The New Era Workplace Relationships: Is Social Exchange Theory Still Relevant?

Abstract

In this article, we argue that changes in workplace characteristics over the last few decades may affect work relationships and call for adjustments in the traditional theoretical framework used to understand them. Since the last quarter of the 20th century, there have been theories regarding changes in labor relationships following technological, political, globalization, and economical changes. However, we examine the changes in light of psychological theories rather than labor or industrial approaches. We review four main areas where social exchange theory (SET) has been implemented, address recent changes that challenge the traditional SET perspective, and propose alternative models. We refer to these models as “hybrid” as they integrate traditional SET premises with new-era workplace characteristics. First, we describe several changes in workplace characteristics. Next, we review some of the most conventional applications of SET to work relationships. Finally, we critically examine whether this theory meets the requirements of work relationships in the new world of work and conclude by arguing that SET needs to be adjusted to reflect the assumption that frequent changes in employee and organizational characteristics in the new workplaces require similar frequent adjustments in exchange relationships.

A work-life conflict perspective on telework

“…Human relationship is an active research area, which could be beneficial for the study of telework behavior. And vice versa, the research of this new work/life modality could also provide material and adjustment for those human-relationship theories ( Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu, 2018 ).…”

Leader–Member Exchange, Work Engagement, and Psychological Withdrawal Behavior: The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment

“…According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), the LMX theory is a relationshipbased approach to leadership in which leaders develop varying relationships with their followers based on their exchanges and interactions. A leader develops either high or low dyadic relationships with his/her subordinates (Tabak and Hendy, 2016;Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu, 2018). The basis of LMX is that "dyadic relationships and work roles are developed and negotiated over time through a series of exchanges between the leader and member" Green, 1996, p. 1538).…”

“…LMX emerged as a positive organizational factor and has drawn the attention of the researchers to understand the supervisors' and subordinates' relationship (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). High LMX supports the organizational culture by building trust, sharing of information, resources, rewards, loyalty, and openness (Erdogan et al, 2006;Asgari et al, 2008;Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu, 2018). Employees under high LMX express themselves better in the organization, have a greater sense to work context and a positive attitude to accept the work challenges, and show innovativeness.…”

Leader- and Team-Member Exchanges and Their Relationships with Organizational and Interpersonal Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Moderation by Envy and Group Size in Israel and USA

“…CWBs (e.g., Chernyak-Hai & Rabenu, 2018;Chernyak-Hai & Tziner, 2014;Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007;Ho, 2012) or sometimes addressed as 'workplace misbehaviors' (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007;Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007;Dilchert, Ones, Davis, & Rostow, 2007;, "deviant behaviors" (e.g., Levy & Tziner, 2011;Zhang, Mayer, & Hwang, 2018) or counterproductive performance (e.g., Jawahar et al, 2018;Rotundo & Sackett, 2002) have received increasing attention from both the academic and the organizational fronts. This is due to their important economical, sociological, and psychological implications (Aubé et al, 2009;Levy & Tziner, 2011).…”

“…LMX and TMX are both under the same theoretical framework of the Social Exchange Theory (e.g., Chernyak-Hai & Rabenu, 2018;Colquitt et al, 2013). Social exchanges tend to be reciprocal (e.g., Gouldner, 1960), such that good-quality exchange of an employee with his/her direct manager or the immediate work team may promote knowledge sharing, mutual trust, help, and other organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Ilies et al, 2007;Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).…”