Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:27:25.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long Live Social Exchange Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Caitlin M. Porter Open the ORCID record for Caitlin M. Porter [Opens in a new window]
Caitlin M. Porter*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Houston
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Caitlin M. Porter, Department of Psychology, University of Houston, 3695 Cullen Blvd., Room 126, Houston, TX 77204. E-mail: cporter2@central.uh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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 influence whether and how employees develop high-quality work relationships with organizational representatives.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 498 - 504
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

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. doi: 10.2307/257068Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349.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. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51. doi: 10.37/0021-9010.86.1.42Google Scholar
Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35, 1379–1403. doi: 10.1177/0149206309344741Google Scholar
Foa, U. G. (1971). Interpersonal and economic resources. Science, 171, 345–351. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3969.345Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. doi: 10.2307/2092623Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5Google Scholar
Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/1467-9558.00171Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31, 977–994. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527470Google Scholar
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.xGoogle Scholar
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle Shapiro, J. A.-M., Liden, R. C., McLean Parks, J., . . . Van Dyne, L. (2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In Buckley, M. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 291–370). Bingley, UK: Emerald. doi: 10.1016/S0742-7301(04)23007-9Google Scholar
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1089–1121. doi: 10.2307/256928Google Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2003). Reciprocity in manager–subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29, 511–532. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00023-0Google Scholar
Wilson, K. S., Sin, H.-P., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader–member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35, 358–372. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2010.51141654Google Scholar