The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-6014.htm

RIBS
26,2
Relationship of liking and social
exchange to supervisor-directed
organizational citizenship
232 behavior in the Arabian Gulf
Received 24 October 2013 Unnikammu Moideenkutty
Revised 19 March 2014
22 March 2014 Management Department, Sultan Qaboos University, Al Khod, Oman, and
28 April 2014
19 May 2014 Stuart Schmidt
Accepted 1 June 2014
Human Resource Administration Department, Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to explore the relationship among liking, social exchange
and supervisor-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
Design/methodology/approach – Employees and their supervisors were surveyed to obtain data
from 202 subordinates and 33 supervisors.
Findings – Results indicated that liking is positively related to social exchange and
supervisor-directed OCB. Contrary to expectations, social exchange did not partially mediate the
relationship between liking and citizenship.
Research limitations/implications – A limitation of the study is that it was correlational. The lack
of support for mediating effect of social exchange suggests the need for further research with data
collected from different sources.
Practical implications – Liking has positive effects on both social exchange relationship and
supervisor-directed OCB. Trust is an important element of social exchange. Liking may be an
independent source of influence on supervisor-directed OCB.
Social implications – Liking, an affective variable, may be an important influence in organizational
behavior. It represents positive organizational behavior which is currently generating significant
scholarly attention.
Originality/value – This study was conducted in the Sultanate of Oman, an Arabian Gulf country. To
the authors’ knowledge, this is the first such study done in the region. In this study, the authors include
trust as a representative of the quality of relationship between supervisor and subordinates. Unlike
leader–member exchange (LMX), trust has rarely been related to liking in previous studies. Study tests
for social exchange (including supervisory trust) as a mediator of the relationship between liking and
supervisor-directed OCB.
Keywords Oman, Social exchange, Liking
Supervisor-directed organizational citizenship behaviour
Paper type Research paper

Review of International Business

and Strategy Liking or positive affect is an important, though relatively less researched, variable in
Vol. 26 No. 2, 2016
pp. 232-243
organizational behavior that has important implications for employee attitudes and
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2059-6014
behavior (Casciaro and Lobo, 2008; Liden et al., 1993; Wayne et al., 1997). Liking has been
DOI 10.1108/RIBS-10-2013-0107 found to be an important determinant of social exchange relationship between
supervisors and subordinates that is in turn related to positive employee outcomes Relationship
(Liden et al., 1993; Wayne et al., 1997). The purpose of this study was to explore the of liking and
relationships among liking and social exchange between supervisors and employees
and supervisor-directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Organ, 1988; Organ
social
et al., 2006). exchange
The data for this study were collected from the Sultanate of Oman. Oman is in the
Arabian Gulf region which is the major producer and exporter of oil and gas in the 233
world. The population of Oman is estimated to be 3.83 million including about 1.68
million foreigners (Muscat Daily, 2013). Almost 30 per cent of the Omani population is
below 14 years of age. The total oil production of Oman in 2012 was 924,000 barrels per
day. The proven oil reserves of Oman, as on January 1, 2012, was 5.5 billion barrels (US
Energy Information Administration, 2014). Despite its economic and demographic
importance, relatively little management research has been done in this region in
general and Oman in particular (Weir, 2002).
Unlike most countries where management research is done, Arabian Gulf countries
are characterized by the presence of a large proportion of foreign workers (Al-Hamadi
et al., 2007). Even though the rate of unemployment among the locals is estimated to be
10 to 15 per cent, about 85 per cent of the private sector workforce in Oman consists of
foreigners (Gulf Business, 2014). Foreign workers have no permanent residential status
in the host country and seek overseas employment without sponsorship from any
organization in their home countries. They are different from expatriates because,
expatriates are sent on overseas assignments with sponsorship from a home country
organization (Ang et al., 2003). Foreign workers are usually hired on short-term
renewable contracts. At least in theory, these contracts are renewed on the basis of
performance. Replacing foreign workers is relatively inexpensive for organizations
because recruitment costs are often borne by employees, especially for unskilled and
semi-skilled categories. These conditions create the context for an instrumental
approach to employee relations. On the other hand, the local employees are hired on
permanent contracts, and it is difficult to terminate their services due to legal
constraints. Relatively little research has been done on the dynamics of the supervisor–
employee relationship in these contexts.
Although liking has been traditionally studied as an antecedent of social exchange
relationship between supervisors and subordinates, especially in LMX research (Liden
et al., 1993; Wayne et al., 1997), in the recent past, very few studies have focused on this
variable. Casciaro and Lobo (2008) looked at liking among co-workers and found that it
was an important determinant of a person’s choice of a partner for task interactions.
Studying the relationships between buyers and sales reps, Nicholson et al. (2001) found
that liking was related to trust in long-term channel relationships. These researchers
argue that liking has a richer and qualitatively different relationship to trust than other
cognitive antecedents. Ferrin et al. (2007), in a conceptual paper, argue that trust
increases cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. The roots of
affiliation-oriented OCB (MacKenzie et al., 2011) lie in the willingness to cooperate.
In this study, we attempt to replicate and extend the research on liking between
supervisors and subordinates. Most of the studies on liking have been done on Western
samples. Our sample consists of supervisor–subordinate dyads from the Sultanate of
Oman, an Arabian Gulf country. To our knowledge, this is the first such study done in
the region. In addition to LMX, in this study, we include trust as a representative of
RIBS social exchange relationship between supervisor and subordinates. Finally, we test for
26,2 social exchange relationship between supervisor and subordinates, represented by
LMX and trust, as a partial mediator of the relationship between liking and
supervisor-directed OCB.

Supervisor directed-organizational citizenship behavior

234 Organ (1988) described OCB as discretionary behavior that is not explicitly required or
formally rewarded by the organization, but at the same time in the aggregate
contributes to organizational effectiveness. Later, Organ revised the definition of OCB
as behavior that supports the social and psychological environment in which task
performance takes place (Organ, 1997). In this study, we focus on supervisor-directed
OCB because research (Masterson et al., 2000) suggests that the quality of relationship
with supervisor is related to this category of OCB. Examples of supervisor-directed OCB
include, accepting extra duties and responsibilities at work, working overtime when
needed, and helping supervisors with their work.

Social exchange relationships

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is commonly used in organizational behavior
research as a framework for studying OCB (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Konovsky
and Pugh, 1994; Wayne et al., 1997). Blau (1964) distinguished between economic and
social exchange. According to Blau, social exchange involves favors that create diffuse
future obligations where the nature of the return cannot be bargained. Economic
exchange on the other hand involves contractually specified obligations to be rendered
at specific times (Organ and Konovsky, 1989). Because the obligations are contractual,
economic exchange does not depend on trust. Unlike economic exchange, social
exchange promotes feelings of personal obligation, gratitude and trust resulting in
enduring social patterns (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).
Building on the work of Blau (1964), Organ and Konovsky (1989) distinguished
between social and economic exchange relationships. They focused on the interpersonal
attachment or enduring social patterns that develops as a result of exchanges between
individuals. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) showed that social exchanges in the form of fair
treatment leads to the development of a social exchange relationship represented by
trust in supervisor. They found that trust in supervisor mediated the relationship
between fairness and OCB, indicating that social exchange relationships lead to positive
work behaviors. Trust in supervisor (Ambrose and Schminke, 2003) is defined as the
belief of employees that they can communicate with supervisors with the expectation
that the integrity of such communication will not be violated (O’Neill and Arendt, 2008).
LMX is another construct that describes social exchange relationship between
supervisors and subordinates (Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne et al., 1997). The LMX
model (Dienesch and Liden, 1986; Liden et al., 1993; Gerstner and Day, 1997) proposes
that leaders exhibit very different patterns of behavior toward different members of the
work group. These differences lead to the development of basically two types of
relationships (exchanges) between leaders and members. One type, high-quality
leader-member exchange is characterized by mutual trust and support, interpersonal
attraction, loyalty and bi-directional influence (Duchon et al., 1986; Deluga, 1994).
High-quality LMX is often described as a representation of social exchange relationship
(Wayne et al., 1997). The other type, low-quality LMX, is characterized by unidirectional
downward influence based on formal organizational authority and contractual relations Relationship
(Duchon et al., 1986; Deluga, 1994). This type of exchange is often described as of liking and
representing an economic exchange relationship (Wayne et al., 1997).
There is evidence that liking is positively related to social exchange relationship
social
between supervisor and subordinates as represented by LMX (Liden et al., 1993; Wayne exchange
et al., 1997). LMX is commonly proposed as the mediator of the relationship between
supervisory behaviors and employee behaviors (Xu et al., 2012). Research also supports 235
a positive relationship between liking and OCB, including supervisor-directed OCB
(Wayne et al., 1997). Liking has not been traditionally linked to supervisory trust.
However, as liking is related to social exchange relationship with supervisor, and as
supervisory trust is an indicator of social exchange relationship with supervisor, it is
reasonable to expect a positive relationship between liking and supervisory trust.
Nicholson et al. (2001) found that in the context of long-term channel relationships, liking
was related to trust. Previous research has linked supervisory trust to OCB (Konovsky
and Pugh, 1994). Based on the above discussion, we argue that liking between
supervisor and subordinates will be positively related to social exchange represented by
high quality LMX and trust in supervisor and supervisor-directed OCB. Based on the
findings of Wayne et al. (1997), we also propose that social exchange will mediate the
effects of liking on supervisor-directed OCB. However, social exchange is a cognitive
source of motivation (Organ, 1990), while liking is an affective source of motivation. It is
therefore likely that liking will also have independent effects on supervisor-directed
OCB. We therefore propose that social exchange will partially mediate the relationship
between liking and supervisor-directed OCB. We therefore hypothesize that:
H1a. Liking will be positively related to social exchange relationship with
supervisor (represented by LMX and trust).
H1b. Liking will be positively related to supervisor-directed OCB.
H2. Social exchange with supervisor (represented by LMX and trust) will partially
mediate the relationship between liking and supervisor-directed OCB.

Methods
Data collection
We collected survey data from supervisors and their subordinates in several
organizations in the Sultanate of Oman including a government export promotion
agency, a computer services company, an engineering services company, a ceramic tiles
manufacturer, a bank, a construction company, the staff training, stores and
engineering departments of a university and the administrative office of a large hospital.
Our survey instrument consisted of two sections, one section to be completed by
subordinates and the other to be completed by their supervisors. In most cases, we
administered the survey to the employees in groups and immediately collected the
completed forms. The subordinates were asked to give the supervisor section of the
survey to their supervisors. These surveys were collected from a designated person in
the organization after being completed. In some cases, the subordinates requested
additional time to complete the survey. In these cases, both the subordinate and the
supervisor sections of the survey were collected later from the designated person in the
organization. The two sections of the survey were matched using the common serial
number.
RIBS A total of 228 surveys were administered, and 202 subordinate and 172 supervisor
26,2 surveys were returned giving response rates of 88.6 and 75.44 per cent, respectively. The
172 supervisor surveys were completed by 33 different supervisors giving an average of
5.2 ratings per supervisor (range 1 to 16). The subordinate survey form contained items
assessing LMX and trust. The supervisor survey form contained items measuring liking
and supervisor-directed OCB.
236
Sample
The subordinate sample consisted of 37.58 per cent women. The average tenure was 8.2
years (SD ⫽ 5.6). The educational level of 40.7 per cent of the subordinates was
bachelor’s degree or higher, and 84.7 per cent of them had worked under their supervisor
for at least 7 months. Most of them (83.3 per cent) were between the ages of 21 and 40
years. Government employees comprised 39.68 per cent of the sample and private sector
employees 33.33 per cent, with the rest reporting their industry as “other”. Clerical/
administrative employees comprised 37.5 per cent of the sample, sales 10.25 per cent,
production/technical 14.1 per cent and the rest reported their job category as “other”.
The supervisory sample consisted of 17.5 per cent women. The educational level of
72.35 per cent of the supervisors was bachelor’s degree or higher, and 90.9 per cent were
between the ages of 31 and 50 years. The average period that a supervisor had
supervised his or her subordinate was 34.3 months (SD ⫽ 21).

Measures
Social exchange relationship. We used two variables to measure social exchange
relationship with supervisor: LMX and trust. LMX was measured with four items from
the seven-item scale reported by Scandura and Graen (1984). We selected the four items
that referred to the quality of the working relationship with the supervisor. The
responses for this scale ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Trust
was measured with the three-item scale developed by Roberts and O’Reilly (1974). The
responses were very low trust (1) to very high trust (7). We subjected the LMX and trust
scales to factor analysis (principal components with Varimax rotation). This analysis
resulted in the items measuring both LMX and trust loading on a single factor (Table I).
We therefore combined these two scales into a single scale of social exchange
relationship with supervisor. The reliability of this scale was 0.868.
Organizational citizenship behavior. We used the seven-item OCB-supervisor scale
reported by Masterson et al. (2000) to measure supervisor-directed OCB. We used this
scale because the Masterson et al. (2000) study indicates that social exchange
relationship with supervisor is related to behaviors directed toward the supervisor. The
responses for this scale ranged from “never true” (1) to “always true” (5). The reliability
of this scale was 0.875.
Liking. Liking was measured with three items taken from Wayne and Ferris (1990).
We used this scale because Wayne and Ferris used it to measure liking as an antecedent
of social exchange. A sample items was, “I like this employee very much.” The responses
to this scale were “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). The reliability of this
scale was 0.837.

Analysis
Liking and supervisor-directed OCB were reported by supervisors. To test the
discriminant validity of these two scales, the items representing these scales were
 Quality of relationship
Relationship
Item with supervisor of liking and
social
1. How free do you feel to discuss with your supervisor the problems and
difficulties in your job without jeopardizing your position or having it exchange
held against you? 0.766
2. Supervisors at times must take decisions that seem to be against the
interests of subordinates. When this happens to you as a subordinate,
237
how much trust do you have that the supervisor’s decision was
justified by other considerations? 0.729
3. To what extent do you have trust and confidence in your supervisor
regarding his or her general fairness? 0.700
4. I usually know where I stand with my supervisor 0.750
5. My working relationship with my supervisor is effective 0.729
6. My supervisor understands my problems and needs 0.788
7. My supervisor recognizes my potential 0.799
Eigenvalue 3.962
% variance explained 56.592
Table I.
Notes: Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation (n ⫽ 202); bold data shown in Table are Factor analysis of
factor loadings LMX and trust scales

subjected to factor analysis (principal components with Promax rotation). The results of
this analysis are shown in Table II. The items loaded on two separate factors
representing supervisor-directed OCB and liking, respectively, providing support for
the discriminant validity of these scales. Summary statistics and correlations are shown
in Table III. From Table III, it is clear that liking is positively related to social exchange
relationship (LMX-trust) and supervisor-directed OCB. We tested the mediation
hypothesis using structural equation modeling with AMOS 4 (Arbuckle and Wothke,

Item OCB Liking

1. Accepts extra duties and responsibilities at work 0.640 0.224

2. Volunteers for overtime work when needed 0.682 0.122
3. Assists me with my work (even when not asked) 0.831 ⫺0.110
4. Helps co-workers who have been absent 0.766 0.135
5. Helps co-workers who have heavy workloads 0.743 0.160
6. Goes out of his/her way to help new employees 0.921 ⫺0.283
7. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work 0.536 0.097
8. I think this employee would make a good friend ⫺0.044 0.855
9. I get along well with this employee 0.039 0.828
10. I like this employee very much ⫺0.056 0.928
Eigenvalue 5.181 1.256
% variance explained 51.812 12.556 Table II.
Cumulative percent 51.812 64.368 Results of
exploratory factor
Notes: Principal component analysis with Promax rotation (n ⫽ 172); bold data shown in Table are analysis of OCB and
factor loadings liking scales
RIBS 1999). We examined the measurement and structural models separately using the
26,2 two-step method recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, the
hypothesized factor structure was examined by testing the measurement model. Second,
two structural models representing the relationships among the latent variables were
examined. The use of AMOS 4.0 allowed us to make efficient use of all survey data (n ⫽
172).
238 To reduce the complexity of the measurement model, we created composite
sub-scales for some of the observed variables (Mathieu and Farr, 1991). Two composite
sub-scales, one consisting of the three items measuring trust and the other consisting of
the four items measuring LMX, were used as indicators of social exchange. Two
composite sub-scales consisting of four and three items respectively were used as
indicators of supervisor-directed OCB. The three indicators of liking were the three
items measuring this variable.

Results
The fit indexes for the measurement model (␹2/df ⫽ 1.2595, normed fit index (NFI) ⫽
0.997, relative fit index (RFI) ⫽ 0.991, comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ 0.999 and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽ 0.039) indicates that the model fits the data
adequately (Figure 1). The factor loadings of the indicators on their respective latent
variables were all above 0.5. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation is possible
only when the independent variable (liking) has a significant relationship to both the
mediator (social exchange) and the dependent variable (supervisor-directed OCB). In
addition, when the dependent variable is regressed simultaneously on both the
independent variable and the mediator, the mediator should remain significant, while
the effect of the independent variable either becomes less (partial mediation) or
disappears (full mediation). The partial mediation hypothesis was tested by specifying
two structural models. The first structural model had paths from liking to social
exchange and to supervisor-directed OCB. The fit statistics for this model (␹2/df ⫽
1.1558, NFI ⫽ 0.997, RFI ⫽ 0.992, CFI ⫽ 0.999 and RMSEA ⫽ 0.030) indicated that the
model fit the data adequately. The regression weights for liking on both social exchange
and supervisor-directed OCB were significant at the 0.01 level. This result provides
support for H1a and H1b. We tested partial mediation by adding a path from social
exchange to supervisor-directed OCB in the above model as shown in Figure 2. The fit
indices for this structural model and the measurement model are identical because
the relationships represented in both models are identical. This is because the

Supervisor-directed
Variables Mean SD Liking Social exchange OCB

1. Liking 5.863 0.892 (0.837)

2. Social exchange 5.4095 1.026 0.423** (0.868)
3. Supervisor-directed OCB 3.298 0.692 0.660** 0.288** (0.875)

Notes: ** p ⬍ 0.01; reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses; means and standard deviations of
Table III. OCB have been transformed to a five-point scale and those of Liking and LMX-Trust have been
Summary statistics transformed to a seven-point scale; correlations reported are from the structural equations modeling
and correlations analysis
 e4 e5 Relationship
of liking and
Trust LMX
social
e1 Liking 1
exchange

e2 Liking 2 Liking
Social
Exchange
Supervisor-
Directed
OCB 1 e6 239
OCB
OCB 2 e7
e3 Liking 3

Figure 1.
Measurement model

e4 e5
e6
Trust LMX
OCB 1
0.423**
e1 Liking 1 0.011
(3.921)
(0.122)
Social
Exchange
e2 Liking 2 Liking Supervisor-directed
OCB

e3 Liking 3 0.656**
(5.971)
OCB 2

e7

Notes: The path coefficient are standardized with significant

levels determined by the ratio of standardized coefficients; Figure 2.
the t-values are in parenthesis Structural model

structural model is a saturated model showing partial mediation of the effects on

liking on supervisor-directed OCB by social exchange. The only difference between
these two models is that in the measurement model the relationships among the
latent variables are represented by correlations, while in the structural model, these
relationships are represented by regression weights. The regression weights for the
paths from liking to social exchange and from liking to supervisor-directed OCB are
significant. However, the regression weight for the path from social exchange to
supervisor-directed OCB is non-significant. There is thus no support for H2, which
states that social exchange will partially mediate the relationship between liking
and supervisor-directed OCB.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among liking, social
exchange and supervisor-directed OCB in a sample of supervisor-subordinate dyads
from the Sultanate of Oman. Based on previous research, we predicted that liking would
RIBS be positively related to social exchange relationship and supervisor-directed OCB. We
26,2 also expected social exchange relationship to partially mediate the relationship between
liking and supervisor-directed OCB. We used high-quality LMX and trust to represent
social exchange relationship with the supervisor. As indicated earlier, LMX and trust
loaded on a single factor, and therefore, these two variables were combined into a single
social exchange relationship variable.
240 In line with previous research, we found that liking was positively related to social
exchange relationship with supervisor and supervisor-directed OCB. However, the data
did not support our contention that social exchange relationship with the supervisor
would partially mediate the relationship between liking and supervisor-directed OCB.
Wayne et al. (1997) found empirical support for a model with LMX as a mediator of
the relationship between liking and OCB. In the light of this finding, our results are
unexpected. However, our measure of social exchange included supervisory trust, while
in the above study, only LMX was used to represent social exchange with the
supervisor. In addition, our measure of citizenship included only OCB directed toward
the supervisor. In the Wayne et al. (1997) study, the measure of citizenship included OCB
directed toward the supervisor, co-workers and the organization. One possible
explanation for our results is that liking and social exchange are reciprocally related.
This view is congruent with the argument of Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) that
positive affect can be both a result and a resource for social exchange.
We measured both liking and supervisor-directed OCB from the same source
(supervisor). Even though factor analysis indicated that liking and supervisor-directed
OCB are separate constructs, the correlation between these two constructs is relatively
high (r ⫽ 0.660). The correlation between liking and OCB in the Wayne et al. (1997) study
was somewhat lower (r ⫽ 0.46). It is possible that the absence of mediating effect of
social exchange relationship is an artifact of the common source of measurement of
liking and supervisor-directed OCB. On the other hand, it may simply indicate that
liking is a potent source of influence in supervisor-directed OCB. Future research
designs where liking and supervisor-directed OCB are measured from different sources
can help to clarify this issue.
An important strength of this study is that the data were collected from the Sultanate
of Oman. Oman is part of the Arabian Gulf region which is an economically and
demographically important part of the world with unique labor market conditions that
has been relatively ignored by management researchers.
In addition, we collected data from both supervisors and subordinates. As social
exchange data were collected from subordinates and liking data from supervisors, the
relationship between these two variables is uncontaminated by common method bias.
As indicated earlier, items measuring high-quality LMX and trust loaded on a single
factor. We therefore used a combined high-quality LMX-trust variable to measure social
exchange relationship. As a result, we were unable to examine the independent effect of
trust in the relationship between liking and supervisor-directed OCB. Further research
is needed to more clearly discriminate between trust and high-quality LMX. In this
study, we looked at the relationship among liking, social exchange and
supervisor-directed OCB. An interesting form of organizational citizenship is
challenge-oriented OCB (Mackenzie et al., 2011). According to these researchers,
challenge-oriented OCB has a U-shaped relationship to unit-level performance. It is
likely that social exchange will moderate the relationship between challenge-oriented
OCB and unit-level performance. Future research could examine the effect of social Relationship
exchange relationship on challenge-oriented OCB. A further avenue for future research of liking and
is to examine the relationship of supervisor-directed OCB to unit-level performance
(Podsakoff et al., 2013).
social
An important limitation of the study is that it is correlational, and therefore, no causal exchange
claims can be made for the relationship found among the variables.
The results of the study seem to indicate that affective variables (liking) and 241
cognitive variables (social exchange) may have independent relationships with
organizational behavior. This is interesting because it seems to indicate that there are
multiple paths to influence the same organizational behavior (supervisor-directed OCB).
Additionally, positive affect seems to be a potent source of influence available to
supervisors. This is a significant finding because as indicated earlier, liking is a
relatively less researched variable. It is therefore worthwhile to examine the
relationships of liking to other dependent variable of interest in organizational behavior,
for example in-role performance, lateness, absenteeism and turnover.
The results of the study have practical implications. First, it appears that the positive
consequences of liking on social exchange and OCB are transferable to the Arabian Gulf
countries. Supervisors in the Arabian Gulf need to be aware that when they develop
liking for their employees, it may have positive effects on both social exchange
relationship and supervisor-directed OCB. Second, this study also shows that liking is
related to an expanded perspective on social exchange relationship with the supervisor
which includes trust in addition to LMX. Trust in turn has positive implications for
employee behaviors and attitudes. Supervisors need to realize that in addition to
high-quality LMX, liking is also related to supervisory trust.

References
Al-Hamadi, A.B., Budhwar, P.S. and Shipton, H. (2007), “Management of human resources in
Oman”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 100-113.
Ambrose, M.L. and Schminke, M. (2003), “Organization structure as a moderator of the
relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational
support, and supervisory trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 295-305.
Anderson, J.E. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. and Begly, T.M. (2003), “The employment relationships of foreign workers
versus local employees: a field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction, performance
and OCB”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, p. 561.
Arbuckle, L.A. and Wothke, W. (1999), Amos 4.0 User’s Guide, SPSS, Chicago, IL.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Casciaro, T. and Lobo, M.S. (2008), “When competence is irrelevant: the role of interpersonal affect
in task-related ties”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 655-684.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
RIBS Deluga, R.J. (1994), “Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 4,
26,2 pp. 315-326.
Dienesch, R.M. and Liden, R.L. (1986), “Leader-member exchange model of leadership: a critique
and further development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 618-634.
Duchon, D., Green, S.G. and Taber, T.D. (1986), “Vertical dyad linkages: a longitudinal assessment
242 of antecedents, measures and consequences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1,
pp. 56-60.
Ferrin, D.L., Bligh, M.C. and Kholes, J.C. (2007), “Can I trust you to trust me? A theory or trust,
monitoring and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships”, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 465-499.
Gerstner, L.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
correlates and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 522-552.
Gulf Business (2014), available at: www.gulfbusiness.com/201402/oman-replace-100000-expats-
private-sector-jobs (accessed 12 March 2014).
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.
Liden, R.L., Wayne, S.J. and Stilwell, D. (1993), “A longitudinal study on the early development of
leader-member exchange”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 662-674.
Mackenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Challenge-Oriented organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational effectiveness: do challenge-oriented behaviors
really have an impact on organization’s bottom line?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 3,
pp. 559-592.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, S.M. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Mathieu, J.E. and Farr, J.L. (1991), “Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of
organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 845-855.
Muscat Daily (2013), available at: www.muscatdaily/archive/oman/oman-population-hits-3.83-
mn-mark-27eq (accessed 12 March 2014).
Nicholson, C.Y., Compeau, L.D. and Sethi, R. (2001), “The role of interpersonal liking in building
trust in long-term channel relationships”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
O’Neill, B.S. and Arendt, L.A. (2008), “Psychological climate and work attitudes: the importance of
telling the right story”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 353-370.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, in Staw, B.M.
and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Jai Press, Greenwich CT,
Vol. 12, pp. 43-72.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its construct clean-up time”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 133-151.
Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. (1989), “Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 157-164.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Relationship
Nature, Antecedents and Consequences, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
of liking and
Podsakoff, N.P., Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Maynes, T.D. and Spoelma, T.M. (2013),
“Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: a review and social
recommendations for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. S1, exchange
pp. 87-119.
Roberts, K.H. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1974), “Measuring organizational communication”, Journal of 243
Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 321-326.
Scandura, T.A. and Graen, G.B. (1984), “Moderating effects of initial Leader member exchange
status on the effects of leadership intervention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69,
pp. 428-436.
US Energy Information Administration (2014), available at: www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.
cfm?fips⫽MU (accessed 12 March 2014).
Wayne, S.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1990), “Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and field study”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 487-499.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.L. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Weir, D. (2002), “Management in the Arab world: a fourth paradigm?”, paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of European Academy of Management, Stockholm.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C.K. and Miao, Q. (2012), “Abusive supervision and work behaviors: the
mediating role of LMX”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 532-543.

Corresponding author
Unnikammu Moideenkutty can be contacted at: umoideen@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.