exploring the social ledger negative relationship and negative assymetry in social networks in organizations, ...
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Academy of Management Review
2006, Vol. 31, No. 3, 596–614.
EXPLORING THE SOCIAL LEDGER: NEGATIVE
RELATIONSHIPS AND NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY
IN SOCIAL NETWORKS IN ORGANIZATIONS
GIUSEPPE LABIANCA
University of Kentucky and
Emory University
DANIEL J. BRASS
University of Kentucky
We explore the role of negative relationships in the context of social networks in work
organizations. Whereas network researchers have emphasized the benefits and op-
portunities derived from positive interpersonal relationships, we examine the social
liabilities that can result from negative relationships in order to flesh out the entire
“social ledger.” Deriving our argument from theory and research on negative asym-
metry, we propose that these negative relationships may have greater power than
positive relationships to explain workplace outcomes.
A man’s stature is determined by his enemies, not
his friends (Al Pacino,
City Hall
).
2001).
1
We do not dispute the beneficial aspects
of social networks, but we feel that the overem-
phasis on researching the positive aspects of
networks comes at the expense of fleshing out
what we term the
social ledger
—both the poten-
tial benefits and the potential liabilities of so-
cial relationships. Just as a financial ledger
records financial assets and liabilities, the so-
cial ledger is an accounting of social assets—or
social capital—derived from positive relation-
ships and social liabilities derived from nega-
tive relationships.
To understand the complete social ledger, we
address the role of negative relationships in or-
ganizations—ongoing and recurring relation-
ships within the context of a work organization
in which at least one person dislikes another.
For example, just as an employee’s friends and
acquaintances may help the employee get pro-
moted by providing such things as critical infor-
mation, mentoring, and good references, nega-
tive relationships with others may prevent
promotion if these people withhold critical infor-
Employees in organizations are embedded in
social networks that can provide opportunities
and benefits, such as job attainment, job satis-
faction, enhanced performance, salary, power,
and promotions (e.g., Brass, 1984, 1985; Burt, 1992;
Granovetter, 1973; Seidel, Polzer, & Stewart,
2000; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001).
Although early social exchange theorists and
network researchers considered both the posi-
tive and negative aspects of relationships (e.g.,
Homans, 1961; Tagiuri, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley,
1959; White, 1961), over the past two decades
scholars have focused so intensively on the pos-
itive aspects of network relationships that social
network research has become equated with re-
search on social capital. Social capital refers to
the idea that individuals’ social contacts convey
benefits that create opportunities for competi-
tive success for them and for the groups in
which they are members (i.e., Burt, 1992, 1997;
Coleman, 1988, 1990; Seibert, Kramer, & Liden,
1
Social capital
is a broad, multilevel term. It has been
described as an attribute of nations and geographic regions
(Fukuyama, 1995), communities (Putnam, 1995), and organi-
zations (Leana & Van Buren, 1999). Our definition focuses on
individuals’ positions within a social network and their po-
tential ability to improve their own outcomes, as well as
those of their group, because of their social contacts (Burt,
1992, 1997; Coleman, 1988, 1990).
We thank the following people for their helpful comments
and suggestions: Art Brief, Ron Burt, Stanislav Dobrev, Mich-
elle Duffy, Chris Earley, Rob Folger, Barbara Gray, Jonathan
Johnson, Martin Kilduff, David Krackhardt, Rich Makadok,
John Mathieu, Ajay Mehra, Pri Shah, Bruce Skaggs, Ray
Sparrowe, Leigh Thompson, the OB doctoral students at Tu-
lane University, and especially David Ralston (the handling
editor) and the three anonymous reviewers.
596
2006
Labianca and Brass
597
mation or provide bad references. Likewise, pos-
itive relationships may facilitate knowledge
transfer that improves group or organizational
performance (Hansen, 1999; Tsai, 2001), whereas
negative relationships may impede the ex-
change of performance-enhancing information.
Thus, it is important to consider the negative
side of the social ledger—social liabilities as
well as the frequently researched social capi-
tal.
2
Negative relationships are of particular im-
portance when we consider the concept of neg-
ative asymmetry: the hypothesis that, in certain
circumstances, negative relationships may have
greater explanatory power than positive rela-
tionships. Negative stimuli have been found to
have greater explanatory power than positive or
neutral stimuli in a diverse range of situations,
including person perception and social judg-
ment (see Taylor, 1991, for a review). In this
paper we extend that concept of negative
asymmetry to explore social relationships in
organizations. We propose that negative rela-
tionships in organizations may have a greater
effect on socioemotional (e.g., organizational
attachment) and task outcomes (e.g., job per-
formance) than positive relationships.
We begin by looking at negative relationships
in more detail and reviewing theoretical expla-
nations and empirical support for a generalized
negative asymmetry. We then present evidence
of negative asymmetry in social relationships in
work organizations. Finally, we develop a pre-
liminary framework for analyzing negative rela-
tionships in organizations.
NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
All relationships have both positive and neg-
ative aspects. Negative encounters, cognitions,
or behaviors can occur on occasion in any rela-
tionship. People consider the various punish-
ments and rewards that arise from their interac-
tions with others and sever or continue ties on
the basis of these judgments (Kelley & Thibaut,
1978). Although people may intend to be rational
and calculative, their judgments are often affec-
tive as well as cognitive and might appear “irra-
tional” to an observer.
People form global “like” and “dislike” judg-
ments of and overall feelings toward others (Ber-
scheid & Walster, 1969; Newcomb, 1961; Tagiuri,
1958). Over time, these judgments, along with
the complex emotions and perceptions associ-
ated with them, lead people to form person sche-
mas about those with whom they interact—sets
of cognitions and feelings that determine how
they will approach future interactions (Fiske &
Taylor, 1991).
Negative relationships represent
an enduring, recurring set of negative judg-
ments, feelings, and behavioral intentions to-
ward another person—a negative person
schema.
At least one person in the relationship
has adopted a relatively stable pattern of dis-
like for the other, and possibly an intention to
behave so as to disrupt the other’s outcomes.
Usually, relationships in the workplace are
“friendly,” “positive,” or at least “neutral.” Al-
though occasional dislikes may arise, creating
temporary discomfort or animosity, or even in-
terrupting the attainment of individual or orga-
nizational goals, on the whole, the overall re-
wards of the positive working relationships
overshadow the rough spots (Kelley & Thibaut,
1978). Thus, people may have negative encoun-
ters without having negative relationships form.
Conversely, one person may dislike another per-
son without any observable or latent conflict.
Although conflict may be a precursor to and a
possible residual of negative relationships, we
do not equate negative relationships with con-
flict encounters.
The relationships we examine are relatively
rare, with recent empirical studies suggesting
that they make up only 1 to 8 percent of the total
number of relationships in an organization (e.g.,
Baldwin, Bedell, & Johnson, 1997; Gersick, Bar-
tunek, & Dutton, 2000; Kane & Labianca, 2005;
Labianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998). Yet their rarity
2
Other researchers have described the “dark side” of
social capital as “opportunity costs” (e.g., Gargiulo & Be-
nassi, 1999; Leana & Van Buren, 1999). It is important to note
that we focus on the social liabilities created by negative
relationships, rather than the opportunity costs of building
positive relationships or social capital. As Granovetter (1985)
notes, the obligations and expectations of strong, positive,
long-lasting relationships may prevent a person from real-
izing greater economic opportunities by constraining the
search for and development of new trading partners. Thus,
there may be opportunity costs and tradeoffs associated
with building positive relationships and social capital. We
focus, instead, on recurring negative relationships. These do
not represent lost opportunities, the indirect cost of acquir-
ing social capital by having some positive relationships
rather than other positive relationships, or pursuing weak
ties rather than strong ties. Rather, they are the potential
liabilities or hindrances that result from negative relation-
ships.
598
Academy of Management Review
July
moving to another desk or getting needed infor-
mation from another source (1995: 276).
belies their importance. Negative relationships
develop when two people in an organization
maintain some kind of working relationship
with each other and when one (or both) of those
people, for whatever reason, dislikes the other.
The dislike may be mild or severe, based on
personal associations, prejudices, or whims, or
on specific objections to the other’s social or
professional behavior or performance. The rela-
tionship may occur across any vertical or hori-
zontal organizational division and within any
organizational group, and it may involve any
number of status and power differentials. The
object of the dislike may return it with more or
less fervor, and not necessarily for the same
reasons; the two people may work closely with
each other, or interact only occasionally. Others
in the organization (including the object of dis-
like) may or may not be aware that the negative
relationship exists and may or may not respond
to it; moreover, the two who are actually in that
relationship may not be fully aware of its neg-
ative nature.
Whatever the source of the negative feelings,
and however they are manifested or concealed,
the negative relationship we describe is one
that is enduring, intrinsic to the organization’s
workflow, and, we argue, harmful in some way
to the participants.
3
Negative relationships cre-
ate social liabilities because they adversely af-
fect individual outcomes, such as organizational
attachment, and they adversely affect the ability
of individuals to coordinate activities and coop-
erate to achieve organizational goals. For exam-
ple, Jehn’s (1995) study of people involved in
“relationship conflict” indicated that relation-
ship conflict in groups was consistently related
to lower organizational attachment for the group
members. She also found that
the members in the conflicts choose to avoid
working with those with whom they experience
conflict. Some group members attempted to rede-
sign their work area or job in the group so that
they no longer would have to interact with the
others involved in the conflict, sometimes by
Although we do not equate negative relation-
ships with conflict episodes, we argue that neg-
ative relationships may lead to such behaviors
as avoidance efforts and job redesigns and will
have negative repercussions for the individuals
involved.
CHARACTERIZING NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Four interplaying characteristics determine
the extent to which negative relationships result
in liabilities for the employees in an organiza-
tion. First, the relationship’s
strength
refers to
the intensity of dislike. Although social network
researchers have often investigated the strength
of positive relationships (based on Granovet-
ter’s [1973] distinction between strong ties as
friends and weak ties as acquaintances), we
extend strength of ties to include negative rela-
tionships. For example, when the relationship
involves mild dislike, workers may be able to
ignore the negative relationship dynamics to act
in a “professional manner” by focusing on goal
accomplishment. The result may be only mild
discomfort and slightly lower job satisfaction.
However, as intensity increases, workers may
find it increasingly difficult to focus on interde-
pendent goals. Thus, strong dislike should exac-
erbate negative behaviors and the social liabil-
ities of negative relationships. The strength of
the negative relationship may be affected by its
history. For example, a once-positive relation-
ship involving a great degree of trust and vul-
nerability might have been violated, creating an
extremely negative affective and behavioral re-
sponse (cf. Jones & Burdette, 1994; Mayer, Davis,
& Schoorman, 1995). This type of normative vio-
lation of the friendship bond increases the
strength of the negative relationship, because
the degree of punishment inflicted (hurt, anger,
sadness about the loss of a friendship, or the ego
threat from rejection or disloyalty) can be severe
when one member is extremely vulnerable.
Second,
reciprocity
refers to whether an indi-
vidual is the object or source of dislike, or if the
dislike is reciprocated (Wasserman & Faust,
1994). The greatest social liability occurs when
both parties dislike each other, but dislike does
not have to be reciprocated in order for it to be a
liability. For example, even if you like a person
3
Social exchange theorists (e.g., Emerson, 1972) define
negative ties differently. They view a negative tie from a
resource dependence perspective: if person A occupies a
position that person B can easily bypass to get a needed
resource, then person A has a negative tie with person B.
Our definition of negative ties, however, incorporates an
affective judgment of another person, without regard to the
relative dependence of that person on another for resources.
2006
Labianca and Brass
599
who dislikes you, that person may make it more
difficult for you to accomplish your tasks by
withholding important information, by failing to
provide a reference for you when needed, or by
spreading negative gossip about you. Negative
outcomes also exist when you dislike someone
who likes you. This may be annoying or burden-
some; working with people you dislike can lead
to dissatisfaction and turnover. In extreme cases
(e.g., stalking), you may end up feeling perse-
cuted, frustrated, and victimized. Although neg-
ative outcomes are attached to each, we expect
the negative impact of these relationships to
increase as one goes from being the source of
dislike to being the object, and then to the dis-
like being reciprocated.
The third characteristic,
cognition,
refers to
whether the person knows the other person dis-
likes him or her. Although cognition is not nec-
essary for harm to occur, high cognition will
cause more discomfort than a lack of cognition
and is more likely to lead to reciprocated feel-
ings of dislike and negative behavior toward the
other person (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). We ac-
knowledge that cognition might lead to at-
tempts to improve the relationship, but there is
no guarantee that the other party will also seek
to improve the relationship. Even in the case
where cognition leads to avoiding the other per-
son, such avoidance does not guarantee that the
other person might not cause harm. Thus, cog-
nition generally results in greater liability than
noncognition.
For the final characteristic, we go beyond the
dyad to add a network characteristic—
social
distance.
Social distance refers to whether the
negative tie is direct (you are part of the dyad
with a negative relationship) or indirect (you are
connected to a person who has a negative rela-
tionship with another person). The distance be-
tween one person and another is the length of
the shortest path between them (Wasserman &
Faust, 1994). We expect that direct involvement
in a negative relationship will result in in-
creased social liabilities, but we do not ignore
the possibility that indirect relationships may
also produce social liabilities. For example, be-
ing a friend of a person who is disliked may be
a liability because you are associated with the
disliked person and treated similarly (Sparrowe
& Liden, 1999).
These four characteristics combine to deter-
mine the extent of the social liability.
We define
the social liability of an individual’s social net-
work as the linear combination of strength, rec-
iprocity, cognition, and social distance of each
negative tie, summed across all negative ties.
4
The relative weight of each characteristic is an
empirical question that needs to be resolved
through future research and that currently goes
beyond the scope of our theory. Although our
focus is on social liabilities, we can conversely
suggest that the “asset” side of the social ledger
is a combination of strength, reciprocity, cogni-
tion, and social distance of each positive tie,
summed across all positive ties.
NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY
While a great deal of research has been con-
ducted on friendship formation, interpersonal
attraction, and the evolution of friendships (see
Berscheid & Walster, 1978, and Hays, 1988, for
reviews), little has been conducted on the forma-
tion and development of negative relationships
(Wiseman & Duck, 1995). The evolution of nega-
tive relationships may be very different from
positive relationships. Friendship development
is viewed as a gradual process. According to
social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor,
1973), friendship development proceeds from su-
perficial interaction in narrow areas of ex-
change to increasingly deeper interaction in
broader areas. Perceptions of the rewards and
costs of interacting with a potential friend drive
this progression—if you feel that the rewards
from a relationship outweigh the costs, you will
continue to progress toward closer friendship.
However, Wiseman and Duck’s (1995) qualita-
tive work indicates that negative relationship
development is a much faster process, tending
to lead to the other person’s being included in
coarse-grained categories, such as “rival” or
“enemy.” In contrast, fine-grained ranking dis-
tinctions are created for friends as they move
through a relationship progression from casual
acquaintances to close friends. Thus, the forma-
4
The social liability function is as follows:
i
j
(
1
s
ij
2
s
ji
1
r
ij
2
r
ji
1
c
ij
2
c
ji
d
ij
)
L
i
where
L
is the individual’s social liability,
s
is negative tie
strength,
r
is reciprocity,
c
is cognition, and
d
is social
distance (shortest path) between individuals
i
and
j.
600
Academy of Management Review
July
tion of negative relationships is not the mere
opposite of the way positive relationships form.
Not only is there evidence that negative rela-
tionships form differently, but there is also evi-
dence that they may have
greater
power in ex-
plaining some socioemotional and task
outcomes in organizations than positive rela-
tionships. We develop our argument that nega-
tive relationships are more important than pos-
itive ones on the basis of previous research
demonstrating the relative salience of negative
events and social relationships. We then sum-
marize the theoretical arguments that have
been offered to explain this negative asymmetry
phenomenon.
(Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Research has shown
that people assign greater importance to nega-
tive information, including social information,
than to positive information (Kahneman & Tver-
sky, 1984; for reviews, see Czapinski & Peeters,
1990, Peeters & Czapinski, 1990, and Skowronski
& Carlston, 1989). Likewise, studies in impres-
sion formation, person perception, and morality
judgments have shown that negative informa-
tion outweighs positive information in social
judgments (for reviews, see Fiske & Taylor, 1984,
1991, and Kanouse & Hanson, 1972).
Negative Asymmetry in Social Relationships
In addition to negative events, negative inter-
actions have been found to have a dispropor-
tionately greater effect on such variables as life
satisfaction, mood, illness, and stress than pos-
itive interactions (e.g., Finch, Okun, Barrera,
Zautra, & Reich, 1989; Hirsch & Rapkin, 1986;
Rook, 1984, 1990; Stephens, Kinney, Norris, &
Ritchie, 1987). For example, Rook (1984) found
negative aspects of social relationships to be
more strongly related to psychological well-
being than positive aspects. In a longitudinal
study of people caring for a spouse with Alzhei-
mer’s disease, Pagel, Erdly, and Becker (1987)
found that negative aspects of the caretaker’s
network were strongly associated with in-
creased depression over a ten-month period but
that positive aspects did not lessen the caretak-
er’s depression.
In a network study of social relationships at
work, Burt and Knez (1995, 1996) found that if an
individual was already inclined to trust another
party, positive third-party gossip amplified that
trust. However, this amplification effect was
stronger for negative gossip than for positive
gossip, with negative gossip amplifying distrust
more greatly. In an earlier study (Labianca,
Brass, & Gray, 1998), we found that negative
interpersonal relationships between members
of different organizational groups were related
to perceptions of intergroup conflict but that
strong friendship ties had no relationship to per-
ceptions of intergroup conflict. Strong positive
relationships did not dampen or counterbalance
the effects of negative relationships, indicating
that a negative asymmetry existed. Finally,
Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon (2002) found that so-
cial undermining behaviors in the workplace
were related to counterproductive behaviors
Negative Event Asymmetry
Taylor (1991) summarizes evidence that indi-
cates that negative events elicit greater physio-
logical, affective, cognitive, and behavioral ac-
tivity and lead to more cognitive analysis than
neutral or positive events. For example, studies
have shown that subjects experience stronger
physiological arousal when presented with
opinions that contradict their own compared to
opinions that support theirs or are neutral.
Stronger arousal occurs when people are inter-
acting with persons they dislike, rather than
those they like or are neutral toward (e.g., Bur-
dick & Burnes, 1958; Clore & Gormly, 1974; Dick-
son & McGinnies, 1966; Gormly, 1971, 1974;
Steiner, 1966). Taylor (1991) also argues that neg-
ative events are stronger determinants of mood
and affect than positive events. For example,
research indicates that negative events are
more strongly associated with distress and pre-
dict depression better than positive events pre-
dict positive emotions (e.g., Myers, Lindenthal,
Pepper, & Ostrander, 1972; Paykel, 1974; Vinokur
& Selzer, 1975).
Additional research has shown that negative
affective states lead people to narrow and focus
their attention (e.g., Broadbent, 1971; Easter-
brook, 1959; Eysenck, 1976), particularly onto the
negative information that seems to have caused
that negative affective state (Schwarz, 1990).
Positive events and information do not seem to
have the same effect on cognitive processing
(see Kanouse & Hanson, 1972, and Peeters &
Czapinski, 1990). Negative stimuli also lead to
more cognitive work and produce more complex
cognitive representations than positive stimuli
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]