Job Title Inflation

Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / h u m r e s

Job title inflation
Arthur D. Martinez ⁎, Mary Dana Laird a, John A. Martin b, Gerald R. Ferris c a b c The University of Tulsa, United States
U.S. Air Force Academy, United States
Florida State University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Job titles are defined as socially reinforced symbols that are based on cooperation. Further, job title inflation (JTI) is defined as a deliberate violation of cooperative principle maxims that is intended to extract gains for an organization. The cooperative principle, which is borrowed from the theory of conversational implicature, is expanded to explain how job titles maintain social value, thus acting as important symbols. It is proposed that some organizations practice
JTI because they tacitly understand that job titles possess symbolic value that can be leveraged for potential organizational benefit (e.g., increased productivity or sales). Further, three JTI formulas are offered that describe how JTI may be achieved, and a model that uses social exchange theory to describe how JTI ultimately leads to organizational level outcomes is presented. Implications and directions for future research are also discussed.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Recently, attention-grabbing job titles have been appearing in the workplace. For example, customer service engineer, account executive, and sandwich artist have been substituted for the more conventional job titles of customer service agent, salesperson, and food preparer, respectively. Further, work roles also have been assigned higher hierarchical designations despite the fact that this traditionally has not been warranted. An example might be assigning a title of director of operations, even though the staff is comprised of only one person.
These types of embellishments are examples of job title inflation (JTI), which we contend is the practice of violating cooperative principle maxims with the intention of leveraging the symbolic value that is contained in titles. Appropriate job titles offer important bundles of information. For example, people rely on job titles to set expectations about work roles, and to make attributions about the individuals who occupy these roles. Furthermore, on a more personal level, people may internalize job titles, making them an integral part of their self-concept. Due to their importance, we must question what propels job titles, how and why some titles are inflated, and ultimately, what are the organizational consequences of job title inflation.
Although there are no direct monetary costs or benefits associated with inflating a job title, it has been argued that job title inflation may indirectly cause positive and/or negative consequences for organizations. Essentially, organizations engage in job title inflation because they tacitly understand that inflating job titles will have consequences, of which the positive often outweigh the negative. Examples of positive organizational outcomes include improved productivity, increased sales, and enhanced organizational reputations. However, there is also a potential dark side to job title inflation that may lead to outcomes that are the opposite of those just listed. This paper provides a model that suggests that organizational outcomes stem from changes in perceptions of job title value and subsequent behaviors from title bearers, as well as from others who are influenced by the job title
(e.g., customers). Further, this paper proposes that the degree to which job title inflation is either covertly or overtly executed will determine the expected outcome valence.
We believe that the topic of job title inflation warrants thorough theoretical and empirical investigation due to the growing tendency for organizations to inflate job titles. In support, a 2006 Fortune magazine story revealed that over half of the members in

⁎ Corresponding author. 244 Montana Ave., Davenport, Florida 33897, United States. Tel.: [phone].
E-mail address: [e-mail] (A. Martinez).
1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.12.002 20

A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

Korn/Ferry International 's executive network between the ages of 30 and 42 had been given inflated job titles over the past two years, even though their job responsibilities remained unchanged (Fisher, 2006). Job titles are social conventions that make-up a larger system of efficient communication in the labor market. Human Resource professionals rely upon job title conventions and systems to facilitate their hiring and compensation decision processes. For example, when hiring an experienced executive, one typically looks for evidence of suitable experience via a candidate 's previous job titles.
Appropriate utilization of job titles ensures that the overall system maintains its integrity. Uncooperative practices, such as job title inflation, may have both short-term and long-term ramifications. In the short-term, companies or industries that practice job title inflation may reap unfair advantages in attracting both employees and customers. In the long-term, job title inflation may jeopardize the integrity of the larger system by making it more difficult to distinguish between employee capacity levels (e.g., between those employees who truly assume higher levels of responsibility from those that have an inflated title), as well as causing the boundaries between job families and/or groups to become more blurred (e.g., customer service employees that handle customer complaints versus sales people who initiate sales).
With the exception of some early work that used equity theory to explain job title inflation as a form of compensation (i.e.,
Greenberg & Ornstein, 1983; Swiercz & Smith, 1991), there has been very little research on the topic of JTI. In order to lay the theoretical foundation for future empirical research, this paper defines job titles, explains the JTI construct, and proposes a conceptual framework of JTI. The theory of conversational implicature (Grice, 1989; McCornack, 1992) is used to explain how JTI works. In other words, it is used to understand the mechanics of JTI. This is done by assuming that job titles are symbolic exchanges that rely upon cooperation. Then, social exchange theory (e.g., Blau, 1964) is used to predict how JTI might affect important organizational outcomes. This is achieved by acknowledging that different job titles for the same job may contain more or less value to the title-bearer, the title-bearer 's customers, and others that deal with the title-bearer; and that as organizations offer increased value via inflated job titles (e.g., perceived status or implied service quality), they are more likely to be reciprocated with valued organizational outcomes (e.g., with increased effort or sales).
1. The nature of job titles in organizations
1.1. Job title definition
With a word or a small arrangement of words, job titles symbolize shared meanings regarding (1) work roles and (2) the relevant attributes of those who assume them. In short, job titles are defined as symbols. For example, the title of surgeon is almost invariably interpreted as a medical practitioner. In particular, a surgeon is someone who operates on afflicted patients.
Furthermore, it is also generally assumed that a surgeon is highly intelligent, educated, professional, and calm under pressure. One symbol (i.e., the word “surgeon”) generally is capable of conveying all of this shared information and meaning. Later, this paper proposes that these symbols (i.e., job titles) are socially constructed through explicit and implicit agreements.
Job titles imply at least three important dimensions of information: (1) knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), (2) status and power levels, and (3) responsibilities. As an example, consider the title of chief executive officer (CEO). A CEO is expected to have a minimum set of KSAs, such as knowledge of the company and business environment, superior leadership skills, and high levels of social and cognitive intelligence. Also, a CEO is assumed to possess the highest amount of legitimate power in the corporation, and to enjoy a relatively high status in the business community. Finally, a CEO is expected to take responsibility for the actions of the entire corporation. Each of the previously mentioned dimensions is associated with resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002), thus providing value to the job title and the title bearer.
2. Job title inflation
2.1. Theoretical basis for job title inflation
2.1.1. The cooperative principle
Information manipulation theory (McCornack, 1992) asserts that deceptive messages stem from covert violations of conversational maxims. Basically, when individuals are engaged in interactions, they assume an adherence to the ‘Cooperative
Principle’ (Grice, 1989). The Cooperative Principle or CP (i.e., a part of Grice 's Theory of Conversational Implicature) presupposes that exchanges are cooperative efforts that follow a common purpose or mutually accepted direction (Grice, 1989). McCornack
(1992) described four primary maxims of the CP: quantity, quality, relation, and manner. These maxims relate to expectations regarding the amount (quantity), truthfulness (quality), relevance (relation), and clarity (manner) of the information provided within a message.
Job titles are not conversations per se, but they do represent a special type of informational exchange (i.e., symbolic exchanges).
Symbols may be thought of as bundles of shared meaning (Pondy, Frost, Morgan, & Dandridge, 1983). Furthermore, achieving shared meaning is a common purpose that requires cooperative effort. Therefore, it is proposed that the CP maxims are also applicable to job title assignment practices.

Proposition 1. Job titles are communicated and understood within the maxims of the Cooperative Principle such that they influence commonly understood expectations regarding the amount, truthfulness, relevance, and clarity of information they symbolize.

A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

21

For this reason, people generally assume that a given job title implies no more or no less information (e.g., KSAs) than the work role/title-bearer warrants; the job title assignment possesses an adequate level of veracity with regard to the work role/title-bearer it symbolizes; the job title is conventionally and appropriately related to the work role and title-bearer; and the job title is not obscure or ambiguous. Job title inflation, by definition, violates at least one of these maxims.
2.1.2. Context
Compliance with, or violation of, the CP maxims depends upon the context. The amount, truthfulness, relevance, and clarity of information implied by a job title depend upon the actors, organizations, and institutions involved. Intrinsically, work roles or jobs may be more or less fixed or flexible, causing significant complications with regards to assigning conventional job titles to them.
For instance, it might be problematic to select an appropriate job title for a jack-of-all-trades type position in certain companies or industries. Because change is increasingly more widespread in today 's work environment, one may continue to see more generalist type positions in the job market, reflecting a wider and more variable range of KSAs, duties, and responsibilities. Genuinely dynamic work roles may be difficult to label with static job titles. Hence, for certain jobs there may be more inherent variation in job titles along with more truthfulness associated with unconventional titles.
Another aspect of context is the institutionalization of job title inflation. Organizations may adopt job title inflation practices to achieve organizational homogeneity. Institutional isomorphism may be driven by coercions from other organizations, environmental uncertainties, and normative pressures (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983). Once practices start to become institutionalized, they quickly expand. In other words, the more that job title inflation is practiced in the job market, the more likely it will spread.
Job title bearers come to accept or reject job titles based on the context. In particular, job titles relate to implied psychological contracts. Psychological contracts are employee beliefs about the terms and conditions of reciprocal exchange agreements between them and their employer (Rousseau, 1989). If employees believe they can deliver the expected KSAs, duties, and responsibilities implied by the job title, then they are more likely to accept it. In some situations, this psychological contract may be intentionally relaxed in order to facilitate job title inflation. As an example, an employer may provide both official and working titles to a role, such as when an international sales person is officially a Director in the company, but uses the company-sanctioned job title of Vice President in the international context.
2.2. Definition of job title inflation
Assuming that job titles rely on CP maxims, job title inflation (JTI) is a practice of intentionally violating one or more of the
CP maxims, with the expectation of gaining value from the violation(s). In other words, JTI intentionally misapplies job titles to work roles. Hence, JTI misapplies job titles to title-bearers. A key element of the definition is the expectation of gaining value from JTI. It is assumed that organizations intentionally inflate job titles because they believe the benefits will outweigh any potential costs. JTI 's value relies upon exploiting the underlying shared meanings or conventions associated with the job title. Although organizations do intentionally inflate job titles, we also acknowledge an important boundary condition to JTI. Job titles can and do change not only because organizations choose to inflate titles, but also due to changes in job complexity. Job tasks can grow increasingly complex for a variety of reasons. One reason is job redesign. An organization might increase job complexity and responsibility because of changes in the business environment. For example, new technology may influence organizations to require advanced training for their employees so they can respond to technological changes. With proper training, these employees will be more effective. With the increased aptitude gained from the advanced training, the organization may bestow a more complex and representative job title for the affected employees.
Another reason job tasks can grow more complex results from changes in organizational scope. For example, the organization may merge with or acquire another organization. When this happens, job complexity might increase because employees need to understand the broader context that the combined organizations operate in. If the organization now serves a broader customer base, this could add complexity to the employee 's job. As a result, the organization could make these job titles more complex in order to more appropriately reflect current job demands. In sum, changes in the external environment or changes in the scope of the organization can necessitate legitimate changes in job titles. Such changes are beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on job titles that exceed actual responsibility.
The styles of JTI range from deceptions (e.g., subtle misrepresentations) to flouts (e.g., sarcastic misrepresentations). An example of a deception, or subtle misrepresentation, might be the title of Director when the title-bearer actually has no subordinates. An example of a flout, or sarcastic misrepresentation, might be the title of Sandwich Artist for a food preparer.
Information manipulation theory (McCornack, 1992) claims that deceptive messages are derived from covert violations of CP maxims, whereas, more overt violations usually result in flout-type messages. Therefore, the manner in which the CP maxims are violated (e.g., covertly or overtly) results in the style of JTI (i.e., deception or flout).
Proposition 2. Lower degrees of job title inflation are more likely to be deceptive (i.e., corresponding with more covert forms of maxim violations), whereas, higher degrees of job title inflation are more likely to be seen as flouts (i.e., corresponding with more overt forms of maxim violations).
The distinction between covert and overt violations is important for understanding the probable outcomes of job title inflation.
In the next section, it is proposed that covert forms of maxim violations generally lead to more valuable outcomes than overt forms.

22

A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

2.3. Job title inflation versus perceived incremental value
Organizations tacitly understand that JTI alters individual-level perceptions of the value implied by job titles. Furthermore, they realize that employees and others readily acknowledge the social value implied by job titles. For these reasons, some organizations might attempt to exchange JTI for organizationally desirable outcomes, such as improved productivity or purchase intentions. From the employee perspective, at least two studies have shown how equity theory applies to inflated titles (i.e., Greenberg & Ornstein,
1983; Swiercz & Smith, 1991).
JTI versus incremental value perceptions are probably concave non-linear functions (e.g., an inverted-U shaped function). As long as JTI violates CP maxims covertly, any resulting incremental value is extracted via deception. However, too much JTI likely will correspond with more overt maxim violations, thereby, increasing the chances of flouts. It is proposed that the amount of incremental value extracted from JTI is larger in the covert domain than it is in the overt domain. In fact, it is quite possible that an ostentatiously inflated title may actually decrease value perceptions below initial (i.e., conventional) levels. The reason for concavity is that perceived incremental value is probably highest near the covert/overt threshold.
Proposition 3. The relationships between the degree of job title inflation and individual (employee or others) incremental value perceptions are best modeled with concave non-linear functions.
There are different motives for practicing covert versus overt JTI. Organizations may want to practice more covert JTI in situations where legitimacy and authority are instrumental signals. For example, a Vice President of Sales may have more clout with customers in the international context than a Director of Sales would. When an organization desires to help communicate a message to its customers such as its commitment, enthusiasm, and/or quality levels, then more overt JTI may be practical. As an example, an organization that utilizes a Customer Service Engineer job title may signal to its customers that the complexity and quality of its services are high.
Another reason an organization might utilize JTI is because they are either unable to pay employees market wages, or because they choose to pay employees lower than comparable market wages. If the organization is unable to pay employees market wages, then they might try to entice employees to join the organization through JTI. If potential employees see value in JTI, they might sacrifice lower wages for the perceived benefits of JTI. For example, the employee could view JTI as a method to signal their reputation to future employers. Thus, the employee would sacrifice some amount of current wages with the expectation that JTI will help them secure higher wages at some future point in time.
Also, employers might choose to pay employees lower than comparable market wages. Perhaps they are pursuing a low-cost business strategy (Porter, 1980) and build their competitive advantage through aggressive cost controls. One method to control costs is to hold wages in check. If the organization is better than their competition at cost control, then they can achieve a competitive advantage. These organizations might view JTI as a way to entice employees to work for lower wages. In the organization 's view, JTI might represent a fair exchange to the employees for the lower wages they pay. Because the employees receive JTI, they are entitled to less compensation.
An alternative view focuses solely on customers. The organization might be pursuing a differentiation strategy (Porter, 1980) and want to create value for their products or services in the minds of their customer base. By using inflated titles, the organization can signal their reputation to customers. For example, instead of having a “make-up salesperson,” a department store might use
“cosmetics artists” to signal the qualifications of their cosmetics employees, and influence their customers to perceive cosmetics products at this department store as prestigious. If customers perceive the products as prestigious, then increased sales may result.
Too much JTI is likely to decrease organizational value for several reasons. For example, negative consequences from overdoing job title inflation might include inequity perceptions, reduced trust levels, job stress from struggles to live up to an inflated title, and many others. As a specific example, suppose that an international trade organization bestows all entry-level sales employees with the inflated title of V.P. of Regional Sales in order to produce an aura of legitimacy with their international clients. Customer knowledge of this JTI might actually produce the opposite effect (i.e., decreased perceived legitimacy). In sum, JTI will likely erode organizational value after a certain point. Because organizations practice JTI solely in order to gain value, excessively overt JTI that leads to loss of value are due to misjudgments in formulating job titles; hence, JTI is intentionally practiced/designed to gain value, not to lose value.
2.4. Job title inflation formulas
There appears to be at least three general patterns or ways in which JTI is practiced. We call them JTI formulas, and they contain the use of creative wordplay and/or hierarchical structure norms. Each of the JTI formulas (wordplay, corporate structure, and mixed) is discussed below.
2.4.1. Wordplay formula
The wordplay formula builds clever word configurations such as account executive, sandwich artist, and customer service engineer. For example, the account executive might have traditionally been known as a salesperson. However, despite the fact that the job duties have not changed, the new title exudes a higher level of sophistication by utilizing the words “executive,” which is commonly associated with more powerful and influential roles, and “account,” which triggers associations with money (e.g., accountant). A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

23

Similarly, television commercials have showcased sandwich artists as superior fast-food preparers. Clearly, the word “artist” triggers notions of creativity, beauty, and value, which are usually not the most salient attributions associated with fast fast-food workers, albeit, they may be accurate attributions. Finally, customer service engineer incorporates the word “engineer,” which conjures up images of highly sophisticated skill sets (e.g., higher-order mathematics) that are not commonly associated with customer service representatives. All of these examples violate at least one maxim, and therefore, are considered to be inflated job titles. Specifically, by configuring words to capture the basic function of the role, but exaggerating the essence of the role, all of these examples violate the quality maxim, thus becoming inflated job titles.
2.4.2. Corporate structure formula
The corporate structure formula is based upon common conceptions regarding corporate hierarchical organizational designs.
Traditionally, corporate hierarchical structures have incorporated the well-known positions of president, vice president, director, manager, and so forth. First, it is likely that most people share implicit theories regarding corporations (e.g., they are significantly larger than firms that are not publicly traded, they are typically more legitimate than other forms of business organization, etc.).
Second, most people also probably share implicit theories about corporate hierarchical positions (e.g., presidents are outstanding leaders with exceptional abilities and tremendous responsibilities). An example of JTI might be a small bank that hires all of its college graduates into vice president roles. Clearly, this would violate CP maxims if the title did not truly depict the actual work role.
2.4.3. Mixed formulas
The mixed formula simply combines the wordplay and corporate structure formulas. For example, if the title vice president of sandwich artistry were used to designate a conventional fast fast-food service supervisory role, this would clearly violate CP maxims. 3. Job title inflation and organization performance
3.1. Job title inflation effects model
As previously stated, JTI may be more deceptive or more transparent. In any case, the misapplication of a job title to a work role/ title-bearer likely will result in a shift in perceived value, because job titles intrinsically imply value. In other words, there will be a change in perceived job title dimensions (i.e., KSAs, power and status, and/or responsibilities) that will affect perceived value, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Ultimately, this value will be projected onto the title-bearer.
For example, if the title of sandwich artist is used instead of food preparer, it is likely that added value will be projected onto the employee. Hence, customers might believe that a sandwich artist is more apt to prepare their food with creative passion and talent,

Fig. 1. Job title inflation effects model.

24

A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

whereas the employee who bears the title might actually feel more creative and talented. Incremental changes in individual value perceptions will lead to changes in behavior, cognition, and affectivity, which ultimately will result in incremental changes in value for the organization (e.g., increased quality and sales).
What we are referring to is consistent with the Pygmalion effect model (Rosenthal, 1995), which explains the phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophecy. In a self-fulfilling prophecy situation, a person may actually live up to an inflated title, with the intentional/unintentional assistance from others. For example, if someone is given the title of Team Leader, then others may treat that person more like a leader, thereby encouraging more leadership-like behaviors from that person.
The fast-food industry provides another example, and the sandwich artist job title presented earlier in this paper. Indeed, this title of sandwich artist might be given to fast-food cooks in order to not only affect the employee 's attitudes and behavior, but also to manage impressions of customers in projecting an image of “high-quality products and service.” Such job title labeling could then affect both the employee (e.g., attitudes and behavior about job and company, and resulting customer service provided), and the customers or prospective customers who hear advertisements about the organization. Thus, there may well be a substantive effect operating here, but also a reputational signaling effect as well.
As mentioned previously, the three dimensions implied in job titles (i.e. KSAs, power and status, and/or responsibilities) can be thought of as valued resources (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). Therefore, perceived changes in resources (via JTI) equate to perceived changes in value for employees (i.e., title bearers) and other individuals who are both inside (e.g., supervisors, peers, and subordinates) and outside (e.g., customers or anyone who is influenced by the job title) the firm.
Based on these perceptions, employees and other individuals will engender cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. In addition, these outcomes may interact with each other. Ultimately, these individual-level outcomes may result in organization– level outcomes, such as changes in firm sales performance or productivity. In the next sections, social exchange theory (SET), which is one of the most influential conceptual paradigms for understanding workplace behavior (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), is used to describe and support how JTI affects employee affect, cognition, and behavior, and thus each of the linkages in the proposed model in Fig. 1.
3.1.1. Employee perceptions and outcomes
Although different views of social exchange have developed, most theorists agree that SET involves a series of interdependent interactions that generate obligations (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976). Further, this theory also suggests that these interactions have the potential to generate high-quality relationships under certain circumstances (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
According to SET, both parties must abide by certain “rules of exchange” in order to develop trusting, loyal, and mutually committed relationships. These rules of exchange produce a “normative definition of the situation that forms among or is adopted by the participants in an exchange relationship” (Emerson, 1976, p. 351), thus serving as a guideline for the exchange process.
Reciprocity (i.e., repayment in kind), which is viewed as a universal norm (Gouldner, 1960; Tsui & Wang, 2002; Wang, Tsui, Zhang,
& Ma, 2003), probably is the best-known exchange rule.
At its most basic level, reciprocity suggests that when a person supplies a benefit, the receiving party should respond in kind
(Gergen, 1969). It is understood that reciprocal exchange does not involve explicit bargaining (Molm, 2000, 2003). Instead, one party 's actions are contingent on the other 's behavior, thus reducing risk and encouraging cooperation (Molm, 1994).
Specifically, research has found that negotiated exchanges incite more unhelpful power use and less equality than reciprocal exchanges (Molm, 1997; Molm, Peterson, & Takahashi, 1999). Furthermore, reciprocity produces better work relationships and allows individuals to be more trusting of, and committed to, one another than negotiations (Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson,
2000).
In a dyadic interaction, the reciprocity process begins when at least one participant makes a “move.” If the other participant reciprocates, a new round of exchange is initiated. Whereas this “give and take” conceptualization is useful for explanatory purposes, the sequence is likely to be continuous and self-reinforcing, thus rendering it difficult to organize the reciprocity process into discrete steps (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
According to Foa and Foa (1974, 1980), there are six types of resources that are included in these exchanges: love, status, information, money, goods, and services. Further, these resources can be organized in a two-dimensional matrix that includes concreteness, which implies the resource 's tangibility or specificity, and particularism, which suggests that the resource 's worth depends on its source. For example, money is relatively low in particularism and high in concreteness because its worth is objective, regardless of who provides it (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
In the organizational sciences literature, Foa and Foa 's (1974, 1980) resources generally are collapsed into economic and socioemotional outcomes. Although economic outcomes are tangible and address financial needs, socio-emotional outcomes are symbolic and particularistic. Because socio-emotional outcomes send the message that the person is valued and/or treated with dignity (Shore, Tetrick, & Barksdale, in press), this paper classifies an inflated job title as a socio-emotional need.
Like much of the contemporary management research that utilizes SET (e.g., Shore, Tetrick, & Barksdale, 1999; Shore et al.,
2004), this paper focuses on the notion of workplace relationships. As such, SET suggests that certain workplace antecedents lead to interpersonal connections, or social exchange relationships (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), which, in turn, lead to positive employee attitudes and effective work behavior. Specifically, because individuals return the benefits they receive, they are likely to match goodwill and helpfulness toward the party with whom they have a social exchange relationship (e.g., Malatesta, in press; Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Therefore, according to the principles of social exchange theory, when an organization provides an employee with an inflated job title, that employee should feel obligated to reciprocate by improving his or her work-related cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors.

A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

25

Fig. 2. JTI vs. organizational value.

3.1.2. Others ' perceptions and outcomes
Just as employees form social exchange relationships with their employing organization (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998), they also form similar relationships with suppliers (Perrone, Zaheer, & McEvily, 2003) and customers (Houston, Gassenheimer, &
Moskulka, 1992; Sheth, 1996). Inflated job titles will likely cause employees to improve their work-related cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors in order to fulfill the norm of reciprocity with their employers. Consequently, suppliers, customers, and many others who deal with these employees would probably derive benefits from an employee 's improved work-related cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors.
For example, an employee might feel obligated to exchange a higher-level of customer service for an inflated title, which directly benefits both the customer and the employer. Therefore, customers, suppliers and others might subsequently feel more obligated to reciprocate by improving their own cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the employee and his/her organization. For example, a customer might feel more inclined to purchase products or services from an employee who offers better customer service. In short, the social exchange relationship between employees and others acts as a mediating variable between employee cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors and others ' outcomes.
Similarly, we see the example of job title inflation in banks, where there appears to be a proliferation of high-level titles (e.g., vice-presidents), without necessarily commensurate accountability, authority, nor salary. However, the title itself adds a level of esteem to the employee, who returns in kind (i.e., reciprocates) with stronger commitment and attachment to the organization, which can manifest itself daily in improved customer service.
3.1.3. Relating individual outcomes to organizational outcomes
There are two different perspectives regarding the relationships between individual outcomes and the resulting organization outcomes. Furthermore, these different perspectives lead to different kinds of outcomes for organizations. First, employee outcomes
(i.e., affective, cognitive, and behavioral) affect organization outcomes. Changes in organization value may take the form of productivity levels, quality levels, efficiency levels, or other performance measures. Second, other 's outcomes also affect organization outcomes, typically in the form of changes in purchase intentions, reputation perceptions, legitimacy perceptions, and so on. Countless theoretical perspectives help to explain the relationships between individual outcomes and organization outcomes.
3.1.4. Job title inflation vs. organizational outcomes
JTI versus organization outcomes is mediated by the individual incremental value perceptions and subsequent outcomes.
Therefore, organization outcome levels likely will follow a similar pattern as the value perception levels.
Proposition 4. Overall, the relationships between the degree of job title inflation and positive organization consequences are best modeled with concave non-linear functions.
Again, this relationship is based on the correspondence between individual (employee or others) perceptions and subsequent outcomes, which depend upon the underlying notion of covert versus overt maxim violations. The key to more successful JTI is to subtly mislead by violating CP maxims covertly. Violating maxims in order to benefit the organization also entails substantial risks when or if any incongruity is detected. An illustration of these ideas is presented in Fig. 2.

26

A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

4. Discussion
Some organizations tacitly understand that job titles imply certain valued resources (i.e., KSAs, power and status, responsibilities) that are ultimately associated with title-bearers. For this reason, job titles can be leveraged. When organizations anticipate more positive than negative outcomes, they may offer inflated titles as a means to achieve desirable ends (i.e., enhanced organizational outcomes). Three JTI formulas were presented (i.e., corporate structure, wordplay, and mixed) that described how organizations typically inflate job titles.
In order for job titles to symbolize social value, there must be underlying cooperative principles at work. Cooperative principles, which rely upon conventions and cooperation, are open to violations. In essence, JTI is based upon violations of the cooperative principle. Therefore, JTI may be viewed as an uncooperative activity. Due to the fact that deceptive uncooperative activity is normally more effective than transparent uncooperative activity, this paper proposed that more covert forms of violations generally lead to better organizational outcomes than more overt forms of violations.
4.1. Directions for future research
Due to the increasing prevalence of JTI and its significant implications for individuals, organizations, and society at large, future research in this area is warranted. At the individual level, future research might investigate how certain words correlate with certain resources. For example, how does the word “executive” correlate with resources such as education, leadership skills, and authority and/or power? Taken a step further, future research might examine how combinations of words (i.e., the wordplay formula) correspond to value perceptions. At the organizational level of analysis, studies could be conducted to determine if sandwich artists actually do add more value to an organization than food preparers.
Beyond the organization, it is reasonable to believe that there are differences in JTI practices by industry. For example, the hightechnology industry may be more prone to practice JTI via the corporate hierarchy structure formula, whereas the fast-food industry might be more likely to apply the wordplay formula. Further, there may be differences by country, whereby more individualistic cultures may be more prone to practice JTI than collectivistic cultures. Finally, organizational scientists must question what it means for society at large when cooperative principles are frequently violated. Could the symbolic power associated with job titles wane with more widespread inflation?
Regardless of the level of analysis, the effect of context is likely to be an important factor. When building expectancies about cooperative principle maxims, people probably take context into account. Therefore, a small gourmet sandwich boutique would probably possess more job title legitimacy when using the title of vice president of sandwich artistry than an ordinary fast fast-food restaurant. After all, people expect higher quality and relevance maxim standards from a gourmet sandwich boutique than a fast fast-food restaurant.
Finally, while this paper provided three job title inflation formulas (i.e., corporate structure, wordplay, mixed), there may be alternatives. There are also opportunities for developing operationalizations of the concepts presented in this paper. For example, how should job title value, JTI, and the degree of overt and covert JTI be operationalized? Further, should operationalizations be study specific, or can they somehow be standardized? Only by answering these questions can organizational scientists proceed with the empirical research on JTI that is so sorely needed.
References
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874−900.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 164−209.
Dimaggio, J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
48, 147−160.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335−362.
Fisher, A. (2006). Have you outgrown your job? Fortune, 154(4), 46−55.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research New York: Plenum.
Gergen, K. J. (1969). The psychology of behavioral exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Greenberg, J., & Ornstein, S. (1983). High status job title compensation for underpayment: A test of equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 285−297.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161−178.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513−523.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307−324.
Houston, F. S., Gassenheimer, J. B., & Moskulka, J. M. (1992). Marketing exchange transactions and relationships. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Malatesta, R.M. (in press). Understanding the dynamics of organizational and supervisory commitment using a social exchange framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
Malatesta, R.M., & Byrne, Z.S. (1997). The impact of formal and interactional procedures on organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738−748.
McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 1−16.
Molm, L. D. (1994). Dependence and risk: Transforming the structure of social exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 163−176.
Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27

27

Molm, L. D. (2000). Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In G. Ritxer, & B. Smart (Eds.), Handbook of social theory (pp. 260−272). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparison of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21, 1−17.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351−357.
Molm, L. D., Peterson, G., & Takahashi, N. (1999). Power in negotiated and reciprocal exchange. American Sociological Review, 64, 876−890.
Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105,
1396−1427.
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14, 422−439.
Pondy, L., Frost, P., Morgan, G., & Dandridge, T. (1983). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Critiquing Pygmalion: A 25-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 171−172.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Resporzsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 121−139.
Sheth, J. N. (1996). Organizational buying behavior: Past performance and future expectations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 11, 7−24.
Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., & Barksdale, K. (1999). Measurement of transactional and exchange relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., & Barksdale, K. (in press). Social and economic exchanges as mediators of commitment and performance. Unpublished manuscript.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Liden, R. C., McLean-Parks, J., et al. (2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol 23. (pp. 291−370)Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Swiercz, P. M., & Smith, P. L. (1991). Job title and perceptions of equity. Applied H.R.M. Research, 2(2), 111−127.
Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer 's perspective: Current research and future directions. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 11−114). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Wang, D., Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Y., & Ma, L. (2003). Employment relationships and firm performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 511−534.

References: Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874−900. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 164−209. Dimaggio, J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147−160. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335−362. Fisher, A. (2006). Have you outgrown your job? Fortune, 154(4), 46−55. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research New York: Plenum. Gergen, K. J. (1969). The psychology of behavioral exchange. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Greenberg, J., & Ornstein, S. (1983). High status job title compensation for underpayment: A test of equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 285−297. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161−178. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513−523. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307−324. Houston, F. S., Gassenheimer, J. B., & Moskulka, J. M. (1992). Marketing exchange transactions and relationships. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Malatesta, R.M., & Byrne, Z.S. (1997). The impact of formal and interactional procedures on organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 1−16. Molm, L. D. (1994). Dependence and risk: Transforming the structure of social exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 163−176. Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. A.D. Martinez et al. / Human Resource Management Review 18 (2008) 19–27 27 Molm, L. D. (2000). Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In G. Ritxer, & B. Smart (Eds.), Handbook of social theory (pp. 260−272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparison of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21, 1−17. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351−357. Molm, L. D., Peterson, G., & Takahashi, N. (1999). Power in negotiated and reciprocal exchange. American Sociological Review, 64, 876−890. Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1396−1427. Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14, 422−439. Pondy, L., Frost, P., Morgan, G., & Dandridge, T. (1983). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Critiquing Pygmalion: A 25-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 171−172. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Resporzsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 121−139. Sheth, J. N. (1996). Organizational buying behavior: Past performance and future expectations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 11, 7−24. Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., & Barksdale, K. (1999). Measurement of transactional and exchange relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Liden, R. C., McLean-Parks, J., et al. (2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition Swiercz, P. M., & Smith, P. L. (1991). Job title and perceptions of equity. Applied H.R.M. Research, 2(2), 111−127. Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer 's perspective: Current research and future directions. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp Wang, D., Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Y., & Ma, L. (2003). Employment relationships and firm performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 511−534.