blank cell in the matrix indicates the absence of a main effect,
though there may be a minor effect). These social capital enablers are illustrative and not
exhaustive. They bring to light the intriguing possibility that everyday ways of doing in
an organization cultivate the quality of social capital, which in turn, is associated with
many desirable individual and collective outcomes.
Some Enablers of Positive Social Capital
Organizations are distinctive in the practices that create or destroy positive social
capital. From the moment that employees begin to engage with an organization, until the
day an employee exits, practices cultivate or eliminate certain conditions for interaction
(Baker, 2000) that are the foundation of positive social capital. We identify, describe and
illustrate six clusters of practices below, using them as a vehicle for unpacking the
theoretical mechanisms underlying the creation of positive social capital. Some of the
practices are what organizational scholars might call human resource practices (selection,
socialization, evaluation, rewards), while others are more focused on everyday work
practices (conduct of meetings, collaborative technologies, practices of interpersonal
helping) that undergird the conduct of work. There are other classes of enablers that we
might consider—e.g., formal structure, mentoring programs, leadership behaviors, and
physical architecture (Baker, 2000; Cross and Parker, 2004; Dutton, 2003; Ragins and
Verbos, this volume), but due to space limits we do not consider them here.
In practice, multiple enablers often appear together, creating an organizational
system that fosters positive social capital. In organizations with high positive social
capital, these enablers are practices that are institutionalized along with a set of norms
and values. Moreover, there may be congruency across practices, so that it is unlikely
that one would be established without others. While we discuss each enabler separately,
note that just changing one may not improve positive social capital. For those who wish
to put these enablers into practice, we advise a systems perspective in which these six
(and others that we have not enumerated) are considered together.
1. Relational Selection
Beginnings matter. How an organization recruits and selects its employees shape
the terms on which people in an organizational initially connect. Selection practices leave
their imprint on employees’ expectations and images of their work organization. From
the point of first contact, selection processes are powerful shapers of employees’ future
behavior patterns. Selection practices also are potent carriers of symbolic messages about
what are desired employee attributes and what are valued ways of interrelating.
Two features of an organization’s selection practices are particularly conducive to
building positive social capital. First, selection practices that put a premium on hiring
people for interpersonal skills and strengths shape the probability that people build high
quality connections. For example, some organizations explicitly select on an individual’s
team-building competences, communication skills or conflict management capabilities
Other organizations select on individuals for how have demonstrate collaborative
behavior. For example, Cross and Parker (2004) describe an organization that uses
group problem solving tasks during selection to favor individuals who excel in this form
of collaborative skill. Researchers who have studied and articulated the idea of relational
practice (e.g., Fletcher, 1999) have identified a host of relational skills that if used as a
basis for employee selection, are likely to increase the motivation for and opportunity to
engage in both the building of high quality connections and generalized reciprocity. For
example, Fletcher (this volume) identifies empathic competence (ability to understand
others’ experiences and perspectives), emotional competence (ability to understand and
interpret emotional data), authenticity (ability to access and express one’s own thoughts
and feelings), and fluid expertise (ability to move easily from expert to non-expert role)
as skills that foster what she calls a relational stance, that facilitates growth-enhancing
(high quality) connections between people. If people are routinely selected for
membership in an organization using these kinds of criteria, they are likely to be more
motivated to and capable of engaging in respectful engagement, task enabling or trusting
which are three forms of interacting that build high quality connections. In addition,
selection practices that favor relational skills further motivate employees to form high
quality connections because the practices cultivate a model of desirable interacting which
others copy and imitate.. Thus, selection practices that favor people with relational skills
directly and indirectly motivate high quality connections by affecting the supply of
people who are skilled in interacting this way and by activating a modeling or imitation
dynamic that further spreads high quality connecting behaviors.
A second selection practice that enables the building of positive social capital
involves participatory selection practices, which as the name denotes means that multiple
people are involved in selecting an individual to join the organization. This type of
participatory practice means that people acquire a stake in helping someone succeed if
they have had input in their selection. This motivation is more likely to increase people’s
investment in the new recruit, increasing trusting and task enabling; making the situation
ripe for building high quality connections. At the same time, joint participation in the
selection of a new recruit means more people have opportunities to connect with the
employee, jump-starting the possibility of building higher quality connections.
Selecting on relational skills influences the practice of generalized reciprocity
primarily though motivation: People who have good relational skills from the start are
more likely to understand the importance of generalized reciprocity and to be willing to
engage in it, compared with those will poor relational skills. Participatory selection
practices are a hallmark of companies with rich social capital, such as UPS, Capital
Partners (pseudonym of a commercial real estate development firm), Russell Reynolds
(executive recruiters), and many others (Baker, 2000; Cohen and Prusak, 2000).
Participatory selection practices lay the initial groundwork for generalized reciprocity,
and exert their influence primarily through the creation of opportunities to engage in it.
Reciprocity involves exchange, exchange requires knowledge of needs and resources, and
this knowledge is transferred via social networks. Participatory selection practices create
early opportunities for social contact, which increases interpersonal knowledge about
needs and contributions. And, these practices expand a person’s network of contacts,
enabling one to spot and act on more opportunities to engage in generalized reciprocity.
2. Relational Socialization
Socialization describes the formal and informal processes that are used to bring
new organizational members on board in an organization (Louis, 1980). An
organization’s practices are more relational when they provide multiple connecting
opportunities for a new member to meet “old” members, the connecting opportunities are
substantive (allowing for authentic communication), when others are specifically
rewarded from bringing someone on board, and new employees are well-equipped with
the information and contacts that they need in order to do their job well (Dutton, 2003;
Fernandez, Castilla and Moore, 2000).
Socialization processes that rotate people though multiple departments when they
first enter an organization, actively jumpstart new entrants’ opportunities to build HQCs
(Cross and Parker, 2004). In addition, if the organization’s practices introduce the new
recruit in ways that authentically and meaningfully allow others to value a new person,
these practices cultivate high-quality connecting by creating a foundation for trusting and
respectful engagement. Formal mentoring programs are good examples; not only do they
build HQCs between mentors and mentees, but such programs facilitate
“intergenerational” reciprocity as former mentees becomes mentors (see Ragins and
Verbos, this volume). Some organizations provide specific occasions for people to meet
a new recruit, and also equip organizational members with extensive useful information
about a newcomer’s background experiences or talents. The organizations facilitate new
members’ telling of their story about who they are, which are powerful means for
connecting. “By revealing vulnerabilities and creating empathy ‘I stories’ build trust”
(Putnam and Feldstein, 2003, p. 181). The use of these kinds of practices also provides
more opportunities for connecting under conditions in which the connections are likely to
be higher quality. These kinds of socialization practices stand in sharp contrast to
organizations where new recruits, or people on temporary assignments, are left on their
own to navigate a new organizational context and to introduce themselves to others on an
“as needed” basis (Dutton, 2003).
Relational socialization practices increase the motivation to engage in the proper
uses of generalized reciprocity by decreasing the motivation to engage in the misuses and
abuses of reciprocity. The social rule of reciprocity is so overpowering that it can be
misused to create unwanted debts and trigger unfair exchanges (Cialdini, 1993; Baker,
2000). Cialdini (1993:30–36) describes several unethical techniques and practices that
“compliance professionals” use to unfairly invoke the principle of reciprocity. Relational
socialization practices communicate the norm of proper generalized reciprocity as they
communicate the prohibitions against its misuses and abuses. Further, relational
socialization practices model appropriate reciprocity behaviors, such as observing acts of
contribution and helping. For example, a global pharmaceutical firm incorporated
generalized reciprocity in its high-performance teams program. Among other purposes,
this program helped to socialize newcomers (and reinforce for old timers) about the
proper uses of generalized reciprocity.
Relational socialization practices create opportunities to engage in generalized
reciprocity by expanding knowledge of needs, resources, and possibilities of exchange in
the organization. These socialization practices expand networks of HQCs, creating new
opportunities to practice generalized reciprocity. The example of the pharmaceutical firm
noted above had this effect as well: Participants made an expanding number of new
HQCs, and discovered many new opportunities to help one another through the practice
of generalized reciprocity. According to evaluations of the program, participants
attributed hundreds of thousands of dollars of value and thousands of hours saved to the
practice of generalized reciprocity.
3. Rewarding Relational Skills
In organizations designed for the creation of positive social capital, people are not
only selected on relational skills, but they are also meaningfully rewarded for their
development and strengthening. The rewarding of relational skills may be informal (e.g.,
praise or on-the-spot recognition) or formal (requiring more elaborated and explicit
monitoring and measurement systems). Having practices that reward relational skills also
means having a capacity to monitor and assess their development and having some way
of assessing improvements. For example, organizations that include 360-degree feedback
on whether a person provides effective support for others or whether a person displays
empathetic or emotional competence (two of Fletcher’s relational skills) would have a
basis for monitoring, assessing and rewarding relational skills .One could imagine real
variance across organizations in the way that this feedback is done, and in the degree to
which it motivates individuals to display and improve relational skills.
Where individuals receive meaningful rewards for displays or improvements of
these skills, one would expect to see people more motivated to create high quality
connections (as the skills necessary to build them are clearly valued). At the same time,
because the system is designed to detect effective relational skill development, one would
expect more formal and informal opportunities to emerge for building these forms of
Practices involving the rewarding for relational skills do not have to be a formal,
grand system to make a difference in building positive social capital (Dutton, 2003). In
many organizations, informal, smaller rewards such as public spot awards, can be
effective in creating the conditions for creating positive social capital. A well-known
example is Southwest Airlines which supports the granting “agent of the month awards”
that are fully determined by fellow employees, and given to employees who make
outstanding efforts to enable the success of others, and the airline as a whole (Gittell,
Practicing generalized reciprocity is itself a relational skill. Rewarding the
development and strengthening of relational skills increases the motivation to engage in
generalized reciprocity. Even for those who are favorably disposed to engage in it, many
do not know how to engage this way. It is often necessary to demonstrate the practice of
generalized reciprocity, and to provide opportunities to experiment with it. The global
pharmaceutical company mentioned above provided experiential training to develop and
strengthen relational skills specifically aimed at promoting generalized reciprocity.
4. Use of Group Incentives
One of the single biggest obstacles to positive social capital is the incentive
system (e.g., Baker, 2000: 191-192). Many leaders hope for positive social capital but
reward only individual performance. As Cross and Parker (2004:125) note, the most
important question to ask is, “Do you reward collaborative behaviors or focus heavily on
individual accomplishment?” Typical incentive systems focus on individual
accomplishment and not collaboration and thus fail to promote high levels of positive
social capital.
The use of group incentives in addition to individual incentives shapes the context
for positive social capital. By group incentives we mean the linking of rewards to group-
level rather than individual–level outcomes. For example, companies like Nucor, which
have a significant proportion of employees’ variable pay tied to team-level outcomes,
create and maintain conditions conducive to the generation of positive social capital
(Collins, 2001). When team level- pay is operational, individuals are more likely to be
attuned to treating each other in ways that generate HQCs. For example, with this type of
pay scheme there are incentives to enable the successful performance of other teammates
because there it directly contributes to one’s own rewards. Thus, task enabling is more
likely to take place when group incentives exist, and group members are more attentive
to, and over time, more skilled at facilitating each other’s performance.
Generalized reciprocity aligns individual and collective, and at times, can even
blur the distinction (Baker, 2000). As noted above, it is possible for systems of
generalized reciprocity to arise even when participants are only self-interested (e.g.,
Axelrod, 1984; Seabright, 2004), but it is much more likely if group incentives are added
to individual incentives. Doing so increases the motivation to engage in generalized
reciprocity. When people know their contributions to the welfare of others will be
monitored and rewarded, they are more likely to practice generalized reciprocity and to
look for opportunities to do so.
5. Relational Meeting Practices
Meetings are a dominant social arena for the conduct of work in organizations. They
are major sites for interaction—both virtual and face-to-face. They are social forums in
which people in organizations spend a significant amount of time. They often bring
people together physically and socially, which are conditions ripe for a heightened sense
of connection (Homans, 1961) as well as rapport-building. They are the places where
people share narratives, personal and collective, that social theorists have argued are so
important to the building of social capital (Putnam and Feldstein, 2003).
Organizations vary considerably in both the qualities of the space allocated to conduct
meetings and in the relational practices that typify how the meetings are conducted. For
example, some organizations make extra efforts to allow for face-to-face meetings, such
as UPS and Hewlett-Packard (Cohen and Prusak, 2001) because there is an explicit
valuing of “good conversational spaces”. Other organizations go to real efforts to do the
background preparatory work to enable each person to enter a meeting better equipped to
be able to add value. They do this by letting people know what the meeting will cover,
inviting people to meaningfully contribute, and giving people adequate time to prepare.
Relational practices in meetings that facilitate HQCs include encouraging listening,
equipping individuals with information and opportunities to contribute, and providing
opportunities for people to interact that are playful and fun (Dutton, 2003). Meetings in
which people are encouraged to meaningfully contribute, where there are norms for
respectful treatment of each other’s inputs, and where people have chances to problem
solve in ways that enhance the performance of the collective (e.g., a unit or the
organization as a whole) are conditions that are more likely to create and affirm HQCs.
Relational meeting practices foster the practice of generalized reciprocity by
providing new and more venues and occasions for exchange. The quarterly management
meetings at Nucor Corporation are good examples, as Cross and Parker (2004:127)
describe: “…people read material beforehand and use their precious time together for
collaborative problem solving. For example, employees form teams from various
functions or physical locations, and these groups not only solve problems but also help to
form relationships across boundaries.” These new relationships become conduits for the
continuing practice of generalized reciprocity.
6. Using Collaborative Technologies
Building and using social capital requires time and face-to-face interaction;
generally speaking, technology is not a good substitute (Cohen and Prusak, 2000).
However, we believe that technology has its place. Similarly, Cross and Parker
(2004:121) argue that technology can enhance work processes, but warn that managers
first have to understand how work really gets done—the tasks, the people, the informal
networks—and then explore how technology could assist. They document positive
examples of various communication and collaboration technologies: Instant Messaging
(IM), skill-profiling systems (the equivalent of searchable online resumes), and group-
support systems, such as Web-conferencing, NetMeeting, chat rooms, and team rooms
(e.g., eRooms). For example, British Petroleum’s “Virtual Teamwork Program,” which
enables engineers from around the globe to collaborate in real time and diagnose and
solve technical problems quickly (Pfeffer and Sutton 2000:219). Collaborative
technologies ease the difficulties of making contact with other people when physical
distance or structural impediments are barriers. While these technologies cannot
guarantee high quality connecting, they increase the possibility of interacting by some
means, making trusting, task enabling and/or respectful engagement at least a
If used properly, collaboration technologies increase the motivation to engage in
generalized reciprocity and provide the opportunities to do so. Technology can make
exchange faster and more efficient, and expand the reach of reciprocity well beyond what
is possible in a face-to-face group. We know of only one collaboration technology that
actually creates generalized reciprocity, which is the Virtual Reciprocity Ring™
( This tool is explicitly designed to implement the principle
and practice of generalized reciprocity. It is built around a structured process that enables
participants to make requests, to make contributions to requests, and to follow up with
one another. Data show that most exchanges are not between two parties (e.g., A helps
B, B helps A) but third-party exchanges (e.g., A helps B, B helps C, C helps D, and D
helps A). Third-party exchanges are the hallmark of generalized reciprocity. Participants
report that they spend most of their time making contributions to others, and they trust
that their requests will be met along the way. Consistent with observations of reciprocity
in the workplace (Flynn, 2003), using this tool improves productivity, promotes learning,
and builds a climate and culture of trust. Of course, other practices, such as transparent
decision-making, building a shared vision, employee ownership, and job security further
contribute to a climate of trust (e.g., Abrams, Cross, Lesser, and Levin 2003; Leana and
Van Buren 1999).
Our chapter has outlined the contours of a framework for explaining and studying
how organizational units or organizations as a whole are more or less likely to cultivate
positive social capital. By adding the modifier “positive” to the widely used concept of
social capital, we wish to assert that the means and the outcomes of social capital can
vary. A focus on positive social capital highlights the particular value of connections
between people that are generative or resource and capacity-creating. We suggest that
high quality connections and generalized reciprocity are two distinct but complementary
and mutually reinforcing forms of positive social capital. Both forms highlight that
positive relationships are not static entities, but are active mechanisms in the creation and
sustenance of capacities and resources that create value to people who are in connection,
and also to the unit or organization of which they are a part.
There are several research opportunities opened up by this perspective on positive
relationships at work. First, the assumption that HQCs and generalized reciprocity build
capacity for a social entity (like an organizational unit or organization as a whole)
deserves further empirical validation. We have discussed (and summarized in Table 1) a
variety of ways that these forms of positive social capital build and expand capacity, and
implied that these help to account for the range of desirable outcomes also documented in
Table 1. Our ongoing research supports the argument that these HQCs and generalized
reciprocity build capacity and generate resources, but more research is needed.
Testing the first argument—that these forms of positive social capital are
capacity-generating—suggests important theoretical assumptions that must be tested as
well. Implicit in our framework is an assumption that positive relationships at work
(represented by HQCs and reciprocity) are resource-producing. Thus, just by being in one
these forms of connection, people create valuable assets like trust, confidence,
affirmation, energy, and joy, which are durable resources that have impact beyond the
initial connecting point between two or more individuals. In this way, our theory is
consistent with Glynn and Wrobel’s (this volume) claim that positive relationships can be
an engine of resource production that adds to a social unit’s capacity to act, to think, or to
adapt. The idea that resources can be unleashed or unlocked from within a connection
between people is an example of a broader idea of endogenous resourcefulness—i.e., that
there are resources that are released in the process of interacting, in doing, and in
organizing that add value to human and organizational functioning (Dutton, Worline,
Frost and Lilius, 2005; Feldman and Dutton, 2005). This assertion, in turn, builds on
Feldman’s (2004) ideas that resources are built and changed in practice. In our case, we
place at center stage the relational practices that undergird positive social capital, arguing
that these practices are generative i.e., resource-producing.
Third, our perspective invites empirical investigation into how everyday practices
of selecting, socializing, rewarding, meeting, and collaborating create or destroy positive
social capital. At a very concrete level, our analysis suggests that, in the units or
organizations with the enablers in place that we identify as conducive to positive social
capital, we should observe frequent and pervasive high quality connections and
generalized reciprocity. Even within a single organization, we would expect to observe
meaningful variance across units in positive social capital, explained in part by the
presence, extent, and combinations and permutations of enablers that shape both the
motivation and opportunity for these forms of interrelating.
Fourth, we need to examine the extent to which there is congruency among the
practices. It might be unlikely that one enabler could appear without others; perhaps only
a constellation of enablers could be used in practice. For example, it might be unlikely
that an organization would reward for relational skills but fail to hire on the basis of these
skills. Additional research would tell us if it is possible to have situations with high
levels of some enablers, but just moderate (or even low) levels of others.
Our chapter introduces the concept of positive social capital in work
organizations. Positive social capital takes into account both the means by which social
capital is created, and the ends to which it is used. Social capital is positive if the means
by which social capital is created expands the generative capacity of people and groups.
Social capital is positive if helps people grow, thrive, and flourish in organizations and
thereby achieve their goals in better ways.
We focus on two forms of positive social capital—HQCs and reciprocity. These
forms create and sustain positive social capital by expanding the resource-producing
capabilities of positive relationships at work. HQC captures a particular configuration of
positive characteristics of a relationship between two people (mutuality, positive regard
and felt energy). Basic reciprocity refers to mutual exchange, aid, and benefit between
two people; generalized reciprocity refers to a system of mutual exchange, aid, and
benefit among members or a group or organization. HQCs and reciprocity are
complementary forms of social capital where one reinforces the other. We argue that
positive social capital ensues when members of a group or organization are motivated to
engage in high quality connections and generalized reciprocity, and have opportunities to
do so. We identify six types of enablers of positive social capital that operate through the
mechanisms of motivation and opportunities: Selecting on relational skills, participatory
selection practices, relational socialization practices, rewarding for relational skills, using
group incentives, relational meeting practices, and using collaborative technologies.
These enablers can be present or absent in organization, and they exist along a
continuum. Different combinations and permutations of these are possible, though we
expect that certain combinations would appear together in practice
We presented a sample of enablers, so one area of future work is to identify and
validate other enablers of positive social capital. For example, what aspects of an
organization’s or unit’s culture are most conducive to high quality connecting and
generalized reciprocity? Are there particular patterns of shared values and beliefs that
encourage patterns of interrelating that represent positive social capital? For example
could justice, and in particular, interactional justice (e.g., Bies, 2001) be a shared
organizational value or belief that is conducive to the production of positive social
capital (See Greenberg, this volume)? Alternatively, are there particular strategic goals
or ways of competing that are conducive to creating positive social capital? One might
expect that for certain strategies (ones that rely heavily on collaboration and cooperation
within and across organizational boundaries, e.g., alliance strategies (Bamford, Gomes-
Casseres and Robinson, 2003)), enablers of positive social capital would be critical to
sustained economic success. In these organizations, strategic goals and strategic priorities
should be enablers of positive social capital. Finally, our set of enablers of positive social
capital touch on some of the human resource practices that Vogus (2004) has argued
affect respectful interaction at work. His empirical study of nursing units suggest that
bundles of human resource practices (including extensive training, developmental
performance appraisal, selective staffing, performance-based rewards, employee
empowerment and job security) together contribute to patters of respectful interaction
which is conducive to HQCs and to generalized reciprocity. Future research should
consider how these practices alone, and in combination with other practices enable the
creation and sustenance of positive social capital.
More research is needed to understand and validate precisely how these forms of
positive social capital increase the generative capacity of individuals and groups, how
they combine, and how they can be an engine of resource production. Such research
would contribute to a fuller understanding of positive relationships at work—their
dynamics, enablers, underlying mechanisms, and outcomes.
Table 1. Two Forms of Positive Social Capital, Capacities, and Outcomes
Form of positive
social capital What capacities are
expanded? What outcomes?
High Quality
Connections Emotional carrying capacity
Physiological functioning
Engagement at work
Attachment and commitment
Individual and project
Reciprocity Ability to exchange more
resources, more quickly
Connectivity of the network
(thus access to more resources)
Ability to combine and
recombine resources
Ability to match resources and
Elevates trust (hence
willingness to make riskier
requests, and to have
confidence of repayment for
help given)
Better resource utilization
Discovery of new resources
More problems solved, faster
Reduces duplication of effort
Cost reduction
Time savings
Table 2. Links Between Enablers, Motivation to Engage, and Opportunity Structure for
Two Forms of Positive Social Capital
Motivation Opportunity Structure Enabler To engage in
HQC To engage in
To engage in
HQC To engage in
Selecting on
relational skills More
experience and
desire to build
connections that
call on these
More likely to
understand and
be willing to
engage in
exchange with
individuals with
competence to
build HQC
Participation in
selection builds
investment in
new recruit,
making trusting
and task
enabling more
--- More occasions
to meet new
Creates social
which are
necessary for
Greater and
earlier exposure
to others’ needs
and potential
conditions of
trusting and
Decreases the
motivation to
misuse the
principles to
trigger unwanted
exchanges or
create unfair
Creates more
earlier and
creates more
for task
trusting and
Expands social
which are
necessary for
Greater and
earlier exposure
to others’ needs
and potential
Rewarding for
relational skills Strengthens
skills for
trusting and task
willingness to
reciprocity, and
enabling to seek new
opportunities to
do so
Using group
incentives Group
reward task
Group incentives
link and align
rationality) to
trusting and
frequency of
and trusting
more likely
Provides new
and more
venues and
occasions for
willingness to
reciprocity if
make it faster or
more efficient
occasions in
interact in ways
that increase
respect, trust
and facilitate
task enabling
Provides means
(tools) for
may increase
the efficiency
of exchange
Abrams, L.C., R. Cross, E. Lesser, D. Z. and Levin. 2003. “Nurturing
interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks.” Academy of Science Executive
Adler, P.S. and S. Kwon. 2002. “Social capital: prospects for a new concept.”
Academy of Management Review 27 (1) 17 – 40.
Axelrod, R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. NY: Basic.
Brock, D. 1993. “Quality of life in health care and medical ethics. Pp. 95-132 in
M. Nussbaum and A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Baker, W. 2005. America’s Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception. Princeton
University Press.
Baker, W. 2000. Achieving Success Through Social Capital. San Francisco:
Baker, W. E., R. Cross and A. Parker. 2003. “What creates energy in
organizations?,” Sloan Management Review 44(summer): 51-56.
Baker, W.E. and R. R. Faulkner. 2004. “Social networks and loss of capital.”
Social Networks 26:91-111.
Bamford, J.D., B. J Gomes-Casseres and M.S. Robinson 2003 Mastering Alliance
Strategy San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J.
Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 85-108),
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Brown, S. L., R. M., Nesse, A. D. Vinokur, and D. M. Smith. 2003 “Providing
social support may be more beneficial than receiving it: results from a prospective study
of mortality.” Psychological Science 14:320 – 327.
Carmeli, A. 2005 Fostering vitality, growth, resilience and learning processes in
organizational members: The role of high-quality connections. Working paper, Bar-Ilan
Cialidini, R. B. 1993. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. NY:
Quill/William Morrow.
Cohen, D. and L. Prusak. 2000. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes
Organizations Work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Crozier, M. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Collins, James 2001. Good to Great. New York: HarperBusiness, 2001
Dutton, J. 2003. Energize Your Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dutton, J. and E. Heaphy. 2003. “The power of high quality connections” In K.
Cameron, J. Dutton and R. Quinn (eds.) Positive Organizational Scholarship. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Dutton, J.E., M. Worline, P. Frost and J. Lilius 2005. “Explaining compassion
organizing competence”. Working paper, Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship,
Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.
Feldman, M.S. 2004. “Resources in emerging structures and processes of change.
Organization Science 15, 3, 295-309.
Feldman, M. and J. Dutton .2005 “Creating capacity from within: Understanding
endogenous resourcefulness in organizations” . Presented at the National Academy of
Management meetings, Honolulu, Hawaii, August.
Fernandez, R., E. Castilla, and P. Moore. 2000. “Social capital at work: networks
and employment at a phone center,” American Journal of Sociology 105:1288-1356
Fletcher, J. In this volume
Flynn, F. J. 2003. “How much should I give and how often? The effects of
generosity and frequency on favor exchange on social status and productivity.” Academy
of Management Journal 46 (5) 539-553.
Fredrickson, B.L., 1998 What good are positive emotions? Review of General
Psychology 2, 3, : 300-319.
Gada, H., G. Melanie, and T. Tsai. 2004. “IDEO: The Enabling of Positive Social
Capital for Innovation.” Team project, Social Capital for Managerial Effectiveness
(MO624), Fall.
Gittell, Jody Hoffer 2003 The Southwest Airlines Way: Using the power of
relationships to achieve high performance. New York: McGraw –Hill.
Gouldner, A.W. 1960. "The Norm of Reciprocity." American Journal of
Sociology 25:161-178
Greenberg, J. 2006 “ Positive organizational justice: From fair to fairer—and
beyond” In this volume
Heaphy, E and J. Dutton 2005 Embodying social interactions: Integrating
physiology into the study of positive connections and relationships at work, Working
paper, Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship, Stephen M. Ross School of
Business, University of Michigan.
Hodson, R. 2004 Organizational trustworthiness: Findings from the population of
organizational ethnographies. Organization Science 15 (4) 432-445.
Homans. G. 1961 Social Behavior: Its elementary forms .New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World.
Glynn, M.A and K. Wrobel. 2006 My family, my firm: How familial
relationships function as endogenous organizational resources. In this volume.
Greenberg, J. 2006 Positive organizational justice: From fair to fairer—and
beyond. In this volume.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. 2002. The Leadership Challenge, third edition. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Labianca, G., E. Umphress and J. Kaufmann, 2000 A preliminary test of the
negative asymmetry hypothesis in workplace social Networks. Paper presented at the
National Academy of Management meetings, Toronto.
Leakey,R. and R. Lewin. 1978. People of the Lake. NY: Anchor Press:
Leana, C. R. and H. J. Van Buren, III. 1999. “Organizational social capital and
employment practices.” The Academy of Management Review 24:538-555.
Leana, C. R and D. Rousseau 2000 Relational Wealth: The advantages of stability
in a changing economy (New York: Oxford University Press)
Lewin, R and B. Regine 2000 The Soul at Work. New York: Simone & Schuster.
Losada, M. 1999. “The Complex Dynamics of High Performance Teams.”
Mathematical and Computer Modeling 30:179-192.
Losada, M. and E. Heaphy 2004 The role of positivity and connectivity in the
performance of business teams: A nonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral
Scientist, 47, 6, 740-765.
O’Reilly, C and J. Pfeffer. 2000. Hidden Value. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
Business School Press.
Podolny, J. 1992. Interview with John Clendenin (video), Stanford Business
Pratt, M. G. and A Rafaeli. 2002 “Symbols as a language of organizational
relationships” In B.M. Staw and R. I Sutton (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior.
Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 93-133.
Pfeffer, J. and R. I. Sutton 2000. The Knowing-Doing Gap. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Preuss, G.A. 2000 Relational wealth and skill development within evolving,
competitive markets”. In C. Leana and D. Rousseau (Eds.) Relational Wealth: The
advantages of stability In a changing economy (New York: Oxford University Press) 62-
Prusak, L and D. Cohen. 2001. “How to Invest in Social Capital.” Harvard
Business Review (January).
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R. and L. M. Feldstein 2003 Better Together: Restoring the American
Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ragins, B. and A, Verbos 2006 Positive relationships in action: Relational
perspectives on mentoring at work. In this volume.
Reiss, H.T., K.M. Sheldon, S. Gable, J. Roscoe and M. Ryan 2000 Daily well-
being: The role of autonomy, competence and relatedness. Personality and Social
Psychological Bulletin 25, 419-435.
Rocco, E., Finholt, T.A., Hofer, E.C., and Herbsleb, J.D. 2000. Designing as if
Trust Mattered. Working paper, CREW, University of Michigan.
Seabright, P. 2004. The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic
Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spreitzer, G., K. Sutcliffe, J. Dutton, S. Sonenshein, and A. Grant. Enabling
thriving at work. Organization Science, Forthcoming
Suchman, Mark 1995 Managing legitimacy: Institutional and strategic
approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 3, 571-611.
Taylor, M. 1982. Community, Anarchy, and Liberty. NY: Cambridge University
Vogus. Timothy 2004 In Search of Mechanisms: How Do HR Practices Affect
Organizational Performance? Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan,
Walsh, J.P, K. Weber and J. Margolis. 2003. Social issues and management: Our
lost cause found. Journal of Management 29, 6: 859-882.
Wenger, E. R. McDermott, and W. N. Snyder. 2002. Cultivating Communities of
Practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Williams, M. and J.E. Dutton 1999 “Corrosive political climates: The heavy toll
of negative political behavior in organizations. In The Pressing Problems of Modern
Organizations: Transforming the Agenda for Research and Practice. R.E. Quinn, R. M.
O’Neill and L. St. Clair (Eds.) New York: American Management Association, 3-30.
Worline, M., J. Dutton, P. Frost, J. Lilius, J. Kanov. Fertile Soil: The organizing
dynamics of resilience in work organizations., Working paper. University of Michigan.
... These interactions are able to increase connections and promote sharing of resources and assistance through one's social networks (i.e., social capital, Coleman, 1988). One way to enact high-quality connections is to promote generalized reciprocity (Baker & Dutton, 2007), which involves the exchange of help and assistance among individuals. Generalized reciprocity is experienced as a repository of goodwill in which people give and receive help when they are able or need it (Baker & Dutton, 2007). ...
... One way to enact high-quality connections is to promote generalized reciprocity (Baker & Dutton, 2007), which involves the exchange of help and assistance among individuals. Generalized reciprocity is experienced as a repository of goodwill in which people give and receive help when they are able or need it (Baker & Dutton, 2007). Generalized reciprocity is a shared norm of helping that can enrich social relationships by increasing the interconnectedness of members. ...
... Organizations interested in boosting positive connections and reciprocity may find the University of Michigan's Center for Positive Organizations helpful as they offer tools, activities, and resources, such as the "Reciprocity Ring" or "Givitas" (Center for Positive Organizations, 2022). Perhaps most compelling is the potential for these connections to promote trust, respect, and a greater appreciation and knowledge about one another and each other's individual strengths (Baker & Dutton, 2007). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education brings together leaders from academic and research institutions, and key stakeholders to work toward and share targeted, collective action on addressing and preventing sexual harassment across all disciplines and among all people in higher education. The Action Collaborative creates an active space where colleges, universities, and other research and training institutions move beyond basic legal compliance to evidence-based policies and practices for addressing and preventing all forms of sexual harassment and promoting a campus climate of civility and respect. Four Working Groups within the Action Collaborative focus on prevention, response, evaluation, and remediation of sexual harassment in higher education. Members of the Prevention Working Group wanted to better understand the landscape of civility research and civility promotion programs so they could inform efforts within higher education institutions. To gather this information, the Working Group commissioned Drs. Dana Kabat-Farr and Benjamin Walsh to write a paper on the topic using their research expertise.
... Task enabling can encourage included parties to feel cared about, looked out for, and respected. Task enabling can be created by using collaborative workplace technologies, implementing group goals or group projects, or simply by creating a culture of respect and reciprocity (Baker & Dutton, 2006). Task enabling helps to nurture a culture of belonging by creating the sense within those involved that their successes are shared, and that when they succeed, the whole team succeeds. ...
... This is an excellent way for team members to practice task-enabling, another building block of HQCs. Giving teams collaborative projects, group goals, and collective inquiry can all help deepen HQCs by fostering task-enabling and respectful interpersonal dynamics (Baker & Dutton, 2006). These practices of gratitude and the first stages of an Appreciative Inquiry help line up personal purpose as well. ...
This project comes from a deep love of the idea of creating cultures of belonging, originating from my own relationship with community, in which my life was saved by the loving generosity of the 12-step community. This connects to contemporary research on both the nature of, and need for, a sense of belonging to something bigger than oneself. This project begins with a review of current literature on the experience of belonging in the workplace, and the influence that feeling a sense of belonging within one’s organization has on well-being. It then goes into an exploration of current interventions that can be utilized to create cultures of belonging, most notably high-quality connection (HQC) building and appreciative inquiry. The remainder of the paper is a collection of suggestions for interventions and next steps to take when seeking to create a more comprehensive culture of belonging in the workplace. This work helps to drive deeper the importance of having organizational community and healthy interpersonal dynamics in the workplace. The broader implication is that belonging in the workplace is becoming more of a necessity for organizations, and this work helps to guide organizations on their first steps towards a more nourishing workplace community and a culture of belonging.
... Previous research by Ancona and Isaacs (2007) revealed positive association between positive relationships and healthier team functioning. Positive relationships resulted in increased energy, learning, cooperation, greater utilization of resources, time savings, reduction in cost and development of human capital in organizations (Baker & Dutton, 2007) and produced increased levels of project performance in organizations (Cross et al., 2010) which is crucial for effective functioning of organizations. Organizational effectiveness, to a large extent depends on whether the leader is skilled enough to harness positive emotions among the members of the teams. ...
Contemporary business world is characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity and is popularly known as VUCA world. This uncontrollable negative spiral in today’s workplace requires organizational leaders to instil stability, safety, hope and meaning. Organizational experts believe that positive leadership of an organization can guide and show the right directions to its people for achieving organizational goals even in the face of trouble and adversity. Keeping this in view, the present paper purports to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework for examining the relationship between positive leadership and organizational effectiveness. This paper also attempts to establish the intervening role of organizational citizenship behaviour and emotional intelligence on the relationship between positive leadership and organizational effectiveness. Researchers undertook an in-depth and extensive literature survey in order to critically examine the impact of positive leadership on organizational effectiveness. The review provides a comprehensive framework to develop a conceptual model of positive leadership in the organizational context. The proposed conceptual framework would enable researchers and management experts gain a deeper and nuanced understanding of the role of positive leadership in producing improved organizational functioning and effectiveness. The paper offers multiple practical implications for HR practitioners and management experts which if properly utilized would prove to be useful in fostering positive leadership skills in the organizations through effective leadership development interventions and executive coaching programmes, leading to better performance of the employees. The study contributes to deeper and nuanced understanding of the construct of Positive Leadership and proposes a new conceptual model suited to the Indian context.KeywordsPositive leadershipOrganizational effectivenessOrganizational citizenship behaviourEmotional intelligence
... As relationships emerge from the accumulation of interactions between partners (Colbert et al., 2016), we suggest that mindfulness plays a vital role in informing relationship development. We also leverage work on high-quality relationships to understand how mindful relating may contribute to relationship partners being aware of and tuned into the needs of each other, which brings about energizing, positive, and motivational effects for both individuals (Baker & Dutton, 2007;Dutton & Heaphy, 2003;Dutton & Ragins, 2007 and indifferent relationships, low on both approach-oriented (positive) emotions and avoidance-oriented (negative) emotions (Methot et al., 2017). Importantly, we concur with Methot et al. (2017) that individuals at work who see each other even infrequently with little depth or importance (such as casual coworkers), still have a work relationshipalbeit an indifferent one, categorized by both low approach and low avoidance orientations. ...
Full-text available
Integrating theorizing on mindfulness and work relationships, we build a multilevel model of how mindfulness shapes interpersonal interactions and work relationship trajectories over time. Our framework of mindful relating yields three approaches an individual may utilize during an interpersonal interaction at work, based on the extent to which they incorporate the mindful qualities of attention and decentering. We theorize how the extent to which interaction partners are (in)congruent in their mindful relating approaches associates with interaction quality (positive, ambivalent, indifferent, and negative) – and how over time, this shapes the trajectory of a work relationship. We further posit that empathy, response flexibility, and emotional regulation transmit the effects of mindful relating and drive interaction quality. From a contextual perspective, we explore the roles of power dynamics and negative shock events as factors likely to impact how interactions over time collectively inform the trajectory of relationships. Finally, we explicate how our theory‐building can guide future work and make specific recommendations for theoretical and empirical advancement. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
... Thus, the acting force of managers and leaders that is reflected in the improvement of social capital in organizations has been extensively discussed in the literature (Maak, 2007). Managers and leaders with more investment in social capital can establish and maintain more social capital (Baker & Dutton, 2006). ...
Full-text available
This study investigated the role of social capital in the relationship between sports event volunteer management and volunteers’ attitude and behavior. Social capital was discovered to mediate the relationships of sports event volunteer management with volunteers’ satisfaction and work engagement. These relationships were empirically examined by conducting a survey of 303 volunteers from the 2016 Wuhan Open and 2016 Wuhan Marathon. The results revealed that sports event management practices, namely training and working conditions, significantly affected the volunteers’ social capital. The social capital of the sports event volunteers significantly affected their satisfaction and work engagement. The volunteers’ social capital promoted their satisfaction and engagement only if sports event volunteer management practices effectively enhanced their social capital. This study provides recommendations to help sports event organizers motivate volunteers.
... The justification for this curvilinear effect may lie in the inability to develop meaningful relationships with colleagues leading to feelings of social and professional isolation. Other factors specific to remote working that positively impact job satisfaction are technical and human resources support, trustworthy relationship with supervisor, training to support remote working and family support (Baker & Dutton, 2017;Allen, 2015). Thus, organizational mechanisms for making remote working effective are likely to enhance employee engagement which will impact job satisfaction. ...
Full-text available
Purpose: As the Covid-19 pandemic has necessitated increased remote working, organizations need to use support mechanisms to facilitate new ways of working. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the organizational support mechanisms impact employee work-related attitudes in the context of remote working. As people are anxious about both lives and livelihood during this crisis, the paper also aims to analyze how anxiety impacts the relationship of employee engagement with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Methodology: For this purpose, responses were collected between March 25 and April 30, 2020 from a heterogeneous sample of employees (N=181) working remotely during the pandemic. Employees’ perspectives on work-related attitudes and organizational support mechanisms throughout lockdown in India were captured. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyze the data. Findings: This study reported findings in two areas: how organizational support mechanisms (effective structure, supportive leadership, caring culture and technology) impact employees’ work-related attitudes in the context of remote working during the pandemic; and how anxiety due to the crisis impacts the relationship of employee engagement with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Practical Implications: An immediate managerial implication of the findings suggest that it is not just technological infrastructure that facilitates remote working during a pandemic like Covid-19 but other organizational support mechanisms also have a significant impact on employee engagement. Also, there is a need for managers to create a caring, supportive, and open culture to reduce employee anxiety Originality: The article makes two main contributions. First, this study suggests and tests a model for boosting employee engagement leading to job satisfaction and organizational commitment for remote working in times of a pandemic. Second, the study provides suggestions for managers to apply the theoretical model.
... As occupational health psychologists, we have the resources to design organizational development processes for promoting positive social capital (Baker & Dutton, 2007) consisting of personal relationships with high-quality connections and reciprocity at work. We can use relational theory and practices rooted in a relational belief system characterized by connection, interdependence, collectivity, empathy, mutual empowerment, vulnerability, and mutual responsibility (Fletcher, 1998) and consistent with empirical research approaches such as companionate love cultures (Barsade & O'Neill, 2014). ...
The present study proposes and examines a theoretical Dual Path Model of Experienced Workplace Incivility using meta-analytic relationships (k = 246; N = 145, 008) between experienced incivility and frequent correlates. The stress-induced mechanism was supported with perceived stress mediating the meta-analytical relationship between experienced incivility and occupational health (i.e., emotional exhaustion and somatic complaints). The commitment-induced mechanism was also supported with affective commitment to the organization mediating the relationship between experienced incivility and organizational correlates (i.e., job satisfaction and turnover intentions). However, these paths were not able to explain the strong relationship between experienced and enacted workplace incivility. Moderating analysis revealed that the experienced-enactment link is stronger between coworkers, in comparison to incivility experienced from supervisors; experienced incivility is more strongly related to organizational correlates, when incivility is enacted by supervisors in comparison to coworkers, and in human service samples when compared to samples comprised of mixed occupations. We discuss theoretical and practical implications as well as directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Purpose This article categorizes organization development (OD) approaches to change management into three categories and explains their differences and when each might be most appropriate. It focuses on the differences between two different change strategies that utilize the same methods and are associated with a Dialogic OD mindset: high engagement and generative. The generative change strategy is the newest and least discussed in the change literature. The article endeavors to alert practitioners and researchers to important differences that make the generative change strategy the most rapid and transformational catalyst for change of the three. Design/methodology/approach Descriptions of the high engagement and generative change strategies are followed by brief case examples. The differences in roles and activities of leaders (sponsors), change agents and those affected by the change are identified. Propositions about when each strategy is appropriate are offered. Findings The rate and depth of change produced by generative change is beyond what change professionals normally aspire to. High engagement strategies appear to be the most common form of dialogic organizational consulting. It is probably not coincidental that managerial control is retained while engaging the targets of change in participating on some aspect of change planning and solution finding. Generative strategies that lead to rapid transformations are based on complexity science, so are more agile, emergent and self-organizing, and thus less managerial control. A generative strategy is of limited value when high levels of interdependence or large capital outlays require central coordination of change. In such cases, high engagement is a better choice. Originality/value The authors believe this is the first article to identify the differences between high engagement and generative strategies utilized by Dialogic OD practitioners using large group interventions and propose when each may be the most appropriate. Additionally, the generative change model provides a new lens for creating a path to the agile organization.
Im Zuge der Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der Corona-Pandemie wird Telearbeit flächendeckend in Unternehmen eingesetzt, um Kontakte zu reduzieren und die Gesundheit der Mitarbeitenden zu schützen. Anhand einer umfassenden Analyse der Literatur und einer Fallstudie in einem mittelständischen, produzierenden und international agierenden Unternehmen wird dargelegt, inwiefern sich die Erkenntnisse zur Telearbeit geändert haben und welche Voraussetzungen erfüllt sein müssen, damit die Telearbeit aktuell und zukünftig erfolgreich eingesetzt werden kann. Während vor der Pandemie grundsätzlich die Vorteile der Telearbeit thematisiert werden, ist nun ein Fokuswechsel auf die Herausforderungen zu erkennen. Das theoretische Rahmenwerk von Wang et al. (2020), welches die Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Telearbeit beschreibt, wird im Rahmen dieser Ausarbeitung überprüft und erweitert.
Full-text available
The study examines the necessity and sufficiency of gratitude for supporting workplace happiness among Indian university teachers. It also explores the mediating effect of psychological capital and social capital in the relationship between gratitude and workplace happiness. The moderating effect of spiritual climate is investigated. A survey of 726 university staff in India was undertaken to examine the relationship between gratitude and workplace happiness. A series of statistical tests involving correlation, multiple regression, and necessary condition analysis was undertaken from the data set. The mediation effect of psychological capital and social capital was investigated using bootstrapping estimates using PROCESS Macro in SPSS. Also, the moderation effect of spiritual climate was explored using PROCESS Macro in SPSS. The results reveal that gratitude is both a sufficient and necessary condition for workplace happiness. It also suggests a significant mediating effect of psychological capital and social capital. Also, a significant effect of spiritual climate amid the relationship between gratitude and workplace happiness is concluded. The study is one of the first studies that explore the relationship between gratitude and workplace happiness. It examines the mechanism through which gratitude influences happiness in the workplace.
Emotional processes influence a wide range of mental and physical systems, which makes them difficult to understand from a single perspective. In this special issue of the Review of General Psychology, contributing authors present 4 articles that draw from several areas within psychology in the service of understanding a topic relevant to emotion. In this overview, the authors argue that the long neglect of the scientific study of complex processes such as emotion might be linked, in part, to the fractionation of the field into specialized subdisciplines. Just as emotions were of central concern in the early years of psychology (which was a generalist's era), as psychology moves toward more integration in the late 20th century broad phenomena such as emotions are once again central interests. The 4 articles of this special issue are briefly reviewed as exemplars of an integrated approach to understanding emotional phenomena.
Brock's comprehensive study of measures of quality of life in the area of healthcare shows that doctors and philosophers, in their quest for the best way to assess the quality of patients’ lives, have increasingly turned to a list of functional capabilities, much similar to those proposed in the capability literature and in the theory and practice of Scandinavian social scientists. The field of healthcare offers a rich ground for comparing, contrasting, and assessing different approaches.
This study began with the premise that people can use varying degrees of their selves. physically. cognitively. and emotionally. in work role performances. which has implications for both their work and experi­ ences. Two qualitative. theory-generating studies of summer camp counselors and members of an architecture firm were conducted to explore the conditions at work in which people personally engage. or express and employ their personal selves. and disengage. or withdraw and defend their personal selves. This article describes and illustrates three psychological conditions-meaningfulness. safety. and availabil­ ity-and their individual and contextual sources. These psychological conditions are linked to existing theoretical concepts. and directions for future research are described. People occupy roles at work; they are the occupants of the houses that roles provide. These events are relatively well understood; researchers have focused on "role sending" and "receiving" (Katz & Kahn. 1978). role sets (Merton. 1957). role taking and socialization (Van Maanen. 1976), and on how people and their roles shape each other (Graen. 1976). Researchers have given less attention to how people occupy roles to varying degrees-to how fully they are psychologically present during particular moments of role performances. People can use varying degrees of their selves. physically, cognitively, and emotionally. in the roles they perform. even as they main­ tain the integrity of the boundaries between who they are and the roles they occupy. Presumably, the more people draw on their selves to perform their roles within those boundaries. the more stirring are their performances and the more content they are with the fit of the costumes they don. The research reported here was designed to generate a theoretical frame­ work within which to understand these "self-in-role" processes and to sug­ gest directions for future research. My specific concern was the moments in which people bring themselves into or remove themselves from particular task behaviors, My guiding assumption was that people are constantly bring­ ing in and leaving out various depths of their selves during the course of The guidance and support of David Berg, Richard Hackman, and Seymour Sarason in the research described here are gratefully acknowledged. I also greatly appreciated the personal engagements of this journal's two anonymous reviewers in their roles, as well as the comments on an earlier draft of Tim Hall, Kathy Kram, and Vicky Parker.
The Company of Strangers shows us the remarkable strangeness, and fragility, of our everyday lives. This completely revised and updated edition includes a new chapter analyzing how the rise and fall of social trust explain the unsustainable boom in the global economy over the past decade and the financial crisis that succeeded it. Drawing on insights from biology, anthropology, history, psychology, and literature, Paul Seabright explores how our evolved ability of abstract reasoning has allowed institutions like money, markets, cities, and the banking system to provide the foundations of social trust that we need in our everyday lives. Even the simple acts of buying food and clothing depend on an astonishing web of interaction that spans the globe. How did humans develop the ability to trust total strangers with providing our most basic needs?