ArticlePDF Available

Friends Without Benefits: Understanding the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

February 2018
Academy of Management Review 43(4):amr.2016.0309

DOI:10.5465/amr.2016.0309

Authors:

Julianna Pillemer

New York University

Nancy P. Rothbard

University of Pennsylvania

Although many scholars and practitioners have assumed that workplace friendships lead to desirable organizational outcomes, a growing body of research suggests important complexities and downsides associated with workplace friendships. This suggests a need to better understand how and when workplace friendships may lead to harmful outcomes, especially in light of organizational and technological shifts that are changing the way employees connect. Drawing on theories of close relationships, social exchange, and boundary management, we present a theoretical framework that highlights how the four defining features of friendship (informality, voluntariness, communal norms, and socio-emotional goals) are in tension with four fundamental elements of organizational life (formal roles, involuntary constraints, exchange norms, and instrumental goals). We also highlight how mutual self-disclosure and perceived similarity develop and deepen friendships but also lead to downsides for individuals, groups, and organizations. We articulate how specific features of a focal friendship clique (e.g., closeness, maturity, and status of members) may amplify or buffer negative aspects and how social media affect friendship formation and tensions. Our theoretical framework should inform new theory and research on positive relationships at work, boundary management of professional and personal identities, and how changes to work and technology affect workplace relationships.

The Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

…

Tensions and Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

…

Full Model: Social Media and the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

…

Figures - uploaded by Julianna Pillemer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Julianna Pillemer

Content may be subject to copyright.

QAcademy of Management Review

2018, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1–26.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0309

FRIENDS WITHOUT BENEFITS: UNDERSTANDING THE DARK

SIDES OF WORKPLACE FRIENDSHIP

JULIANNA PILLEMER

NANCY P. ROTHBARD

University of Pennsylvania

Although many scholars and practitioners have assumed that workplace friendships

lead to desirable organizational outcomes, a growing body of research suggests im-

portant complexities and downsides associated with them. This indicates a need to

better understand how and when workplace friendships may lead to harmful outcomes,

especially in light of organizational and technological shifts that are changing the way

employees connect. Drawing on theories of close relationships, social exchange, and

boundary management, we present a theoretical framework highlighting how four de-

fining features of friendship (informality, voluntariness, communal norms, and socio-

emotional goals)are in tension with four fundamental elements of organizational life

(formal roles, involuntary constraints, exchange norms, and instrumental goals). We

also highlight how mutual self-disclosure and perceived similarity develop and deepen

friendships but also lead to downsides for individuals, groups, and organizations. We

articulate how specific features of a focal friendship clique (e.g., closeness, maturity,

and status of members) may amplify or buffer negative aspects and how social media

affect friendship formation and tensions. Our theoretical framework should inform new

theory and research on positive relationships at work and boundary management of

professional and personal identities, as well as how changes to work and technology

affect workplace relationships.

Friendships play a central part in people’s

lives, serving as a source of joy and meaning

across the life span (Goldman, Cooper, Ahern, &

Corsini, 1981; Rawlins, 1992), and both the quan-

tity and quality of interpersonal relationships

have been identified as perhaps the most reliable

indicators of happiness and life satisfaction for all

ages (Diener & Seligman, 2002; Vaillant, 2002).

Individuals thrive when they feel a sense of be-

longing and relatedness to others, and social

connections at work are no exception (Baumeister

& Leary, 1995; Brewer, 1991; Dutton & Ragins, 2007;

Ferris et al., 2009; Spreitzer, Lam, & Fritz, 2010;

Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant,

2005). In organizational settings, relationships

with peers significantly influence key employee

outcomes (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Informal

social relationships at work offer numerous bene-

fits to individuals, such as providing instrumental

and emotional support (House, 1981; Karasek,

1979), fostering positive identity development

(Dutton, Roberts, & Bednar, 2010; Sluss & Ashforth,

2007) and socialization (Morrison, 2002), and

helping employees to flourish (Colbert, Bono, &

Purvanova, 2016). Friendships can also benefit

teams and organizations as a whole by facilitat-

ing cooperation and cohesion (Jehn & Shah, 1997),

driving creativity and innovation (Lu et al., 2017),

and even spurring the organizing process itself

(Weick, 1979). Given these diverse and well-

demonstrated benefits, it is not surprising that

scholarship in this domain has generally focused

on, and taken for granted, the positive effects of

friendship at work.

Yet, despite the seemingly obvious benefits of

workplace friendship, a growing body of schol-

arship suggests that there may be complexity and

downsides associated with friendships at work

(Berman, West, & Richter, 2002; Duffy, Ganster, &

Pagon, 2002; Ingram & Zou, 2008; Methot, LePine,

Podsakoff, & Christian, 2015). The notion that

“kinship”ties add undue complexity to the work-

place dates back centuries, to classic theories

of bureaucracy and social exchange within or-

ganizations, and has significantly influenced

Western approaches to organizational life (Blau,

We are grateful for helpful feedback from guest editor Kris

Byron, three anonymous reviewers, the AMR special issue

guest editor team, Sigal Barsade, Drew Carton, Stephanie

Creary, Adam Grant, Spencer Harrison, Mike Pratt, Beth

Schinoff, Danielle Tussing, participants in the Complexities of

Close Relationships symposium at the Academy of Manage-

ment annual meeting, the IESE International Conference on

Work and Family, and the Wharton IDEAS Lab.

express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

1964; Parsons, 1949; Sanchez-Burks, 2002; Weber;

1947, 1968). More recent empirical research has

demonstrated the paradox that rewarding per-

sonal connections at work can also lead to detri-

mental outcomes for both friends and those

outside the friendship (Duffy et al., 2002; Dumas,

Phillips, & Rothbard, 2013; Elangovan & Shapiro,

1998; Fehr, 1996; Harrison & Wagner, 2016). For

example, friendships with coworkers may be-

come problematic if the behaviors required to

fulfill instrumental goals conflict with socioemo-

tional goals (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Biddle,

1986; Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Ingram & Zou, 2008;

Methot et al., 2015; Tesser, 1988), or if those ex-

cluded from the informal cliques of coworkers feel

ostracized and form their own subgroups, creat-

ing silos and reducing communication between

groups (Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland, 2000;

Carton & Cummings, 2012; Reagans & McEvily,

2003). While these examples illustrate how work-

place friendships may lead to negative outcomes,

there is still no cohesive framework for un-

derstanding why, how, when, and for whom

friendships at work may be detrimental to orga-

nizational functioning. To understand how indi-

viduals, groups, and organizations can leverage

the myriad benefits of workplace friendships,

scholars must cultivate a more comprehensive

understanding of these friendships’dark sides.

The need to better understand the potential

downsides of friendship in organizations is es-

pecially pertinent amid profound changes in the

nature of work and technology that are shifting

how we connect with colleagues, as well as the

boundaries between personal and professional

roles. Social interaction has become increasingly

central to organizational life (Grant & Parker,

2009; Oldham & Hackman, 2010). The interdepen-

dent nature of knowledge and service work is al-

tering how we form and maintain relationships in

organizations, blurring the distinction between

colleague and friend (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks,

2015; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009; Methot

et al., 2015; Morand,1995; Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard,

& Berg, 2013). In addition to shifts in the nature of work

itself, technology continues to drastically re-

shape the way we connect and communicate

with colleagues (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). In par-

ticular, the rise of social media enables novel

ways of connecting and communicating with

others (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Belk,

2013; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Wajcman & Rose,

2011). The centrality of social media to our daily

lives encourages new forms of relating, blurring

the lines not only between what we do at work

and at home but also with whom we communi-

cate across these two domains (Kreiner et al.,

2009; Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). Given these

fundamental shifts in work and social connec-

tivity, it is especially critical to understand the ten-

sions associated with workplace friendships and

how new technologies mayamplify these tensions.

This article makes three key contributions. First,

we extend the literature on high-quality connec-

tions and close relationships at work (Dutton &

Heaphy, 2003; Ferris et al., 2009; Grant & Parker,

2009; Heaphy & Dutton, 2008; Methot et al., 2015;

Oldham & Hackman, 2010) by delineating why,

when, how, andfor whom workplace friendship—a

specific type of “positive”relationship at work

(Dutton & Ragins, 2007)—may lead to downsides

for organizations. To this end, we build on a lim-

ited body of research regarding the inherent ten-

sions that arise when friendships are enacted in

the workplace (e.g., Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Ingram

& Zou, 2008; Methot et al., 2015; Weber, 1968), and

we provide a theoretical framework that demon-

strates how the core tensions and relational pro-

cesses associated with workplace friendship can

negatively affect individual, group, and organi-

zational outcomes.

Second, we answer calls to better understand

how the nature of workplace relationships in-

fluences outcomes (Ferris et al., 2009; Hartup &

Stevens, 1997) by considering the ways factors

such as closeness, maturity, and the status of

a friendship’s members may amplify or buffer the

risk of downsides. In this sense, we also extend

a larger body of work focused on how the number

of friendship ties (e.g., Methot et al., 2015) or the

friendship network structure (e.g., Ingram & Zou,

2008; Klein, Lim, Saltz, & Mayer, 2004) impacts in-

dividual, group, and organizational functioning

by highlighting how particular features and types

of friendship can differentially influence organi-

zationally relevant outcomes.

Third, we advance nascent theory on changes

in work relationships (e.g., Grant & Parker, 2009;

Oldham & Hackman, 2010), as well as theory on

how technology is altering informal organiza-

tional relationships (e.g., Leonardi & Vaast, 2017;

Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013), by demonstrating

how connecting with colleagues on social media

may alter the friendship formation process and

may amplify the tensions and dark sides of work-

place friendship.

2 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

WORKPLACE FRIENDSHIP: FEATURES,

TENSIONS, AND MECHANISMS

What Is Workplace Friendship?

While friendships can take many forms, there

are four core features of friendship that differ-

entiate these bonds from other types of roles

and relationships. First, friendships are volun-

tary; unlike relationships with family members,

neighbors, or coworkers, friendships are chosen,

not imposed (Adams & Blieszner, 1994; Clark &

Reis, 1988; Fehr, 1996; Sias & Cahill, 1998). Sec-

ond, friendships are informal relationships in

the sense that there is a relative lack of stan-

dard rituals or nomenclature to guide role

expectations, unlike roles dictated by formal or-

ganizational hierarchies, such as supervisor/

subordinate relationships, and cultural institu-

tions, such as marriage (Adams & Blieszner,

1994: 163). Third, friendships are characterized by

communal norms, or an expectation that one will

give support based on need rather than on the

receipt of support (Clark & Mills, 1979; Goffman,

1961; Hartup & Stevens, 1997). Fourth, friendships

are driven by socioemotional goals; their primary

purpose is to foster affective and relational well-

being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hays, 1985).

These qualities make workplace friendships

distinct from other positive relationships at

work, such as high-quality connections (Dutton

& Heaphy, 2003), formal mentorships (Kram &

Isabella, 1985), positive working relationships

between leaders and subordinates (Graen &

Uhl-Bien, 1995), and other close, positive rela-

tionships outside of work. The complexity of

both interpersonal relationships and modern

organizational life allows for various types of

friendships that are professional in nature.

Nonetheless, here our definition of “workplace

friendships”is limited to platonic (nonromantic)

relationships between individuals who currently

work in the same organization. Thus, based on

the core features of friendship and the above-

noted boundary conditions, we define workplace

friendship as a nonromantic, voluntary, and in-

formal relationship between current coworkers

that is characterized by communal norms and

socioemotional goals. While these core features of

friendship have been shown to remain consistent

across contexts (Hartup & Stevens, 1997), we argue

that when they exist within organizations, ten-

sions, complexity, and the potential for down-

sides arise.

Which Features of Organizational Life Make

Workplace Friendships Complicated?

The characteristics that differentiate friendship

from other relationships can be at odds with core

aspects of organizational life. In classic sociologi-

cal research on bureaucracy, scholars advocate

the eradication of friendships from organizations,

arguing that they threaten the instrumental goals

of firms and their members (Parsons, 1949; Weber,

1968). More recent research highlights the unique

tensions that arise when instrumental and affec-

tive goals “blend”in a given relationship or con-

text, as is often the case at work (Bridge & Baxter,

1992; Ingram & Zou, 2008; Methot et al., 2015;

Rawlins, 1992; Sias, Heath, Perry, Silva, & Fix, 2004).

We extend the limited research that explores the

tensions resulting from friendships in organiza-

tional settings. Specifically, we propose that the

four key features of friendship (informality, volun-

tariness, communal norms, and socioemotional

goals) conflict with four qualities that are present

in most organizations: formal roles, involuntary

relationships, exchange norms,andinstrumental

goals (Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Fehr, 1996; Goffman,

1961; Ingram& Zou, 2008; Sias & Cahill, 1998). These

forces complicate the enactment of friendship in

organizations, which we highlight below.

In organizations, many relationships and ac-

tivities are governed by formal, role-based inter-

actions; although informal relationships exist,

numerous involuntary constraints influence whom

individuals interact with on the job (Chandler,

1977; Ibarra, 1993; Weber, 1968). Outside organiza-

tional settings, individuals choose the people with

whom they wish to interact and socialize; in orga-

nizations, much social interaction is predetermined

by assignments to teams and organizational de-

partments. Moreover, the voluntary selection of

friends and the informal rules, socializing, and

communication styles that accompany these bonds

contrast with the formality and involuntary inter-

action often present in organizational life (Weber,

1968). In addition, instrumental goals that are cen-

tral to individuals’and teams’success at work o ften

conflict with the socioemotional goals of friendship

(Ingram & Zou, 2008; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, &

Rosenthal, 1964). For example, if two team members

are friends and one is underperforming on a proj-

ect because of marital troubles, the friendship norm

of providing socioemotional support may conflict

with the desire to provide critical feedback to im-

prove task performance. Last, exchange-based or

2018 3Pillemer and Rothbard

“tit-for-tat”norms, which are the dominant mode of

reciprocity in many organizational relationships,

can be at odds with the communal or needs-based

norms that characterize friendship (Blau, 1964; Clark

& Mills, 1979; Clark & Reis, 1988; Goffman, 1961;

Ingram & Zou, 2008).

In sum, these tensions introduce the potential

for downsides to friendship that are unique to or-

ganizations because they impact task perfor-

mance at the individual, team, and organizational

levels. In this article we examine individual,

group, and organizational downsides that stem

from these tensions between core features of

friendship and organizational life and that we

expect to have a broad-reaching impact on task

performance across a range of roles, organiza-

tions, and industries.

Which Relational Processes Drive Friendship

Development and Growth?

The literature on friendship and close relationships

shows that a range of individual and situational

factors influence the development of workplace

friendships, such as personality, proximity, and

cultural norms (Hom & Xiao, 2011; Sanchez-Burks,

2002; Sias & Cahill, 1998; Xin & Pearce, 1996). These

antecedents influence friendship formation, matu-

ration, and maintenance through two key rela-

tional processes that occur between individuals:

mutual self-disclosure (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979;

Jourard, 1959) and perceived similarity (Byrne,

1961, 1971; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001).

Self-disclosure. Friendship is characterized

by mutual self-disclosure (Derlega & Grzelak,

1979; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993;

Jourard, 1959). The beginning stages of a friend-

ship involve sharing descriptive personal infor-

mation and commentary on neutral topics, while

later stages are more likely to involve sharing

evaluative or affective personal information on

one’s innermost opinions and emotions (Altman

& Taylor, 1973; Goffman, 1961; Taylor & Altman,

1987). Longitudinal research on friendship forma-

tion shows that individuals become increas-

ingly intimate and less cautious with their

self-disclosures, which shifts the nature of a

friendship from social companion to trusted

confidante (Clark & Reis, 1988; Hays, 1985; Sias

& Cahill, 1998). Reciprocal sharing and valida-

tion of personal values, preferences, and beliefs

lead to feelings of socioemotional closeness

(Ensari & Miller, 2002), liking (Collins & Miller,

1994), and affect-based trust (Chua, Ingram, &

Morris, 2008; McAllister, 1995) and are the key

drivers of intimacy in relationships (Clark & Reis,

1988).

Engaging in mutual self-disclosure of increas-

ingly intimate, personal information and recipro-

cal validation brings friends closer as disclosures

involve greater vulnerability and less caution

(Levesque, Steciuk, & Ledley, 2002). However, if

self-disclosures emphasize dissimilarities (e.g.,

Dumas et al., 2013; Liao, Chuang, & Joshi, 2008)

between individuals, they may backfire and lead

to interpersonal distance, which is why mutual

perceived similarity is a critical mechanism for

promoting friendships (Altman & Taylor, 1973;

Byron & Laurence, 2015; Phillips, Rothbard, &

Dumas, 2009; West, Magee, Gordon, & Gullett,

2014).

Perceived similarity. Friendship stems from

the fundamental tendency to be attracted to and

pursue deeper bonds with similar others, oth-

erwise known as the “homophily principle”

(McPherson et al., 2001). The idea that individuals

voluntarily befriend people they perceive to be

like themselves dates back to classic writings

by Aristotle and Plato and is a well-established

finding in the study of close relationships

(Aristotle, 1934; Bahns, Crandall, Gillath, &

Preacher, 2017; Byrne, 1961, 1971; Lazarsfeld &

Merton, 1954; McPherson et al., 2001; Plato, 1968).

Similarity-attraction and homophily of social

ties occur on the basis of not only salient de-

mographic or surface-level qualities, such as

age, race, and gender (Ibarra, 1993; McPherson

et al., 2001; Nahemow & Lawton, 1975), but

also “deep-level”characteristics, such as core

values, beliefs, interests, and personal idiosyn-

crasies (Byrne, 1961, 1971; Byron & Laurence,

2015; Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Phillips & Loyd,

2006).

The importance of perceived similarity ex-

tends beyond initial attraction as friends develop

shared understandings of the world through

processes of social comparison and imitation

(Erikson, 1988; Gibbons, 2004). Longitudinal stud-

ies of friendship development confirm that mu-

tual perceptions and reinforcement of similarity

remain an important feature of successful friend-

ships beyond the initial formation stages, pro-

pelling these bonds to mature into deeper

friendships (Clark & Reis, 1988; Hays, 1985; Sias

& Cahill, 1998). Thus, individuals are more likely

not only to be initially drawn to similar others but

4 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

also to maintain perceptions of similarity by

affirming shared qualities through mutual self-

di sc lo su re (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Kelley et al., 1983),

which helps to maintain and deepen friendships

(Harrison et al., 1998; Kelley et al., 1983; Rusbult,

1987).

Thus, self-disclosure and perceived similarity

are the core interpersonal mechanisms that drive

the formation, maintenance, and deepening of

friendships. Figure 1 depicts the dynamic in-

terplay among self-disclosure, perceived simi-

larity, and the relational state of friendship. A

bidirectional relationship occurs between self-

disclosure and perceived similarity: mutual self-

disclosure allows individuals to discover and

perceive greater deep-level similarity (Ensari &

Miller, 2002); in turn, greater perceptions of simi-

larity lead individuals to disclose more (Collins &

Miller, 1994). As described above, perceived sim-

ilarity fosters the development of friendship (see

Byrne, 1971, and McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987),

and friendship increases the propensity to self-

disclose (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Hays, 1985).

DARK SIDES OF WORKPLACE FRIENDSHIP

Although several studies suggest that work-

place friendships are not uniformly positive, these

findings are largely disparate and disconnected.

To guide our understanding of why, how, when,

and for whom workplace friendships can be

harmful, we move from a consideration of why

friendship is more complicated in organizations

to a discussion of when, how, and to whom these

costs occur. While mutual self-disclosure and

perceived similarity between colleagues encour-

age the development of friendship and its asso-

ciated benefits, they also pose risks to task

performance and functioning at the individual,

group, and organizational levels when enacted

within organizations.

Although most research on friendship focuses

on the consequences for members of the friend-

ship, including individual and interpersonal out-

comes (e.g., Hartup & Stevens, 1997; Hays, 1985;

Ingram & Zou, 2008; Jehn & Shah, 1997; Methot

et al., 2015), research on social exchange and cli-

que formation suggests that we should also con-

sider the effects on those outside these bonds,

as well as on the organization’s functioning

(e.g., Blau, 1964; Brewer, 1979; Tichy, 1973). For

example, informal activities that bring people

together in organizations (such as gossip) have

been shown to lead to solidarity among the in-

cluded individuals while simultaneously distanc-

ing them from others (Dunbar, 2004; Melwani, 2012).

Thus, we focus on the downsides of friendship that

negatively impact both individual and group

outcomes, as well as broader organizational out-

comes that impact task performance and orga-

nizational functioning. Moreover, responding to

scholars’recommendations, we examine the

nature, not just the number, of friendships in

order to fully understand their impact (Berscheid,

Snyder, & Omoto, 1989; Ferris et al., 2009; Hartup

& Stevens, 1997; Hays, 1985; Ingram & Zou, 2008;

Sias & Cahill, 1998) by considering how features

of a focal friendship clique (e.g., closeness, ma-

turity, member status) may affect our proposed

outcomes. Last, we highlight how fundamen-

tal technological shifts affect the dynamics of

workplace friendships and their associated

downsides.

Individual-Level Downsides of

Workplace Friendship

Although mutual self-disclosure and perceived

similarity promote friendship between colleagues,

they can also lead to downsides when enacted

in an organizational context with formal roles,

involuntary constraints, instrumental goals, and

exchange norms. We discuss below how these

relational processes (see Figure 1) and tensions

(see Table 1) can affect individual-, group-, and

organization-level outcomes that negatively in-

fluence task performance.

A key downside of friendship for individuals is

distraction from work-related tasks. This down-

side stems from the communal (i.e., needs-based,

not exchange-based) norms and socioemotional

goals governing self-disclosure and their tension

with exchange norms and instrumental goals

within organizations. Because mutual self-

disclosure is a key mechanism driving friendship,

individuals in both developing and established

workplace friendships will engage in it fre-

quently. However, when one member of a friend-

ship dyad discloses personal information and

feelings, the other member needs to provide

validation and socioemotional support to main-

tain the relationship. Friends’devotion of re-

sources to social relationships that go beyond

work-based interdependencies and goals may

compromise instrumental goals (Bridge & Baxter,

1992; Hobfoll, 2002; Sanchez-Burks, 2002). Friends

2018 5Pillemer and Rothbard

FIGURE 1

The Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

Organizational context

Formal

Involuntary Exchange

Informal Socio-

emotional

Voluntary Communal

Instrumental

Workplace

friendship

Proposition 2a-b

Proposition 1a-d

Proposition 3a-c

Self-disclosure

Perceived similarity

Closeness

Maturity

Member status

Individual

*Distraction from instrumental goals

*Reduced preparation for and

deliberation on complex decisions

Group

Organization

*Inhibited knowledge sharing

*Reduced perceptions of procedural

and distributive justice

*Interrole conflict between informal

and formal roles

are expected to listen, provide advice, and ex-

press empathy regardless of whether it is con-

venient or how “equal”these exchanges are

(Jett & George, 2003; Methot et al., 2015; Toegel,

Kilduff, & Anand, 2013). While individuals in

friendships are likely to feel mutually supported

over the long run, there can be periods of time

in which one friend requires more substantial

socioemotional support (Clark & Reis, 1988; Hays,

1985), which can be problematic for the other

friend’s productivity.

In other words, friends’needs to self-disclose

and seek validation are, by definition, not always

equal, predictable, and convenient and may be

experienced as intrusions to task-based produc-

tivity. An intrusion is “an unexpected encounter

initiated by another person that interrupts the

flow and continuity of an individual’swork”(Jett &

George, 2003: 485). These interpersonal intrusions

can then lead to the intrapersonal experience of

distraction, or a “psychological reaction triggered

by external stimuli or secondary activities that in-

terrupt focused concentration on a primary task”

(Jett & George, 2003: 500). For example, when a vis-

ibly upset colleague knocks on a friend’soffice

door, they do so expecting that the friend will lis-

ten and provide validation, fulfilling the expec-

tation of needs-based availability (Fehr, 1996)

and communal support (Goffman, 1961; Methot

et al., 2015). Because employees feel a stronger

sense of socioemotional indebtedness to friends

than to mere colleagues, the need to help resolve

a friend’s issues will feel more personally mean-

ingful (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996).

Thus, individuals are likely not only to give

more time and resources to intrusions from friends

but also to engage with greater psychological

immersion in these conversations (Clark & Reis,

1988). The depth of attention given to a non-task-

related interruption has an additional carryover

or “residue”effect, making it even more difficult

to transition back to work tasks even when the

intrusion itself has concluded; in this way, the

interruption interferes with individuals’func-

tioning in their roles as employees (Leroy, 2009;

Rothbard & Wilk, 2011). Compared to breaks that

employees actively choose, intrusions are likely

to be less restorative and, thus, more resource

depleting than rejuvenating, which can further

exacerbate the negative effects on core tasks and

can ultimately inhibit individual performance

(Metiu & Rothbard, 2013; Trougakos, Beal, Green,

& Weiss, 2008).

Proposition 1a: Compared to individ-

uals in coworker relationships, indi-

viduals in workplace friendships are

likely to experience more frequent and

intense socioemotional intrusions from

social interactions, resulting in greater

distraction from instrumental goals.

The closeness of friendships is an important

determinant of the amount and intensity of at-

tention required during intrusions and will influ-

ence the extent to which these intrusions reduce

task-based focus and performance (Hobfoll, 2002;

Jett & George, 2003; Perlow, 1999). As friendships

become closer, personal disclosures become in-

creasingly deeper and laden with more affective

and evaluative statements. While “friendly”re-

lations (Bridge & Baxter, 1992) or casual friend-

ships are marked by amicable but superficial

personal exchanges, close friends tend to serve

TABLE 1

Tensions and Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

Level Propositions Primary Tensions Dark Sides

Individual 1a, 1b Communal/exchange Distraction from instrumental goals

Socioemotional/instrumental

Individual 1c, 1d Socioemotional/instrumental Interrole conflict between informal and formal roles

Informal/formal

Group 2a, 2b Socioemotional/instrumental Reduced preparation for and deliberation in complex decisions

Informal/formal

Organization 3a, 3b Informal/formal Inhibited knowledge sharing

Voluntary/involuntary

Organization 3c Communal/exchange Reduced perceptions of procedural and distributive justice

Voluntary/involuntary

2018 7Pillemer and Rothbard

as confidantes for more private, sensitive issues

and are expected to provide emotional support

(Altman & Taylor, 1973; Clark & Reis, 1988; Hays,

1985; Toegel et al., 2013). Close friendships may

develop slowly over time, but closeness can also

occur more rapidly because of intensive inter-

personal experiences involving self-disclosure

and relationship building (Aron, Melinat, Aron,

Vallone, & Bator, 1997). As workplace friendships

increase in intimacy, individuals become in-

creasingly identified with their friends’goals and

will therefore be more invested in their well-being

(Aron et al., 1992). Closeness also breeds less

caution in self-disclosures and increases the

tendency for friends to share intimate details

about personal and work problems, such as

marital woes or issues with a supervisor (Sias &

Cahill, 1998).

Thus, intrusions from close friends are detri-

mental to workers’ability to focus on instru-

mental goals not only because of the time spent

receiving disclosures but also because such

disclosures are more emotionally engaging,

less likely to be related to work tasks (Clark &

Reis,1988;Leroy,2009),andmoreemotionally

depleting (Lanaj, Johnson, & Wang, 2016; Toegel

et al., 2013). Over time, the provision of needs-

based support to close workplace friends and

a focus on socioemotional goals rather than in-

strumental goals can divert valuable cogni-

tive and emotional resources from core tasks

(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Hobfoll, 2002;

Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001), which can

inhibit individual performance.

Proposition 1b: The closeness of a

friendship moderates the relationship

between socioemotional intrusions and

degree of distraction from instrumental

goals such that intrusions from close

workplace friends will be more dis-

tracting than intrusions from less close

friends.

A second downside for individuals in work-

place friendships is interrole conflict. This stems

from the juxtaposition of socioemotional versus

instrumental goals and from the tension between

the informality of friendship and the formality of

organizational roles and structure. At work, in-

strumental goals are paramount, and individuals’

formal role obligations are expected to take

precedence over informal ties; thus, workplace

friendships increase the potential for interrole

conflict (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Grayson, 2007;

Kahn et al., 1964) when the optimal behavior as

a friend fundamentally opposes one’s optimal

behavior as an employee of the organization

(Bridge & Baxter, 1992). Although few studies have

directly examined outcomes of friendship-work

conflict (cf. Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Methot et al.,

2015; Sias et al., 2004), conflict between work and

personal roles has been linked to reduced satis-

faction and can be problematic for task-based

performance (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Hirsch

& Rapkin, 1986; Sias et al., 2004).

Paradoxically, the relational processes that

drive friendship development also make friends

more likely to experience interrole conflict. In-

dividuals are more likely to seek out informal

interactions with others who share similar skills

and interests (Bahns et al., 2017; Lincoln & Miller,

1979; Schneider, 1987), as well as similar status

and career stage. The similar structural posi-

tions (Burt, 1997) and interests that often charac-

terize workplace friendships suggest that these

communal-based relationships are also more

likely to face competitive challenges, such as

vying for the same promotion, or even smaller,

less tangible resources, such as a supervisor’s

time and attention (Methot et al., 2015; Galinsky

& Schweitzer, 2015). Thus, the homophily that

brings friends together sets them up to desire the

same organizational resources and opportuni-

ties, leading to potential conflicts between the

drives to compete (in service of their formal role

and instrumental goals) and cooperate (in ser-

vice of their informal role and socioemotional

goals).

Proposition 1c: Compared to individ-

uals in coworker relationships, indi-

viduals in workplace friendships are

more likely to experience interrole con-

flict between informal and formal roles

at work because of greater similarity in

social structure and interests and more

ambiguity regarding whether to privi-

lege instrumental versus socioemotional

goals with workplace friends.

Because perceived similarity and self-disclosure

increase as friendships become closer, more

intimate friendships should increase the like-

lihood of experiencing interrole conflict, since

individuals will be more likely to feel con-

flicted about whether to privilege instrumental

or socioemotional goals. Just as concerns over

8 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

socioemotional wealth can be sources of con-

flict in family businesses (Gomez-Mejia, Cruz,

Berrone, & De Castro, 2012), workplace friend-

ships also complicate instrumental goal pur-

suit. Organizational roles tend to have a strong

influence on behavior because they are char-

acterized by formal obligations and are neces-

sary for one’s livelihood (Adams & Blieszner,

1994; Blau, 1964; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Thus,

the “push”of instrumental goals and formal

role obligations is likely to override the socio-

emotional goals and informal, felt obligations

to casual friends. However, if friendships are

closer, the heightened socioemotional invest-

ment and communal norms of this bond (and

the pain of a prospective loss of a valuable

friendship) make it less desirable for an indi-

vidual to act in service of instrumental goals

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Mitchell, Holtom,

Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001), which increases

the likelihood that such individuals will feel

conflict stemming from these competing drives,

reducing focus and motivation on individual

task performance.

Nonetheless, very close or “best”friends should

elicit less role conflict for the opposite reason:

the socioemotional goals of this relationship

will be unequivocally more important than the

instrumental goals presented in a competitive

situation. Thus, very close or best friends will

experience less conflict about privileging their

workplace friendship over organizational roles

(Sias & Cahill, 1998). When individuals be-

come very close friends, they experience an

overlapping sense of self such that the goals

and well-being of a friend become more impor-

tant to one’s own happiness and self-concept

(Aron et al., 1992; Clark & Reis, 1988). It is there-

fore in individuals’best interest to privilege

a very close friendship in order to avoid the im-

mense socioemotional costs of friction or disso-

lution of these valuable bonds. Moreover, very

close or established relationships have great-

er “tensility”—that is, the ability to withstand

strain (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). As individuals

become closer and more secure in their rela-

tionships, they are better equipped to find in-

tegrative solutions to seemingly unresolvable

clashes between socioemotional and instru-

mental goals (Fry, Firestone, & Williams, 1983).

Thus, in situations of unavoidable conflict, such

as when forgoing instrumental goals means

losing one’s job or harming others, very close

friends will more likely be able to productively

resolve the issue in a way that maximizes value

without compromising task performance for both

individuals.

Proposition 1d: There is an inverted

U-shaped relationship between workplace-

friendship closeness and the experience of

interrole conflict such that an employee

will experience greater role conflict with

moderately close friends than with casual

or very close friends.

Group-Level Downsides of Workplace Friendship

A wide body of research has revealed that

people’s tendency to voluntarily seek out and

maintain similar core values and beliefs in

workplace relationships can lead to positive in-

terpersonal outcomes for dyads or small groups.

Specifically, the feelings of belongingness and

affect-based trust that result from perceived

similarity and mutual self-disclosure are asso-

ciated with the interpersonal outcomes of co-

hesion (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003;

Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995) and reduced re-

lational and emotional conflict (Jehn, Northcraft,

& Neale, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).

However, while perceived similarity and seamless

cooperation are useful for tasks focused on maxi-

mizing productivity (Jehn & Shah, 1997; Tyler &

Blader, 2001), the ability to make complex deci-

sions may be impaired in dyads or groups in

which all or the majority of members are workplace

friends.

This reduction in complex decision mak-

ing stems from the homogeneity of characteris-

tics and beliefs and a focus on socioemotional

as opposed to instrumental goals (Loyd, Wang,

Phillips, & Lount, 2013; Phillips, 2003).

Thus, a key downside for dyads and groups of

friends is lower-quality decision processes in

situations that benefit from diverse viewpoints.

This downside emerges because friendships

As the number of members in a group increases, there are

more opportunities for discrepancies in the degree of friend-

ship among members. The likelihood that all members will be

friends is contingent on various factors (size of group, length of

time working together, individual and organizational attri-

butes) that are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, to

the extent that most group members are friends, we expect

these dynamics to play out in a similar fashion. Future re-

search should examine the impact of the proportion of friends

on group outcomes.

2018 9Pillemer and Rothbard

privilege socioemotional goals as people strive

to maintain greater perceived similarity, which

can come at the expense of instrumental goals.

This process is particularly heightened when the

formal roles and obligations of the organization

conflict with the informal nature of friendship

ties. Indeed, even without members’greater de-

sire for perceived similarity, dyads and groups

tend to focus on common or similar information

in an effort to avoid the discomfort that accom-

panies disagreement (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012;

Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Stasser & Titus, 1985, 2003),

which often compromises the quality of deci-

sions. Lack of diversity (or homogeneity) among

collaborators only tends to amplify these nega-

tive effects on the expression of disparate view-

points (Gaither, Apfelbaum, Birnbaum, Babbitt, &

Sommers, in press; Phillips, 2003; Phillips & Loyd,

2006; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004).

When group members share social characteristics

and identify with one another, they are also less

likely to share differing information and opinions,

because this would violate group expectations

of concurrence seeking (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;

Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000;

Phillips, 2003; Phillips & Loyd, 2006; Thompson,

Peterson, & Brodt, 1996). Thus, friends will be less

likely to disagree with one another, and when

they do disagree, they will hesitate to voice con-

trasting opinions for fear that they may harm the

relationship (e.g., Loyd et al., 2013).

Although concern for socioemotional goals is

helpful in tasks requiring group harmony and

cooperation (Jehn & Shah, 1997; Tyler & Blader,

2001), such a focus may hinder the performance of

tasks that benefit from diverse viewpoints (Janis,

1982; Loyd et al., 2013; Sanchez-Burks, 2002) and

from critical evaluation of differing perspectives

(Chen, Shechter, & Chaiken, 1996; Fry et al., 1983;

Thompson et al., 1996). In general, compared to

homogeneous groups, diverse groups spend

more time discussing and processing disparate

information, ultimately leading to better outcomes

in complex decision-making tasks (Galinsky et al.,

2015; Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, &

Barkema, 2012; Homan, van Knippenberg, Van

Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; Post & Byron, 2015;

Sommers, 2006). Conversely, when individuals

focus on positive, informal, or social bonds with

team members perceived to be similar, they fo-

cus less on task-related preparation, which leads

to poorer group problem solving (Loyd et al.,

2013). Moreover, when teams of friends have

relationship-based conflict, their performance

may be more likely to suffer compared to that of

teams composed of nonfriends (Hood, Cruz, &

Bachrach, 2017). Thus, in dyads and groups of

friends, the tendency to privilege perceptions of

similarity and socioemotional concerns over in-

strumental goals can result in lower group levels

of both deliberation and preparation, which can

undermine the quality of decisions on complex

tasks.

Proposition 2a: Compared to dyads

and groups of colleagues who are not

friends, dyads and groups of workplace

friends engage in lower levels of prep-

aration for and deliberation in com-

plex decision-making tasks because of

friends’greater interpersonal similarity

and their heightened focus on socio-

emotional goals versus instrumental

goals.

Nonetheless, employeesin long-standing friend-

ships may actually be able to share divergent

opinions more easily because they are secure in

these relationships. When friendships are in the

early stages, individuals use greater caution as

they disclose ideas and are more eager to affirm

similarities so as to reinforce bonds and not

alienate budding friendships (Altman & Taylor,

1973; Hays, 1985; Sias & Cahill, 1998). However, when

individuals feel more secure as these relation-

ships mature, they can challenge friends’views

without fear of harming the bond (Bartholomew &

Horowitz, 1991; Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Edmondson,

1999). The organizational research supporting

this view (e.g., Edmondson, 1999; Jehn & Shah,

1997; Shah, Dirks, & Chervany, 2006) suggests that,

in some cases, having stronger ties can facilitate

greater psychological safety, or “a shared belief

that the team is open for interpersonal risk-taking,”

as well as mutual respect and comfort being

oneself (Edmondson, 1999: 354). For friends to feel

comfortable violating norms of reinforcing simi-

larities, their attachments must be secure enough

that revealing divergent opinions will not disrupt

the bond. Thus, friends in the early stages of

friendship will be more likely to engage in lower

levels of preparation and deliberation as they

focus on fulfilling socioemotional goals and

seeking concurrence. However, mature workplace

friendships are likely to be more stable, allowing

individuals to establish norms for constructive

disagreement (Shah et al., 2006). This research

10 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

suggests that group preparation and deliberation

will increase in groups composed of members in

mature friendships (Loyd et al., 2013).

Proposition 2b: The maturity of a dyad’s

or group’s friendship moderates the re-

lationship between the presence of

workplace friendship(s) and the dyad’s

or group’s degree of preparation and

deliberation in complex decision tasks

such that levels of preparation and de-

liberation will be greater among dyads

and groups in the mature stages of

friendship (versus those in the earlier

stages of friendship).

Organization-Level Downsides of

Workplace Friendship

Anyone who has endured the social complex-

ities of a school cafeteria can attest that close

and exclusive friendship groups can lead to

perceptions of exclusion and the subsequent de-

velopment of social cliques. The fact that organi-

zational life involves a great deal of interpersonal

interaction based on involuntary constraints sug-

gests that members outside the voluntary bound-

aries of a friendship will notice a contrast between

their formal roles and the informal bonds their

colleagues share. This awareness of others’

friendships can be detrimental to outsiders and

can have negative consequences for organiza-

tional functioning.

When two employees form a workplace friend-

ship, other colleagues begin to associate them

as part of the same clique. Although any two

individuals who spend time together might be

categorized similarly, a workplace friendship is

characterized by self-disclosure and reinforcing

perceptions of similarity that lead to personal

identification between individuals (Ashforth,

Schinoff, & Rogers, 2016) and to others’percep-

tionsofthemasan“ingroup”(Brewer, 1997). In-

dividuals involved in the friendship will gain

important ingroup socioemotional benefits—

namely, feelings of belongingness and affect-

based trust (Brewer, 1991; Kahn & Antonucci, 1980;

Tajfel & Turner, 2004)—but as these bonds become

closer, higher levels of similarity and intimate

self-disclosure can breed a stark sense of exclu-

sion, lack of connection to other employees, and

perceptions of a social clique (Melwani, 2012;

Tichy, 1973).

Acliqueis“a subset of [organizational] mem-

bers who are more closely identified with an-

other [than other members] and who exchange

something among themselves . . . such as in-

formation, affect, friendship, and so forth”

(Tichy, 1973: 197). Relationships perceived as

“friendly relations,”such as individuals chat-

ting briefly about their weekend in the hallway,

are unlikely to be perceived as exclusive be-

cause they may occur with many employees and

conflict less with organizational life (Bridge &

Baxter, 1992; Weber, 1968). However, the per-

ceived similarity and self-disclosure processes

that foster workplace friendships can make the

boundaries of this subgroup seem more im-

permeable (Kahn et al., 2018) to others in the

organization.

The mere perception that others have formed

a clique can lead to feelings of social rejection

(Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Ozcelik &

Barsade, 2011; Williams, 2001). Exclusion from

social situations can be unintentional (Sommer,

Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) and

may result from seemingly minor events (Ferris

et al., 2008; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000),

but they can still have powerful effects on others

(Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007). Given that

these negative feelings can inflict emotional

pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003;

Macdonald & Leary, 2005) and also threaten

the fundamental need for belongingness, self-

esteem, and control (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;

Ferris et al., 2008), perceptions of exclusive

social factions are likely to push outsiders to

seek identification with another clique (Tichy,

Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979) or social subgroup

that will fulfill these needs (Brewer, 1991; Hogg

& Terry, 2000).

Carton and Cummings (2012) suggested that

identity-based subgroups form when members

of an organizational group perceive that they

share unique social characteristics. When

others see that two or more members of an or-

ganizational group have established friend-

ships they feel excluded from, this can provoke

disidentification with the focal dyad or clique

(e.g., Dukerich, Kramer, & McLean Parks, 1998;

Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001; Kreiner &

Ashforth, 2004; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Those

who feel excluded will start to define them-

selves as not members of that group and may

be more likely to form their own identity-based

relationships and cliques to feel connected to

2018 11Pillemer and Rothbard

others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This process

can then lead to perceptions of impenetrable

boundaries, or fault lines, between groups of

friends (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).

Although social cliques and subgroups are

common in organizations (Carton & Cummings,

2012; Tichy, 1973), identity-based subgroups, or

those based on a shared social identity (Carton &

Cummings, 2012), can be detrimental to collec-

tive functioning and broader instrumental goals.

Liking one’s colleagues has been shown to be

a key antecedent to seeking work-related as-

sistance and sharing task-related knowledge,

which are key for optimal task performance in

most modern organizations (Casciaro & Lobo,

2008; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Reagans &

McEvily, 2003). Moreover, when teammates

share close informal ties, they are less likely to

seek knowledge from outside teams (Hansen,

Mors, & Løv ˚

as, 2005) and may be overly identi-

fied with these relationships, blinding them to

other important roles and connections (Sluss

& Ashforth, 2007). Consequently, a given work-

place friendship may set off a chain of relational

patterns through which collegial relationships

become friendship cliques (based on internal

closeness and external perceptions of impene-

trability), which can inhibit knowledge sharing

across the organization because of lack of vol-

untary communication among disparate social

factions (Granovetter, 1973; Haas & Hansen, 2007;

Hansen, 1999).

Proposition 3a: Workplace friendship(s)

may lead to inhibited knowledge shar-

ing across the organization because of

the formation of identity-based cliques

that have fewer voluntary interactions

with one another.

Cliques may negatively affect knowledge

transfer in organizations, and this effect will

be stronger the more others are aware of and feel

excluded from the friendship clique. A key factor

that may affect the salience of a given workplace

friendship clique is the social status of the clique’s

members. Social status refers to the extent to which

an individual or group is respected or admired

by others (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Ridgeway &

Walker, 1995).

Given that higher-status individuals are deemed

to have valuable and important characteristics

and resources (Hogg, 2001; Magee & Galinsky,

2008), their cliques are likely to be more salient

to colleagues outside those cliques. Conversely,

if the members of a friendship group have lower

social status (or are not particularly respected

or admired), others are less likely to pay atten-

tion to and care about whether the clique exists.

High-status members will make a friendship

group’s existence and exclusivity more sa-

lient to outsiders and, therefore, more likely to

spark disidentification and clique formation

more broadly; this process, in turn, will trigger

fewer voluntary interactions and less knowl-

edge sharing.

Proposition 3b: The social status of mem-

bers of a focal friendship moderates the

relationship between workplace friend-

ship and inhibited knowledge sharing

across the organization such that friend-

ships comprising higher-status mem-

bers are more likely to cause inhibited

knowledge sharing than those com-

prising lower-status members.

Social identity theory also suggests that in-

dividuals will not only disclose less and per-

ceive less similarity with outgroups members

but will also feel less positively toward these

individuals (Brewer, 1991; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel &

Turner, 2001). Simply being part of an outgroup

can trigger suspicion and a questioning of mo-

tives and behaviors (Brewer & Kramer, 1985;

Fein, 1996). When employees are friends, the

communal norms that govern their relationship(s)

may contrast starkly with the exchange norms

of other organizational relationships. Outsiders

who share involuntary (e.g., task-based) ties

with these individuals may therefore view these

voluntary relationships as unprofessional and

potential causes of unfair advantages. These re-

lationships can thus compromise perceptions of

fairness regarding both organizational proce-

dures and outcomes (Cohen-Charash & Spector,

2001), which are critical for productive profes-

sional relationships, organizational function-

ing, and performance (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002;

Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995).

Observers of a close workplace friendship may

not believe that the involved parties will act

“objectively”in both minor task-related activi-

ties, such as providing assistance, and major

ones, such as determining promotions. Out-

siders may therefore suspect ingroup favoritism

(Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) toward the work-

place friend.

12 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

The damage caused by these beliefs will

likely increase to the extent that others per-

ceive workplace friendships as threatening the

formal merit-based procedures inherent in or-

ganizational life and bureaucratic objectivity

(Ingram & Zou, 2008; Weber, 1947, 1968). Thus, if

a friendship exists between individuals of equal

formal status, this friendship will be less likely

to raise suspicion among colleagues who are

not in the friendship. However, when friendship

dyads or cliques have greater interrank mem-

bership or include employees from “different

status levels of the formal organization”(Tichy,

1973: 197), others are more likely to view these

bonds as undermining the organization’smerito-

cratic standards.

Social status differences, such as those based

on gender and ethnicity, have been shown to de-

crease the relational mechanisms of friendship

such that individuals are less likely to engage in

self-disclosure and to feel similar when funda-

mental status differences exist (McPherson &

Smith-Lovin, 1987; Phillips et al., 2009). Therefore,

when formal status distance exists within a

friendship, those outside the friendship can be

more likely to notice it as an anomaly (Fein, 1996;

Kramer, 1999). This initial suspicion leads to closer

scrutiny of the relationship and a questioning of

whether the processes driving organizational out-

comes are fair (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001),

even when no observable behaviors explicitly call

the trustworthiness into question (Brockner &

Siegel, 1996; Fein, 1996). Individuals expect orga-

nizational rules and procedures to be consistent

across people and not subject to interpersonal

biases (Leventhal, 1980); any information that

calls this into question can lead to perceived

violation of procedural justice. For example, if

a high-ranking individual frequently has lunch

or goes out for drinks after work with a sub-

ordinate, other subordinates may notice and sus-

pect that preferential treatment is being given to

that subordinate, both in the present and poten-

tially the future, which may lead them to question

meritocratic processes across the organization.

Thus, when colleagues outside of a friendship

perceive those inside as having wide status dis-

tance, this view can undermine collective per-

ceptions of procedural and distributive justice

across the organization more broadly and, conse-

quently, effective functioning and performance

(Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Tyler, 1989; van den Bos &

Lind, 2001).

Proposition 3c: Formal status distance

between friends moderates the rela-

tionship between the presence of a

workplace friendship and collective

perceptions of procedural and distribu-

tive justice such that other colleagues

perceive lower levels of procedural and

distributive justice when formal status

distance is greater.

The “Friending”Phenomenon: How Connecting

on Social Media Influences the Dark Sides of

Workplace Friendship

Social media now provide a central means

by which colleagues connect with one another

(Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; McFarland & Ployhart,

2015). Thus, communicating via social media

is likely to influence the key tensions and re-

lational processes of workplace friendships.

Indeed, social media, or digital platforms that

facilitate information sharing, user-created con-

tent, and collaboration (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook,

Instagram, Twitter), have revolutionized the

way we connect and communicate within just

the last decade (Barley, Meyerson, & Grodal,

2011; McFarland & Ployhart, 2015; Perlow, 2012;

Schinoff, 2017; Wajcman & Rose, 2011) and are

increasingly altering the boundary between the

professional and personal spheres (Forest &

Wood, 2012; Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013; Rothbard

& Ollier-Malaterre, 2016). Yet theory and research

in the domain of organizations have only re-

cently begun to examine how communicating via

social media influences intraorganizational re-

lationships (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; McFarland &

Ployhart, 2015), and even less scholarship focuses

on how this technology may impact informal

bonds such as friendship (cf. Ollier-Malaterre

et al., 2013; Schinoff, 2017). Therefore, we seek to

advance theory by discussing how connecting

with colleagues via social media can (a) alter the

friendship formation process and (b) heighten the

tensions associated with workplace friendship,

both of which have implications for the individual,

group, and organizational downsides of workplace

friendship outlined above. Figure 2 incorporates

the proposed effects of social media into the model

depicted in Figure 1.

Social media and friendship formation. Self-

disclosure allows individuals to discover and per-

ceive similarities, and these, in turn, drive friendship

2018 13Pillemer and Rothbard

FIGURE 2

Full Model: Social Media and the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

Organizational context

Involuntary Exchange

Informal Socio-

emotional

Voluntary Communal

Formal Instrumental

Workplace

friendship

Proposition 2a-b

Proposition 1a-d

Proposition 3a-c

Tailoring

Actual

similarity

amplifies tensions

increases

reduces

Connecting on

social media

Proposition 4a-b

Self-disclosure

Perceived

similarity

Closeness

Maturity

Member status

Individual

*Reduced deliberation and

preparation on complex decisions

*Distraction from instrumental goals

Group

Organization

*Inhibited knowledge sharing

*Reduced perceptions of procedural

justice

*Interrole conflict between informal

and formal roles

formation. On the one hand, connecting on social

media is likely to increase personal self-disclosures

to colleagues (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013), thus

potentially expediting the process of discovering

greater similarity and forming friendships. On the

other hand, an increase in self-disclosures could

also lead to the discovery of dissimilarities, which

is likely to inhibit and even drive away poten-

tial work friendships (Dumas et al., 2013; Phillips

et al., 2009). In typical face-to-face interactions,

individuals tailor their disclosures to fit their in-

teraction partner and the context in which their

conversation is enacted (Collins, 2004; Goffman,

1959). Individuals can tailor specific aspects of

their identity that they think will be congruent with

the conversation partner’s experience, as well as

carefully gauge reactions to those disclosures.

Thus, whether someone perceives a person as

similar depends not only on their actual similarity

to the person but also on the extent to which they

tailor their disclosures to the person and thesocial

context.

Conversely, communication via social media

discourages tailoring one’s self-presentations to

a particular individual and context (McFarland &

Ployhart, 2015; Ollier-Malaterre & Rothbard, 2015;

Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013). Rather, a common

feature of these media is the unfiltered “broad-

casting”of disclosures to a wide audience (Ollier-

Malaterre et al., 2013; Shi, Rui, & Whinston, 2013).

Individuals become “friends”with a click of a

button and are immediately exposed to “a flood of

untailored self-disclosure”(Ollier-Malaterre et al.,

2013: 648), including family photos, personal in-

terests, and political and religious affiliations

that previously would have been slowly revealed

selectively, such as through one’s office decor

(Byron & Laurence, 2015), over months or years in

conversations with colleagues, or in many cases

not at all.

Therefore, connecting on social media sites in-

creases personal, non-work-related self-disclosure

to colleagues while it also reduces the extent to

which these disclosures are tailored to a particu-

lar individual or the norms of the workplace con-

text. Individuals lose much of their ability to tailor

disclosures and gauge reactions of specific peo-

ple. Sharing untailored personal disclosures is

likely to expedite the friendship formation pro-

cess (in which self-disclosures lead to perceived

similarity and vice versa, which, in turn, leads to

the relational state of friendship) if individuals

have high degree of actual similarity (e.g.,

attitudes, interests, values; Harrison et al., 1998;

Liao et al., 2008). However, greater access to

untailored disclosures also increases the risk that

workplace friends or potential friends will ob-

serve qualities about others that are not con-

gruent with their own self-perceptions and the

norms of the organizational context, inadver-

tently resulting in greater perceived dissimi-

larity and interpersonal distance (Dumas et al.,

2013; Phillips et al., 2009; see Figure 2).

Thus, connecting via social media can have

a polarizing effect on workplace friendship, either

facilitating friendship formation if actual simi-

larity is higher or leading to more rapid discovery

of dissimilarity and distancing between col-

leagues if actual similarity is lower.

Proposition 4a: Connecting via social me-

dia increases personal self-disclosures

and reduces the individualized tailor-

ing of these disclosures to colleagues,

which expedites the friendship forma-

tion process if individuals are higher

in actual similarity and derails the

friendship formation process if individ-

uals are lower in actual similarity.

Social media and tensions between friendship

and the organizational context. Connecting with

colleagues via social media also increases the

four tensions noted above (informality versus

formality, socioemotional goals versus instru-

mental goals, communal norms versus exchange

norms, and voluntariness versus involuntary

constraints), which can then amplify dark sides at

the individual, group, and organizational levels.

First, the informality that characterizes self-

disclosure on social media platforms, both in

terms of communication style and content (Kiefer,

2016; Leonardi & Vaast, 2017), can be at odds

with the formality of organizational roles. Com-

munication via social media tends to be more

“conversational”and casual; a tweet or a post

on someone’s Facebook wall implies less formal

expectations than does traditional professional

communication (Boyd, 2010; Ellison & Boyd, 2013;

Kiefer, 2016). Moreover, since many social media

platforms originated in the personal domain, they

encourage self-disclosures not related to work

(Leonardi & Vaast, 2017; Ollier-Malaterre et al.,

2013). The informal style and personal content of

communication via social media can also lead to

conflicts in balancing the personal-professional

boundary (Kiefer, 2016; Ollier-Malat erre et al., 2013).

2018 15Pillemer and Rothbard

For example, the increased informality could amplify

risks of interrole conflict if individuals discovered

more similarities and felt closer to colleagues with

whom they also compete.

Second, many social media sites focus on fos-

tering personal relationships, suggesting that

self-disclosures should be geared primarily to-

ward socioemotional goals, such as sharing

photos of one’s family, an emotional disclosure

about issues at home, or pictures from a New

Year’s Eve party. These types of disclosures may

bring people closer but may be distracting or

heighten the relationship focus between work-

place friends, which can undermine instrumen-

tal goals of individuals and teams (Dumas et al.,

2013; Loyd et al., 2013). For example, knowledge

via social media of a teammate’s difficult family

issues may make it even more challenging to dis-

agree with the individual in a group decision-

making scenario, thereby reducing the extent to

which colleagues deliberate on a complex issue.

Third, as discussed above, workplace friend-

ship(s) can also lead to downsides for the orga-

nization when other colleagues are aware of

these friendships and see them as identity-based

cliques. This is more likely to occur when the

involuntary constraints of organizational life

contrast with the voluntary nature of friendships.

What is new about colleagues connecting via

social media is that it increases transparency re-

garding who is connected to whom and the nature

of these connections (Leonardi & Vaast, 2017). The

ability to view social interactions and associa-

tions between other social groups to which one

is an outsider can further amplify the tensions

between voluntary and involuntary ties. For in-

stance, sites such as Facebook and Instagram

allow people to post pictures of social events and

to “check in”to locations (and tag the “friends”

accompanying them), making these connections

more visible and salient to other, excluded col-

leagues (Krasnova, Wenninger, Widjaja, Buxmann,

2013) and potentially amplifying clique formation

and reduced knowledge transfer.

Last, if friendships occur between individuals

with more formal status distance, the visibility of

others’interactions on social media (Leonardi &

Vaast, 2017) may further heighten the tensions

between communal and exchange-based norms in

that outsiders can more clearly see the friendship

relationships, which might increase their suspi-

cions that supervisors may be using need- rather

than exchange-based norms. This perception, in

turn, might signal favoritism and lack of pro-

cedural justice (Kramer, 1999; Tyler & Blader,

2003). For instance, if an employee sees their boss

disclose something personal on a colleague’s

Facebook wall, or even comment on or “like”a

colleague’s disclosure, this personal attention

might be perceived as favoritism.

Thus, when colleagues connect via social me-

dia, it may amplify the four tensions between

friendship and the organizational context, which

heightens the risk of downsides resulting from

these tensions at the individual, group, and or-

ganizational levels.

Proposition 4b: Connecting via social

media increases the tensions between

the core features of friendship and the

organizational context, which, in turn,

amplifies the potential for downsides at

the individual, group, and organiza-

tional levels.

DISCUSSION

Although the benefits of close, informal ties at

work are well documented and taken for granted,

a small, disparate body of scholarship sug-

gests that workplace friendships have important

downsides that need to be better understood

(e.g., Ingram & Zou, 2008; Methot et al., 2015). Our

theoretical framework demonstrates how core

features of friendship are at odds with central

features of organizational life and cause tensions

that create the potential for downsides. We also

examine the role of new ways of working and, in

particular, how the use of social media affects

workplace friendship.

Theoretical Contributions

Scholars have acknowledged that workplace

friendships are as complicated as they are critical

to individuals and organizations (Ingram & Zou,

2008). Yet the drivers of this complexity and the

resulting challenges and downsides associated

with workplace friendship are both poorly un-

derstood and likely to be rapidly shifting because

of changes in work and communication technol-

ogy. We have identified the sources of tension

in workplace friendships that can lead to down-

sides at multiple levels within an organization.

Thus, we extend and synthesize the literature

on positive relationships at work, as well as

16 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

high-quality connections (Dutton & Heaphy,

2003; Dutton & Ragins, 2007), close relationships

(Clark & Reis, 1988; Ferris et al., 2009), and mul-

tiplex ties (Ingram & Zou, 2008; Methot et al.,

2015), to articulate how and when these seem-

ingly universally positive relationships may

lead to tensions in and costs to organizations.

While research on informal, personal relation-

ships in organizations often notes the potential

for challenges (e.g., Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), few

studies have focused on the precise origin and

nature of these downsides. We have specified

how, why, when, and for whom there may be

costs to organizational functioning associated

with workplace friendships by specifying the

tensions, relational mechanisms, and modera-

tors of these relationships for individual, group,

and organizational outcomes. In doing so we

have provided a theoretical framework for future

empirical work on workplace friendship to build

on in understanding potential downsides as

well as benefits.

In addition, our work broadens the evaluation

of the “positivity”of relationships beyond linear

effects that accrue only to members of a focal

friendship. Specifically, we consider how varying

levels of workplace friends’closeness, maturity,

and status amplify or attenuate the risks associ-

ated with these relationships, offering predictive

power for how the nature of a specific friendship

tie (as opposed to the number of ties or network

structure) can amplify or ameliorate downsides.

Our theoretical model contributes to broader con-

versations about nonmonotonic effects of positive

psychological phenomena, suggesting instances

in which friendships may have curvilinear re-

lationships with key outcomes (Grant & Schwartz,

2011). Moreover, by considering downsides for

“outsiders”to the friendships, we extend theory

about how positive relationships can paradoxi-

cally lead to negative consequences for others

(Blau, 1964; Brewer, 1997; Tichy, 1973). A focus on

how the nature of a friendship influences nega-

tive outcomes and on how particular workplace

friendships may affect various factions within

organizations is a step toward reconciling con-

flicting findings regarding positive versus nega-

tive outcomes of these bonds (Ingram & Zou, 2008;

Methot et al., 2015). We hope that this frame-

work helps to spur additional research and cul-

tivate deeper understanding of the complex,

multifaceted nature of friendships in organiza-

tional settings.

Last, scholars have just begun to examine

the ways technology is fundamentally changing

organizational relationships (Leonardi & Vaast,

2017; McFarland & Ployhart, 2015; Ollier-Malaterre

et al., 2013). Researchers have tended to focus on

the benefits of social media in organizations,

such as sustaining, transferring, and growing

knowledge repositories (Treem & Leonardi, 2013),

as well as increasing “metaknowledge,”or the

awareness of who knows what in organizations

(Leonardi, 2014, 2015). Yet when colleagues con-

nect via social media, especially via sites that

encourage informal and personal disclosures

(e.g., Facebook, Instagram), this can raise new

challenges for employees seeking to maintain

boundaries between their personal and pro-

fessional lives and relationships. We advance

nascent theory on the changing nature of work

relationships by highlighting how connecting

via social media may alter the processes by which

workplace friendships are formed, as well as

amplify existing tensions between the personal

role of friends and the professional norms and

expectations of organizations. Given the rapid

pace at which technology is shifting, and given

the relative lack of empirical work on how the use

of social media impacts informal workplace re-

lationships (Leonardi & Vaast 2017; McFarland &

Ployhart, 2015), our theorizing provides a useful

jumping off point for future work in this increas-

ingly important yet poorly understood domain of

organizational life.

Moreover, the heightened informality, focus

on nonwork identities, untailored self-disclosure,

and visibility of others’social interactions char-

acterizing many social media sites amplify the

challenges of workplace friendship. While scholars

often discuss the blurring of boundaries between

work and nonwork identities (Dumas & Sanchez-

Burks, 2015; Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013), we high-

light the importance of transparency of boundaries

resulting from social media, in which the bound-

aries between work and nonwork identities and

relationships remain intact but these identities

and relationships themselves are more visible to

outsiders. By highlighting the challenges that

arise when colleagues engage in personal self-

disclosure both offline and online in an effort to

build and maintain friendships, this work con-

tributes to research on boundary management

(Ashforth et al., 2000; Kreiner, 2006; Nippert-Eng,

2008; Ramarajan & Reid, 2013; Rothbard, Phillips,

& Dumas, 2005) and on identity work between

2018 17Pillemer and Rothbard

personal and professional roles (Kreiner et al.,

2009; LeBaron, Glenn, & Thompson, 2009).

Future Directions and Extensions

Future research should examine additional in-

dividual, relational, and contextual factors that

impact the tensions, processes, and outcomes of

friendship at work. Although numerous individual

differences (e.g., prosocial motivation), situational

factors (e.g., proximity), and organizational-level

factors (e.g., the extent to which an organization’s

culture is relational) will likely influence the prev-

alence and effects of friendship at work, we high-

light two particularly promising avenues for future

research below.

First, individuals and organizations may dif-

fer in their relational nature and, thus, in the ex-

tent to which employees will experience tensions.

For example, demographic and cultural differ-

ences may influence both individual preferences

and organizational norms regarding workplace

friendships. Indeed, compared to white men,

women and individuals of Latin American and

Asian backgrounds tend to be more communal

in their relational style and, thus, may be better

equipped to navigate the tensions of workplace

friendship (Bridge & Baxter, 1992; Hom & Xiao,

2011; Ingram & Zou, 2008; Sanchez-Burks, 2002;

Sanchez-Burks, Nisbett, & Ybarra, 2000). Organi-

zational culture may also differ in the extent to

which close relationships are normative (Barsade

&O’Neill, 2014; O’Neill & Rothbard, 2017). Future

work should examine how gender, ethnicity,

and organizational culture can moderate these

relationships.

Second, future research might explore the evo-

lution of workplace friendships over time and the

consequences of these shifts. This might include

friendships that dissolve or devolve into negative

workplace relationships (Sias et al., 2004) or that

escalate into workplace romances (Pierce, Byrne,

& Aguinis, 1996; Quinn, 1977). For example, in

the case of damaged friendships, the intimate

self-disclosures and the conferring of similarities

that facilitate closeness can put employees at

risk of trust violations and social undermining

behaviors by former friends (Duffy et al., 2002;

Elangovan & Shapiro, 1998; Granovetter, 1985;

McAllister, 1995; Robinson & Bennett, 1995) The

relational processes that drive friendship forma-

tion may also lead to nonplatonic relationships at

work (Pierce et al., 1996). A specific type of close

friendship that has been explored in the popular

press but that has received scant scholarly at-

tention is the “work spouse”—a friendship that

resembles domestic partnerships in terms of the

high levels of socioemotional involvement and

self-disclosure, but can also lead to “crossing the

line”into romantic relationships (Office Pulse,

2017; Spector, 2017). Future research should ex-

amine the processes and consequences of work-

place friendships’evolution over time.

Practical Implications

Given the increasingly social nature of work

(Grant & Parker, 2009; Oldham & Hackman, 2010)

and the rise of social media as a core means

of connecting with colleagues (McFarland &

Ployhart, 2015; Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013),

workplace friendships will likely continue to be-

come both more prevalent and complex. High-

profile organizations such as Google and Zappos

are increasingly promoting cultures rooted in fun

and camaraderie, taking for granted the belief that

promoting friendships among their employees

has uniformly positive effects on organizational

outcomes (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, 2015; Grant &

Schwartz, 2011; Rath, 2006; Riordan, 2013). Yet

forging successful friendships at work requires

effectively managing the tensions inherent in

workplace friendships. Informal strategies and

formal policies need to be continuously enacted at

the individual, group, and organizational levels to

ameliorate the risks associated with workplace

friendships.

Colleagues in the early stages of friendship

should develop tactics to manage the inherent

tensions underlying workplace friendships. For

example, individuals might encourage the de-

velopment of shared understandings among

friends regarding when it is acceptable to discuss

nonwork topics to decrease the risk of intrusion,

and when it is acceptable to openly discuss

areas of conflict, such as promotion opportunities,

to address potential interrole conflict directly.

Teams might purposefully seek to integrate

outsiders’views at key points to help make im-

portant decisions and introduce diverse per-

spectives (Loyd et al.,2013), or place mature friends

on teams who feel more comfortable openly

disagreeing. Organizational leaders should im-

plement programs (such as cross-functional

or organization-wide coffee chats or presenta-

tions) that encourage informal dialogue among

18 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

individuals from disparate social groups to en-

sure that the boundaries of friendship groups are

not perceived as impenetrable.

Social media may add additional complexity

to workplace friendships by increasing the trans-

parency between personal and professional iden-

tities. Given that social media platforms can vary in

terms of the types of connections that are encour-

aged and what content is disclosed, individuals

should also develop a more nuanced understanding

of the different types of social media and how to use

them to more skillfully share information that might

help to foster closeness without undermining pro-

fessionalism. Moreover, individuals should be

aware of the “invisible audience”viewing their

interactions online and should understand that

seemingly harmless social interactions may cause

other colleagues to feel excluded, fueling the

formation of disparate cliques. Leaders should

exercise particular caution over informal and

preferential connections with subordinates to

avoid perceptions of favoritism by outsiders.

CONCLUSION

Friendships at work provide undeniable bene-

fits but also can bring troublesome downsides.

Research that explicitly targets the dark sides of

workplace friendships is critical to advance schol-

arship on the changing nature of workplace re-

lationships. As organizations become more social

and connected, employees and leaders must effec-

tively manage the tensions and challenges aris-

ing from friendships within organizations in order

to fully leverage the well-established benefits of

these personal bonds. Moreover, understanding

the source of these dark sides should help organi-

zations to design policies and interventions that

empower employees to optimize their relationships

as they navigate an increasingly connected and

boundaryless workforce.

REFERENCES

Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. 1994. An integrative conceptual

framework for friendship research. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 11: 163–184.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. 1973. Social penetration: The de-

velopment of interpersonal relationships. Oxford: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. 2000.

Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the

experience of others. Organizational Behavior and Hu-

man Decision Processes, 82: 1–8.

Aristotle. 1934. The Nicomachean ethics. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. 1992. Inclusion of Other in

the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal close-

ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63:

596–612.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J.

1997. The experimental generation of interpersonal close-

ness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 363–377.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in a day’s

work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of

Management Review, 25: 472–491.

Ashforth, B. E., Schinoff, B. S., & Rogers, K. M. 2016. “I identify

with her,”“I identify with him”: Unpacking the dynamics

of personal identification in organizations. Academy of

Management Review, 41: 28–60.

Bahns, A. J., Crandall, C. S., Gillath, O., & Preacher, K. J. 2017.

Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice,

stability, and influence within dyads in a free choice

environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 112: 329–355.

Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. 2011. E-mail as a

source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22:

887–906.

Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. 2014. What’slovegotto

do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of com-

panionate love and employee and client outcomes in

a long- term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly,

59: 551–598.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. 1991. Attachment styles

among young adults: A test of a four category model. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61: 226–244.

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.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. 2003.

Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic

clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88: 989–1004.

Belk, R. W. 2013. Extended self in a digital world. Journal of

Consumer Research, 40: 477–500.

Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N. 2002. Workplace re-

lations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according

to managers). Public Administration Review, 62: 217–230.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. 1989. The Relation-

ship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of in-

terpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 57: 792–807.

Biddle, B. J. 1986. Recent development in role theory. Annual

Review of Sociology, 12: 67–92.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York:

Wiley.

Boyd, D. 2010. Social network sites as networked publics: Affor-

dances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi

(Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on

social network sites: 39–58. New York: Routledge.

2018 19Pillemer and Rothbard

Brewer, M. B. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup

situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychologi-

cal Bulletin, 86: 307–324.

Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and

different at the same time. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 17: 475–482.

Brewer, M. B. 1997. The social psychology of intergroup re-

lations: Can research inform practice? Journal of Social

Issues, 53: 197–211.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this “we”? Levels of

collective identity and self-representations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83–93.

Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. 1985. The psychology of in-

tergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Psy-

chology, 36: 219–243.

Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. 1992. Blended relationships: Friends

as work associates. Western Journal of Communication

(Includes Communication Reports), 56: 200–225.

Brockner, J., & Siegel, P. A. 1996. Understanding the interaction

between procedural and distributive justice: The role of

trust in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.):

Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research:

390–413. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Ad-

ministrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339–365.

Byrne, D. 1961. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 713–715.

Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. Orlando, FL: Aca-

demic Press.

Byron, K., & Laurence, G. A. 2015. Diplomas, photos, and

tchotchkes as symbolic self-representations: Under-

standing employees’individual use of symbols. Academy

of Management Journal, 58: 298–323.

Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. 2012. A theory of subgroups in

work teams. Academy of Management Review, 37: 441–470.

Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. 2008. When competence is irrele-

vant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 655–684.

Chandler, A. D. 1977. The visible hand: The managerial revo-

lution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. 1996. Getting at the truth

or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated

heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 71: 262–275.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2008. Do peers make the

place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of co-

worker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and per-

formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1082–1103.

Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. 2008. From the head

and the heart: Locating cognition- and affect-based trust

in managers’professional networks. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 51: 436–452.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. 1979. Interpersonal attraction in ex-

change and communal relationships. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 37: 12–24.

Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. 1988. Interpersonal processes in

close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39:

609–672.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in

organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 86: 278–321.

Colbert, A., Bono, J., & Purvanova, R. 2016. Flourishing via

workplace relationships: Moving beyond instrumental

support. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1199–1223.

Collins, N., & Miller, L. C. 1994. Self-disclosure and liking: A

meta-analytical review. Psychological Bulletin, 116: 457–

475.

Collins, R. 2004. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Derlega, V. J., & Grzelak, J. 1979. Appropriateness of self-

disclosure. In J. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins,

Friends Without Benefits: Understanding the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship

Abstract and Figures