depend on the overall context (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Organ, 1988). Therefore, future
studies may need to go beyond social exchange in explaining organizational citizenship
behaviors, or prosocial behaviors (Morrison, 1994; Wayne et al., 1997), and may need to
consider the role of espoused management philosophies in informing employees’ roles
and behaviors. The contextual perspective on employee roles and behaviors does not
negate a social exchange view but rather complements it. Specifically, it suggests
overarching contextual factors, which may provide additional explanatory power in
predicting employees’ cognitions and behaviors.
The difficulty in obtaining results linking roles to behaviors, on the other hand,
suggests that further theoretical exploration is needed to detect what contributes to
individuals enacting their expected roles. The literature on roles suggests that individuals
socialized in a certain context are likely to enact an expected role (Biddle, 1979).
However, the results indicate that a more complex view on the relationships between
roles and behaviors is warranted in an organizational context. Given the complexity of
the organization as a system, perhaps it is not surprising to find that the relationships I
expected did not hold, when considered in isolation from other relevant factors.
Specifically, given that the organizational level is more distant than other levels (such as
the group or team level, or that of the immediate supervisor expectations), organizational
expectations may not be linearly related (or may be unrelated) to observed behaviors due
to intervening factors on intermediate levels (Chan, 1998; Chen, 2005; Gully,
Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beuabien, 2002; Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Another theoretical implication emanates from the low inter-correlations between
peer and supervisor ratings of behaviors. Perhaps, rigorous research pointing out the