Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unraveling the impact of unethical pro-organizational behavior: the roles of manager-employee exchange, customer-employee exchange, and reciprocity beliefs

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the multifaceted impact of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the context of manger-employee exchange and customer-employee exchange. Using a sample of 238 hair salon triads comprising owner/managers, hairstylist employees, and customers, we tested a hypothesized moderated mediation model. UPB has dual effects on OCB: It enhances manager-employee exchange, leading to increased OCB toward the organization. Simultaneously, UPB is associated with reduced customer-employee exchange, resulting in decreased OCB toward the customer. Moreover, managers’ positive reciprocity beliefs strengthen the positive UPB-manager-employee exchange link, while customers’ negative reciprocity beliefs reinforce the negative UPB-customer-employee exchange association. This study is distinct in its focus on elucidating how UPB influences OCB toward the organization and OCB toward the customer through two distinct forms of social exchange, namely, manager-employee exchange and customer-employee exchange, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Akkermans, J., Tomlinson, M., & Anderson, V. (2023). Initial employability development: Introducing a conceptual model integrating signalling and social exchange mechanisms. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2186783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

  • Bryant, W., & Merritt, S. M. (2021). Unethical pro-organizational behavior and positive leader–employee relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(4), 777–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., Wang, H., Schuh, S. C., Li, J., & Zheng, W. (2023). Toward Understanding Employees’ Responses to Leaders’ Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior: An Outcome Favorability Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–17.

  • Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group competition climate, and customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 511–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Kwan, H. K., & Xin, J. (2022). Is behaving unethically for organizations a mixed blessing? A dual-pathway model for the work-to-family spillover effects of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(4), 1535–1560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Schminke, M. (2023). Feeling guilty and entitled: Paradoxical consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(3), 865–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, K., Zhu, Q., & Lin, Y. (2022). Family–supportive supervisor behavior, felt obligation, and unethical pro–family behavior: The moderating role of positive reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 177, 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, H., & Liu, J. (2023). The dark side of strengths-based approach in the workplace: Perceived strengths-based human resource system spurs unethical pro-organizational behavior. Current Psychology, 42(25), 22062–22071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 787–799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., Guo, X., Cai, Y., & Meng, H. (2023). Mixed blessing of supervisor-subordinate relationship: The instrumental-based mechanism from an inequity perspective of over-reward. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04833-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fulmore, J. A., Fulmore, A. L., Mull, M., & Cooper, J. N. (2023). Reducing employee turnover intentions in the service sector: The connection between human resource development practices and employee engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 34(2), 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, T., & Wang, C. Y. (2021). The effects of a psychological brand contract breach on customers’ dysfunctional behavior toward a brand. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 31(4), 607–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Factors versus composites: Guidelines for choosing the right structural equation modeling method. Project Management Journal, 50(6), 619–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2022). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.).). Guilford Press.

  • Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. R., & Lee, A. (2023). The quality of relationships: An exploration of current leader–member exchange (LMX) research and future possibilities. In D. Schedlitzki, M. Larsson, B. Carroll, & M. C. Bligh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 40–51). Sage.

  • Jiang, W., Liang, B., & Wang, L. (2023). The double-edged sword effect of unethical pro-organizational behavior: The relationship between unethical pro-organizational behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, and work effort. Journal of Business Ethics, 183, 1159–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Qu, H. (2020). The mediating roles of gratitude and obligation to link employees’ social exchange relationships and prosocial behavior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(2), 644–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., McClean, E. J., Doyle, S. P., Podsakoff, N. P., Lin, E., & Woodruff, T. (2022). The positive and negative effects of social status on ratings of voice behavior: A test of opposing structural and psychological pathways. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(6), 951–967.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kingshott, R. P., Gaur, S. S., Sharma, P., Yap, S. F., & Kucherenko, Y. (2021). Made for each other? Psychological contracts and service brands evaluations. Journal of Services Marketing, 35(3), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., Herda, D. N., & Lee, J. (2023). Customer injustice and service employees’ customer-oriented citizenship behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(3), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, E. Y., & Hui, C. (2021). A resource-based perspective on leader-member exchange: An updated meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(1), 317–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. L., Lu, J. G., Zhang, H., & Cai, Y. (2021). Helping the organization but hurting yourself: How employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior predicts work-to-life conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 167, 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, B., Li, F., Liu, Z., Qu, X., & Men, C. (2023). To voice or not to voice? Employee caring practice, employee gratitude, and positive reciprocity norm in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 114, 103571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, E., & Qu, H. (2011). Social exchanges as motivators of hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: The proposition and application of a new three-dimensional framework. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 680–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, E., Qu, H., Wilson, M., & Eastman, K. (2013). Modeling OCB for hotels: Don’t forget the customers. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(3), 308–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, E., Wang, Y. C., Xu, S. T., & Wang, D. (2022). Clarifying the multi-order multidimensional structure of organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-cultural validation. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 50, 83–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, E., Wang, D., Wang, L., & Liu, A. (2023). Industry as contexts or theory? A systematic and meta-analysis of status and directions of organizational citizenship behaviors in hospitality. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 47(5), 877–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao, J. Y., Xiao, J., Liu, X., Qing, T., & Xu, H. (2023). Emulating coworkers: How and when coworker ideation facilitates employee ideation. Creativity Research Journal, 35(1), 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, M., Ghosh, K., & Sharma, D. (2022). Unethical pro-organizational behavior: A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 179, 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R., Moore, M. L., & Capella, M. (2005). The impact of customer-to-customer interactions in a high personal contact service setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 482–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Park, Y. N., & Gong, T. (2023). Curvilinear relationship between customer engagement and responses to service failures. The Service Industries Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2164273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rigdon, E. E., Becker, J. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Factor indeterminacy as metrological uncertainty: Implications for advancing psychological measurement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(3), 429–443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2022). SmartPLS 4: Oststeinbek: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com.

  • Sabiote, E. F., & Román, S. (2009). The influence of social regard on the customer–service firm relationship: The moderating role of length of relationship. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(4), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sok, K. M., Sok, P., Snell, L., & Qiu, P. (2018). Does transformational leadership always matter in frontline service roles? Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 28(6), 733–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tacke, F., Knockaert, M., Patzelt, H., & Breugst, N. (2023). When do greedy entrepreneurs exhibit unethical pro-organizational behavior? The role of new venture team trust. Journal of Management, 49(3), 974–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, P. M., Yam, K. C., & Koopman, J. (2020). Feeling proud but guilty? Unpacking the paradoxical nature of unethical pro-organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 68–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, P. M., Yam, K. C., Koopman, J., & Ilies, R. (2022). Admired and disgusted? Third parties’ paradoxical emotional reactions and behavioral consequences towards others’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 75(1), 33–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, K. Y., Chih, W. H., & Honora, A. (2023). How the emoji use in apology messages influences customers’ responses in online service recoveries: The moderating role of communication style. International Journal of Information Management, 69, Article102618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L. Z., Zhang, H., Chiu, R. K., Kwan, H. K., & He, X. (2014). Hostile attribution bias and negative reciprocity beliefs exacerbate incivility’s effects on interpersonal deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, S., Yaacob, Z., & Cao, D. (2023). Casting light on the dark sSide: Unveiling the dual-edged effect of unethical pro-organizational behavior in ethical climate. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05457-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, L., Ayub, A., Ishaq, M., Arif, S., Fatima, T., & Sohail, H. M. (2022). Workplace ostracism and employee silence in service organizations: The moderating role of negative reciprocity beliefs. International Journal of Manpower, 43(6), 1378–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2009). An integrated model of customer social exchange relationship: The moderating role of customer experience. The Service Industries Journal, 29(11), 1513–1528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Impact of employee pro-organizational unethical behavior on performance evaluation rated by supervisor: A moderated mediation model of supervisor bottom-line mentality. Chinese Management Studies, 16(1), 102–118.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., & Xu, D. (2023). Unethical pro-supervisor behavior and employees’ family satisfaction: The roles of workplace ostracism and work–home segmentation preference. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04724-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., & Zhou, B. (2023). Impact of Mianzi consciousness on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The roles of impression management motive, educational level, party affiliation in China. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05432-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., Wu, J., & Gu, J. (2022). Higher-quality leader-member exchange (LMX), higher-level voice? The impact of LMX differentiation and LMX mean on promotive and prohibitive team voice. Current Psychology, 41, 4692–4710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H., Ye, Y., Zhou, M., & Li, Y. (2023). The impact of customer sexual harassment on customer-oriented OCB: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2022-0909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zonghua, L., Junyun, L., Yulang, G., Ming, Z., & Xu, W. (2023). The effect of corporate social responsibility on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The mediation of moral identity and moderation of supervisor-employee value congruence. Current Psychology, 42(17), 14283–14296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University (HY-2023-3433).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Economics, Hanyang University ERICA, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan, Gyeonggi-do, 15588, Republic of Korea

    Taeshik Gong

Authors
  1. Taeshik Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taeshik Gong.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Hanyang University. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate/for publication

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gong, T. Unraveling the impact of unethical pro-organizational behavior: the roles of manager-employee exchange, customer-employee exchange, and reciprocity beliefs. Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05737-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05737-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation