Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:30:23.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rules of Social Exchange: Unchanged but More Important Than Ever

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Rachel E. Frieder
Rachel E. Frieder*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel E. Frieder, Ph.D., Department of Management, Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida, Building 42, Room 3015, Jacksonville, FL 32224. E-mail: r.frieder@unf.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Social exchange theory (SET) is one of the most prominent and well-known theories in the organizational sciences literature (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In the focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) asserted that SET needs to be adjusted to account for changes in the nature of work, workers, and workplace characteristics. Specifically, they identify that workplaces are now more volatile, complex, uncertain, and ambiguous (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014), and work itself has become more flexible, virtual, and technology dependent; accordingly, today's workers are sourced from a global talent pool and more frequently occupy nontraditional employment arrangements (e.g., freelancing). It is undisputable that the workplace landscape is vastly different from that of the workplace landscape during which early forms of SET were originally articulated (Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1958).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 535 - 541
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

Bennett, N., & Lemoine, J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 92, 27–27.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.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
Cogliser, C. C., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader-member exchange: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 487–511.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.Google Scholar
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. M. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.Google Scholar
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93–116.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.Google Scholar
Hochwarter, W. (2012). The positive side of organizational politics. In Ferris, G. & Treadway, D. (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 27–66). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. E., & Arthur, M. B. (2006). The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 19–29.Google Scholar