Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:52:19.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SET: Still a Relevant Theory for the Future of Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

James N. Kurtessis ,
Lindsay Northon  and
Valerie N. Streets
James N. Kurtessis
Affiliation:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Lindsay Northon
Affiliation:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Valerie N. Streets*
Affiliation:
Gartner
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Valerie N. Streets, Gartner, Arlington, VA. E-mail: valerie.streets@gartner.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few would argue that the workplace has changed tremendously over a short period of time and will continue to evolve in the years to come. Regardless of whether change is major or minor, lightning fast or painfully slow, change in and of itself may not be sufficient cause for substantial revision of existing theories, such as social exchange theory (SET); the formulation of entirely new theories; or the creation of new constructs. This is for two reasons: (a) the possibility that we overestimate the impact of change on the workplace, and (b) change can be readily incorporated into our existing theories. We expand on each of these points below and describe several possible macrolevel trends that may impact SET in the years to come.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 482 - 486
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

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O'Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014). What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 273–295.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
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820.Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1026–1040.Google Scholar
Epstein-Reeves, J. (2012). Six reasons companies should embrace CSR. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/csr/2012/02/21/six-reasons-companies-should-embrace-csr/#4a0b06f03495Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715–729.Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.Google Scholar
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517–534.Google Scholar
Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857–878.Google Scholar
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43, 1854–1884.Google Scholar
Manyika, J. (2017). Technology, jobs, and the future of work. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/technology-jobs-and-the-future-of-workGoogle Scholar
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1097–1130.Google Scholar
Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118–135.Google Scholar
Sprague, S. (2017). Below trend: The U.S. productivity slowdown since the Great Recession. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/below-trend-the-us-productivityslowdown-since-the-great-recession.htmGoogle Scholar