Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:48:06.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generalized Social Exchange and Its Relevance to New Era Workplace Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Katsuhiko Yoshikawa ,
Chia-Huei Wu  and
Hyun-Jung Lee
Katsuhiko Yoshikawa*
Affiliation:
Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Chia-Huei Wu
Affiliation:
Durham University Business School, Durham University
Hyun-Jung Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katsuhiko Yoshikawa, Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1954 Hua Shan Road, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. E-mail: katsu_y@sjtu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 486 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27 (1), 17–40.Google Scholar
Baker, W. E., & Bulkley, N. (2014). Paying it forward vs. rewarding reputation: Mechanisms of generalized reciprocity. Organization Science, 25 (5), 1493–1510.Google Scholar
Baker, W. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2007). Enabling positive social capital in organizations. In Dutton, J. E. & Ragins, B. (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 325–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ballinger, G. A., & Rockmann, K. W. (2010). Chutes versus ladders: Anchoring events and a punctuated-equilibrium perspective on social exchange relationships. Academy of Management Review, 35 (3), 373–391.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (2), 298–310.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life: Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Chernyak-Hai, L., & Rabenu, E. (2018). The new era workplace relationships: Is social exchange theory still relevant? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (3), 456–481.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 42–51.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 743–750.Google Scholar
Ekeh, P. (1974). Social exchange theory: The two traditions. London, UK: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1972). Exchange theory, part II: Exchange relations and networks. Sociological Theories in Progress, 2, 58–87.Google Scholar
Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and organizational performance: The mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, 31 (5), 758–775.Google Scholar
Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2011). Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organization Science, 22 (6), 1464–1480.Google Scholar
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30 (4), 737–750.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 (2), 161–178.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63 (6), 597–606.Google Scholar
Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2012). How knowledge transfer impacts performance: A multilevel model of benefits and liabilities. Organization Science, 23 (6), 1748–1766.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1949). The elementary forms of kinship (English translation published in 1969). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Mainowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Molm, L. D. (2000). Theories of social exchange and exchange networks. In Ritzer, G. & Smart, B. (Eds.), Handbook of social theory (pp. 260–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Molm, L. D., Collett, J. L., & Schaefer, D. R. (2007). Building solidarity through generalized exchange: A theory of reciprocity. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (1), 205–242.Google Scholar
Orvis, K. A., Dudley, N. M., & Cortina, J. M. (2008). Conscientiousness and reactions to psychological contract breach: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (5), 1183–1193.Google Scholar
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1), 35–57.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D., Park, S. H., McDonald, M. L., & Hayward, M. L. A. (2012). Helping other CEOs avoid bad press: Social exchange and impression management support among CEOs in communications with journalists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57 (2), 217–268.Google Scholar
Willer, R., Flynn, F. J., & Zak, S. (2012). Structure, identity, and solidarity: A comparative field study of generalized and direct exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57 (1), 119–155.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T., & Cook, K. S. (1993). Generalised exchange and social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56 (4), 235–248.Google Scholar
Zhong, L. F., Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (2016). Job engagement, perceived organizational support, high-performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37 (6), 823–844.Google Scholar