Untitled

Abstract

This study applied a social exchange perspective to examine three related aspects of work group behavior: individuals' assessment of the personal costs and rewards of group membership, the overall level of emotional investment in a group, and the external evaluation of group performance. Regression analyses of survey data from 28 ongoing student work groups (134 individuals) indicated that perceptions of personal rewards resulting from interaction over a ten-week period are an important precursor of emotional investment, defined as a relational orientation that encourages mutual caring, group loyalty, and commitment to the group as a whole. Consistent with our expectations, personal costs influenced neither emotional investment nor group performance after considering the effects of personal rewards. Emotional investment mediated the effects of personal rewards on externally rated group performance. Thus, emotional investment was a pivotal dimension of group effectiveness. Results extend our understanding of group behavior by acknowledging the relationship between personal and group development while confirming the compelling role of emotions in social exchange. Work groups answer to three masters: (1) the organization and its emphasis on output (group performance), (2) the group and it's need for relational development, and (3) group members and their personal interests (costs and rewards of group membership) (Hackman, 1990; McGrath, 1991). Although these three masters (organization, group, and individual) often make conflicting demands, work groups must acknowledge all three perspectives and must consider the demands made by each to perform effectively over time (Hackman, 1990). 1 We thank Peggy Thoits for her substantive suggestions and editorial guidance on this manuscript. We thank Lance Sandelands for advice on the focus and contributions of this research.

A disaggregated approach to establishing the antecedents and outcome of relationship quality in the South African banking industry

“…A next important finding was that, similar to previous studies (Saavedra and Van Dyne, 1999;Yim et al, 2008), customer intimacy was a significant predictor of all three the sub-dimensions associated with relationship quality. This finding extends our current understanding from a recent study showing customer intimacy predicts loyalty (Mulia et al, 2020) by showing that customer intimacy is a significant predictor of the relationship quality sub-dimensions, with some of these sub dimensions, in turn, predicting loyalty.…”

“…Customer intimacy signifies the closeness and connectedness of a customer's relationship with an organisation (Liu et al, 2011). As interactions between customers and firms become more frequent and the participants become closer, attachments become more robust and progressive emotional bonds develop between the parties (Saavedra and Van Dyne, 1999), resulting in customers feeling more positive about interacting with the firm (Bügel et al, 2011;Yim et al, 2008). Intimacy should accordingly be viewed as an ongoing relational process that is established over time as firms refine their offerings in an effort to satisfy customer needs (Ponder et al, 2016).…”

It’s all in how you use it: Managers’ use of meetings to reduce employee intentions to quit.

“…Workplace meetings function as a context in which supervisors and subordinates interact in meaningful ways that, depending on the nature of the interaction, may enhance or injure the perceived quality of their dyadic relationship. The social environment in the meeting context is one in which each member of the leader-member dyad has something the other values, usually information, thus strengthening the existing relationship between supervisor and subordinate, either positively or negatively, through increased exchange interactions and mutual dependence (Saavedra & Van Dyne, 1999;Wageman, 1995). If the supervisor and subordinate exchange resources in the meeting context in a way that engenders trust, support, honesty, and delayed reciprocity, the subordinate is likely to perceive the relationship as fairly high quality (Banks et al, 2014;Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005;Dulebohn et al, 2012).…”

Differentiation in Emotional Investments in Work Groups among Different Social Status of Construction Industry Practitioners: A Perspective from the Social Exchange Theory

“…We referred to Saavedra and Dyne [ 28 ] and selected three separate items from the cost-benefit inventory developed by [ 29 , 30 ] based on social exchange in interpersonal relationships to assess individuals' perceptions of rewards and costs. Considering the purpose of this study is to examine the personal trait attributes and relational attributes of the different social status of practitioners within the construction industry, the items focus on the exchange of nonmaterial resources [ 28 ]. To measure affective investment, we used three items from Hackman's [ 21 ] assessment of members' perceptions of group well-being.…”