scholarly journals The New Era Workplace Relationships: Is Social Exchange Theory Still Relevant?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lily Chernyak-Hai ◽  
Edna Rabenu
Keyword(s):  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Work Relationships ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Organizational Characteristics ◽  
Workplace Relationships ◽  
Exchange Relationships ◽  
New Era ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Political Globalization

In this article, we argue that changes in workplace characteristics over the last few decades may affect work relationships and call for adjustments in the traditional theoretical framework used to understand them. Since the last quarter of the 20th century, there have been theories regarding changes in labor relationships following technological, political, globalization, and economical changes. However, we examine the changes in light of psychological theories rather than labor or industrial approaches. We review four main areas where social exchange theory (SET) has been implemented, address recent changes that challenge the traditional SET perspective, and propose alternative models. We refer to these models as “hybrid” as they integrate traditional SET premises with new-era workplace characteristics. First, we describe several changes in workplace characteristics. Next, we review some of the most conventional applications of SET to work relationships. Finally, we critically examine whether this theory meets the requirements of work relationships in the new world of work and conclude by arguing that SET needs to be adjusted to reflect the assumption that frequent changes in employee and organizational characteristics in the new workplaces require similar frequent adjustments in exchange relationships.

scholarly journals Generalized Social Exchange and Its Relevance to New Era Workplace Relationships

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 486-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsuhiko Yoshikawa ◽  
Chia-Huei Wu ◽  
Hyun-Jung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Work Relationships ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Dyadic Relationships ◽  
Workplace Relationships ◽  
New Era ◽  
Psychology Literature ◽  
Generalized Exchange

To critically evaluate the relevance of social exchange theory (SET) to the contemporary workplace, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) point out a number of factors that reshape work relationships and suggest how to apply and extend social exchange theory to understand the new era work relationships. However, in their discussion, they focus mainly on reciprocal exchange (RE) in dyadic relationships. The discussion completely overlooks another important form of social exchange, namely, generalized exchange (GE), which is increasingly relevant to contemporary organizations exactly because of the changes indicated by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu. In this commentary, we briefly review prior investigations into GE across various social science disciplines and then point out its increasing relevance to organizations. Finally, we will discuss implications for future research in the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature.

Long Live Social Exchange Theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 498-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin M. Porter
Keyword(s):  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Work Relationships ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Quality Work ◽  
New Era ◽  
Diverse Workforce ◽  
Workplace Conditions ◽  
Employee Characteristics ◽  
Modern Workplace

Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that social exchange theory (SET) should be revised to accommodate work relationships in the “new era” of work, characterized by a more diverse workforce with changing expectations for relationships between themselves and their organizational representatives. To account for the modern workplace, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu introduce “new” or “modern exchange variables” that capture modern workplace conditions and employee characteristics or preferences, which they expect to indirectly influencewhetherandhowemployees develop high-quality work relationships with organizational representatives.

Understanding New Era Workplace Relationships: Insights From Employee Engagement Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-530
Author(s):  
Patrick Hyland ◽  
Anthony W. Caputo ◽  
David Reeves
Keyword(s):  
Employee Engagement ◽  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Workplace Relationships ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
New Era ◽  
Working Hypotheses

In their focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that the foundational assumptions of social exchange theory (SET) should be revisited and revised because of recent changes in the workplace and the workforce. Using employee engagement data from recent research projects conducted in applied settings, we investigated a series of questions based on Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's working hypotheses.

Give and Take: Needed Updates to Social Exchange Theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena D. Cooper-Thomas ◽  
Rachel L. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
Social Exchange ◽  
Organizational Citizenship ◽  
Organizational Support ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Counterproductive Work Behaviors ◽  
Work Behaviors ◽  
Workplace Relationships ◽  
Citizenship Behaviors ◽  
Member Exchange

In their focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that social exchange theory (SET) needs an update, and in this they are aligned with Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, and Hall's (2017) recent critical review of SET. Drawing on Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's research, we explore two issues in more depth: first, that work relationships are becoming more complex than can be represented by simple dyadic reciprocity; and second, that the context of work is changing rapidly, with implications for workplace relationships. In exploring the ideas put forward by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu, we draw on Cropanzano et al.’s two-dimensional model of social exchange, with the first dimension being desirable (positive) resources contrasted with undesirable (negative) ones, and the additional dimension being active (exhibit) behavior versus passive (withdraw) behavior. The first valence-oriented dimension fits clearly with the four foci of Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's research, which cover both positive constructs, namely leader–member exchange (LMX), perceived organizational support and loyalty, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), as well as negative constructs of perceived organizational politics and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). The second, behavioral dimension proposed by Cropanzano et al. adds useful theoretical specificity that may address Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's contention that SET needs updating to account for changes in how employees work and how organizations function.

Effects of Resource Availability on Social Exchange Relationships: The Case of Employee Psychological Contract Obligations

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 1447-1471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Bordia ◽  
Simon Lloyd D. Restubog ◽  
Sarbari Bordia ◽  
Robert L. Tang
Keyword(s):  
Social Exchange ◽  
Resource Availability ◽  
Psychological Contract ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Conservation Of Resources ◽  
Exchange Relationships ◽  
Family Work ◽  
Work Conflict ◽  
The Social

Applications of social exchange theory in organizational research have tended to ignore the resource context and its impact on a focal dyadic social exchange. Integrating insights from the social exchange theory and the conservation of resources theory, we examine the role of resource availability in the social exchange of resources. The type of social exchange we focus on is the psychological contract. Specifically, we examine the antecedents and consequence of breach of employee obligations to an employer. We test our predictions using multisource data obtained from employees over three measurement periods in Sample 1 and matched triads (employee, supervisor, and coworker) in Sample 2. We found that family–work conflict (FWC) and breach of employer obligations are positively, while conscientiousness is negatively, related to employees’ perceptions of breach of their obligations. Conscientiousness moderated the FWC–breach relationship: Employees low on conscientiousness have a stronger positive relationship between FWC and breach of employee obligations. Breach of employee obligations is, in turn, negatively related to employee career progression (a job promotion over the following year in Sample 1 and supervisor-rated promotability in Sample 2). Findings highlight the interconnected nature of demands, resources, and obligations and that dyadic social exchange obligations should be examined in the context of other demands.

The Workplace Working Alliance: The Modern Organizational Relationship

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-522
Author(s):  
Mark A. North ◽  
Dylan Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Behavior ◽  
Working Alliance ◽  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Working Relationships ◽  
Exchange Relationships ◽  
Good Science ◽  
New Era ◽  
Hybrid Theory

The evolution of organizational working relationships is always a timely discussion, especially in an age where globalization, remote workforces, and most recently artificial intelligence, to name just three, hold great promise but also concern for organizations’ capabilities to build on the strengths of traditional relationship theories while looking forward to and blazing paths toward future relationship theories. We appreciate Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (2018) questioning of the “old” social exchange theory (SET) as a relevant organizing framework and their proposition of a “new” or hybrid workplace relationship theory to reflect today's workforce. In short, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu practice good science by not throwing out what does not seem to fit but rather helping science evolve into what it needs to become (see Gergen's [2001] great commentary on ill-advised practices of ending traditions when criticisms are levied). We also admire Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's willingness to invite “additional organizational behavior [OB] theories” (p. 476) to join the conversation in defining what the new era workplace relationship might look like. With that invitation and a little latitude in what could be defined as “an OB theory,” we propose that the working alliance (WA; Bordin, 1979) be given space in that narrative. The substance of our commentary will describe the WA connection with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's new or hybrid theory, principally as it relates to issues regarding (a) tension toward equality and fairness and (b) mutual reciprocity in exchange relationships.

scholarly journals Social Exchange in Work Settings: Content, Process, and Mixed Models

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn M. Shore ◽  
Jacqueline A-M. Coyle-Shapiro ◽  
Xiao-Ping Chen ◽  
Lois E. Tetrick
Keyword(s):  
Social Exchange ◽  
Mixed Models ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Exchange Relationships ◽  
Organizational Settings ◽  
Work Settings

Social exchange theory has provided the dominant basis for understanding exchange relationships in organizational settings. Despite its predominance within the management field, there are a number of unaddressed issues. This special issue seeks to further social exchange research in work settings. We differentiate social from economic exchange and highlight the moderating role of cultural and individual differences in explaining the outcomes associated with social exchange relationships. We introduce the ideas of content, process, and mixed models of exchange to reflect the different emphases given to the amount and type of resources exchanged, the quality of the relationship, and a combination of both. The five papers in this special issue illustrate these models. We discuss the applicability of social exchange theory across cultural contexts and present suggestions for future research.

Linking justice perceptions, workplace relationship quality and job performance: The differential roles of vertical and horizontal workplace relationships

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela I Gerlach
Keyword(s):  
Job Performance ◽  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Team Work ◽  
Workplace Relationships ◽  
Interpersonal Justice ◽  
Exchange Relationships ◽  
Justice Perceptions ◽  
Coworker Relationships

Due to decentralization, flat organizational structures and prevalence of team work, employees interact more frequently and intensively within horizontal relationships with coworkers than within vertical relationships with supervisors. The present study contributes to a more complete understanding of antecedents and outcomes of local, interpersonal workplace relationships by simultaneously investigating employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships. Drawing on organizational justice theory and social exchange theory as well as data collected from 571 employees at two points in time, this study explores how justice perceptions affect social exchange relationships with supervisors and coworkers, and identifies mechanisms through which these, in turn, enhance employee job performance. Results suggest that informational and interpersonal justice differentially affect the quality of employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships, underlining the relevance of considering both supervisors and coworkers as sources of justice. Moreover, the findings indicate that employee–supervisor and employee–coworker relationships contribute to job performance, but through distinct paths. Job satisfaction mediates the link between both social exchange relationships and job performance, while quality of employee–coworker relationships further enhances job performance through employees’ motivation to engage in learning and knowledge sharing.

scholarly journals The Value Of Partnership In Offshoring

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 297
Author(s):  
Jeremy St. John ◽  
Carl S. Guynes Guynes ◽  
Richard Vedder
Keyword(s):  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Exchange Relationship ◽  
Exchange Relationships ◽  
Partnership Quality ◽  
The Social ◽  
It Offshoring ◽  
Maintain Relationship

Partnership or strategic partnership is a label attributed to client-vendor relationships characterized as highly involved. This high involvement or collaboration is considered a partnership quality. This study uses the social exchange theory to examine the relationship between clients and vendors as partners in offshoring. Social exchange theory requires that as members of an exchange relationship receive benefit, they must return an equivalent amount of benefit to maintain relationship equilibrium (Homans, 1958).Trust is an important element in exchange relationships because it helpsto ensure equilibrium. Management of theclient-vendor relationship is critical for the success of the IT offshoring arrangement.

Social movements and exchanges: Sketch of a theory

2021 ◽  
pp. 104346312110351
Author(s):  
Nicolás M Somma
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Social Exchange ◽  
Social Exchange Theory ◽  
Strategic Behavior ◽  
Exchange Theory ◽  
Voluntary Organizations ◽  
Strategic Choices ◽  
Homo Economicus ◽  
Political Leverage

Using social exchange theory, this article presents a new theory for understanding the strategic choices made by social movement leaders—the “movement exchanges” theory. It looks at how leaders engage in exchanges of valued rewards with constituencies, institutional political players, bystander publics, and voluntary organizations. Leaders receive from these players important rewards (like committed activists, political leverage, and resources) for achieving movement goals. In turn, leaders make strategic choices (expressed in frames, tactics, targets, and claims) that other players find rewarding, favoring persistent exchanges across time. By considering movements’ simultaneous exchanges with several players, the theory makes sense of choices that remain puzzling for major movement theories. It also blends strategic behavior with culture (in the form of utopias, ideology, and emotions) but does not require the maximizing assumption of the homo economicus. I use the case of the contemporary Chilean student movement to illustrate the theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document