Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies

Abstract

Using two criteria, specificity and intensity, to classify seven different constructs is complicated, but it yields interpretable results. Figure 2 displays the Pearson et al. model. The constructs and definitions are paraphrased from their Figure 8.2 (p. 191). Notice that CWB is presented as a broad family of negative work behaviors, which are termed "deviant" when a norm is transgressed. In this model there are three types of deviance-violence, aggression, and incivility. These range from high-intensity (violence) to low-intensity (incivility), with aggression lying in between. Finally, there are two types of chronic aggression, mobbing (highto moderate-intensity) and bullying (moderate-to low-intensity). Aggression. While Pearson et al. (2005) view aggression as narrower than CWB, other researchers treat aggressive behaviors more expansively. Some researchers have considered workplace aggression as a broad concept that subsumes potentially hurtful and harmful constructs (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Particularly, it is inclusive of a range of behaviors that seeks to harm someone physically or psychologically. Perhaps the broadest approach is taken by Hershcovis (2011) and Hershcovis and Barling (2007). They define workplace aggression as "any negative act, which may be committed towards an individual within the workplace, or the workplace itself, in ways that the target is motivated to avoid" (Hershcovis & Barling, 2007, p. 271). Their approach diverges from others as it does not consider intention to harm as part of the definition (Shewach & Sackett, 2016). Taking a similar view, Neuman and Baron (2005) classify the various types of aggressive behaviors along three dimensions: (a) physical or verbal, (b) active or passive, and (c) direct or indirect. For example, a type of aggression that is physical, active, and direct might be homicide, while one that is verbal, passive, and indirect might involve a failure to provide needed feedback. Neuman and Baron's three-dimensional taxonomy could account for many of the different Page 9 of 107 Academy of Management Annals SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY 10 constructs that have been mentioned so far. Incivility could be viewed as active and direct. Theft or sabotage, which are types of productive deviance, are classified as physical, active, and indirect. Although there are distinct differences regarding these behaviors, there are some similarities as well. Overlaps may be attributed to varying research goals as scholars seek to untangle the negative actions and interactions within organizations. First, some researchers tend to conceptualize aggressive behaviors as retaliatory, while others view them as voluntarily deviant. Speaking very loosely, retaliatory behaviors are provoked by the wrongdoing of others, whereas voluntary behaviors are chosen by the actor without provocation. As an example of the former, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) conceptualize workplace aggression as organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB). These behaviors are employed to punish the organization and its membe...

How Does Leader’s Support for Environment Promote Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for Environment? A Multi-Theory Perspective

“…Social exchange theory has been used in diverse organizational research areas including: organizational citizenship behaviour, commitment, justice, supervisory support, and organizational support [48]. In organizational setting, social exchange begins when an actor (e.g., organization, manager employee) treats a target individual in a positive (e.g., support and justice) or negative manner (e.g., abusive supervision, rude, and bullying).…”

“…In organizational domain, social exchange theory is one of the most prominent conceptual perspectives in explaining employee behaviour [48]. Social exchange theory has been used in diverse organizational research areas including: organizational citizenship behaviour, commitment, justice, supervisory support, and organizational support [48].…”

Examining Structural Relationships between Work Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations

“…Social exchange theory, as a widely used conceptual framework in organizational research [32], can be utilized to support the relationships among the four research constructs used in our study. Social exchange theory is one of the most influential perspectives for understanding employee behavior in the workplace based on a number of social science disciplines, including management, social psychology, and anthropology [32,33].…”

“…Social exchanges refer to transactions or relationships between two or more parties (e.g., relationships between employees and their organization) that involve unspecified future obligations through a reciprocal process of exchanging resources (i.e., reciprocity as interdependent exchanges) for which some future repayment or return is expected for the positive contribution made [21,32,33]. Thus, if an organizational actor (i.e., organization, supervisor, or co-worker) provides positive initiating actions (e.g., fair and transparent organizational procedures), targets (e.g., individual employees) will tend to choose to reciprocate these initiating actions with positive responses through a high-quality social exchange relationship [32]. That is, if employees perceive the organizational procedures used in the decision-making process to be fair, they are more likely to repay their organization by not only cognitively, emotionally, and physically engaging in their work (i.e., psychological engagement and behavioral engagement) but by also forming positive work attitudes and voluntary cooperation toward their organization (i.e., enhancing employee work engagement, encouraging knowledge sharing among employees either within teams or across teams, and facilitating innovative work behavior) [20,21,32,34,35].…”

“…Social exchange theory is one of the most influential perspectives for understanding employee behavior in the workplace based on a number of social science disciplines, including management, social psychology, and anthropology [32,33]. Social exchanges refer to transactions or relationships between two or more parties (e.g., relationships between employees and their organization) that involve unspecified future obligations through a reciprocal process of exchanging resources (i.e., reciprocity as interdependent exchanges) for which some future repayment or return is expected for the positive contribution made [21,32,33]. Thus, if an organizational actor (i.e., organization, supervisor, or co-worker) provides positive initiating actions (e.g., fair and transparent organizational procedures), targets (e.g., individual employees) will tend to choose to reciprocate these initiating actions with positive responses through a high-quality social exchange relationship [32].…”