Academy of Management Review
2006, Vol. 31, No. 3, 596 614.
EXPLORING THE SOCIAL LEDGER: NEGATIVE
RELATIONSHIPS AND NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY
IN SOCIAL NETWORKS IN ORGANIZATIONS
GIUSEPPE LABIANCA
University of Kentucky and
Emory University
DANIEL J. BRASS
University of Kentucky
We explore the role of negative relationships in the context of social networks in work
organizations. Whereas network researchers have emphasized the benefits and op-
portunities derived from positive interpersonal relationships, we examine the social
liabilities that can result from negative relationships in order to flesh out the entire
 social ledger. Deriving our argument from theory and research on negative asym-
metry, we propose that these negative relationships may have greater power than
positive relationships to explain workplace outcomes.
A man s stature is determined by his enemies, not
2001).1 We do not dispute the beneficial aspects
his friends (Al Pacino, City Hall).
of social networks, but we feel that the overem-
phasis on researching the positive aspects of
Employees in organizations are embedded in
networks comes at the expense of fleshing out
social networks that can provide opportunities
what we term the social ledger both the poten-
and benefits, such as job attainment, job satis-
tial benefits and the potential liabilities of so-
faction, enhanced performance, salary, power,
cial relationships. Just as a financial ledger
and promotions (e.g., Brass, 1984, 1985; Burt, 1992;
records financial assets and liabilities, the so-
Granovetter, 1973; Seidel, Polzer, & Stewart,
cial ledger is an accounting of social assets or
2000; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001).
social capital derived from positive relation-
Although early social exchange theorists and
ships and social liabilities derived from nega-
network researchers considered both the posi-
tive relationships.
tive and negative aspects of relationships (e.g.,
To understand the complete social ledger, we
Homans, 1961; Tagiuri, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley,
address the role of negative relationships in or-
1959; White, 1961), over the past two decades
ganizations ongoing and recurring relation-
scholars have focused so intensively on the pos-
ships within the context of a work organization
itive aspects of network relationships that social
in which at least one person dislikes another.
network research has become equated with re-
For example, just as an employee s friends and
search on social capital. Social capital refers to
acquaintances may help the employee get pro-
the idea that individuals social contacts convey
moted by providing such things as critical infor-
benefits that create opportunities for competi-
mation, mentoring, and good references, nega-
tive success for them and for the groups in
tive relationships with others may prevent
which they are members (i.e., Burt, 1992, 1997;
promotion if these people withhold critical infor-
Coleman, 1988, 1990; Seibert, Kramer, & Liden,
1
We thank the following people for their helpful comments Social capital is a broad, multilevel term. It has been
and suggestions: Art Brief, Ron Burt, Stanislav Dobrev, Mich- described as an attribute of nations and geographic regions
elle Duffy, Chris Earley, Rob Folger, Barbara Gray, Jonathan (Fukuyama, 1995), communities (Putnam, 1995), and organi-
Johnson, Martin Kilduff, David Krackhardt, Rich Makadok, zations (Leana & Van Buren, 1999). Our definition focuses on
John Mathieu, Ajay Mehra, Pri Shah, Bruce Skaggs, Ray individuals positions within a social network and their po-
Sparrowe, Leigh Thompson, the OB doctoral students at Tu- tential ability to improve their own outcomes, as well as
lane University, and especially David Ralston (the handling those of their group, because of their social contacts (Burt,
editor) and the three anonymous reviewers. 1992, 1997; Coleman, 1988, 1990).
596
2006 Labianca and Brass 597
mation or provide bad references. Likewise, pos- NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
itive relationships may facilitate knowledge
All relationships have both positive and neg-
transfer that improves group or organizational
ative aspects. Negative encounters, cognitions,
performance (Hansen, 1999; Tsai, 2001), whereas
or behaviors can occur on occasion in any rela-
negative relationships may impede the ex-
tionship. People consider the various punish-
change of performance-enhancing information.
ments and rewards that arise from their interac-
Thus, it is important to consider the negative
tions with others and sever or continue ties on
side of the social ledger social liabilities as
the basis of these judgments (Kelley & Thibaut,
well as the frequently researched social capi-
1978). Although people may intend to be rational
tal.2
and calculative, their judgments are often affec-
Negative relationships are of particular im-
tive as well as cognitive and might appear  irra-
portance when we consider the concept of neg-
tional to an observer.
ative asymmetry: the hypothesis that, in certain
People form global  like and  dislike judg-
circumstances, negative relationships may have
ments of and overall feelings toward others (Ber-
greater explanatory power than positive rela-
scheid & Walster, 1969; Newcomb, 1961; Tagiuri,
tionships. Negative stimuli have been found to
1958). Over time, these judgments, along with
have greater explanatory power than positive or
the complex emotions and perceptions associ-
neutral stimuli in a diverse range of situations,
ated with them, lead people to form person sche-
including person perception and social judg-
mas about those with whom they interact sets
ment (see Taylor, 1991, for a review). In this
of cognitions and feelings that determine how
paper we extend that concept of negative
they will approach future interactions (Fiske &
asymmetry to explore social relationships in
Taylor, 1991). Negative relationships represent
organizations. We propose that negative rela-
an enduring, recurring set of negative judg-
tionships in organizations may have a greater
ments, feelings, and behavioral intentions to-
effect on socioemotional (e.g., organizational
ward another person a negative person
attachment) and task outcomes (e.g., job per-
schema. At least one person in the relationship
formance) than positive relationships.
has adopted a relatively stable pattern of dis-
We begin by looking at negative relationships
like for the other, and possibly an intention to
in more detail and reviewing theoretical expla-
behave so as to disrupt the other s outcomes.
nations and empirical support for a generalized
Usually, relationships in the workplace are
negative asymmetry. We then present evidence
 friendly,  positive, or at least  neutral. Al-
of negative asymmetry in social relationships in
though occasional dislikes may arise, creating
work organizations. Finally, we develop a pre-
temporary discomfort or animosity, or even in-
liminary framework for analyzing negative rela-
terrupting the attainment of individual or orga-
tionships in organizations.
nizational goals, on the whole, the overall re-
wards of the positive working relationships
2
overshadow the rough spots (Kelley & Thibaut,
Other researchers have described the  dark side of
social capital as  opportunity costs (e.g., Gargiulo & Be- 1978). Thus, people may have negative encoun-
nassi, 1999; Leana & Van Buren, 1999). It is important to note
ters without having negative relationships form.
that we focus on the social liabilities created by negative
Conversely, one person may dislike another per-
relationships, rather than the opportunity costs of building
son without any observable or latent conflict.
positive relationships or social capital. As Granovetter (1985)
Although conflict may be a precursor to and a
notes, the obligations and expectations of strong, positive,
long-lasting relationships may prevent a person from real- possible residual of negative relationships, we
izing greater economic opportunities by constraining the
do not equate negative relationships with con-
search for and development of new trading partners. Thus,
flict encounters.
there may be opportunity costs and tradeoffs associated
The relationships we examine are relatively
with building positive relationships and social capital. We
rare, with recent empirical studies suggesting
focus, instead, on recurring negative relationships. These do
not represent lost opportunities, the indirect cost of acquir-
that they make up only 1 to 8 percent of the total
ing social capital by having some positive relationships
number of relationships in an organization (e.g.,
rather than other positive relationships, or pursuing weak
Baldwin, Bedell, & Johnson, 1997; Gersick, Bar-
ties rather than strong ties. Rather, they are the potential
tunek, & Dutton, 2000; Kane & Labianca, 2005;
liabilities or hindrances that result from negative relation-
ships. Labianca, Brass, & Gray, 1998). Yet their rarity
598 Academy of Management Review July
moving to another desk or getting needed infor-
belies their importance. Negative relationships
mation from another source (1995: 276).
develop when two people in an organization
maintain some kind of working relationship
Although we do not equate negative relation-
with each other and when one (or both) of those
ships with conflict episodes, we argue that neg-
people, for whatever reason, dislikes the other.
ative relationships may lead to such behaviors
The dislike may be mild or severe, based on
as avoidance efforts and job redesigns and will
personal associations, prejudices, or whims, or
have negative repercussions for the individuals
on specific objections to the other s social or
involved.
professional behavior or performance. The rela-
tionship may occur across any vertical or hori-
zontal organizational division and within any
CHARACTERIZING NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
organizational group, and it may involve any
number of status and power differentials. The Four interplaying characteristics determine
object of the dislike may return it with more or the extent to which negative relationships result
less fervor, and not necessarily for the same in liabilities for the employees in an organiza-
reasons; the two people may work closely with tion. First, the relationship s strength refers to
each other, or interact only occasionally. Others the intensity of dislike. Although social network
in the organization (including the object of dis- researchers have often investigated the strength
like) may or may not be aware that the negative of positive relationships (based on Granovet-
relationship exists and may or may not respond ter s [1973] distinction between strong ties as
to it; moreover, the two who are actually in that friends and weak ties as acquaintances), we
relationship may not be fully aware of its neg- extend strength of ties to include negative rela-
ative nature. tionships. For example, when the relationship
Whatever the source of the negative feelings, involves mild dislike, workers may be able to
and however they are manifested or concealed, ignore the negative relationship dynamics to act
the negative relationship we describe is one in a  professional manner by focusing on goal
that is enduring, intrinsic to the organization s accomplishment. The result may be only mild
workflow, and, we argue, harmful in some way discomfort and slightly lower job satisfaction.
to the participants.3 Negative relationships cre- However, as intensity increases, workers may
ate social liabilities because they adversely af- find it increasingly difficult to focus on interde-
fect individual outcomes, such as organizational pendent goals. Thus, strong dislike should exac-
attachment, and they adversely affect the ability erbate negative behaviors and the social liabil-
of individuals to coordinate activities and coop- ities of negative relationships. The strength of
erate to achieve organizational goals. For exam- the negative relationship may be affected by its
ple, Jehn s (1995) study of people involved in history. For example, a once-positive relation-
 relationship conflict indicated that relation- ship involving a great degree of trust and vul-
ship conflict in groups was consistently related nerability might have been violated, creating an
to lower organizational attachment for the group extremely negative affective and behavioral re-
members. She also found that sponse (cf. Jones & Burdette, 1994; Mayer, Davis,
& Schoorman, 1995). This type of normative vio-
the members in the conflicts choose to avoid
lation of the friendship bond increases the
working with those with whom they experience
conflict. Some group members attempted to rede- strength of the negative relationship, because
sign their work area or job in the group so that
the degree of punishment inflicted (hurt, anger,
they no longer would have to interact with the
sadness about the loss of a friendship, or the ego
others involved in the conflict, sometimes by
threat from rejection or disloyalty) can be severe
when one member is extremely vulnerable.
3
Second, reciprocity refers to whether an indi-
Social exchange theorists (e.g., Emerson, 1972) define
negative ties differently. They view a negative tie from a vidual is the object or source of dislike, or if the
resource dependence perspective: if person A occupies a
dislike is reciprocated (Wasserman & Faust,
position that person B can easily bypass to get a needed
1994). The greatest social liability occurs when
resource, then person A has a negative tie with person B.
both parties dislike each other, but dislike does
Our definition of negative ties, however, incorporates an
not have to be reciprocated in order for it to be a
affective judgment of another person, without regard to the
relative dependence of that person on another for resources. liability. For example, even if you like a person
2006 Labianca and Brass 599
who dislikes you, that person may make it more the social liability of an individual s social net-
difficult for you to accomplish your tasks by work as the linear combination of strength, rec-
withholding important information, by failing to iprocity, cognition, and social distance of each
provide a reference for you when needed, or by negative tie, summed across all negative ties.4
spreading negative gossip about you. Negative The relative weight of each characteristic is an
outcomes also exist when you dislike someone empirical question that needs to be resolved
who likes you. This may be annoying or burden- through future research and that currently goes
some; working with people you dislike can lead beyond the scope of our theory. Although our
to dissatisfaction and turnover. In extreme cases focus is on social liabilities, we can conversely
(e.g., stalking), you may end up feeling perse- suggest that the  asset side of the social ledger
cuted, frustrated, and victimized. Although neg- is a combination of strength, reciprocity, cogni-
ative outcomes are attached to each, we expect tion, and social distance of each positive tie,
the negative impact of these relationships to summed across all positive ties.
increase as one goes from being the source of
dislike to being the object, and then to the dis-
NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY
like being reciprocated.
The third characteristic, cognition, refers to
While a great deal of research has been con-
whether the person knows the other person dis-
ducted on friendship formation, interpersonal
likes him or her. Although cognition is not nec-
attraction, and the evolution of friendships (see
essary for harm to occur, high cognition will
Berscheid & Walster, 1978, and Hays, 1988, for
cause more discomfort than a lack of cognition
reviews), little has been conducted on the forma-
and is more likely to lead to reciprocated feel-
tion and development of negative relationships
ings of dislike and negative behavior toward the
(Wiseman & Duck, 1995). The evolution of nega-
other person (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). We ac-
tive relationships may be very different from
knowledge that cognition might lead to at-
positive relationships. Friendship development
tempts to improve the relationship, but there is
is viewed as a gradual process. According to
no guarantee that the other party will also seek
social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor,
to improve the relationship. Even in the case
1973), friendship development proceeds from su-
where cognition leads to avoiding the other per-
perficial interaction in narrow areas of ex-
son, such avoidance does not guarantee that the
change to increasingly deeper interaction in
other person might not cause harm. Thus, cog-
broader areas. Perceptions of the rewards and
nition generally results in greater liability than
costs of interacting with a potential friend drive
noncognition.
this progression if you feel that the rewards
For the final characteristic, we go beyond the
from a relationship outweigh the costs, you will
dyad to add a network characteristic social
continue to progress toward closer friendship.
distance. Social distance refers to whether the
However, Wiseman and Duck s (1995) qualita-
negative tie is direct (you are part of the dyad
tive work indicates that negative relationship
with a negative relationship) or indirect (you are
development is a much faster process, tending
connected to a person who has a negative rela-
to lead to the other person s being included in
tionship with another person). The distance be-
coarse-grained categories, such as  rival or
tween one person and another is the length of
 enemy. In contrast, fine-grained ranking dis-
the shortest path between them (Wasserman &
tinctions are created for friends as they move
Faust, 1994). We expect that direct involvement
through a relationship progression from casual
in a negative relationship will result in in-
acquaintances to close friends. Thus, the forma-
creased social liabilities, but we do not ignore
the possibility that indirect relationships may
also produce social liabilities. For example, be-
4
The social liability function is as follows:
ing a friend of a person who is disliked may be
a liability because you are associated with the
Li ( 1sij 2sji 1rij 2rji 1cij 2cji dij)

disliked person and treated similarly (Sparrowe
i j
& Liden, 1999).
where L is the individual s social liability, s is negative tie
These four characteristics combine to deter-
strength, r is reciprocity, c is cognition, and d is social
mine the extent of the social liability. We define distance (shortest path) between individuals i and j.
600 Academy of Management Review July
tion of negative relationships is not the mere (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). Research has shown
opposite of the way positive relationships form. that people assign greater importance to nega-
Not only is there evidence that negative rela- tive information, including social information,
tionships form differently, but there is also evi- than to positive information (Kahneman & Tver-
dence that they may have greater power in ex- sky, 1984; for reviews, see Czapinski & Peeters,
plaining some socioemotional and task 1990, Peeters & Czapinski, 1990, and Skowronski
outcomes in organizations than positive rela- & Carlston, 1989). Likewise, studies in impres-
tionships. We develop our argument that nega- sion formation, person perception, and morality
tive relationships are more important than pos- judgments have shown that negative informa-
itive ones on the basis of previous research tion outweighs positive information in social
demonstrating the relative salience of negative judgments (for reviews, see Fiske & Taylor, 1984,
events and social relationships. We then sum- 1991, and Kanouse & Hanson, 1972).
marize the theoretical arguments that have
been offered to explain this negative asymmetry
Negative Asymmetry in Social Relationships
phenomenon.
In addition to negative events, negative inter-
actions have been found to have a dispropor-
Negative Event Asymmetry
tionately greater effect on such variables as life
Taylor (1991) summarizes evidence that indi- satisfaction, mood, illness, and stress than pos-
cates that negative events elicit greater physio- itive interactions (e.g., Finch, Okun, Barrera,
logical, affective, cognitive, and behavioral ac- Zautra, & Reich, 1989; Hirsch & Rapkin, 1986;
tivity and lead to more cognitive analysis than Rook, 1984, 1990; Stephens, Kinney, Norris, &
neutral or positive events. For example, studies Ritchie, 1987). For example, Rook (1984) found
have shown that subjects experience stronger negative aspects of social relationships to be
physiological arousal when presented with more strongly related to psychological well-
opinions that contradict their own compared to being than positive aspects. In a longitudinal
opinions that support theirs or are neutral. study of people caring for a spouse with Alzhei-
Stronger arousal occurs when people are inter- mer s disease, Pagel, Erdly, and Becker (1987)
acting with persons they dislike, rather than found that negative aspects of the caretaker s
those they like or are neutral toward (e.g., Bur- network were strongly associated with in-
dick & Burnes, 1958; Clore & Gormly, 1974; Dick- creased depression over a ten-month period but
son & McGinnies, 1966; Gormly, 1971, 1974; that positive aspects did not lessen the caretak-
Steiner, 1966). Taylor (1991) also argues that neg- er s depression.
ative events are stronger determinants of mood In a network study of social relationships at
and affect than positive events. For example, work, Burt and Knez (1995, 1996) found that if an
research indicates that negative events are individual was already inclined to trust another
more strongly associated with distress and pre- party, positive third-party gossip amplified that
dict depression better than positive events pre- trust. However, this amplification effect was
dict positive emotions (e.g., Myers, Lindenthal, stronger for negative gossip than for positive
Pepper, & Ostrander, 1972; Paykel, 1974; Vinokur gossip, with negative gossip amplifying distrust
& Selzer, 1975). more greatly. In an earlier study (Labianca,
Additional research has shown that negative Brass, & Gray, 1998), we found that negative
affective states lead people to narrow and focus interpersonal relationships between members
their attention (e.g., Broadbent, 1971; Easter- of different organizational groups were related
brook, 1959; Eysenck, 1976), particularly onto the to perceptions of intergroup conflict but that
negative information that seems to have caused strong friendship ties had no relationship to per-
that negative affective state (Schwarz, 1990). ceptions of intergroup conflict. Strong positive
Positive events and information do not seem to relationships did not dampen or counterbalance
have the same effect on cognitive processing the effects of negative relationships, indicating
(see Kanouse & Hanson, 1972, and Peeters & that a negative asymmetry existed. Finally,
Czapinski, 1990). Negative stimuli also lead to Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon (2002) found that so-
more cognitive work and produce more complex cial undermining behaviors in the workplace
cognitive representations than positive stimuli were related to counterproductive behaviors
2006 Labianca and Brass 601
such as taking extended breaks, while social tionships may be the very force behind the
support behaviors were not related. greater relative impact of that negativity on in-
dividuals.
Ambiguity theorists (e.g., Birnbaum, 1972;
Theoretical Explanations of Negative
Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Wyer, 1973, 1974)
Asymmetry
argue that negative information is more closely
Why do negative events and relationships attended to because it is less ambiguous than
have a stronger impact than positive events and positive information. Because negative informa-
relationships? Evolutionary psychologists ex- tion cannot be discounted as a socially desir-
plain negative asymmetry by noting that those able response, it allows people to make social
who respond quickly to negative events in- judgments more easily. Several studies have
crease their chances of survival (e.g., Cannon, shown that negative behavioral cues are per-
1932; see LeDoux, 1996, for a more recent neuro- ceived as less ambiguous than positive cues
biological perspective). Developmental psychol- (e.g., Birnbaum, 1972; Reeder, Henderson, & Sul-
ogists suggest that children discriminate and livan, 1982; Reeder & Spores, 1983; Wyer, 1974).
evaluate negative events earlier than positive Whether the negative asymmetry bias is
events because negative events are more likely driven by the discrepancy between the expected
to interrupt action. Children learn the rules gov- behavioral norms in organizations and a per-
erning negative behavior first and, thus, become son s actual behaviors, or because a person s
punishment oriented (cf. Piaget, 1932). Nature negative behaviors are attributed to being an
and nurture combine to make humans risk unambiguous window into what he or she is like
averse (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). as a person, the broader point is that the nega-
Skowronski and Carlston (1989) summarize a tive side of the social ledger is different from the
number of theories that attempt to explain this positive side of the ledger. In addition, people
negative asymmetry bias. These theories fall may be paying more attention to the negative
into two broad categories: discrepancy and am- side of the ledger than network researchers
biguity. Discrepancy theorists (e.g., Fiske, 1980; have acknowledged to date.
Helson, 1964; Jones & Davis, 1965; Jones & McGil-
lis, 1976; Sherif & Sherif, 1967) argue that nega-
tive events dominate social judgment because
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE
they contrast sharply with the positive events
RELATIONSHIPS
that people typically experience and expect.
Positive or neutral responses are subject to We now turn to a discussion of the social
strong social desirability norms. These positive liabilities or consequences of negative relation-
expectations have been found consistently and ships for individuals in organizations. As a num-
are called  The Pollyanna Principle (e.g., Mat- ber of organizational scholars have noted (e.g.,
lin & Stang, 1978). They are an example of a Kabanoff, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Polley, 1987),
broader positivity bias in expectations (e.g., individuals in organizations face two funda-
Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1995; see Markus & mental issues: achieving task-related outcomes
Zajonc, 1985, for a discussion of positivity bi- (e.g., job performance) and achieving socioemo-
ases). Interactions tend to be polite, and contin- tional outcomes that maintain cohesiveness and
ued interaction tends to breed friendship (Fest- commitment to the organization (e.g., organiza-
inger, Schachter, & Back, 1950) people rarely tional attachment). Thus, we need to consider
intend to make enemies. Because people expect both issues in relation to the possible conse-
positive information, negative information quences of negative relationships. We argue
stands out and weighs more heavily in impres- that negative relationships will be more strongly
sion formation. Recent research (e.g., Baldwin et related to both task-related and socioemotional
al., 1997; Gersick et al., 2000; Kane & Labianca, outcomes than will positive relationships. As
2005; Labianca, et al., 1998) has shown that neg- noted above, the greater the strength, reciproc-
ative relationships are indeed rare and unex- ity, and cognition and the shorter the social dis-
pected, involving only a small percentage of the tance of the negative relationship, the stronger
possible relationships in a network. Ironically, the long-term social liability will be to the indi-
the relative rarity of negative events and rela- vidual. Our model is presented in Figure 1.
602 Academy of Management Review July
FIGURE 1
Negative Relationships in Organizations
Task-Related Outcomes In time, we expect that the individual s other
task-related outcomes, such as promotions and
Negative relationships differ from conflicts
income attainment, will be negatively affected
about tasks and how to accomplish those tasks
as well. For example, one negative reference
( task conflict, which may be beneficial to an
may effectively stop a promotion or limit salary
organization) because they are laden with neg-
increases.
ative emotion and have hardened into enduring
Numerous social network studies have been
negative person schemas. Negative relation-
conducted on the importance of social capital in
ships may also result in covert and overt behav-
job seeking and status and income attainment
ior, such as attempts to harm the other party
(Boxman, DeGraaf, & Flap, 1991; Bridges & Ville-
(Pondy, 1967; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986), that is disrup-
mez, 1986; Campbell, Marsden, & Hurlbert, 1988;
tive to the task performance of the parties.
DeGraaf & Flap, 1988; Granovetter, 1973, 1974;
Behaviors relating to negative relationships
Lin & Dumin, 1986; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn 1981;
can adversely affect actual and perceived job
Lin, Vaughn, & Ensel, 1981; Marsden & Hurlbert,
performance for one or both members of the
1988; Requena, 1991; Wegener, 1991). Only posi-
dyad, potentially denying a person timely ac-
tive and neutral ties have been investigated,
cess to the most relevant information or referral.
and the results have been mixed concerning the
Someone withholding helpful information may
hinder actual performance. Perceived perfor- benefits of weak and strong positive ties. We
mance may be hindered by dislike for a co- argue for the inclusion of negative relationships
in this research. As noted, higher numbers of
worker that results in negative evaluations of
work performance and that negatively colors strong, reciprocated, cognitive, and short social
that individual s reputation in the organization. distance negative relationships will create the
2006 Labianca and Brass 603
greatest social liability for the individual s task- tive, and short social distance negative relation-
related outcomes, such as performance, promo- ships.
tions, and income attainment.
Proposition 2a: An employee s social
liabilities will be negatively related to
Proposition 1a: An employee s social
organizational attachment.
liabilities will be negatively related to
actual and perceived job performance
While self-report assessments of organization-
and subsequent promotions and in-
al attachment, such as the Job Descriptive Index
come attainment.
(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), ask respondents
to assess their overall satisfaction with their
In keeping with our negative asymmetry hy-
social relationships (e.g., coworkers and super-
pothesis, we further argue that negative rela-
visors), they do not separate out the effects of
tionships will have a disproportionately stron-
negative and positive relationships. This ap-
ger effect on the individual s actual and
proach may obscure the fine-gained connection
perceived performance, promotions, and income
between social relationships and organization-
attainment than will positive relationships.
al attachment. Negative relationships may have
Proposition 1b: An employee s social
a disproportionately greater effect on organiza-
liabilities will be more strongly re-
tional attachment than positive relationships in
lated to his or her actual and perceived
much the same way that they ve been found to
job performance and subsequent pro-
have a greater effect on overall life satisfaction
motions and income attainment than
(e.g., Brenner, Norvell, & Limacher, 1989; Rook,
the employee s positive relationships
1984). Particularly in the workplace, where inter-
(social assets).
actions often cannot be avoided and where the
stakes can be very high (e.g., loss of income and
social status), negative relationships may have
Socioemotional Outcomes
a more profound effect on a person s organiza-
An organization s second fundamental issue tional attachment than positive relationships.
is achieving socioemotional outcomes that The failure to investigate negative relation-
maintain employees commitment to their jobs ships along with positive or neutral relation-
and the organization. Organizational attach- ships may also explain the contradictory find-
ment/withdrawal is the general construct that ings of social network researchers who have
has been developed to define these socioemo- attempted to relate one s network position in an
tional outcomes (e.g., Lee & Mitchell, 1994). Or- organization with organizational attachment.
ganizational attachment is theorized to have an Early laboratory studies of small groups showed
attitudinal and a behavioral component. Job sat- that central actors were more satisfied than pe-
isfaction and affective organizational commit- ripheral actors (see Shaw, 1964, for a review).
ment capture attitudinal attachment to one s job However, Brass (1981) found no relationship be-
and one s organization, respectively, whereas tween being central to an organization s work-
absenteeism and turnover are considered be- flow network and job satisfaction, and Kilduff
havioral manifestations of organizational with- and Krackhardt (1994) found that centrality in a
drawal. friendship network was negatively related to job
The quality of one s interpersonal relation- satisfaction.
ships at work is an important factor in job sat- Investigating both negative and positive rela-
isfaction (e.g., Crosby, 1982) and affective orga- tionships might help resolve these contradictory
nizational commitment (e.g., Kanter, 1968; findings. For example, if being highly central in
Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) and is considered one of a network also increases the number of negative
the basic needs that is fulfilled through work relationships an employee accumulates, these
(e.g., Maslow, 1943). Thus, an employee with negative relationships may spark a greater de-
greater social liabilities will tend to be less at- crease in that employee s satisfaction that is not
tached to the organization than an employee offset by an increasing number of positive rela-
with fewer social liabilities. The lowest organi- tionships. If our negative asymmetry argument
zational attachment will be associated with holds true, this would explain the inconsistent
having numerous strong, reciprocated, cogni- findings on network centrality and job satisfac-
604 Academy of Management Review July
tion. Without an accounting of both the negative affect toward people who reward us and nega-
and positive entries in an employee s social led- tive affect toward those who punish us (Ber-
ger, it will be difficult to have a clear under- scheid & Walster, 1978; Byrne & Clore, 1970). We
standing of how that employee s relationships
use the concepts of rewards and punishments in
at work relate to his or her organizational at-
a very general sense. For example, a relation-
tachment.
ship that offers the opportunity for mutual
growth and development can be considered re-
Proposition 2b: An employee s social
warding, as can one that offers work-related
liabilities will be more strongly re-
advice. As noted previously, this assessment is
lated to his or her organizational at-
affective as well as cognitive and might not
tachment than his or her positive rela-
appear rational to an observer.
tionships (social assets).
In the workplace, these rewards and punish-
Social psychological research has generally
ments occur in two general arenas: achieving
established that there is a weak relationship
task-related outcomes and achieving socioemo-
between attitudes and individuals subsequent
tional outcomes that maintain social cohesive-
behaviors (see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, for a re-
ness and commitment (e.g., Kabanoff, 1991; Katz
view). However, various attitude qualities, such
& Kahn, 1978; Polley, 1987). Based on Berscheid
as attitude strength, certainty, clarity, and ex-
and Walster s (1978) factors that influence rein-
tremity, as well as the degree of threat to the
forcement and subsequently affect interper-
individual s outcomes and self-interest, have
sonal attraction and repulsion, we have identi-
been shown to increase the magnitude of the
fied four factors that positively influence the
attitude-behavior relationship significantly
likelihood that negative relationships in organi-
(Boninger, Krosnick, Berent, & Fabrigar, 1995;
zations will form and/or that influence the im-
Petty & Krosnick, 1993; Raden, 1985). Thus, we
pact of those negative relationships: network
expect that negative interpersonal attitudes and
density, task interdependence, status dissimi-
relationships, because they are extreme, unam-
larity, and personality. These represent contex-
biguous, and threatening to the individual, will
tual factors outside the relationship (network
be more strongly related to that individual s
density and task interdependence), relational
subsequent organizational withdrawal behav-
factors about the dyad in the relationship (status
iors, such as turnover and absenteeism, than
positive relationships. This relationship be- dissimilarity), and individual factors about the
members of the relationship (personality).
comes even stronger, and the individual more
likely to be absent from or leave the organiza- Although the formation of negative relation-
tion, if the individual s negative relationships ships may involve factors similar to those in-
are strong, reciprocated, cognitive, and of short
volved in the formation of positive relationships,
social distance.
we do not assume that the formation of negative
relationships is merely the opposite of friend-
Proposition 3: An employee s social li-
ship formation. Rather, certain factors may be
abilities will have a greater impact on
differentially weighted in making a negative
the magnitude of the relationship be-
interpersonal judgment instead of a positive
tween the employee s affective orga-
one. For example, physical attractiveness may
nizational attachment and subse-
play a large role in interpersonal attraction, but
quent withdrawal behaviors than will
it may play a relatively minor role in explaining
his or her positive relationships (social
the formation of negative relationships. While
assets).
the factors we present below increase or de-
crease the likelihood negative relationships will
FACTORS AFFECTING THE FORMATION AND
form, some of these factors can also increase or
RELATIVE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE
decrease the impact of these negative relation-
RELATIONSHIPS IN ORGANIZATIONS
ships on individuals outcomes. Thus, in this
The general psychological principle underly- section we discuss both antecedents of negative
ing interpersonal attraction and repulsion is the relationship formation and moderators of the
principle of reinforcement: we develop positive impact of negative relationships.
2006 Labianca and Brass 605
Network Density and Task Interdependence expect that task interdependence will be nega-
tively associated with the number of negative
Negative relationships do not occur in isola-
relationships.
tion; they occur within a network of relation-
ships. Third parties can serve to either inflame Proposition 5: Negative relationships
or defuse the negative relationship (Kelley & will be less numerous when the net-
Thibaut, 1978). The number of third parties who work has a high level of task interde-
can affect the negative relationship increases pendence.
with increasing network density, density being
While high-density and highly task interde-
the ratio of actual ties in a network to the num-
pendent networks will serve to minimize the for-
ber of possible ties (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
mation of negative relationships, they might not
In a high-density network, most actors know
prevent them entirely. When the social pres-
and interact with one another; in Berscheid and
sures against negative relationships fail, high-
Walster s (1978) terminology, the actors are so-
density and highly task interdependent net-
cially proximal and reciprocation is high both
works can, ironically, magnify the effects of
conditions that foster interpersonal attraction.
negative relationships. Third parties can also be
The network s high density also allows for easy
drawn into the negative relationship and can
monitoring. It may be difficult for an employee
further escalate it (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Smith,
to engage in self-serving, norm-defying, or op-
1989).
portunistic behavior that might be detrimental
The disliked employee may attempt to seek
or threatening to the other members of the orga-
social support in dealing with the person who
nization, because that person s actions are mon-
dislikes him/her a situation that occurs for sev-
itored and sanctioned by the other network
eral reasons. First, it increases the stability of
members. Similarily, Coleman (1988, 1990) ar-
the positive relationship between the disliked
gues that high-density networks (high  closure
person and the third party. Friendships grow
networks) encourage three forms of social capi-
stronger when there is an increase in the feeling
tal: mutual obligations, trustworthiness, and the
that two people share a common frame of refer-
existence of norms and sanctions.
ence, such as a common enemy (Hays, 1988).
Identification of common negative feelings to-
Proposition 4: Negative relationships
ward the same person helps solidify that com-
will be less numerous in a high-
mon frame of reference and strengthen the rela-
density network.
tionship between those involved. Second, the
In networks where the underlying task re- need may arise for them to create a coalition to
quires that individuals cooperate and make oppose the other member of the relationship in
joint decisions in order to accomplish the task the future. Finally, if the employee has a nega-
(e.g., reciprocal interdependence), there will be tive relationship with another person, the em-
great pressure exerted by third parties to pre- ployee may also form negative judgments about
vent negative relationships from forming and to that person s friends (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Smith,
resolve negative encounters quickly should they 1989). According to balance theory, if you dislike
occur. This is because of the great potential dis- another person, your judgment of that person s
ruption to the task outcomes of the entire net- friends will tend to be negative as well (e.g.,
work, which gives each third party a greater Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1961).
stake in minimizing social liabilities. If both In contrast, when a network is sparsely con-
parties in a negative relationship have positive nected or has low task interdependence, nega-
relationships with a third party, there is a ten- tive relationships may be more frequent, but
dency to balance the triad by minimizing the when they do occur, they may have little impact
negative affect between the members of the on the entire network because there are fewer
negative relationship (Heider, 1958). This bal- available third parties to feed an escalation.
ancing can take place either because the two Thus, we include network density and task in-
parties initiate a de-escalation in order to main- terdependence as both factors decreasing the
tain their positive relationships with the third likelihood of negative relationships (Proposi-
party or because the third party takes an active tions 4 and 5) and as moderators increasing the
role in mediating between the two. We therefore detrimental relationship between negative rela-
606 Academy of Management Review July
tionships and task and socioemotional out- and that person s friends. Heider s (1958) bal-
comes (Proposition 6; also see Figure 1). ance theory points out that the enemy of one s
enemy is one s friend. As in the example of the
Proposition 6: An employee s social li-
common enemy, sharing a dislike for someone
abilities will have the most negative
can enhance positive relationships (Hays, 1988),
impact on the employee s task perfor-
potentially improving organizational attach-
mance and socioemotional outcomes
ment for those individuals. It may be beneficial
when the network is relatively dense
to one s career goals to align with employees
or there is a high level of task interde-
who are well liked by others and disassociate
pendence.
from or dislike employees who are disliked by
many others (Bonacich & Lloyd, 2004). For exam-
ple, a negative reference from a person who is
Status Dissimilarity
generally disliked by many others may do little
We propose that the relative hierarchical po-
harm to one s reputation. Whereas being posi-
sition of those to whom individuals are nega-
tively connected to someone who is central in
tively tied will moderate the liabilities of nega-
the friendship network can be beneficial (Brass,
tive relationships on the individuals task and
1984; Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994), being nega-
socioemotional outcomes. We expect that nega-
tively (or at least neutrally) connected to some-
tive relationships with those higher in the for-
one who is central in a  disliking network may
mal hierarchy (both direct supervisors and other
be equally beneficial.
managers) will destroy organizational attach-
ment and make it more difficult to achieve task- Proposition 8: The informal status (rel-
related outcomes (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Spar- ative popularity) of those to whom an
rowe & Liden, 1997). Over time, this should result individual is negatively tied will mod-
in reduced chances for promotion and income erate the relationship between nega-
attainment for those engaged in negative rela- tive ties and task and socioemotional
tionships, particularly low-status employees. outcomes; a negative relationship
For example, positive contacts with supervisors with someone who is disliked by many
have been found to be a major determinant of others will result in a positive impact
power and promotion in organizations (Brass, on the focal person s outcomes.
1984). Higher-level individuals have more power
to potentially thwart a promotion or substan-
Personality
tially reduce an individual s influence in the
organization. We also expect indirect network
Our previous arguments have centered on the
effects in status differences. For example, one s
role of the characteristics of the dyad or the
career success may be hampered when one s
context in which the relationship is embedded
immediate supervisor has a negative relation-
in determining the formation and impact of neg-
ship with a higher-level manager (cf. Sparrowe
ative relationships. Here we consider the role of
& Liden, 1999).
the individual s personality in creating more en-
tries on the liability side of the social ledger.
Proposition 7: The relative formal sta-
Although the structural perspective in most so-
tus of those to whom an individual is
cial network research ignores individual char-
negatively tied will moderate the re-
acteristics, personality traits may affect the
lationship between social liabilities
composition of one s social network and, in turn,
and task-related and socioemotional
one s performance (cf. Kilduff, 1992; Mehra,
outcomes; the higher the other per-
Kilduff, & Brass, 2001).
son s formal status, the greater the so-
Recent theoretical work on the structure of
cial liability for the focal person.
personality has converged around a five-factor
Besides the formal hierarchy, status can also model (Digman, 1990; John, 1989; McCrae &
be derived from the informal relations in a work- Costa, 1989) that accounts for 85 percent of the
place (e.g., Rennie, 1962). There may be benefits personality differences between individuals; we
from a negative relationship with someone who focus on the two most relevant personality fac-
is highly unpopular for the disliking individual tors: negative affectivity (NA) and conscientious-
2006 Labianca and Brass 607
ness. NA is the most theoretically relevant neg- DISCUSSION
ative affect based personality factor that can
In this paper we have attempted to move be-
affect organizational attachment. Conscien-
yond the exclusive consideration of positive re-
tiousness is the personality factor that has been
lationships and social capital to a consideration
shown to be most relevant to task-related out-
of the liability side of the social ledger
comes in organizations.
negative relationships in organizations. The
Negative affectivity. NA is a mood-disposi-
workplace offers an environment where the de-
tional dimension that reflects pervasive individ-
gree of threat to an individual from a negative
ual differences in negative emotionality and
relationship can be greater than in other set-
self-concept (Watson & Clark, 1984). High-NA in-
tings. Negative relationships in the work setting
dividuals tend to be distressed, upset, have a
can be a major threat to one s financial liveli-
negative view of self, and generally dissatisfied
hood and emotional well-being, and possibly to
with life, whereas low-NA individuals are con-
the productive functioning of the organization
tent, secure, and generally satisfied with them-
as a whole. Unlike nonwork situations, required
selves and their lives. High-NA individuals tend
workflow and hierarchical responsibilities
to focus on the negative side of others and the
might make it particularly difficult to avoid in-
world in general.
teracting with disliked others. Even in cases
NA may affect attitudes and emotions (and
where disliked others can be avoided, the
negative relationships) in two ways (Brief,
changes in workflow and communication struc-
Butcher, & Roberson, 1995; McCrae & Costa,
ture can have unintended negative conse-
1991). First, because high-NA employees tend to
quences for others in the organization. The rel-
dwell on failures and shortcomings, they  may
ative lack of research on negative relationships,
act in ways that alienate their co-workers, re-
especially from a network perspective, leaves a
sulting in more negative interpersonal interac-
great deal of work to be done in this area.
tions (Brief et al., 1995: 56). Second, high-NA
individuals may be more sensitive to negative
stimuli and may react with more extreme emo-
Measuring Negative Relationships and
tion when experiencing a negative event (Brief
Testing Propositions
et al., 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1991), thus precip-
itating negative relationships over time. Testing our propositions requires capturing
negative relationships through surveys or inter-
Proposition 9: High-NA individuals
views. Our definition of negative relationships
will have more negative relationships
is intentionally broad and includes elements of
than low-NA individuals.
cognition and perception (negative judgments
and enduring negative person schemas), affect
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness refers
(feelings), and behavioral intentions. Fully cap-
to the extent to which an individual is hardwork-
turing the dimensions of negative relationships
ing, organized, dependable, and persevering.
would require multi-item measures. However,
This is the personality factor that has been
we also recognize that network researchers of-
shown to most consistently relate to job perfor-
ten cannot use multi-item measures in networks
mance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997).
larger than the size of typical workgroups be-
Individuals low in conscientiousness are con-
cause of potential respondent fatigue. Thus, we
sidered lazy, disorganized, and unreliable. Be-
recommend that multi-item measures be used
cause organizations are, in part, goal attain-
where the focus is on relationships close at
ment devices, over time, those individuals that
hand (e.g., workgroups) and that single-item
frustrate task goal attainment within an organi-
measures be used to identify negative relation-
zation will have more negative relationships di-
ships in larger networks. Where single-item
rected toward them from the other individuals in
measures are used, we suggest following Fish-
the organization.
bein and Azjen s (1975) recommendation of fo-
Proposition 10: Individuals low in con- cusing the question on the affective component
scientiousness will have more nega- of the relationship.
tive relationships than individuals We suggest that negative relationships be
high in conscientiousness. captured in a whole network, rather than
608 Academy of Management Review July
through egocentric network data, in order to two ways that negative aspects of personal re-
capture aspects of the whole network (e.g., den- lationships have been measured. Underlying
sity) and the dyadic relationship (e.g., reciproc- the orthogonal approach is the assumption that
ity) that we have identified as important to the every relationship contains both positive and
study of negative relationships. We also advise negative aspects, that these aspects are inde-
using rosters of employees to facilitate data col- pendent, and that they should therefore be mea-
lection, rather than using recall, which might sured independently (e.g., Rook, 1984). This ap-
not be as reliable in this instance (e.g., Marsden, proach has been typical of the social support
1990). Once the data have been collected, the literature cited earlier.
social liability and social asset functions can be The continuum approach (e.g., Tagiuri, 1958;
created and the researcher can test the proposi- Newcomb, 1961; Berscheid & Walster, 1969), how-
tions we have offered. For example, the negative ever, acknowledges that all personal relation-
asymmetry hypotheses could involve testing ships have both positive and negative aspects
whether a unit increase in the social liability but adds the assumption that people form a
function creates the same impact (but in the global bipolar judgment of others that can be
opposite direction) as a unit increase in the so- captured by such terms as like and dislike, on
cial asset function (see Soofi, Retzer, & Yasai- opposite ends of a continuum. This approach is
Ardekani, 2000, for a discussion of determining more typical of early network studies and of
the relative importance of explanatory vari- research on interpersonal attraction.
ables). In the most recent work in this area, research-
Gaining respondent trust to gather negative ers have sought to create a rapprochement be-
ties in work organizations is difficult, as noted tween the two sides (Barrett & Russell, 1998; Ca-
by White:  Managers in [Company A] were loath cioppo et al., 1997). In recent theorizing scholars
explicitly to indicate various kinds of clearly have recognized that there are aspects of affect
negative feelings for a colleague (1961: 194). that should be conceptualized and measured in
This potential reticence has led some research- an orthogonal fashion, while there are other as-
ers to ask about negative relationships using pects that are on a continuum. When one is
related terminology, such as  Whom do you pre- describing the underlying physical and motiva-
fer to avoid? (e.g., Labianca et al., 1998). But the tional  paths of affect, an orthogonal (bivariate)
validity of this type of measure is more open to approach is more appropriate. Thus, we expect
interpretation. For example, you may prefer to that negative aspects of persons we meet will be
avoid coworkers that you like a lot because you captured differently by our minds than positive
can t get any work done when they are around. aspects of persons. But when it comes to concep-
We urge the use of measures with greater face tually organizing our thoughts about a person,
validity, such as  How do you generally feel we tend to default toward a continuum (bipolar)
about this person? and we urge future re- approach. Thus, dichotomies such as like and
searchers not to assume respondent reticence if dislike are meaningful and appropriate when
respondents confidentiality concerns are prop- measuring negative relationships as we have
erly addressed. For example, when data on in- defined them here.
terpersonal relationships were collected using
five-point Likert-type scales (dislike a lot, dislike
Future Research
slightly, neutral, like slightly, like a lot), over 85
percent of employees in a sample (Labianca, Although our focus has been at the individual
Umphress, & Kaufmann, 2000) rated at least one level of analysis (individual task performance
other employee as a person whom they disliked. and socioemotional outcomes), negative rela-
Measuring negative relationships also re- tionships may also affect group- and organiza-
quires understanding prior research on atti- tional-level performance. Negative relation-
tudes and emotions, which has been torn be- ships may be detrimental to the overall
tween continuum (bipolar) and orthogonal performance of groups or organizations in the
(bivariate) conceptualizations of positivity and long term because they interfere with coopera-
negativity (see Barrett & Russell, 1998, and Ca- tive behavior (Jehn, 1995, 1997; see Thomas, 1992,
cioppo, Gardner, & Bernston, 1997, for a discus- and Wall & Callister, 1995, for reviews). In an
sion). This long-raging debate is reflected in the attempt to deal with a long-term negative rela-
2006 Labianca and Brass 609
tionship, an individual may revise the workflow tural holes and the roles and outcomes that may
and communication patterns in the organization result from such causes as negative relation-
to avoid the other person. If the individual is ships.
unable to do that because of workflow require- We urge a greater understanding of the poten-
ments, the quality or frequency of the communi- tial career liabilities created by social liabili-
cation in that relationship may deteriorate. ties, especially those that extend beyond the
Negative relationships may result in covert immediate supervisor-subordinate relationship
and overt behavior, such as attempts to harm or the immediate workgroup where a network
the other party (Pondy, 1967; Pruitt & Rubin, approach can uniquely add to what has already
1986), which is disruptive to the effective func- been researched from a more psychological per-
tioning of a group or organization. Over time, spective (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Our logic
such behavior may create suboptimal organiza- can also be extended to examining hiring deci-
tional processes. Ceteris paribus, a group or or- sions. In job hunting there is an information
ganization with more social liabilities among its asymmetry, where the hiring firm usually
members will perform poorly compared to a doesn t know much about the applicant. There-
group or organization with fewer social liabili- fore, weak positive ties are important in landing
ties. For example, Sparrowe et al. (2001) found a job (e.g., Granovetter, 1973; Petersen, Saporta,
that the density of  hindrance networks ( Does & Seidel, 2000). However, if the hiring firm did
[name] make it difficult to carry out your job know about a negative relationship, our nega-
responsibilities? ) was negatively related to tive asymmetry hypothesis argues that this
group performance. Future research might fruit- piece of information would be weighted more in
fully investigate social liabilities at the group the decision to hire than would the positive in-
and organizational levels of analysis. formation coming from a positive tie.
There are many areas of network research Considering negative relationships in addi-
that can benefit from a consideration of nega- tion to positive and neutral ties may add to our
tive relationships. For example, the practical knowledge in research areas such as intraorga-
implications of social network research on indi- nizational power (e.g., Brass, 1984). While cogni-
viduals career management have focused, to tion of positive relationships (assessing the po-
date, only on positive or neutral ties (social as- litical landscape) has been shown to be related
sets) in building larger and more diverse net- to power (Krackhardt, 1990), cognition of nega-
works (e.g., Baker, 1994; Burt, 1992; Granovetter, tive relationships between individuals or
1973; Lin & Dumin, 1986; Seibert et al., 2001). groups may prove to be just as important a
Diverse networks rich in structural holes have source of power in organizations. Knowing one s
been shown to be associated with career suc- enemies may be as important, or more impor-
cess (Burt, 1992; Seibert et al., 2001). A structural tant, than knowing one s friends.
hole exists when a focal person, ego, is con- We do not mean to suggest that negative re-
nected to two other people, alters, who are not lationships only cause social liabilities. Just as
themselves positively connected. Because of the research has shown that conflict can have ben-
lack of a positive relationship, or a structural eficial outcomes for individuals and organiza-
hole between the two alters, ego can control the tions (e.g., Jehn, 1995, 1997; Thomas, 1992; Wall &
resource flow between the two and broker one Callister, 1995), when handled in a productive
against the other. manner, negative relationships may also have
However, little attention has been given to the positive externalities. For example, negative re-
cause of these structural holes. While some lationships may result in our becoming aware of
holes exist because of alters ignorance of each a need for personal change, may provide more
other s existence, some structural holes may ex- accurate feedback about how others view us,
ist because two alters dislike each other. In the and may spur us to serve multiple others con-
case of a negative relationship between alters, flicting needs in the optimal way. Negative re-
brokering may be easier, or, alternatively, ego lationships may force us to see other perspec-
may be placed in a stressful mediating role that tives that lead us to discover original or
consumes a lot of time and energy and does not innovative ways of doing things.
facilitate career success. Future research might From the perspective of the organization, neg-
fruitfully explore the different causes of struc- ative relationships may result from hiring per-
610 Academy of Management Review July
Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Berent, M. K., & Fabrigar, L. R.
sons who do not fit well with others in the orga-
1995. The causes and consequences of attitude impor-
nization. If negative relationships produce
tance. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude
social liabilities for these hiring  mismatches,
strength: Antecedents and consequences: 159 189. Mah-
people who do not fit well with others may be-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
come dissatisfied and quit. This type of turnover
Boxman, E. A. W., DeGraaf, P. M., & Flap, H. D. 1991. The
is potentially beneficial to the organization.
impact of social and human capital on the income at-
However, we do feel that, on the whole, more
tainment of Dutch managers. Social Networks, 13: 51 73.
negative relationships will lead to greater lia-
Brass, D. J. 1981. Structural relationships, job characteristics,
bilities for both individuals and organizations
and worker satisfaction and performance. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 26: 331 348.
than will fewer negative relationships.
Although we have emphasized the role of neg- Brass, D. J. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural anal-
ative relationships, we also do not mean to im- ysis of individual influence in an organization. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 29: 518  539.
ply that positive relationships are not beneficial
Brass, D. J. 1985. Men s and women s networks: A study of
or important. Indeed, much of the social network
interaction patterns and influence in an organization.
research suggests they are important. However,
Academy of Management Journal, 28: 327 343.
our review of theory and research suggests that
Brenner, G. F., Norvell, N. K., & Limacher, M. 1989. Supportive
negative relationships are as important as, and
and problematic social interactions: A social network
may be more important than, positive relation-
analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology,
ships in explaining various outcomes of interest
17: 831 836.
to organizational researchers. This necessitates
Bridges, W. P., & Villemez, W. J. 1986. Informal hiring and
looking at both sides of the social ledger social
income in the labor market. American Sociological Re-
liabilities as well as social assets.
view, 51: 574 582.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. 1995. Cookies,
disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive
REFERENCES
mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. 1973. Social penetration: The de- satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Be-
velopment of interpersonal relationships. New York: havior and Human Decision Processes, 62: 55 62.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Broadbent, D. E. 1971. Decision and stress. San Diego: Aca-
Baker, W. E. 1994. Networking smart: How to build relation- demic Press.
ships for personal and organizational success. New York:
Burdick, H. A., & Burnes, A. J. 1958. A test of  strain toward
McGraw-Hill.
symmetry theories. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. 1997. The social chology, 57: 367 370.
fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of com-
on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of
petition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Management Journal, 40: 1369 1397.
Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Ad-
Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. 1998 Independence and bipolarity
ministrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339 365.
in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality
Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. 1995. Kinds of third-party effects on
and Social Psychology, 74: 967 984.
trust. Rationality and Society, 7: 255 292.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Per- Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. 1996. Trust and third-party gossip. In
R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:
sonnel Psychology, 44: 1 26.
Frontiers of theory and research: 68 89. Thousand Oaks,
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. 1969. Interpersonal attraction.
CA: Sage.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. 1970. A reinforcement model of
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. 1978. Interpersonal attraction
evaluative responses. Personality, 1: 103 128.
(2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Bernston, G. G. 1997. The
Birnbaum, M. H. 1972. Morality judgments: Tests of an aver-
affect system has parallel and integrative processing
aging model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93:
components: Form follows function. Journal of Personal-
35 42.
ity and Social Psychology, 76: 839  855.
Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. 1995. Positive-
Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. 1986. Social
negative asymmetry in social discrimination: The im-
resources and socioeconomic status. Social Networks, 8:
pact of stimulus valence and size and status differen-
97 117.
tials on intergroup evaluations. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 34: 409 419. Cannon, W. B. 1932. The wisdom of the body. New York:
Norton.
Bonacich, P., & Lloyd, P. 2004. Calculating status with nega-
tive relations. Social Networks, 26: 331 341. Clore, G. L., & Gormly, J. B. 1974. Knowing, feeling, and
2006 Labianca and Brass 611
liking: A psychophysiological study of attraction. Jour- Gersick, C. J. G., Bartunek, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. 2000. Learning
nal of Research in Personality, 8: 218 230. from academia: The importance of relationships in pro-
fessional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43:
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human
1026 1044.
capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement):
S95 S120.
Gormly, J. 1971. Sociobehavioral and physiological re-
sponses to interpersonal disagreement. Journal of Ex-
Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge,
perimental Research in Personality, 5: 216  222.
MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Gormly, J. 1974. A comparison of predictions from consis-
Crosby, F. 1982. Relative deprivation and working women.
tency and affect theories for arousal during interper-
New York: Oxford University Press.
sonal disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social
DeGraaf, N. D., & Flap, H. D. 1988.  With a little help from my
Psychology, 30: 658 663.
friends : Social resources as an explanation of occupa-
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based ap-
tional status and income in West Germany, the Nether-
proach to leadership: Development of leader-member
lands, and the United States. Social Forces, 67: 452 472.
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Ap-
Dickson, H. W., & McGinnies, E. 1966. Affectivity in the
plying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leader-
arousal of attitudes as measured by galvanic skin re-
ship Quarterly, 6: 219 247.
sponse. American Journal of Psychology, 79: 584 589.
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American
Digman, J. M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the
Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360 1380.
five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 417
Granovetter, M. 1974. Getting a job. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
440.
University Press.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under-
mining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour- Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure:
The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of So-
nal, 45: 331 351.
ciology, 91: 481 510.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes.
Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational
Easterbrook, J. A. 1959. The effect of emotion on cue utiliza-
subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 422 447.
tion and the organization of behavior. Psychological Re-
view, 66: 183 201. Hays, R. B. 1988. Friendship. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E.
Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook
Emerson, R. M. 1972. Exchange theory. Part II: Exchange
of personal relationships: Theory, research and interven-
relations and network structures. In J. Berger,
tions: 391 408. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
M. Zelditch, Jr., & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theo-
ries in progress: 58 87. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Heider, F. 1958. Perceiving the other person. In R. Tagiuri &
L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal
Eysenck, M. W. 1976. Arousal, learning, and memory. Psycho-
behavior: 22 26. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
logical Bulletin, 83: 389  404.
Helson, H. 1964. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper &
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K: 1950. Social pressures
Row.
in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing.
New York: Harper.
Hirsch, B. J., & Rapkin, B. D. 1986. Social networks and adult
social identities: Profiles and correlates of support and
Finch, J. F., Okun, M. A., Barrera, M., Jr., Zautra, A. J., & Reich,
rejection. American Journal of Community Psychology,
J. W., 1989. Positive and negative social ties among older
14: 395 412.
adults: Measurement models and the prediction of psy-
chological distress and well-being. American Journal of
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
Community Psychology, 17: 585 605.
New York: Harcourt Brace & World.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and
Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Read-
and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Science Quarterly, 40: 256 282.
Fiske, S. T. 1980. Attention and weight in person perception:
Jehn, K. A. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and
The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of
dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative
Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 889 906.
Science Quarterly, 42: 530 557.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1984. Social cognition. Reading,
John, O. P. 1989. Towards a taxonomy of personality descrip-
MA: Addison-Wesley.
tors. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychol-
ogy: Recent trends and emerging directions: 261 271.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition (2nd ed.).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. 1965. From acts to dispositions: The
Fukuyama, F. 1995. Social capital and the global economy.
Foreign Affairs, 74(5): 89 103. attribution process in person perception. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 2: 219 266.
Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. 1999. The dark side of social capital.
In S. Gabbay & R. Leenders (Eds.), Corporate social capital Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. 1976. Correspondent inferences
and social liability: 298 322. Boston: Kluwer. and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In
612 Academy of Management Review July
J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in Lin, N., & Dumin, M. 1986. Access to occupations through
attribution research, vol. 1: 390  420. New York: Lawrence social ties. Social Networks, 8: 365 385.
Erlbaum Associates.
Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. 1981. Social resources and
strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status
Jones, W., & Burdette, M. P. 1994. Betrayal in relationships. In
A. Weber & J. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close rela- attainment. American Sociological Review, 46: 393 405.
tionships: 243 262. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lin, N., Vaughn, J. C., & Ensel, W. M. 1981. Social resources
and occupational status attainment. Social Forces, 59:
Kabanoff, B. 1991. Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Acad-
1163 1181.
emy of Management Review, 16: 416 441.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. 1985. The cognitive perspective in
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values, and
social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
frames. American Psychologist, 39: 341 350.
Handbook of social psychology. Volume 1: Theory and
Kane, G., & Labianca, G. 2005. Accounting for clergy s social
method (3rd ed.): 137 229. New York: Random House.
ledgers: Mixed blessings associated with direct and in-
Marsden, P. V. 1990. Network data and measurement. Annual
direct negative ties in a religious organization. Paper
Review of Sociology, 16: 435 463.
presented at the Intra-Organizational Network (ION)
Conference, Atlanta. Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. 1988. Social resources and
mobility outcomes: A replication and extension. Social
Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. R., Jr. 1972. Negativity in evalu-
Forces, 66: 1038  1059.
ations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E.
Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Per- Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psycho-
logical Review, 50: 370 396.
ceiving the causes of behavior: 47 62. Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1990. A review and meta-
analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and conse-
Kanter, R. M. 1968. Commitment and social organization: A
quences of organizational commitment. Psychological
study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communi-
Bulletin, 108: 171 194.
ties. American Sociological Review, 33: 477 507.
Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. 1978. The Pollyanna Principle:
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organi-
Selectivity in language, memory, and thought. Cam-
zations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
bridge, MA: Schenkman.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. 1978. Interpersonal relations: A
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. 1995. An integra-
theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
tive model of organizational trust. Academy of Manage-
Kilduff, M. 1992. The friendship network as a decision-
ment Review, 20: 709 734.
making resource: Dispositional moderators of social in-
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. 1989. Reinterpreting the
fluences on organizational choice. Journal of Personality
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the
and Social Psychology, 62: 168 180.
five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality,
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. 1994. Bringing the individual
57: 17 40.
back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. 1991. Adding Liebe und
reputation in organizations. Academy of Management
Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Per-
Journal, 37: 87 108.
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 227 232.
Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape:
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. 2001. The social networks
Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Ad-
of high and low self-monitors: Inplications for workplace
ministrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342 369.
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 121
Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. 1998. Social networks 146.
and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of neg-
Myers, J. K., Lindenthal, J. J., Pepper, M., & Ostrander, D. R. 1972.
ative relationships and third parties. Academy of Man-
Life events and mental status: A longitudinal study. Jour-
agement Journal, 41: 55 67.
nal of Health and Social Behavior, 13: 398 406.
Labianca, G., Umphress, E. E., & Kaufmann, J. 2000. A prelim-
Newcomb, T. 1961. The acquaintance process. New York: Holt,
inary test of the negative asymmetry hypothesis in work-
Rinehart & Winston.
place social networks. Paper presented at the annual
Pagel, M. D., Erdly, W. W., & Becker, J. 1987. Social networks:
meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto.
We get by with (and in spite of) a little help from our
Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. III. 1999. Organizational
friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53:
social capital and employment practices. Academy of
793 804.
Management Review, 24: 538 555.
Paykel, E. S. 1974. Recent life events and clinical depression.
LeDoux, J. 1996. The emotional brain: The mysterious underpin-
In E. K. Gunderson & R. H. Rahe (Eds.), Life stress and
nings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
illness: 134 163. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 1994. Organizational attachment:
Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. 1990. Positive-negative asymme-
Attitudes and actions. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organiza- try in evaluations: The distinction between affective and
tional behavior: The state of the science: 83 108. Hills- informational negativity effects. European Review of So-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. cial Psychology, 1: 33 60.
2006 Labianca and Brass 613
Petersen, T., Saporta, I., & Seidel, M. D. L. 2000. Offering a job: tude change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude,
Meritocracy and social networks. American Journal of ego involvement, and change: 105 139. New York: Wiley.
Sociology, 3: 763 816.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. 1989. Negativity and ex-
Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). 1993. Attitude strength: tremity biases in impression formation: A review of ex-
Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence planations. Psychological Bulletin, 105: 131 142.
Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, K. K. 1989. The movement of conflict in organizations:
Piaget, J. 1932. The moral judgment of the child. London: The joint dynamics of splitting and triangulation. Ad-
Kegan Paul, Trench, & Trubner. ministrative Science Quarterly, 34: 1 20.
Polley, R. B. 1987. Exploring polarization in organizational Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. 1969. The measure-
groups. Group and Organization Studies, 12: 424 444. ment of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy
for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Pondy, L. R. 1967. Organizational conflict: Concepts and
models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 296  320. Soofi, E. S., Retzer, J. J., & Yasai-Ardekani, M. 2000. A frame-
work for measuring the importance of variables with
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. 1986. Social conflict: Escalation,
applications to management research and decision
stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random House.
models. Decision Sciences Journal, 31: 595 625.
Putnam, R. D. 1995. Bowling alone, revisited. The Responsive
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and structure in
Community, 5(2): 18  33.
leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Re-
Raden, D. 1985. Strength-related attitude dimensions. Social
view, 22: 522 552.
Psychology Quarterly, 48: 312 330.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. 1999. Sponsorship: A blessing
Reeder, G. D., Henderson, D. J., & Sullivan, J. J. 1982. From
and a curse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
dispositions to behaviors: The flip side of attribution.
the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Journal of Research in Personality, 16: 355 375.
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L.
Reeder, G. D., & Spores, J. M. 1983. The attribution of morality.
2001. Social networks and the performance of individu-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44: 736 745.
als and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44:
316 325.
Rennie, D. 1962. Informal status, formal structure, and job
mobility in a commercial organization. Sociological
Steiner, I. D. 1966. The resolution of interpersonal disagree-
Quarterly, 3: 220 227.
ments. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 3:
195 240.
Requena, F. 1991. Social resources and occupational status
attainment in Spain: A cross-national comparison with
Stephens, M. A. P., Kinney, J. M., Norris, V. K., & Ritchie, S. W.
the United States and the Netherlands. International
1987. Social networks as assets and liabilities in recov-
Journal of Comparative Sociology, 32: 233 242.
ery from stroke by geriatric patients. Psychology and
Aging, 2: 125 129.
Rook, K. S. 1984. The negative side of social interaction:
Impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Person- Tagiuri, R. 1958. Social preference and its perception. In
ality and Social Psychology, 46: 1097 1108.
R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and
interpersonal behavior: 316 336. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Rook, K. S. 1990. Parallels in the study of social support and
University Press.
social strain. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
9: 118 132.
Taylor, S. E. 1991. Asymmetrical effects of positive and neg-
ative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis.
Salgado, J. F. 1997. The five factor model of personality and
Psychological Bulletin, 110: 67 85.
job performance in the European community. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82: 30  43.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of
groups. New York: Wiley.
Schwarz, N. 1990. Feelings as information: Informational and
motivational functions of affective states. In R. Sor- Thomas, K. W. 1992. Conflict and negotiation processes in
rentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2:
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
527 561. New York: Guilford Press. (2nd ed.), vol. 3: 651 717. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2001. A social
capital theory of career success. Academy of Manage- Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational net-
ment Journal, 44: 219 237. works: Effects of network position and absorptive capac-
ity on business unit innovation and performance. Acad-
Seidel, M.-D. L., Polzer, J. T., & Stewart, K. J. 2000. Friends in
emy of Management Journal, 44: 996 1004.
high places: The effects of networks on discrimination in
salary negotiations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vinokur, A., & Selzer, M. 1975. Desirable versus undesirable life
45: 1 24. events: Their relationship to stress and mental distress.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32: 329 337.
Shaw, M. E. 1964. Communication networks. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 1: 111 147. Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. 1995. Conflict and its manage-
ment. Journal of Management, 21: 515 558.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. 1967. Attitudes as the individual s
own categories: The social judgment approach to atti- Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis:
614 Academy of Management Review July
Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Wiseman, J. P., & Duck, S. 1995. Having and managing ene-
versity Press. mies: A very challenging relationship. In S. Duck & J. T.
Wood (Eds.), Confronting relationship challenges: 43 72.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. 1984. Negative affectivity: The
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
disposition to experience aversive emotional states.
Psychological Bulletin, 96: 465 490.
Wyer, R. S. 1973. Category ratings for  subjective expected
values : Implications for attitude formation and change.
Wegener, B. 1991. Job mobility and social ties: Social re-
Psychological Review, 80: 446 467.
sources, prior job, and status attainment. American So-
ciological Review, 56: 60  71.
Wyer, R. S. 1974. Cognitive organization and change: An
White, H. C. 1961. Management conflict and sociometric information processing approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
structure. American Journal of Sociology, 67: 185 199. rence Erlbaum Associates.
Giuseppe (Joe) Labianca ([e-mail]) is an associate professor of man-
agement at University of Kentucky s Gatton School of Business. He was recently at
Emory University s Goizueta Business School. He received his Ph.D. from The Penn-
sylvania State University. His primary interests are in network and cognition research
at the intra- and interorganizational levels. Recent projects have investigated group
social capital and negative relationships in workplace social networks.
Daniel J. Brass ([e-mail]) is the J. Henning Hilliard Professor of Innovation
Management at University of Kentucky s Gatton School of Business. He received his
Ph. D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is currently serving as
associate editor of Administrative Science Quarterly. His research focuses on the
antecedents and consequences of social networks in organizations.