Strengthening the Tie: Creating Exchange Relationships That Encourage Employee Advocacy as an Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Abstract

This study investigates the communication elements within organizations that enhance social exchanges and influence an individual’s willingness to spread positive information about their employer. Findings from a survey of employees in a United States–based health care organization (N = 223) indicate that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between employee-centered internal communication by organizations and employee advocacy. Employees with strong organizational commitment perceive that their organization values the exchange relationship, and employees, in turn, report they are likely to take extra steps to support their organization. To encourage organization-supportive employee advocacy behavior, organizations should engage in open and supportive communication with employees and cultivate lasting relationships with them.

Keywords

social exchange employee advocacy organizational commitment organizational citizenship behaviors

Employees serve valuable boundary-spanning roles for organizations by sharing meaningful information about the organization with external audiences (Kim & Rhee, 2011). This is important because employees are often perceived as trustworthy and credible sources of information about organizations (Dortok, 2006; Kim & Rhee, 2011; Morhart, Herzog, & Tomczak, 2009). Voluntary information shared by employees helps firms enhance their reputation in the marketplace (Kim & Rhee, 2011). Because employees communicate with external audiences about both positive and negative aspects of the company on social media and via face-to-face conversations, it is important for organizations to create relationships that encourage employees to feel positively and speak positively about their organization. This boundary-spanning work involves employee advocacy, which is defined as the voluntary promotion and defense of a company by an employee (Men, 2014).

How can organizations contribute to employees’ willingness to advocate on their behalf? Guided by social exchange theory (SET), we propose that communicating with employees in ways that are supportive and appropriate can create increased organizational commitment in employees, and that those employees who experience strong commitment are more likely to speak positively (i.e., advocate) about their organization to external audiences. When organizations show support for their employees and communicate effectively with them, their employees feel committed to the organizations (Bakar & Connaughton, 2010; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). In turn, employees are likely to say good things about their organizations unprompted (Men, 2014). This study tests these proposed relationships.

Advocacy for one’s employer represents a type of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which refers to efforts by employees that go beyond formal job duties, are discretionary, and are not explicitly rewarded by organizations (Organ, 1990). OCBs are critical because they can enhance organizational productivity and efficiency, and customer satisfaction (Organ, 1990; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Arguably, organizations should seek to foster OCBs, and one way to do this is to actively communicate with and support employees. When employees believe that their organization values their relationship, they feel obligated to engage in discretionary, organization-supportive behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Taking the extra step of voluntarily sharing good news or defending one’s employer from criticisms requires a strong employee–organization relationship (Men, 2014). Although scholars have explored some OCB antecedents, little research has examined what influences an individual’s intention to recommend their employers beyond their formal job roles.

After reviewing the literature on social exchange relationships, we developed and evaluated a model in which employee commitment to the organization mediates the relationship between two critical elements of employee communication: the organization’s information-sharing climate of and supervisor support, and employee intentions to speak favorably about their firms (Figure 1). This model posits commitment as both an outcome of efforts by the organization to solidify the social exchange relationship (using supervisor support and communication climate) and an influence on subsequent social exchange-altering behaviors (using advocacy).

Figure 1.

Model showing mediation of organizational communication between internal communication variables and employee advocacy.

Literature Review

When firms provide quality information and engage in open communication, they create positive relationships with employees (Sias, 2005). The development of interdependent social exchange relationships between an organization and employees occurs when an organization is perceived as supportive, caring, and fair (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). According to SET, the quality of one’s social interactions induces unspoken obligations to return favors to individuals or entities that have interacted in one’s interest (Blau, 1964). Social exchange relationships can have positive effects on employee attitudes and behaviors (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In addition to dedicating time for formal job duties in exchange for rewards such as salary (Brown & Roloff, 2015), individuals may engage in activities that extend beyond their job requirements to reward the organization for its contribution to the relationship (Podsakoff et al., 2009).

SET suggests employees may enact behaviors like advocacy to repay organizations because the organizations have contributed value to the relationship and supported the employee (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Building on this notion, previous social exchange research shows that organizational and managerial communication activities that demonstrate support and concern for employees’ interests are likely to engender feelings of loyalty and indebtedness to the organization among employees (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Pohl, Bertrand, & Ergen, 2016). Returning the support that is perceived to come from an employer can extend beyond simply repaying the firm with good work. When employees perceive that they are supported and a mutually beneficial relationship exists with their employer, they may feel free to engage in discretionary behaviors that exceed their normal job role and support the organization (Tremblay & Landreville, 2015).

Scholars have had divergent views regarding the direction of the relationships between social exchange variables in studies (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). One line of research shows that different types of exchanges, particularly leader–member exchanges, alter workplace relationships (Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009; Tse, Dasborough, & Ashkanasy, 2008). Thus, various organizational conditions and leadership behaviors influence the development of quality workplace relationships (Nahrgang et al., 2009; Tse et al., 2008). From another perspective, researchers have found that relationships reciprocally alter the nature of exchanges (Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). When an employee believes they are supported by the organization, they may seek to return that support and influence the exchange. In this case, the output from a past transaction is the resource exchanged in a future transaction (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The issue to consider is whether relational benefits in exchanges can be both a result of and a resource for exchange, yet scholars have not often linked both behaviors in a single study (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Our model links the two by positing that an institutionally supportive context and communication climate creates the exchange relationship that serves as an antecedent to commitment. Commitment, then, is an indicator of the exchange relationship’s quality and prompts employees to engage in OCB as a means of strengthening the relationship (Figure 1).

Internal Communication and Social Exchange

Organizational commitment, defined as the strength of an employee’s identification with and involvement in an organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979), plays an important part in the employee–organization relationship because it reduces employee turnover (Rhoades et al., 2001). Commitment directs an individual’s behavior either by restricting their freedom or by binding them to a course of action such as remaining with an organization over time (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Organizational communication climate, information resources, and interpersonal interactions in the workplace can influence commitment (Guzley, 1992; Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). In turn, organizational commitment is associated with several desirable outcomes for organizations, most notably increased employee participation in OCBs (Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997).

Commitment enjoys a long history in SET research, with multiple scholars concluding that employee commitment to the organization is repayment for organizational support (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Our review of the literature (e.g., Rhee & Moon, 2009; Sias, 2005; Susskind, 2007; ter Hoeven & Verhoeven, 2013) suggests that three internal communication elements work together as a basis for exchanges between an individual and their employer and thus shape commitment: interaction supportiveness, information adequacy, and information flow.¹ Recent SET research has examined organizational support (Brown & Roloff, 2015) and supervisor support (Pohl et al., 2016). Our model incorporates the additional elements of information adequacy and information flow to consider the breadth of the communication climate within an organization. Information adequacy and information flow are contributions that organizations make to relationships with their employees as they involve employee access to organizational and individually relevant information, while interaction supportiveness involves an interpersonal exchange that provides employees with direct support (Rhee & Moon, 2009). Our model incorporates information flow and information adequacy because organizational structure as it relates to information-sharing can influence the internal climate of support for employees (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998; Widéén-Wulff & Ginman, 2004).

Interaction supportiveness

Interaction supportiveness refers to the level of support that one party believes they have from another party in a relationship and involves interpersonal interactions with one’s supervisor (Rhee & Moon, 2009). Because supervisors are representatives of or proxies for organizations, employee commitment to the organization is likely to emerge as an outcome of social transactions between employees and supervisors (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Jian & Dalisay, 2017). When employees perceive high quality and supportive communication from their supervisors, they will be more committed and loyal to the organization (Jian & Dalisay, 2017). Here, employee commitment and loyalty are offered as the employee’s contribution to the exchange relationship. Based on this, interaction supportiveness from supervisors is expected to engender organizational commitment from employees:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Interaction supportiveness is positively associated with organizational commitment.

Information flow

Information flow is defined as the open exchange of ideas within an organization (Rhee & Moon, 2009). In addition to contributing support, organizations can strengthen exchange relationships with employees by managing the amount and quality of information that flows through the organization about matters of organization-wide and individual concern (McMillan & Albrecht, 2010; Susskind, 2007). When information flows freely throughout an organization, employees feel empowered to do their jobs and can contribute to organizational goals, which may manifest in part as organizational commitment (ter Hoeven & Verhoeven, 2013). As an indicator of the communication climate within an organization, information flow involves the sharing of ideas between work teams and from managers to employees (Rhee & Moon, 2009). When information flow throughout the organization is strong, there is a free exchange of opinions and ideas in the organization such that it contributes to perceptions of openness in organizations (Susskind, 2007). The free flow of information through the organization indicates to employees that they are key organizational stakeholders who can help the organization succeed (ter Hoeven & Verhoeven, 2013); in other words, they are trusted and valued. Thus, information flow should strengthen organizational commitment:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Information flow is positively associated with organizational commitment.

Information adequacy

Information adequacy may also contribute to employee views on the quality of the exchange relationship. Information adequacy is the degree to which employees believe they are receiving information that is necessary to do their jobs and make long-term decisions about their employment (Rhee & Moon, 2009; Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001). Employees who perceive high information adequacy believe the organization is providing them with important information about the organization and individual employee issues, which may include elements such as feedback on job performance and information about organization-wide issues such as changes to policy (Rhee & Moon, 2009). Information adequacy predicts employee satisfaction and employee commitment (Trombetta & Rogers, 1988) and employee turnover intentions (Susskind, 2007). Whereas information flow refers to the climate of information-sharing and organizational hierarchy (Rhee & Moon, 2009; Susskind, 2007), information adequacy involves the sharing of relevant knowledge to help employees do their jobs and understand the organization’s direction. Information adequacy is about the content of information and how it relates to one’s personal role and the organization’s achievements (Smidts et al., 2001). Although information adequacy is conceptually distinct from information flow (Susskind, 2007), we anticipate that it will have a similar effect on commitment. When employees believe that the organization is appropriately contributing to information-exchange in the relationship, they will reciprocate with commitment.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Information adequacy is positively associated with organizational commitment.

Employees as Organizational Advocates

Employees are valuable organizational advocates because they interact with customers, are credible sources of information, and have in-depth knowledge about firms (Dortok, 2006; Shinnar, Young, & Meana, 2004). In this context, advocacy is an individual’s active promotion of an organization through such behaviors as positive word-of-mouth and defense against critics (Men, 2014). Employee advocacy for an organization involves efforts to support the organization that extend beyond formal job requirements (Men, 2014), much like OCBs (Organ, 1990), which are defined by their voluntary nature. Employee advocacy meets the definition of OCB because the employee takes a voluntary step beyond their job requirements to help the organization. Because advocacy involves sharing good news about an organization and defending an organization against criticism in this boundary-spanning role, a strong relationship between an employee and their organization is usually required (Men, 2014). Jones, Taylor, and Bansal (2008) found that in consumer behavior, the greater the level of commitment to a firm, the more likely consumers were to spread positive information about that firm. We argue the same will hold true for employees, in part, because commitment is a strong predictor of other OCBs (e.g., altruism, compliance, and conscientiousness; see Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Other research shows commitment is positively associated with an individual’s willingness to help peers with their work (Paré & Tremblay, 2007) and citizenship behaviors that are directed at both the organization and individuals within the organization (Peng & Chiu, 2010).

Building on Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), we argue that commitment emerges as a result of social exchange contributions by the organization (demonstrated in Hypotheses 1-3). Commitment then acts as a relational driver of subsequent exchange-related behaviors (i.e., employee advocacy intentions). Commitment research (Meyer et al., 2004; Meyer et al., 2002) and SET research (Tremblay & Landreville, 2015) suggest that when employees are highly committed to their organizations, they are likely to engage in activities that demonstrate their support for their organization. Based on this, it is anticipated that highly committed employees will be inclined to advocate for their organizations.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Commitment is positively associated with employee advocacy intentions.

In summary, the model predicts that when an organization demonstrates support for employees (Smidts et al., 2001; Tremblay & Landreville, 2015) and encourages the free flow of information in a way that allows employees to do their jobs (Rhee & Moon, 2009; Susskind, 2007), these internal communication activities create a partnership with employees, who will feel more committed. Because commitment is a stabilizing force that directs employee behavior (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), it should trigger an impulse to perform the extra (nonrole required) step of external employee advocacy. As such, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Commitment mediates the relationship between information adequacy and employee advocacy intentions.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Commitment mediates the relationship between information flow and employee advocacy intentions.

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Commitment mediates the relationship between interaction supportiveness and employee advocacy intentions.

These hypotheses suggest that social exchange–building internal communication with employees (with information flow, information adequacy, and interaction supportiveness) is an antecedent to commitment, whereas employee advocacy is an outcome of commitment. By treating commitment as both a relational outcome that emerges from social exchange and an influence on subsequent exchange behaviors, we address Cropanzano and Mitchell’s (2005) concern that prior SET studies are limited in scope. Based on our review of the literature, it appears that organizations seek to cultivate relationships with employees to stimulate employee behavior. Yet, the link between these organizational efforts and employee behaviors such as advocacy remains unclear. Because of commitment’s power to compel employees to take certain courses of action (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), commitment serves as a key ingredient in the organization–employee exchange relationship. As a psychological state, commitment acts as a crucial conduit between organizational action and employee behavior (see Figure 1).

Method

The research site was a health care firm in the central United States with approximately 1,000 employees. After we obtained permission from the organization and our university’s institutional review board, a human resources vice president in the organization emailed participants an invitation on our behalf. This invitation included a link to an online survey (see the appendix for the variable measures). To encourage participation, the firm’s managers were reminded of the study during a leadership meeting after the email went out. Upon opening the survey, respondents viewed the consent form and then clicked through to the survey to indicate consent to participate. At the request of the organization, no compensation was offered.

Participants

All 1,000 employees in the host organization were invited to participate. Two hundred twenty-three employees completed the survey, for a response rate of 23%. Those who participated included 65 males (29.1%), 153 females (68.6%), four who identified as other (1.8%), and one who declined to indicate gender. The education level of the sample included the following: 15 held a high school degree or general equivalency diploma (GED) (6.7%), 54 had completed some college (24.2%), 44 had completed a 2-year college degree (19.7%), 90 had completed a 4-year college degree (40.4%), 15 had completed a masters’ degree (6.7%), one had a professional degree (0.4%), and four did not indicate level of education. The average age of the sample was 42.32 years (SD = 11.80; minimum = 20; maximum = 71; 14 participants did not indicate age), and participants had worked an average of 9.99 years for the organization (SD = 9.31; minimum = 0; maximum = 39.5; 14 participants did not indicate tenure).

Measures

Internal communication

Internal communication was measured using a 21-item scale from Rhee and Moon (2009) that assessed three subdimensions (information flow, information adequacy, and interaction supportiveness) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Information adequacy was measured with nine items, such as “Employees like me receive adequate information about our progress in our job from the organization.” Information flow was measured with four items, such as “Information in our organization flows openly throughout the overall organization.” Interaction supportiveness was measured with eight items, such as “My manager actively listens to employees like me.” Higher scores on these subscales indicate the higher perceived quality of internal communication with employees.

The three subscales were subjected to a combined confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which resulted in dropping three items from the Information Adequacy scale and one item from the Interaction Supportiveness scale. These items were dropped because of cross-loading and causing muddiness in the overall model. The final model is as follows: χ²(df = 116, N = 223) = 287.81, p = .000; relative chi-square (CMIN/df) = 2.48; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.94; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08. Although the chi-square is significant, it is likely inflated because of sample size (Tanaka, 1987); the other indicators show good fit. The scales were retained with the adjustments noted above. Reliabilities for these scales were as follows: information adequacy (Cronbach’s α = .88), information flow (Cronbach’s α = .91), and interaction supportiveness (Cronbach’s α = .94).

Organizational commitment

To measure organizational commitment, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with 15 statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Mowday et al., 1979). The survey instrument included statements such as “I would accept almost any type of job assignment to keep working for this organization.” The higher the score on this scale, the more the respondent felt commitment to the organization (five items were reverse-coded). A CFA was conducted on the scale, resulting in removal of two items due to low factor loadings. Although the final fit of the model evidences a significant chi-square, χ²(df = 65, N = 223) = 186.81, p = .000, this is likely due to the sample size; the other indicators show a good model fit (CMIN/df = 2.88; CFI = 0.92; RMSEA = .09). The reliability for this scale (Cronbach’s α) was .91.

Advocacy

To measure advocacy intentions, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. These items were modified from Men (2014) and Fullerton (2011) and included statements such as “I will recommend the organization’s mission and services to others.” A CFA was run on this scale with the following results: χ²(df = 2, N = 223) = 7.99, p = .02; CMIN/df = 3.997; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = .12. Because results were not ideal and this scale does not allow for adjustment with only four items, CFA was also run in Hunter’s program. Based on the Hunter’s analysis, the predicted correlations are all within 95% confidence intervals of the observed correlations. The residuals are quite small, indicating a unidimensional solution for this scale. All items were thus retained. The reliability for this scale (Cronbach’s α) was .96.

Results

To test all hypotheses, two path models were run in AMOS 21. First, a model was run with direct paths from information adequacy, information flow, and interaction supportiveness to employee advocacy. In this model, covariances were specified among information adequacy, information flow, and interaction supportiveness because they are correlated, yet conceptually distinct. This model showed a relationship among these variables (the first step toward establishing mediation per Baron & Kenny, 1986), but was not a good fit to the data, χ²(df = 1, N = 223) = 71.07, p = .000; CMIN/df = 71.07; CFI = 0.79; RMSEA = .56.

A second model (Figure 1) was run with organizational commitment mediating the relationships between information adequacy and employee advocacy (H5), between information flow and employee advocacy (H6), and between interaction supportiveness and employee advocacy (H7). For the model to show evidence of mediation, the direct paths between the exogenous variables (information flow, information adequacy, and interaction supportiveness) and employee advocacy should virtually disappear with the mediator in the model (Baron & Kenny, 1986). These paths are not shown in the model for simplicity’s sake but appear in Table 1 along with the direct paths from the original model. When organizational commitment is included as a mediator, each of the direct paths becomes almost zero, indicating the data are consistent with Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7. The data in Model 2 are also consistent with Hypotheses 1 to 4, which predicted positive correlations among the internal communication elements of information adequacy, information flow, interaction supportiveness, and organizational commitment, and employee advocacy. Zero-order correlations and descriptives for the major variables are reported in Table 2.

Table 1.

Direct Relationships With and Without a Mediator as Part of the Model.

	Model 1(no mediator)	Model 2(with mediator)
Information flow → Employee advocacy	.74	−.05
Interaction supportiveness → Employee advocacy	.13	−.04
Information adequacy → Employee advocacy	−.23	.08

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Main Variables.

	Information adequacy	Information flow	Interaction supportiveness	Organizational commitment	Employee advocacy
Information adequacy
Information flow	.75**
Interaction supportiveness	.53**	.43**
Organizational commitment	.60**	.59**	.54**
Employee advocacy	.51**	.47**	.43**	.82**
M	3.74	3.03	3.73	3.75	5.92
SD	0.70	0.96	0.91	0.66	1.01

Correlation is significant at p < .05. **Correlation is significant at p < .01.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine a model in which organizational commitment mediates the relationship between three elements of internal communication and employee advocacy (Figure 1). This model takes into account the reciprocal nature of social exchange relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) by positing employee commitment as both an outcome of exchange relationship-building efforts by the organization and a driver of subsequent exchange-altering behaviors that reward the organization. Results show the specific characteristics of internal communication that are needed to foster organizational commitment, which, in turn, creates a stronger likelihood that employees will voluntarily engage in advocacy.

A contribution of this study is the consideration of both communication climate (i.e., information adequacy and information flow) and interactions with one’s supervisor (i.e., interaction supportiveness). Information flow and information adequacy are two important elements of social exchange relationships in organizations, with each serving as a distinct contribution to the relationship. Information flow involves the sharing of information from leadership to employees and the sharing of information between work teams, while information adequacy involves employees receiving information about relevant individual and organizational issues (Rhee & Moon, 2009). Information adequacy is about ensuring employees believe they are appropriately apprised of issues that matter to them and the firm. When organizations meet employees’ information needs, they foster a supportive communication climate that enhances the exchange relationship. Our findings further suggest that when organizations address information quality and access, they are building relational capital with employees that help them feel both trusted and imbued with the tools to do their job. In line with recent SET research (e.g., Jian & Dalisay, 2017; Pohl et al., 2016), this study also finds that supervisor support is important for fostering employee commitment. Ongoing interaction supportiveness from managers helps employees feel that they are valued.

Combined, these elements signal that an organization wants to “take care of employees” (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, p. 882) by providing employees with the requisite amount of support and information to do their jobs. Cultivating successful relationships with employees is not about bombarding them with announcements and giving orders. An individual should perceive a willingness by their managers to support them and that information is being distributed adequately throughout an organization. This enhances the social exchange relationship by demonstrating to employees that the organization cares about employees and that it wants employees to succeed for employees’ own sake (not just for the organization’s bottom line). This sets the stage for subsequent OCBs.

A second contribution is the study’s demonstration of a positive association between organizational commitment and employee advocacy intentions. In this organization, highly committed employees were highly inclined to advocate for their organization. Commitment is a vital connection between the communication elements of interaction supportiveness, information flow, and information adequacy and advocacy. Employee advocacy is particularly important today in part because employees now have access to large networks via social media, and their actions can greatly impact a firm’s reputation. Although OCBs (such as volunteering to work extra shifts) often occur in the workplace, they may extend beyond the office as evidenced by our findings. Results suggest that when organizations ensure their internal communication meets specific criteria, employees feel committed to their organizations and want to repay their organizations through word of mouth support to outside audiences in a boundary-spanning role (Kim & Rhee, 2011). Thus, it is important for organizations to communicate in ways that help employees feel connected to their employer so that they take the extra step of recommending the organization to others. Scholars, to this point, have not fully considered the association between social exchange and boundary-spanning advocacy. This study reveals that it is important to foster a positive relational climate within an organization to engender organization-supportive advocacy behavior.

Limitations

These data were limited in two ways. First, they were from only one organization. On one hand, focusing on a single firm allowed us to control for potential confounding organizational conditions (such as different management approaches). However, it is possible that conditions specific to this organization influenced employee responses in a distinct manner. Future research should include data from multiple organizations to determine if these results will hold across different settings. Second, although a logical argument for an ordered conceptual model was put forth, our data cannot establish that the relationships between the variables causally occur in that order because it is cross-sectional. Experimental research is needed to systematically address this limitation in social exchange research (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Conclusion

Beyond improving productivity, an organization’s efforts to cultivate exchange relationships with employees can have benefits that span beyond the workplace. When employees speak positively about their organizations in public and recommend their organization to others, firms can be humanized. Organizations can engender this support by providing adequate information to employees, ensuring quality information flow through the organization, and offering supervisor support to employees. This, in turn, can lead to higher levels of organizational commitment. Commitment can create in employees a desire to contribute back to their organization, in this case by performing the specific OCB of voluntary advocacy efforts to support their firm. Those external endorsement efforts represent boundary-spanning by employees, which ultimately helps organizations.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman

Author Biographies

Justin A. Walden (PhD, Pennsylvania State University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at North Dakota State University. His main research areas include employee–organization relationships, work–life boundary navigation, and technology use by organizations for strategic communication purposes.

Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman (PhD, Michigan State University) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at North Dakota State University. Her main areas of research include supervisor–subordinate relationships, workplace friendships, and managing health information at work.

References

Bakar

H. A.

Connaughton

S. L.

(2010). Relationships between supervisory communication and commitment to workgroup: A multilevel analysis approach. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4, 39-57.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Brown

L. A.

Roloff

M. E.

(2015). Organizational citizenship behavior, organizational communication, and burnout: The buffering role of perceived organizational support and psychological contracts. Communication Quarterly, 63, 384-404.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

Dortok

(2006). A managerial look at the interaction between internal communication and corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 322-338.

Eisenberger

Armeli

Rexwinkel

Lynch

P. D.

Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42

Fullerton

(2011). Creating advocates: The roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18, 92-100.

Guzley

R. M.

(1992). Organizational climate and communication climate: Predictors of commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 379-402.

10.

Jian

Dalisay

(2017). Conversation at work: The effects of leader-member conversational quality. Communication Research, 44, 177-197.

11.

Jones

Taylor

S. F.

Bansal

H. S.

(2008). Commitment to a friend, a service provider, or a service company—Are they distinctions worth making? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 473-487.

12.

Kidwell

R. E.

Mossholder

K. W.

Bennett

(1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23, 775-793.

13.

Kim

J. N.

Rhee

(2011). Strategic thinking about Employee Communication Behavior (ECB) in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 243-268.

14.

McMillan

Albrecht

(2010). Measuring social exchange constructs in organizations. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 201-220.

15.

Men

L. R.

(2014). Why leadership matters to internal communication: Linking transformational leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 256-279. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.908719

16.

Meyer

J. P.

Becker

T. E.

Vandenberghe

(2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991-1007.

17.

Meyer

J. P.

Herscovitch

(2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

18.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

19.

Morhart

F. M.

Herzog

Tomczak

(2009). Brand-specific leadership: Turning employees into brand champions. Journal of Marketing, 73, 122-142.

20.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1

21.

Nahrgang

J. D.

Morgeson

F. P.

Ilies

(2009). The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256-266.

22.

Organ

D. W.

(1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

23.

Paré

Tremblay

(2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32, 326-357. doi:10.1177/1059601106286875

24.

Peng

J.-C.

Chiu

S.-F.

(2010). An integrative model linking feedback environment and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 582-607.

25.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Whiting

S. W.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Blume

B. D.

(2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141.

26.

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, 513-563.

27.

Pohl

Bertrand

Ergen

(2016). Psychological contracts and their implications for job outcomes: A social exchange view. Military Psychology, 28, 406-417.

28.

Rhee

Moon

(2009). Organizational culture and strategic communication practice: Testing the Competing Values Model (CVM) and Employee Communication Strategies (ECS) model in Korea. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3, 52-67. doi:10.1080/15531180802608386

29.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

Armeli

(2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836.

30.

Shinnar

R. S.

Young

C. A.

Meana

(2004). The motivations for and outcomes of employee referrals. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 271-283.

31.

Sias

P. M.

(2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences. Communication Studies, 56, 375-395.

32.

Smidts

Pruyn

van Riel

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1051-1062.

33.

Susskind

A. M.

(2007). Downsizing survivors’ communication networks and reactions: A longitudinal examination of information flow and turnover intentions. Communication Research, 34, 156-184.

34.

Tanaka

J. S.

(1987). “How big is big enough?” Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child Development, 58, 134-146.

35.

Tekleab

A. G.

Takeuchi

Taylor

M. S.

(2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social Exchange, and employee Reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 146-157.

36.

ter Hoeven

C. L.

Verhoeven

J. W. M.

(2013). “Sharing is caring”: Corporate social responsibility awareness explaining the relationship of information flow with affective commitment. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 264-279.

37.

Tremblay

Landreville

P.-E.

(2015). Information sharing and citizenship behaviors: Mediating the roles of empowerment, procedural justice, and perceived organizational support. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 347-368.

38.

Trombetta

J. J.

Rogers

D. P.

(1988). Communication climate, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: The effects of information adequacy, communication openness, and decision participation. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 494-514.

39.

Tse

H. H. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2008). A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 195-211.

40.

Whitener

E. M.

Brodt

S. E.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Werner

J. M.

(1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-530.

41.

Widén-Wulff

Ginman

(2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30, 448-458.