wp-10-03

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

1/36

Explaining Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

A Critical Review of the Social Exchange Perspective

by

Tiffany Schroeder

WP-10-03

CopyrightDepartment of Organizational BehaviorWeatherhead School of Management

Case Western Reserve UniversityCleveland OH 44106-7235

e-mail: [email protected]

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

2/36

OCB and Social Exchange 2

Explaining Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

A Critical Review of the Social Exchange Perspective

Tiffany Schroeder

Case Western Reserve University

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

3/36


Abstract

Social Exchange has been widely cited as an explanation for why employees might act as good

organizational citizens, proposing that individuals perform OCB as part of a desire to maintain

equitable and favorable workplace relationships that extend beyond the benefits of the more

impersonal contractual agreements. Although this perspective has been given much credit in the

study of OCB, I argue that a lack of clarity around the underlying assumptions and connection to

motives for OCB, in combination with a dearth of attention to alternative explanations for

findings around justice, have thwarted a critical examination of this explanation to employee

citizenship. In this paper I attempt to clarify the social exchange explanation by outlining several

additional assumptions underlying this approach to OCB, and then use these assumptions to

highlight empirical and conceptual gaps. Finally, I consider the value of the social exchange

perspective for future research on OCB.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

4/36


Researchers have been studying organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) for over 30

years now, with insights into antecedents and motives guided primarily through the lens of social

exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Although other researchers have also explored OCB from intra-

individual perspectives (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Motowidlo et al., 1997) and through an

impression management framework (Bolino, 1999), this paper is limited to the OCB research

based on social exchange theory. A reliance on social exchange as an explanatory mechanism

has led us to discovery of several important antecedents of citizenship: relationships between

perceptions of justice, equity, relationship quality, as well as several important consequences

including enhanced productivity, lower turnover, and higher customer satisfaction (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). But despite its apparent popularity and role in guiding

the study of organizational citizenship to date, some scholars have begun to question reliance on

social exchange as the dominant explanatory framework of citizenship behavior (Bolino,

Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Snape & Redman, 2010; Zellars & Tepper,

2003).

In this review I start by giving a brief history as to how and why scholars became

interested in applying social exchange to OCB. I then provide a more in-depth look at the major

tenets of the perspective, and the findings attributed to it. Building on previous accounts of social

exchange, I propose several key unexamined assumptions, discuss areas where more work is

needed, and give examples of alternative explanations for extant findings. In the last section I

revisit the perspective in terms of its proposed significance and provide suggestions for future

research.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

5/36


The concept of OCB originally grew out of Dennis Organs musings into explanations for

the apparent non-relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Organ, 1988).

Organizational citizenship behavior was eventually proposed as an alternative form of

performance, differentiated from traditional performance on the basis of its relative freedom

from situational and ability constraints (p.70). Essentially, the upper boundary of task

performance is largely limited by a persons knowledge, skills, and ability, and the lower

boundary is limited by the fear of losing ones job. This means the individual performing the job

does not have a great deal of room to vary in performance based on their satisfaction with the

context. In contrast, helping a coworker does not necessarily depend on expertise in helping, and

because doing so is not typically tied to a persons job description that person may decide not to

perform the behavior at all. In this sense, citizenship has more freedom to vary than task

performance, and should be comparatively more likely to vary with a persons cognitive or

affective appraisal(i.e., job satisfaction) of the workplace (Organ, 1988).

Researchers started out exploring the role between job satisfaction and OCB, but the

focus soon shifted to fairness. The reasoning here was that satisfaction and its close relative,

commitment, were reflections of the employees attitudestowardthe organization, rather than

direct insights on how they perceive the organization to be acting toward them (Moorman,

Niehoff, & Organ, 1993). While satisfaction and commitment might be influenced by both

cognitions and mood, fairness- thought to be a component of satisfaction- represented a

conscious calculation of the environment. The calculative nature of the cognitive judgment was

thought to be less influenced by stable dispositional factors and less prone to situational

fluctuation than other types of attitudes. Therefore, fairness perceptions represented a potentially

more useful target of study than other attitudinal forms, in terms of both providing a window of

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

6/36


insight into employees cognitions and in foreshadowing potential receptivity to managerial

interventions (Organ, 1988; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). This cognitive approach fit in line nicely

with the emerging social exchange explanation.

Social exchange provided a mechanism for the intuitive link between attitudes and

performance. The idea was that many acts in the workplace are not strictly regulated by

contractual obligations, but through a more implicit and discretionary exchange of resources,

including those more social in nature (Blau, 1964). According to this perspective employees

might perform OCBs out of a sense of obligation to return any number of perceived material or

social benefits they have gained from the organization (Organ, Podsakoff. & MacKenzie, 2006).

Social exchange has received a great deal of credit during the last three decades for linking

employee attitudes and OCB performance, yet as Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) point out,

many ambiguities remain. The precise motive prompting employees to perform OCBs and

logistics of the process are not always clear, as detailed in the following section.

The Social Exchange Perspective

As Cropanzano & Michell (2005) point out, social exchange can refer to a type of

transaction, but has typically been conceptualized as a type of relationshipby OCB theorists

(e.g., Organ, 1988). In this view, organizations function partially through mutually desirable

relationships in which parties give and receive a variety of benefits- including socio-emotional

benefits. When trust has been developed to a critical level, employees can engage in behaviors

beyond the minimum requirement, trusting that they will not be taken advantage of, but rather

their needs will be met through this ongoing relationship. In this light, social exchange does not

explicitly specify motives beyond the desire to maintain the exchange relationship.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

7/36


But researchers have given a few possible motives for engaging in OCB from this

perspective, or for sustaining the relationship. Indeed, without an explanation as to why

employees might be motivated to engage in such an exchange, the perspective would not offer

much in the way of explanation or prediction of behavior. Concerning motives on the

employees parts, there have generally been two similar, yet distinct, lines of reasoning within

the social exchange perspective for why people might perform OCBs. First, when people

perceive that they are treated fairly, the norm of reciprocity says that they should reciprocate

(Blau, 1964). So people perform OCBs in order to give back to the organization, or

organizational leader. This explanation is typically linked to group-value literature, placing

heavy emphasis on the quality of the relationship, such that employees are guided to return

benefits in order to maintain the social exchange relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005;

Cropanzano et al., 2001). The second line of reasoning is similar but slightly more proactive:

Because Im treated fairly, I can act now, trusting that my contributions will be fairly rewarded

over the long-term. Typically these explanations imply a trade-off such that the employee is

sacrificing something in the short-term with the expectation that in the long-run they will be

fairly compensated for their efforts (e.g., Organ & Moorman, 1991).

Again, OCB researchers have typically not focused on disentangling motives when

discussing social exchange. They have typically provided arguments similar to one of the above,

or a combination of these, to explain why employees might partake in social exchange, but

focused most attention on linking perceptions of justice to citizenship behavior. Whether or not

OCBs are performed proactively or reactively, with or without motivation beyond sustaining the

social exchange relationship, there are three core features defining social exchange according to

Organ and colleagues (2006, p. 72):

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

8/36


1. Voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returnsthey areexpected to bring and typically in fact do bring from others (Blau, 1964, p. 91)

2. The obligation by a party to reciprocate a benefit voluntarily rendered by someother party. However, the obligation is unspecified as to form degree, or time of

reciprocation

3. It depends on trust- that is, confidence that the other party will, in good time andin some appropriate manner and situation, reciprocate benefits, contributions, or

favors; reciprocation cannot be enforced by appeal to third parties.

These statements primarily encompass the motives of individual actions rather than the

relationship itself. In the end, it seems, we cannot fully understand the relationship without

understanding individual motives, and likewise cannot fully understand individual motives

without appreciating the complex nature of benefits accrued through dynamic relationships. In

reality, there are likely multiple benefits and motives underlying each action in social exchange

(Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008a), making it difficult to identify where and when the social

exchange label may be applied to a set of transactions. In an effort to clarify this, I have

identified some additional assumptions that seem necessary, but not sufficient, components of

social exchange, starting with assumptions regarding the nature of exchanges:

1. Dyadic: Both parties are actively involved as giver and receiver in the exchangeof non-contractual benefits.

2. Non-contracted/non-explicit: Further, both similarly view benefits as (mostly)discretionary in order to qualify as, and maintain, social exchange (Cropanzano

& Mitchell, 2005). It is the perceived discretion over form and timing that

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

9/36


primarily otherwise would be economic exchange from social exchange (Organ et

al., 2006)

3. Frequent: Social exchanges should be ongoing and frequent in order to maintaina generalized sense of obligation toward one another, and trust in reciprocity.

4. Observable: Both sides should be able to see something in order to feel anobligation to reciprocate

5. Long-Term Stablility:Roughly equivalent exchange will occur over the long-term, but not necessarily in the short-term

6.

Benefits are Beneficial: In order to maintain social exchange, receiving parties

must actually perceive that the discretionary acts are desirable.

Although implied above, there are also a number of assumptions that pertain to the cognitions of

the actor:

1. Action is Desirable: Discretionary behavior is assumed to be received by theother graciously, and perceived as a benefit.

2. Trust in Reciprocity: An actor must trust the other party to return the benefits.3. Discretionary Benefits: To sustain the social exchange relationship, the actor

must believe beyond those they would expect from the contractual relationship.

To summarize, social exchange entails an inherently long-term set of transactions in

which parties exchange benefits on the basis of trusting organizational relationships. This has

been used as a generalized explanation for why employees might engage in citizenship

behaviors, although the exact motive may depend on the individual employee, as well as the

degree to which the social exchange relationship represents a substantial benefit in its own right

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Regardless of what the employee perceives to be getting out of

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

10/36


the relationship, the belief in just returns over the long-term should be enough to promote action

that is not otherwise guaranteed a reward, namely, citizenship behavior. Social exchange, then,

does not specify the exact benefit or motivation for employees engaging in this type of exchange

aside from including socio-emotional benefits, as opposed to purely economic benefits. When

viewed at the more general level the perspective presents no major problems, yet it seems that

researchers are inconsistently inferring motivation. The assumptions I have listed above are not

consistent with alldescriptions of social exchange (e.g., Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008b, on

p. 179, propose a social exchange mechanism not requiring perceptions of justice), but they

provide a greater degree of precision and predictive power than that which has been previously

afforded, and they should help researchers to be more mindful when inferring underlying

motivation.

Social Exchanges Impact on the Literature and Key Findings

As I mentioned earlier, the social exchange explanation for OCB was developed

alongside the view that cognitions about treatment by the organization would provide a cleaner

and more efficient entrance into the link between employee attitudes and performance.

Specifically, early scholars theorized that it was the belief in the organization as a microcosm of

a just world (Organ & Moorman, 1993, p.8) that would be most important to subsequent

OCBs, proposing that the belief frees the rational person from the hold of immediate returns to

self and justifies contributions in the form of OCB (Organ & Moorman, p. 9). Interestingly,

these scholars compared the development of organizational cognitions in the workers to the

cognitive development of a child, explaining in the end that where they differ is that adults are

more likely to place emphasis on the processes underlying reward distribution, because, unlike

children, they understand the human intervention in the process. Before contributing in the form

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

11/36


of OCB, then, adult workers should trust the people and processes in the system to consistently

meet their needs.

Much of the research from the social exchange perspective has thus focused not on the

outcomes afforded through the exchange, but on indications of systemic, consistent fairness from

the actors perspective. More specifically, this has led researchers to examine perceptions of

fairness in terms of procedural justice- justice in terms of the people or systems determining how

resources should be allocated. Other forms of justice have also been examined, and more

recently have been distinguished according to the intended source of OCB (Fassina et al.,

2008a). Findings centered on perceptions of justice, and to a lesser extent attitudes formed

towardthe organization, have been the primary sources of data gathered to support social

exchange as an explanation for OCB. It is outside the scope of this paper to present all of the

research findings used to support the perspective, but here I present some of the key findings.

Key Findings

Perceptions of fair treatment appear to contribute to OCB performance beyond what can

be accounted for by attitudes reflecting how the employee feels towardthe organization.

Moorman (1991), for example, found that job fairness (procedural justice) accounted for

variance in explaining OCB performance beyond what was accounted for by job satisfaction,

implying that employees feelings toward the organization might be secondary to judgments of

fair treatment in determining behaviors. Similarly, Moorman and colleagues (1993) found that

when controlling for commitment and satisfaction, procedural justice carried additional variance

in predicting three of the five OCB dimensions tested: courtesy, sportsmanship, and

conscientiousness (but not altruism or civic virtue). On the other hand, Fassina and colleagues

(2008b) found in a recent meta-analysis that job satisfaction also influences the performance of

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

12/36


OCB beyond the effects of justice, suggesting that both perceptions of justice and feelings of

satisfaction contribute to performance of OCB in slightly different ways. These findings suggest

that social exchange is appropriate to the extent that employee cognitions of treatment by the

employer, organization, or workgroup are related to their own behaviors are linked to an

exchange for their own contributions to the relationship in the form of OCB.

Konovsky and Pugh (1994) also contributed to our understanding of how social exchange

works by their finding that feelings of trust mediate the relationship between procedural justice

and OCB, but not between distributive justice and OCB. This, they explained, supports the social

exchange perspective because perceptions of procedural fairness promote trust for reciprocation

in future interactions, which is required in order for social exchange to occur. Distributive

justice, on the other hand, is more likely indicative of economic exchange, where explicit

agreements reduce ambiguities and the need to rely on judgments of trust. This and similar

findings have been taken as indication that procedural fairness provides security over concerns

about future treatment, allowing employees to engage in social exchange.1Overall, perceptions

of justice appear to have a small effect on OCB, with global perceptions of justice (shared

variance between distributive, procedural, and interactional) accounting for 2-3% of the variance

in OCB (Fassina, Jones & Uggerslev, 2008a).

Although not originally proposed as a part of the social exchange perspective, OCBs

also appear to vary according to perceptions of justice specific to the target (i.e., the intended

beneficiary of the OCB), such that interactional justice matters more for OCBs directed toward

individuals, and procedural justice carries more weight for OCBs directed toward the

organization (Lavalle et al., 2009; LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002; Yoon & Suh, 2003). To the

extent that perceptions of justice are important to the performance of OCB because they

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

13/36


represent trust that OCBs will be reciprocated, target-specific effects are generally supportive of

an underlying social exchange mechanism (Fassina et al., 2008a).

To summarize, justice, satisfaction, trust, and commitment appear to play similar, yet

slightly different roles as predictors of OCB (e.g., Fassina et al., 2008b; Moorman, 1991;

Williams & Anderson, 1991; Yoon & Suh, 2003). Researchers have primarily taken relationships

between procedural justice and OCB as support for the social exchange perspective. This line of

thinking has led to some important insights in terms of identifying different types of justice,

distinguishing between types of OCB and their targets, and positing explanations for these

effects. One study even shows that OCB can be increased with a justice intervention (Skarlicki &

Latham, 1997). Yet the research conducted from this perspective tends to explain little variance

in terms of OCB performed, and appears to be capturing only part of the story. Below, I revisit

assumptions of the social exchange perspective and use these to show where further investigation

is needed.

Revisiting the Notion of Social Exchange as an Explanation for Employee Citizenship: An

Incomplete Story

In terms of the assumptions listed earlier, many features of the social exchange relationship

have been left unexamined by the extant research. In this section I discuss missing pieces of the

puzzle that currently undermine support for the social exchange mechanism. I start by revisiting

the assumptions underlying the exchange and actor cognitions, then I discuss where the evidence

attained so far may be unreliable as a pure indication of social exchange.

Evidence around Process Assumptions

The first assumption underlying the exchange process was that it is dyadic in nature, with

both parties actively involved as giver and receiver in the exchange of non-contractual benefits.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

14/36


Research thus far has typically been conducted from the employee side only, and even here only

examining what the employee judges as the likelihood of reciprocation (implied from justice),

and their contributions to the exchange. In order to truly determine whether or not the exchange

is dyadic, we would need to be able to see how changes on either side would affect behavior on

the other.

The second assumption is that reciprocation is non-contracted or non-explicit, that is, the

timing and form of reciprocation is left to discretion. Research indicates that many employees

view OCBs as a part of the job (Morrison, 1994; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004), and early on

scholars noted the importance of careful distinction between in-role effects and extra-role effects

(Williams & Anderson, 1991), yet researchers in this sphere have typically not restricted analysis

to OCBs that were indeed considered discretionary. We also do not know what, if any,

benefits from the employers side are considered by either party to be discretionary.

Social exchanges and accompanying interactions should also be frequent enough to

maintain the generalized sense of obligation toward one another and trust in reciprocity. Because

researchers have not typically inquired into the nature of the benefits perceived to have been

given and received in the interaction, it makes it difficult to question the frequency at which they

are exchanged. Further, it become harder to test the assumption that the benefits being exchanged

are actually observable enough to provoke reciprocation in the form of continued social

exchange.

Social exchange relationships are more personal and reliant on trust for continuation over

the long-term, yet researchers have failed to test whether these relationships are actually stable

over long periods of time. Instead, the majority have relied on cross-sectional studies (Organ et

al., 2006), which clearly falls short in capturing an explanation reliant on long-term relationships.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

15/36


Given the difficulty and resources involved in longitudinal studies a complementary alternative

might be inquiry into how these relationships are built in the first place.

To declare an exchange a social exchange, parties must believe that the resources being

exchanged are discretionary, but also desirable or beneficial. Cropanzano & Mitchell (2005)

propose that the key is a match in perceptions of the relationship or the exchange from the two

sides. That is, in order for social exchange to take place successfully both parties must indeed

believe that the exchange is a social one and feel they are somehow benefitting from this more

personal relationship- but some employees or employers might prefer reciprocity in the form of

economic exchange, or the agreed-upon transactions. As the research currently stands, it is

difficult to distinguish whether the parties involved actually prefer social to economic exchange,

or categorize these in the same way. Bergeron (2007) notes that there is likely a trade-off to

OCBs, and they may take away from important task behavior. OCBs directed toward the

organization or supervisor then might not always be kindly received. If no desire exists for

exchanges beyond those made explicit, or if actions are performed out of perceived necessity

rather than discretion, we cannot confidently label this as a social exchange. In short, this

assumption must be tested if we are to label an exchange as social.

Evidence around Cognitions of the Actor

The first assumption here was that the actors contribution is primarily beneficial or

desirable to the other party, and will be received graciously. We are currently lacking evidence

that employees performing social exchange behaviors such as OCBs actually believe they are

primarily benefitting the other party. That is, we might wish to confirm that people perform

OCBs primarily because they are deemed valuable to some other person or entity, rather than

because they are directly rewarding to the party performing the action. This distinction becomes

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

16/36


especially key considering recent evidence by Bolino, Grant, and Harvey (in press)

demonstrating that OCB directed toward the organization can actually directly benefit the

individual by strengthening feelings of self-worth. Interestingly, this was true only for

individuals motivated by prosocial values, or concern for the organization, while those who

performed OCBs for impression management reasons (including the desire to build up future

returns) made a trade-off such that feelings of self-worth were actually lowered by the

performance of OCBs. The point here we can no longer assume that the other as the

immediate beneficiary if individuals can gain direct reward with or without accompanied

benefits from the other.

Trust in reciprocity is another assumed cognition of the actor. This is the assumption that

has received the most attention and support, but without controlling for other motives we cannot

assume that this should represent social exchange. I will return to this point in the next section.

The final assumption around actor cognition in the social exchange perspective is that the

actor must believe the benefits they receive are in fact discretionary, rather than something they

are entitled to as a part of the contracted exchange (behaviors expected in exchange for the

paycheck). We need to determine what behaviors employees might consider discretionary on

the part of employers and/or supervisors. Without this we cannot truly say that a perceived

obligation to reciprocate in the form of OCB exists. For example, is fair and respectful treatment

between human beings a right, or aprivilege? If a privilege, then employees might see this as a

discretionary behavior which they ought to return in some fashion. This can easily be considered

within the framework of social exchange. But if respectful treatment is a right then we are still

left wondering what employees perceive to be getting out of the exchange relationship. On a

related note we might ask: When employees do things like take time away from their regular

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

17/36


work to help on an unexpected project, or intentionally portray the organization in a positive

light during their off-hours- are these things that are considered a rightof the employer, or a

privilege? Research has found that perceptions of role breadth vary between individuals and

across job levels, and employees performance of OCB partially depends on whether or not they

perceive it to be a part of their job (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Morrison, 1994). If employees

perceive these behaviors to be a part of their job, this might be better considered under the

economic exchange framework- especially because researchers typically infer social exchange

from the perspective of the employee only. Alternatively, we might choose to measure perceived

relationship. The trouble here is that not all are in agreement that some specific type of

relationship underlies social exchange. On the other hand, one of the few explicit assumptions

stated by theorists is that the relationship provokes a sense of obligation. To test this assumption,

then, researchers should attempt to determine whether that obligation, if unfulfilled, leads to a

reduction of discretionary behavior.

Social exchange is based on the premise that perceptions of fairness or justice strengthen

relationships and trust over time, and the norm of reciprocity present in these relationships holds

that people will feel obligated to return any good deeds. In order to go above and beyond their

level of required work, then, people should perceive that the organization or leader is meeting or

exceeding that which is owed to them as an employee. Strictly speaking, some might say that

which is owed to an employee is a paycheck. Others might say that employees are deserving of

respect, and a lack of respect indicates a lack of justice or fairness. Still others might say that

employees should be given the tools they need to adequately do the work theyve been hired to

do, and that fairness is achieved when they are given access to these tools. The point here is that

just as understanding of an employers expectations will vary from employee to employee, so

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

18/36


will employee expectations for what is owed to them as a part of the contractual relationship,

therefore researchers should exercise caution in labeling types of exchange without

understanding employee expectations.

Justice as an Indicator of Social Exchange

Researchers of OCB have often relied on justice-especially procedural justice- as a proxy

for social exchange. Despite some inconsistencies in effect sizes and covariances, perceptions of

justice have emerged consistently as a predictor of employee OCB. Again, the thought here is

that perceptions of fairness in interactions and procedures now reassures employees that they can

trust they will be taken care of in the future, allowing them to contribute as they see fit, without

needing to see immediate rewards. Given the evidence accumulated, we might infer that as far as

these types of justice go, social exchange is occurring. In this section I aim to show why even

this inference may be premature.

As I pointed out earlier there are multiple motivations that might be inferred from the

social exchange literature. Likewise, there are several reasons employees might rely on a sense

of justice or trust in the relationship before deciding to contribute in the form of OCB. The sense

of psychological safety underlying judgments of trust or justice frees employees from the

restriction of fear, but is not a motivation in its own right because it must be accompanied by

some other motive in order to lead to action. Building on Organ and colleagues (2006) emphasis

around feelings of obligation as a key to the exchange process, psychological safety would not be

sufficient because it would simply allow OCB to occur without the fear that one might be taken

advantage of, not imply a sense of obligation to initiate the behavior. Nor would it necessarily

ensure the belief that actions in the form of OCB will produce some personally desirable

outcome. Despite some scholars beliefs that OCB research has tended to assume self-serving

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

19/36


motives (e.g., Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004), a closer examination of the social exchange

explanation reveals that, according to this perspective, employees ultimately act in order to

receive some sort of benefit in return. Justice is key to this perspective then because it ensures

that benefits will in fact be reciprocated.

Looking at the various operationalizations of justice, though, one might get the sense that

there are additional reasons this might be important for an employees discretionary action.

Perhaps more importantly than representing the likelihood of reciprocation, justice holds its

importance as an indicator that an employees effort will not be needlessly wasted. That is,

respectful treatment and fair procedures might symbolize the employers desires to

systematically make sound judgments in all areas. Therefore to the extent an employee believes

the leaders are headed in the right direction, making the extra effort to help a colleague, put in

extra effort, or speak up on the companys behalf can be viewed as worthwhile- these efforts are

contributing to an organzation that is sure to use resources effectively.

In both of these views, justice serves to reduce uncertainty around outcomes (Lind & van

den Bos, 2002) - the difference is that in one case outcomes hold their importance in ensuring

that personal needs will be met (the social exchange view), whereas in the other case employees

are concerned more with the connection of their work to organizational outcomes. In the latter,

an employees perception of expected reciprocity, or expected personal benefit, appears to be

overshadowed by the direct benefits associated with perceived influence (e.g., Grant, 2007;

Snape & Redman, 2010).

Problems in Measuring Justice

There also appear to be several problems with the way justice is currently measured, as

well as the inferences based on this measurement. Many of the arguments for using justice

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

20/36


measures come from Allan Linds early work (e.g., Lind & Taylor, 1988), but more recently he

and a colleague have presented a compelling case that fairness may not be of fundamental

importance in determining behavior, and in fact may only matter when the ability to trust is

unclear (Lind & van den Bos, 2002) . This theory of uncertainty management is based on

evidence that relationships between fairness and subsequent actions are stronger in cases when

outcomes are unclear or when trust in an authority figure is not certain. They also proposed that

if information from one type of justice is missing perceptions from another type of justice may

be used to fill in the blanks (e.g., distributive justice for procedural justice). This is important for

a number of reasons. First, it signals that using measurements of justice might not be appropriate

in cases where trustworthiness is already well-established, and likewise, where trustworthiness is

uncertain, justice may serve as a more sensitive measurement. Second, if fairness heuristics are

used to inform ratings on the basis of whatever data is available, shared variance between the

different types of justice are likely to be inflated. Recent meta-analytic findings have indeed

suggested that shared variance between procedural, distributive, and interactional justice was

greater than isolated justice effects (Fassina et al., 2008a).

If justice measurements have problems independently, these only multiply when used in

combination with similarly complex constructs. Skarlicki & Latham (1997) performed a quasi-

experiment in which they tested an intervention designed to increase perceptions of justice. The

intervention consisted of training one set of union leaders in how to increase their

communication, respect, and openness toward union members. They then compared their

members perceptions of justice and subsequent OCBs with members from control groups,

finding that the intervention did positively impact both perceptions of justice and OCB

performance in the training group. As noted earlier, this has been regarded as a key point of

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

21/36


support in the social exchange OCB literature. This seems convincing on the surface, but looking

deeper indicates other possible mechanisms acting on OCB. Much of the intervention was

centered on teaching leaders how to give employees a chance to make their voices be heard, and

the procedural justice questionnaire also asked employees questions about their ability to voice

concerns. Further, the OCB measure tapped into members active participation in the union,

which might be might also be thought of in terms of expressing ones voice. Rather than

inferring social exchange, then, it seems more parsimonious to assume that the intervention

aimed at increasing opportunities for union members to have their voices heard simply increased

their perceived ability to voice concerns, which subsequently increased their active use of that

voice. Greater attention to competing explanations such as this one are needed to guide us in

identifying the mechanisms of social exchange and the performance of OCB.

The Link between Justice and OCB

Adding to the problems stemming from the measurements themselves, using supervisor

ratings of employee behavior might be inflating the correlation between justice and OCB.

According to the social exchange perspective employees contribute in the form of OCBs

because they expect to receive some sort of reciprocation. Again, this relies on the assumption

that the employer will notice and appreciate the behavior. Yet OCBs are by definition less

likely to be enforceable job requirements than task behaviors (Organ, 1997), with the implicit

reasoning being that they are more dependent on situation than are task behaviors, and therefore

more challenging for a manager to observe and regulate in any systematic fashion.

Bergeron (2007) proposed that individuals may differ in how visible their OCB is to

supervisors and that through the performance appraisal process this visibility could moderate the

relationship between OCB and individual career outcomes. If supervisors assessments of OCB

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

22/36


are skewed in the performance appraisal process, they are probably also biased in research

surveys asking for reports of subordinates citizenship behaviors. Just because a supervisor does

not notice an employees OCB behaviors, it does not necessarily follow that the employee has

not performed these behaviors. Because OCBs can be performed by any member of the

organization and can be directed toward multiple targets, they are less likely to appear in some

systematic fashion. Helping a fellow employee, for example, is only helpful if the fellow

employee actually needs the help. It is unlikely that the fellow employee needs help on some

regularly occurring basis- in fact, when individuals judge coworkers to be consistently needy

they are actually less likely to help (Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Oosterhof, 2006). In effect,

OCBs are more likely than task behaviors to be performed on an as-needed basis, which may or

may not catch the attention of the supervisor.

The extent to which OCB is visible to a supervisor for a given employee may then

depend on the frequency of interaction he or she has with that employee. Common sense tells us

that the more two individuals interact, the better the chance one will have an opportunity to

observe anothers behaviors, including those that are infrequent and situational. On the other

hand, as two individuals interact less frequently, the chances for accurate observation of non-

routine behaviors will decline exponentially. Thus a supervisors rating of OCB is more likely to

be determined, at least in part, by the extent to which he or she interacts with a given employee.

Researchers have used supervisors as the source in an effort to eliminate concern over

common-method bias (Organ et al., 2006). The concern is that employees rating their perceived

level of justice may similarly rate their levels of citizenship in order to reduce cognitive

dissonance. It has been noted that supervisor ratings of OCB may not be as reliable (e.g., Organ

et al., 2006), yet this may be a bigger issue than it appears on the surface. It is easy to see that

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

23/36


supervisor ratings will not capture the full extent of an employees citizenship behaviors, but the

hidden bias is that they may be picking up some employees behaviors more than others, and this

may be systematically related to employees perceptions of justice. Aside from introducing error

into the outcome of interest, though (OCB ratings), differences in interaction frequency might

also influence employees perceptions of justice.

Over time, fairness has been operationalized in a variety of ways, but these have

typically contained some combination of two elements: the extent to which a person feels

respected as a valuable member of the group, and the extent to which a person is kept in the loop

and given a chance to speak up in procedural matters (Colquitt, 2001). An employee who

interacts more frequently with the supervisor may be more likely to hear explanations for the

supervisors decisions and be given a chance to respond. Further, this employee may feel more

respected and valued as a group member as a result of this increased interaction, assuming the

supervisor is not simply attempting to monitor or control the employees behavior. Frequency of

interaction, it seems, could be biasing both employees justice ratings and supervisors ratings

employees citizenship behaviors in the same direction. If this is the case, we have little reason to

trust the extant data supporting the social exchange perspective.

Rewards through Reciprocation vs. Rewards through Involvement

Skewed measurements of justice might also be leading OCB researchers to erroneously

attribute the mechanism of influence based on a flawed understanding of why justice really

matters. As Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ (1993) point out, procedural justice taps into

procedures that allow employees to exercise voice, which might intuitively be labeled under the

self-interest model rather than the relational or group value model (Lind & Taylor, 1988).

Yet a later finding by Lind and colleagues (1990) indicated that it was the procedure itself that

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

24/36


invoked the fairness perceptions, not control over the outcome, leading to the conclusion that

procedural justice holds its primary value in indicating a persons worth within the group. That

is, according to these scholars procedural justice is important to people primarily because it

ensures they will not be taken advantage of, or because they value involvement in the group as

an end in itslf, rather than because they associate it with specific future rewards (Moorman et al.,

1993).

Cropanzano, Byrne, & Bobocel (2001) perhaps provide the most comprehensive discussion as to

why justice matters, outlining three key perspectives: instrumental, relational/group value, and

moral virtues. The instrumental approach, they explain, is a type of economic exchange, and is

based on the idea that people have a need for control, and fair situations offer greater control

over the long-term. This sense of control is not limited to outcomes, but can pertain to a sense of

control over theprocessin the form of voice. The relational approach, on the other hand, is based

on the idea that people need to feel a part of the group, and so to the extent that they are allowed

to do so, they will perceive that they are being treated fairly. The difference between the

instrumental and relational views, they explain, is the distinction between economic concerns

(instrumental) and social concerns (relational). Finally, the moral virtues approach is

conceptualized as a more general concern for the well-being of all people.

On the surface it would seem that the instrumental view captures economic exchange,

while the relational view captures social exchange, and therefore only the relational view would

be pertinent in the application of social exchange. A person who values justice primarily for the

sake of involvement in the process, or the satisfaction of the need for control might then tend to

develop greater trust and grow closer to leaders or organizations that allow them to become more

involved in the process. But then why would this person perform OCB? It is possible that the

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

25/36


higher quality relationship developed then sparks a felt need to reciprocate in the form of

additional contributions to the organization or leader, and the trust that future contributions will

be recognized.

On the other hand, it seems possible that the person who desires involvement and even

perceives the opportunity for involvement as fair might also wish to be involved in activities

beyond those that are restricted specifically to his or her job. OCBs can offer a form of process

control because they offer greater discretion than do task behaviors (Organ et al., 2006). The

point here is that when process control serves as the major determinant or motivator of justice

perceptions, it could also provide the impetus for performing OCB. Research on OCB from the

social exchange perspective has typically not attempted to distinguish between participants

reasons for valuing fairness, and the motivation for performing OCB has typically been inferred

from theoretical arguments. If process control serves to both shape perceptions of fairness and

motivate discretionary behavior, then is the social exchange relationship (with a focus on the

perceived obligation to reciprocate) really explaining citizenship behavior?

While both the instrumental and group-value cases might be argued to fit within the realm of

social exchange (Organ et al., 2006), it is worth considering other possible benefits of this form

of justice such as the possibility that this sense of voice may be beneficial in its own right.

Research in Self-Determination Theory attests to the fact that it is not the perception of control

overoutcomesthat is what drives human behavior so much as it is the perception of choice in

initiatingbehavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore in addition to securing future fair treatment,

having the freedom to speak out when needed might be rewarding to the extent that it satisfies

the basic need for autonomy, or ones perceived control over initiating behavior.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

26/36


I point this out for two reasons. First, if the freedom to get involved in procedures can be

satisfying in its own right, then the freedom to perform OCBs might also be satisfying in its own

right. Second, if people care about this type of fairness because they see it as a basic human need

rather than a group benefit, they may be more likely to view it as part of the employers

obligation, rather than a benefit to be reciprocated or an indicator of status within the

organization.

Social Exchange vs. Economic Exchange

The value of contributing through OCB in the social exchange relationship is not

explicitly specified according to the perspective. This makes sense, as each employee will tend to

differ in the value he or she attaches to various outcomes. Social exchange does tell us there

should be some instrumental value attached to the action, at least to the extent that employees

engage in the exchange in the hopes of receiving benefits from the other party. But

instrumentality seems to carry different connotations for different researchers, with some

distinguishing between OCBs performed as a part of social exchange and OCBs performed for

instrumental reasons (e.g., Hui, Lam and Law, 2000). Expectations of reciprocation are

important to both social exchange and economic exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), it

seems that this reciprocation is just harder to pinpoint in social exchange: the obligation is

unspecified as to form, degree, or time of reciprocation (Organ et al., 2006, p. 72). In this

respect OCB is also instrumental from the social exchange perspective, but the expectations

around return are typically not made explicit. Indeed if an employee wishes to repay some

generosity from the supervisor, he or she might wait for the optimal time to do so, when help is

actually needed, rather than attempting to return the favor immediately. If the supervisor had

specified in advance the conditions for repayment, he or she may have been without help at the

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

27/36


crucial time. In the same way, the return employees reap from their citizenship behaviors may

take a variety of forms, but trust in the supervisor provides some confidence that the return will

be appropriate.

Does this mean that employees cannot have any image of the desired outcome? Hui and

colleagues (2000) found that some employees performed instrumentally in order to gain a

promotion. On the one hand, this might be considered social exchange, as benefits (OCBs) are

being given in the hopes of some future, technically unspecified (no guaranteed link between

OCB and promotion) return. But others might argue that this should not be considered social

exchange, as employees tended to attach a specific return value to the OCBs (promotion), and

discontinued the exchange once this value was received (they performed fewer OCBs after

promotion). A return in the form of promotion was not made explicit by the employer or the

employee at the time of helping- and the degree to which it was expected, as opposed to some

other reward form, is unclear.

It should be fairly obvious that returns are generally expected for good deeds that are

performed, but the link between actions and specific outcomes might be better described as

degrees along a continuum of expectation around contingency, rather than a presence of a

contingent reward versus an ambiguous exchange of rewards. As other scholars have pointed

out, this line can also become blurred by differing perspectives on what is considered part of the

job (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). This surfaces an important question that is not explicitly

addressed by the social exchange perspective: The nature of the exchange (social or economic) is

often difficult to distinguish, without knowledge of the underlying intents, values, and history

between the two sides. Further, the perspective of one side relies on the reactions of the other,

therefore exchange is unlikely to be accurately assessed at a single point in time.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

28/36


Re-evaluating the Reasons for the Social Exchange Framework

I have reviewed empirical evidence in terms of social exchange and discussed areas

where more research is needed. In this section I revisit the value of the social exchange

perspective at a higher level by examining the framework in terms of its original purpose (Organ,

1988; Organ et al., 2006): explaining the relationship between satisfaction (attitudes) and

performance beyond that caused by constraints such as the relative lack of flexibility around

changing the level of task behavior.

We now know that OCBs are often rewarded as a part of performance evaluations, and

linked to other individual career outcomes (Bergeron, 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Even in the

absence of explicit linkages between OCB and tangible outcomes, role breadth can make

cognitive distinction between OCB and task behavior disappear. Given that the line between

OCBs and task behavior is becoming increasingly blurry (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004), we must

wonder whether there is truly any added flexibility around the performance of OCBs. Further,

the unspoken pressures around discretionary behavior might be more binding than overtly

imposed codes of conduct like formal descriptions of task behavior (Barker, 1993). One recent

study indicated that about 75% of the participants felt strong pressure to engage in OCB (Vigoda,

2007) and others have demonstrated the powerful role of workplace norms around OCB (Ehrhart

& Naumann, 2004). If the variance around timing and form of OCB performance comes from

real-time situational demands rather than an employees discretion, the social exchange

perspective is not applicable.

In addition to concerns about the volition involved in citizenship behavior, it is not clear

that the link between attitudes and performance in the form of OCB is any stronger than the link

between attitudes and task performance (Edwards, Bell, Arthur, Winfred, & Decuir, 2008). This

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

29/36


might tell us that social exchange is a less viable explanation for OCB performance, it might

reflect the problems associated with measurement of complex phenomena, or it might be

indicative of an separate set of constraints around changing performance of OCB according to

ones attitude. The first alternative creates serious doubts over the validity of the social exchange

perspective, the second creates doubts over extant findings, and the third tells us that social

exchange might not be important for the reasons originally proposed, but does not completely

rule out its validity.

Conclusion

In this paper I have tried to highlight some of the ways we can begin to examine the assumptions

underlying the social exchange approach. The purpose here is to both clarify research from the

social exchange perspective, and to spark inquiry into other possibilities. At the core of social

exchange is the understanding that in the absence of explicit rewards, humans give to others

because they expect some benefit in return. This explanation is somewhat vague, and in this way

it mirrors the perspective itself. The lack of clarity afforded by previous accounts makes it

difficult to compare results, answer questions, and refine theory, which is needed in order to

move forward in this area (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In order to determine more precise

measurements, strong, explicit theoretical guidance will need to be at the forefront. This is

fundamental to provide a common language and consensus for researchers to systematically

examine the constructs of interest and build upon each others work (Pfeffer, 1993).

In terms of application to OCB, researchers generally assume that it is not the specific

benefit employees are receiving that is critical nor the primary motive driving their action, but

rather it is the trust that reciprocation will prevail that is key. Yet without careful attention to the

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

30/36


nature of expectations and motivations, we cannot rule out other explanations for the results we

find. Are humans acting selfishly, selflessly, or are they exponentially benefitting both the self

and the organization? Depending on the answer, we might intervene in slightly different ways

(e.g., decrease barriers rather than trying to change employee perceptions).

In conclusion, if we wish continue down the social exchange path, I would urge

researchers to carefully consider and systematically test the assumptions and alternatives raised

in this paper. On the other hand, given the small effect sizes and alternative explanations,

perhaps his time might be better spent pursuing other, more promising, alternatives.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

31/36


References

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams,

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408-437.

Bergeron, D. M. (2007)The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Goodcitizens at what cost?Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078-1095.

Blau, P. (1964).Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?

Academy of Management Review, 24, 8298.

Bolino, M. C., Grant, A., & Harvey, J. (in press). Citizenship and self-worth: The role of

citizenship motives

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story:

Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human

Resource Management Review, 14, 229-246.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of

a measure.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,386-400.DOI: 10.1037//0021-

9010.86.3.386.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizizationally directed

citizenship behavior: Reciprocity or its my job?Journal of Management Studies, 41,85-

106.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

32/36


Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D.E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness

heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 58,164-209.

Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management, 31, 874-902. DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and

the self-determination of behavior. PsychologicalInquiry, 11, 227268.

Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, J., Winfred, & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between

facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance.Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 57(3), 441-465. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00328.x

Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A

group norms approach.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960-974.

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008a). Meta-analytic tests of relationships

between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-

variance models.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,805-828.DOI: 10.1002/job.494

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008b). Relationship clean-up time: Using

meta-analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34,161-188.

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Academy of Management Review, 32,393-417.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

33/36


Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression

management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors.Journal

of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900-912.

Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship

behavior for promotion : A field quasi-experiment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

822-828.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.The

Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.

Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Kanovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar,

V. (2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: a

multifoci analysis.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3),337-357.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of

organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis.Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice.New York:

Plenum Press.

Lind, E. A. & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of

uncertainty management.Research in Organizational Behavior, 24,181-223.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

34/36


Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76,845-855.

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and

organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and procedural justice.Employee Responsibilities andRights Journal, 6,

209-225.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviors: The

importance of the employees' perspective.Academy ofManagement Journal, 37, 1543-

1567.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in

task and contextual performance.Human Performance, 10,71-83.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human

Performance, 10, 8597.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of

organizational citizenship behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,157-164.

Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What

are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6,5-18.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

35/36


Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: Its Nature,Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a

dependent variable.Academy of Management Review, 18, 599-620

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3),513-563.

Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B. D., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2009). Individual- and

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-

analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141

Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A

motivational analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,13061314.

Snape, E., & Redman, T. (in press). HRM Practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and

performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Management Studies.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase

citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50,617-

633,

Van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and

interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least.

Academy of Management Journal, 49,877-893.

8/13/2019 wp-10-03

36/36


Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.Journal of Management, 17,

601-617.

Yoon, M. H., & Suh, J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality as

external effectiveness of contact employees.Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 597.

doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00290-9

Zellars, K. L. and Tepper, B. J. (2003). Beyond social exchange: new directions for

organizational citizenship behavior theory and research. In Martocchio, J. J. and Ferris, G.

R. (Eds),Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Amsterdam:

Elsevier JAI Press, 22, 395424.

wp-10-03

Documents

Transcript of wp-10-03