Dues-Paying: Managing the Costs of I? cognition

Robert Ford and John Newstrom

M ary Beth was on top of the world. Her

second promotion in less than a year was being announced by her boss at the weekly de- partmental meeting, and she was thrilled. How- ever, as she glanced around at the faces of her cu)workers listening to the announcement, she spotted a number of thinly veiled scowls. After the meeting broke up she received a few

polite remarks of “Congratulations,” but noted an absence of enthusiasm in them. Later that day, as she was entering the cafeteria, she thought she heard one colleague whisper to another, “Mary Beth didn’t deserve the first promotion, much less this one.” The other responded, “You’re ab- solutely right. She hasn’t paid her dues yet.”

What degree of cooperation will Mary Beth receive in her new position? At best; her new team members will soon forget their earlier judg- ments and accept her at face value. More likely, though, she will face a moderate degree of tem- porary or continuing apathy, if not outright resis- tance to her initiatives. Worst of all, neither Mary Beth nor her manager will have any idea why her coworkers are acting this way.

Events like this happen with substantial regu- larity in a wide variety of settings. Work teams, volunteer organizations, informal groups, and even the public at large can be heard making . similar pronouncements about whether or not individuals deserved their awards, recognition, job assignments. promotions, or election victories because they hadn’t “paid their dues,” But what does this widely used term mean, and how do

people pay their dues? In particular, what can managers do to manage the dues-paying process for themselves or for those they wish to recog- nize with some type of reward?

Here we offer both a traditional and an ex- panded definition of “dues,” discuss the dynamic process of “dues-paying,” provide some explana- tions of why the process takes place, clarifjr how these judgments are made, and suggest some strategies that both managers and individuals can use to manage the dues-paying process better. We believe these strategies can help ensure that the people being rewarded are thought to have paid their dues (and hence are entitled to their rewards). Clearly, if rewards and other forms of recognition are used to motivate people and indicate what the organization values, they must be awarded in ways that appear to be deserved, right, and just. In other words, the people getting the rewards must be seen as having paid their dues.

DUES-PAYING DEFINED

W hat are the “dues” that must be paid in work organizations? The traditional use of the term may be traced back

to the price of membership in voluntary (social or fraternal) organizations and clubs. There, dues are the financial price one pays for the privilege of entry, continuing membership, and related benefits. Historically, such dues have usually been expressed in monetary terms-a rather narrow usage. In exchange for paying annual dues, a new memljer might obtain a membership card or pin, the right to attend meetings, partici- pate, and vote, and possibly other benefits, such as a magazine subscription, permission to play on the golf course, or product discounts. Stated simply, traditional dues include both the “price of admission” and the price of remaining in good standing.

14

Dues, in the context of both contemporary voluntary and work organizations, often have a broader meaning than mere financial costs of membership and associated rights. Over time, the term “dues” has expanded in general use to in- clude one or more of the following elements:

l possessing the minimum qualifications for entry into a positi5n;

l performing a job or series of tasks at a better-than-satisfactory level;

l spending the “appropriate” amount of time in one’s current position;

l spending the “appropriate” amount of time in the firm;

l doing the prerequisite “grunt” tasks or having the necessary experiences that show a willingness to “get one’s hands dirty” without substantial complaint;

* giving proper respect to one’s organiza- tional “elders” by spending the proper amount of time “sitting at their knees”; and

l showing respect to the informal work group by trying to “fit in” and not acting “supe- rior” to others.

As seen from these diverse uses of the term, dues-paying may include factors that are objec- tively and subjectively measured (see F@ure 1). From an assessment of a recipient’s skills to the judgment of whether or not he has spent enough time in a job or organization, deciding whether a person has paid the necessary dues is a complex and multifaceted process. It covers the dimen- sions of skills and abilities, time, work products. humility, social acceptability; and a variety of explicitly and implicitly prescribed interpersonal and in-group behaviors.

‘Thus, an expanded definition of dues might be the tot& “cost” the group believes an indi- vidual should ‘pq” for the privileges @-full accep- tance ajzd ccmtinuing memhetxhip in it. When sufficient clues have been paid. the group also endorses related benefits to the individual as administertd by the organization.

I-low daes one pay these dues? The process seems simple: An individual provides evidence of meeting one or more of the dimensions of dues requirements. Further, because many organiza- tions still retain a reasonably strong hierarchical element, naive employees might assume that there is only one person to convince that their dues have been paid: their direct supervisor. We believe, however, that meeting one’s manager’s expectations is a necessary--but not sufficient- condition for success.

Why? Dues-paying can best be defined as the process of meeting the collective eqectations of reler)ant organizational obserzx~rs as to zchat a purticularperwn must do (or should already haw done) tr) aksey7~e an award, promotion, Job assignment. Iewf of~fitrmal or i~fhnal stutr,q

Fhgure 1 Approximate Subjectivity Assessment of Various Forms of “Dues”

hklutively subjective _. Relatively djective

* Deference paid l Social “fit” l ‘.Dirty hands”

l Job performance l Time-in-grade l Skills and abilities l Overall seniority

interpen-onal cooperation, social deferencefkom others, reward, or other recognition. Sonw of these observers may be key people in the firm who hold direct reward power (such as a man- ager); other observers may include an array of stakeholders who have an interest in sustaining “the system.” For target individuals (or their new managers), however, recognizing and accepting the importance of dues-paying is an important step in “learning the ropes” in any organization.

Four important factors stand out in this defi- nition of the dues-paying process, making it a difficult process to understand, much less to manage. First, it is a perceptual phenomenon. Although judgments of appropriate dues-paying are based partially or wholly on historical rvi- dence, that evidence exists only in the minds of those making the decision. As a result. our indi- vidual judgments are subject to all the weak- nesses of the perceptual process. We focus selec- tively on certain dimensions of importance to us, and tend to reject or depreciate information given to us that is inconsistent with what we previously “knew” to be true.

Because dues-paying assessments are percep- tual, they are often a highly subjective phenom- enon. Neither the expected norm for level of performance. seniority. and so on, nor one’s own dues-paying “score.” can be objectively calculated and publicly posted for all to see. This makes it difficult for people to really know when they (or others) have passed a threshold level of expecta- tions and hence have adequately paid their dues.

Second, the assessment of dues-paying is almost always made by many dzxferent people These may include a supervisor, a set of more senior executives, a personal mentort s), work peers and coworkers, the members of an infor- mal group, subordinates, and even the firm’s most notorious gossipmonger. Clearly, however: significant differences exist in the importance of various judges of dues-paying, and one’s supervi- sor usually remains more critical than a casual observer. It should even be possible to establish a rough hierarchy of the importance of the vari- ous people who will be making the assessments.

Third, dues-paying is always situution-.ype- czj%-. A person in 3 particular situation receiving

some award or symbol of recognition can be considered worthy because the subjective deter- mination was made that the proper dues were paid. On the other hand, the same person in a different situation or at a different time might be judged unworthy even though he or she retains the same attributes and receives a similar award. The variation can be due to who else was avail- able to get the award and what other potential recipients had done on other factors that make the determination of adequate dues-paying cliffer from one situation to another.

Fourth, the dues one pays do not always simply accumulate into a larger and larger inven- tory. ~ZVW will like(y he a nutural ebb and.flow of the balauce across time as one makes “deposits” and receives “withdrawals” (similar to one’s “frequent-flyer” accumulation of travel credits). This is further confounded by the fact that the organization’s “memory“ regarding one’s credits may diminish slowly over time or even occur suddenly (as when a mergtar brings in a new managerial staff).

Understanding the Process of Dues-Paying

&cause dues-paying has no existing conceptual explanation as its basis, Wt? offer several alterna- tive concepts that can help managers understand how the process works. These include social exchangct reciprocity, and idiosyncrasy credits. Each will be briefly reviewed as it pertains to dues-paying. In reality, however. the concepts seleclively included herV are also closely inter- twined.

13lau~,s (1964) idea of socia/ exchange sug- gests that two parties in a \vork relationship make a series of technical and social contribu- tions to each other (at a personal cost to them- selves) and receive benefits from each other at a cost to both. We see this in the suburbs, where a person with a broken lawnmower horrow.s one from a neighbor, then returns it later along with a plate of chocolate chip cookies. At work, a man- ager asks a colleague for emergency help in craft- ing an important proposal; the colleague late1 “borrows” 3 few hours of clerical assistance from the manager’s staff to complete a rush project. Over I:ime, these exchange relationships also evolve into a predictable pattern. In effect. each party .holtls expectations that the other person will perform ntaeded tasks and act appropriately to sustain the relationship.

Each person, on occasion, must bend a bit or yield to the other if the ongoing relationship is to stay healthy. The interactions between people continue as long as the parties find the process of social exchange to be mutually rewarding. The ability to build and maintain this type of relation- ship may run counter to the preferences of some

employees, who prefer to be judged solely on their professional expertise and individual (work) contributions. Nevertheless, unless people are perceived to have Mfilled their obligations in every important relationship at work, they may be judged as not having paid their dues.

Included in the idea of social exchange is Gouldner’s (1960) norm of reciprocity. Groups that value this social norm strongly insist that actions taken by one party should be (roughly1 repaid by the other over a period of time-espe- cially in a continuing relationship such as those at work. When a new employee joins a firm and receives job coaching, friendly advice, and even friendly social “jabs” from coworkers, the latter perceive that they have invested part of them- selves in the “new kid on the block,” and subse- quently expect some form of repayment of the indebtedness. Kepayment can include some of‘ the forms of dues suggested earlier, including social deference to the contributing coworkers. L4gain, someone who has not paid sufficient dues to each key person in the work-related network, and thus fulfilled all the relevant obligations, may be judged as not worthy of various rewards be- cause of not having adequately met the norm of reciprocity.

According to Hollander’s (1964) idea of idio- .syncra.sy credits, an individual earns positive regard (credit) from others by being knowtedge- able and competent, helping colleagues achieve their goals, demonstrating a positive work ethic, and conforming to the social and performance norms of the group. In effect, one accumulates these idiosyncratic credits (favorable impressions) ovc’r a period of time; the credits can later be ‘.cashed in” (say. by taking calculated risks in deviating from thy group’s norms) when nec‘es- saq. In essence, one’s earlier conformity to norms provides the opportunity for later noncon- formity to those same norms. To some degree, having earned suffic?ent idiosyncrasy credits is somewhat similar to having “paid one’s dues,” since dues-paying gives a person the right to justify an award when it is received.

The idiosyncrasy-credit concept was a likely forerunner to Stephen Covey’s (1989) popular- ized notion of an emotional bank account, in which people make “deposits” with other people and later make “withdrawals.” Both concepts emphasize the need for balancing what one puts in with what one takes out. Equally noteworthy, they indicate the importance of making deposits before one can expect to make substantial with- drawals.

These three concepts--social exchange. reci- procity, and idiosyncrasy credits-all point to one important underlying factor: Employees tend to judge the fairness of managerial actions by com- paring the tangible and intangible benefits some-

one else receives to their own perception of the relevant inputs/costs/prices paid by that person. The benefits can be social, psychological, or fi- nancial; the inputs or costs may include educa- tion, seniority, prior work experience, loyalty and commitment, time, energy and effort, creativity, and job performance. In effect, every individual makes an ongoing assessment of how fairly he was treated by the organization in a particular situation, and how fairly others are being treated.

THE GROUP’S ROLE IN ASSESSING DUES-PAMVG

bm he members of a work group send and

1 process information about a-colleague’s merits based on cues and clues they

share with one another. This social information processing helps them reach a collective deci- sion. In other words, they use social cues pro- vided by their peers to arrive at decisions about whether one has paid one’s dues. Information is swapped back and forth, uni.que observations are shared, different rationales are provided, and some members with greater influence may be particularly effective in swaying the perceptions of others.

Group determinations of fairness can be viewed as a four-part process. The first part in- volves creating a group voice. The second is determining the value of the target person’s in- puts. The third is assessing the value of the re- ward. The fourth involves a comparison of the individual’s rewards to the dues paid, and a sub- sequent comparison to the p,roup’s ideal model.

Group Voice

Group members are likely to have varying doses of input into the dues-paying decision. Some have information they can and will share: others do not, or will not. Some have an emotional in- volvement in the decision; others are more objec- tive. Some are naturally more outspoken: others are more passive.

Often, people who have received a similar reward in the past (the “in” group.1 are given the most credibility; their inputs into the group judg- ment as to whether or not the newest honorees have paid their dues is valued most highly by other group members. The prior honorees “had what it took” (whatever that was at the time) to jump the necessary hurdles. Now, having no direct stake in the judgment about the newest nominee except to make sure the latter does not cheapen the value of their own recognition, they may be viewed as both relatively objective: and reasonably knowledgeable. Just as most new college graduates want the 5,tdndards for gradua- tion raised after they graduate, the previous win-

ners of any reward want to make sure that any new recipient is at least as good as they believed themselves to be.

The next most influential voices may come from those who feel they were worthy of the reward but didn’t receive it. They, too, have a vested interest in the fairness of the process. BeCaUSe they may be disappointed by the an- nouncement of the winner, they may not only be vocal but also inclined to shade their judgments against the winner because they want to make sure the winner was more deserving than they themselves were. Unfortunately, their own opin- ion of themselves may be unrealistically distorted by lack of prior objective information.

By contrast, another influential voice may come from those who are perceived to be some- what disinterested bystanders. If the group’s dis- cussion stays on a rational level and these hy- standers choose to become involved, they can have a disproportionate influence on the group’s equity decision-largely because they are seen as having nothing to gain or lose by their argu- ments. (In labor-management negotiations, this is one value that a neutral mediator ofien provides.)

kwssment of Contributions

In the second phase, the group identifies and evaluates what the recipient has done to deserve the reward, effectively assessing the value of his contributions. This involves a collective-though not necessarily systematic-pooling of stake- holder information about the Derson’s accom- plishments, work his- tory, and contributions to the work group, the organization, and the profession at large. Additional information can include the degree tc.1 which group mem- bers like or dislike the candidate’s personal attributes. The informa- tion may Ix: relevant or irrelevant, fiict-based or fabricated, quantitative or qualitative in nature. Thus, if a candidate has experienced negative events (perhaps under- gone an unwanted divorce, lost a loved one, or fought a critical illness) or positive events (such as getting married, winning the lottery, or attain- ing other formal recognition), the group may choose to consider these mitigating factors in deciding whether the person has directly or indi- rectly paid his clues. In short, discussions about these factors create: a “group memory” al )out a candidate’s fMSt contributions and efforts. This

1:

anecdotal information will often be brought into the group decision about the candidate’s inputs.

A simple example of how inputs are assessed by a group comes from the family-based “hunting camps” frequently found across the United States. Prospective members (who may have married into the existing family structure or else reached

a minimum age) are in- vited to participate as trial members. A mild degree of hazing may occur. The new initiate may be as- signed low-status tasks such as peeling pOtdtOf3,

washing dishes. or cutting firewood. Depending on the prospective member’s attitude and quality of work, the existing mem- bers decide whether or not he has paid sufficient dues. If so! acceptance

into the general membership of the hunting camp may be offered, and the individual will be invited to return in the future.

Assessment of Rewards

The third stage in the process involves the group’s judgment about the value of the reward -in other words, the prospective payoff for the candidate. The reward may have high or low value in the group’s judgment, and this assess- ment will dictate the nature of their response. A highly valued reward will generate close scrutiny as to whether sufficient dues have been paid; a low-valued reward may produce an indifferent, “So what?” response among group members. It is important to note, however, that a group may disagree with the manager’s or the recipient’s assessments of what a reward is worth. Even the presentation of an inexpensive pin recognizing an employee’s superior performance of customer service for a single week may produce strong reactions from group members if they see it as an important signal of status that was not deserved.

Comparison of Dues Paid with Rewards

The fc )urth part of the dues-paying determination involves comparing a candidate’s contributions with the perceived value of the anticipated pay- off, then matching this with similar ratios for any prior recipients. Several factors contribute to the final conclusion: history, individuality of inputs, objectivity of the candidate’s input measurements, and group norms of behavior and standards of performance. Historically, groups have a rcmark- able capacity to remember what behaviors have and have not merited recognition in the past.

A second factor is the degree to which the candidate produced results single-handedly rather than by relying on assistance from members of the larger team. Obviously, giving an award to an individual for an entire team’s performance can quickly prove to be highly divisive unless the team members agree to single out one person to receive the award on behalf of the whole group.

A third factor lies in the degree to which an individual’s contributions can be readily quanti- fied. If an objective measurement of contributions can be displayed to the group (such as an indi- vidual’s dollar volume of sales improvement), most groups will accept the basis for the reward If the criterion is highly subjective, such as “best attitude displayed this week,” then there is much more room for group interpretation. Ambiguous measures lead to more subjective assessments of individual contributions.

The fourth factor resides in a strong organiza- tional culture that defines widely held group norms. If the candidate for a reward has proven to be a “rate-buster,” the group may feel that an implicit or explicit norm has been violated and still resist agreeing that the recipient has paid the requisite dues. Clearly, estimating a group’s judg- ment on dues-paying is difficult indeed.

Managing the Dues-Paying Process: The Manager

Given the complex manner in which the dues- Iyaying process operates, the challenge is to man- age it successfully. It makes little sense for a manager to bestow an award that demotivates other members of the work team because they do not believe the reward is earned, fair, or de- served. Most award recipients understand the social dimensions of the workplace enough to avoid an award if the costs of receiving it are too great-perhaps harassment by coworkers or ex- clusion from the group. The challenge, then, for both managers and award recipients alike is to actively manage the dues-paying process. Several strategies exist for doing this.

Muddy the waters. One set of strategies commonly usccl is to confuse the audience of stakeholders. Some managers modiJy the cr-ttetia for winning the award so that the group cannot really make a c.ollective decision about whether or not the new recipient paid the necessary dues. Their announcements stress the “new direction” or even the “nc\v name” or “different criteria” that are now being used to decide who gets the award. Stressing the changes to the award tells the group that direct comparisons with prior win- ners are inappropriate and that the new winner was judged on a different basis.

A second “muddying” approach is to inform the group that there were several viable candi-

dates whose overall qualifications for the award were roughly equal but achieved via different routes. This may also serve to appease a group that is inclined to feel that another member de- served the recognition.

A third but probably unethical “muddying” approach is for the manager to hide some rel- evant facts, distort the situation, or even stretch the truth so as to make a stronger case that the person receiving the award has paid the appro- priatc dues. The difficulty here, of’ course, is that the end-creating a perception of adequate dues- paying-may not justify the means. By contrast, we strongly recommend consideration of integ- rity-based approaches to managing the dues- paying process. These can include prior clarifica- tion of criteria, making the judgment process transparent, and increasing public awareness of the process.

Frame the decision. In contrast to muddy- ing strategies, a manager could also steer an audience’s interpretation of an award through a.stute .framing. This is simply a process of man- aging other’s impressions by choosing an appro- priate context for an announcement. Instead of portraying someone’s new responsibilities as a reward for his past contributions, which may evoke feelings of unfairness in others, a manager

might accent the generally recognized strengths the candidate has for the challenging task ahead, or praise his willingness to make a sacrifice or take a risk for the sake of the organization. In effect, such framing is implicitly accenting the dues being paid by the individual rather than focusing on the benefits to be attained. This ap- proach is especially effective when the candidate is relatively young or new and so might othttl-- wise be perceived as not having paid the neces- sary dues.

Clarify the criteria Perhaps ttic most oh+

ous strategy is to announce in advance the crite- ria that will be used to judge potential recipients, as well as the standards that will be applied. This strategy is based on the idea of idiosyncrasy cred- its introduced earlier. The candidate needs to know the level of expectation and make appro- priate contributions before earning an award. Such 3 process is illustrated clearly in the Olym- pics’ system of judging decathlon participants; the athletes know the ten events in which they must participate, and they know the levels of perfor- mance that will earn them points. Rarely are per- formers’ achievements challenged or second- guessed in that event; the winners are placed on the winner’s stand and widely accepted as having paid their dues.

Make the process transparent. Orle of the most obvious recommendations is for managers to strive to muke the reward system fair- and tmm~)amnt to cr~elyyonc in the work unit. krtlaps

the best way to achieve this is by opening up the judging process to include representation from both insiders and neutral parties. In short, when allocation of rewards is determined through evaluations of one’s peers, individuals will be less likely to reject the judgment made.

Increase public awareness. This is actually a two-pronged approach. It involves first gather- ing historical information on what prior recipients have done to deserve the award, then making sure the nominee’s contributions are publicly acknowledged-perhaps with occasional remind- ers. Managers can avoid the problems of an un- even social exchange by ensuring that the group members learn about the recipient’s many (and possibly hidden) accomplishments, so as to raise their awareness of the candidate’s inputs. f3y explicitly sharing an individual’s performance information with the group, a manager can also indicate the value that has been placed on such accomplishments from the organization’s per- spective. This helps combat the possible lack of awareness of the candidate’s contributions, as well as the natural process of a group forgetting about a member’s prior achievements.

The public awareness strategy was used with considerable success by Joni, a department head with nine employees. She wished to nominate Steve for the company’s “Employee of the Year” award, in view of his particularly meritorious recent accomplishments. Rather than gathering her documentation secretly and focusing on just the current year’s data, Joni decided to broaden both her data base and her foundation of sup- port. To do this, she enlisted the help of all taight of Steve’s colleagues, asking them for evidence of his contributions not only during the current year but also for several preceding years. This proved to be a winning strategy. Not only did it \mcover several supportive bits of information, but it also helped develop a highly unified group that took pride in collaborating to build a strong case for Steve’s nomination. Ultimately, it proved $0 be a winning strategy for Joni, for Steve, and for the entire unit.

Managing the Dues-Paying Process: The Redpient

Sometimes the administration of an award is poorly handled by a manager. This creates an awkward situation for the recipient, even though the award is objectively tnerited. Fortunately, the employee also has some strategies available with which to demonstrate that the appropriate dues were paid.

Downplaying the award or the process. Obviously, the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor or a Nobel Prize cannot do this; the standards of achievement are well-known

19

and the selection process is rigorous. In many other cases, however, the recipient can note in- formally that “this is an award that is simply passed around each year, and I guess it was my turn now.” Alternatively, he or she could point out the flaws or limitations in the selection pro- cess (“It’s nothing more than a popularity con- test”) or suggest that it was due to luck (“1 guess I was just in the right place at the right time”). In cases in which the award is a nominal one, a small jest to the group (“Now I can cover up that scratch on my wall with this certificate”) can serve notice to colleagues that the award has not gone to the recipient’s head. This can work even when the award is in fact moderately significant.

Deflection and humility. A closely related strategy is for the recipient to deflect praise. She could choose to state modestly, “I’m embarrassed even to be mentionecl in the same breath as prior award winners,” or “This is an award I never thought I had a chance to win, given all the other viable candidates.” In effect, the winner can indi- cate some doubt about the relative value of her own contribution, thus easing other group mem- bers’ potential dissatisfaction.

Sharing the credit. Perhaps the wisest of all strategies for a winner is simply to say, “I could not have clone it without the help of A and R and C.” This technique is often heard at the annual Academy Awards ceremony. When an offensive football player-typically a “glory” player such as a quarterback or running back-receives acco- lades, he is often obliged to say (with a strong basi,j in truth) that he “couldn’t have done it without the tremendous efforrs of my blockers.” This strategy of humbling oneself and sharing the credit goes a long way toward making individual awards acceptable in a team context. In a sense, this strategy builds on the norm of reciprocity by paying back a debt via sharing of the accolades.

.Adding new or unknown information. In one organizational unit, many of the 35 employ- ees grumbled under their breaths when they were invited 10 a retirement reception for a co- league of whom they were not particularly proud, Grudgingly: most of them attended, When the honoree was given a chance to acknowledge his classic gold watch, he effectively used the oppor- tunity to recount his 37 years of service. the 13 major projects he had been uniquely responsible for, and a host of other accomplishments, This brief reconstruction of his contributions raised his esteem immeasurably in the eyes of his col- leagues, most of whom only knew him during a half-dozen or so of his later, less effective years I

in the firm. This strategy also demonstrated the ultimate resolution of the social exchange con- cept, even though his relationship with his co- workers had been out of balance in recent years.

D ues-paying as a term for a common or- ganizational phenomenon is commonly used but seldom defined. Organizational

members make judgments about whether or not people have paid their dues. Managers need to know how this process works and how they can better manage it. Awards made, promotions given, or superior performance recognized will receive little credit and can lead to dissatisfaction if key observers feel they are undeserved.

We can understand dues-paying better by examining such well-understood and long-estab- lished social processes as social exchange, reci- procity, and idiosyncrasy credits. The perceived fairness of any award decision is viewed in con- trast to the firm’s memory of previous recipients’ dues paid and rewards received. Managers seek- ing to ensure that the rewards made are per- ccived as deserved, just, or fair should make sure recipients are judged as having paid their dues. Similarly, employees in line for recognitions 01 promotions should select personal strategies to retain favor with their work group. No one wants to be on the receiving end of a judgment call of not having paid one’s dues. fl

References

I? Blau, Exchange and Power in So&l Life (New York: Wiley, 1964).

Stephen Covey, St~zrw Habits of HighJy bf,@ectiue Peqh (New York: Simon CG Schuster, 1989).

A.W. Gouldner. “The Norm of Reciprocity,” Amrricau Sociological Reldeui, 25 (1960): 165-I(,?.

E.P. Hollander, Lealets, Groups, and hfEIAencr (New York: Oxford IIniv~rsity Press, 1964).

Robert Ford is the Associate Dean of Graduate and External Programs at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. John Newstrom is a professor of human resource management at the University of Minnesota. Duluth.

20 Business Horizons / .July-August 1999