The Employee-Organization Relationship

Applications for the 21st Century

Lynn M. Shore,Jacqueline A-M. Coyle-Shapiro,Lois E. Tetrick

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136493270
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Commerce
• Sous-sujet: Gestion des ressources humaines

"Employee-organization relationship" is an overarching term that describes the relationship between the employee and the organization. It encompasses psychological contracts, perceived organizational support, and the employment relationship. Remarkable progress has been made in the last 30 years in the study of EOR. This volume, by a stellar list of international contributors, offers perspectives on EOR that will be of interest to scholars, practitioners and graduate students in IO psychology, business and human resource management.

1

Expanding the Boundaries and
Challenging the Assumptions
of the Employee–Organization
Relationship Literature

Lynn M. Shore

San Diego State University

Jacqueline A-M. Coyle-Shapiro

London School of Economics and Political Science

Lois E. Tetrick

George Mason University

Remarkable progress has been made since the 1980s in the study of the employee–organization relationship (EOR), and the interest in understanding this fundamental aspect of organizational life shows no sign of slowing down. The EOR is “an overarching term to describe the relationship between the employee and the organization” (Shore et al., 2004, p. 292) and encompasses psychological contracts, perceived organizational support, and the employment relationship. Social exchange (Blau, 1964) and the inducements–contributions model (March & Simon, 1958) have provided the dominant theoretical foundation to understanding the employee–employer exchange relationship.

Given the large body of research that has evolved as evidenced by meta analyses on psychological contracts (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007) and perceived organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), as well as multiple books on the topic of the EOR (Conway & Briner, 2005; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Rousseau, 1995), our readers might be forgiven for asking, do we need another book? To this, we say, read on and you will find a series of innovative and thought-provoking chapters that will set the foundation for the next phase of the EOR literature.

This book is organized into four parts in addition to this opening chapter and the closing chapter, both written by the editors. First, we review the current state of the EOR literature prior to outlining how the chapters in this book advance our understanding and push the boundaries forward in the EOR domain.

CURRENT STATUS OF EOR THEORY

Our starting point is to review existing frameworks that capture the EOR prior to examining their underlying mechanisms and associated outcomes. Given the theoretical importance of social exchange theory and the inducements–contributions model to these frameworks, we begin with a brief historical review.

Social Exchange Theory and Inducements–Contributions Model

The inducements–contributions model (March & Simon, 1958) has its origins in Barnard's (1938) idea of “exchange of utilities” (p. 240) and focused on the resources exchanged in the EOR. This was expanded upon in later work by Blau (1964), who took a broader focus on the type of exchange relationship that develops between employees and their organization. March and Simon (1958), in their inducements–contributions model, viewed the employment relationship as an exchange of organizational inducements for employee contributions. An important element in their model is the notion of balance. From the employee's perspective, satisfaction is enhanced when there is a greater difference between the inducements provided by the organization and the contributions required in return. From the organization's perspective, its continued existence depends on whether the contributions from employees are sufficient to generate the necessary inducements. Subsequent work by Blau added greater specification to the nature of the resources exchanged.

Social exchange theory owes much to the work of Blau (1964) who distinguished between two types of relationships: economic and social exchange. Blau defines economic exchange as one where the nature of the exchange is specified and the method used to assure that each party fulfills its specific obligations is the formal contract upon which the exchange is based. In contrast, social exchange involves unspecified obligations— “favors that create diffuse future obligations, not precisely specified ones, and the nature of the return cannot be bargained about but must be left to the discretion of the one who makes it” (p. 93). Therefore, social and economic exchanges differ in the extent to which each party's obligations are specified as part of the exchange.

Because social exchange relationships involve unspecified obligations, trust plays an important role in the process of the exchange: One party needs to trust the other to discharge future obligations (i.e., to reciprocate) in the initial stages of the exchange, and it is the regular discharge of obligations that promotes trust in the relationship. However, Blau (1964) argues that the timing of reciprocation is important: “posthaste reciprocation of favors, which implies a refusal to stay indebted for a while and hence an insistence on a more businesslike relationship is condemned as improper” (p. 99). The underlying rationale is that remaining obligated for a period of time to another party and the trust that the obligations will be discharged serve to strengthen the social exchange. Furthermore, the social exchange process takes time to develop, beginning with minor transactions in which little trust is required. If the recipient returns the small benefits received, this acts as a demonstration of their trustworthiness, facilitating the ongoing conferring of benefits and discharging of obligations. Consequently, the norm of reciprocity and the importance of trusting the exchange partner to reciprocate distinguish social exchange from economic exchange. Thus, social exchange is characterized by investment in the relationship that carries an inherent risk that the investment will not be repaid.

Another difference between economic and social exchange is the time orientation of the relationship. Economic exchanges are time limited, whereas in social exchange relationships, there is a long-term orientation where the exchange is ongoing and indefinite. The long-term horizon is necessary for the development of trust and for a pattern of predictability to develop between giving and receiving of benefits between the exchange partners. Therefore, the key elements that distinguish social exchange from economic exchange are the unspecified obligations, norm of reciprocity, trust, and the long-term horizon of the relationship.

Although social exchange theory has provided the conceptual basis for research in the EOR, it is only recently that measures of social and economic exchange have been developed (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006). The authors found empirical support for the distinctiveness of social and economic exchange, and their findings suggest that both types of exchange relationships can operate concurrently. Consistent with the tenets of social exchange theory, the empirical findings support the positive effect of social exchange relationships on outcomes such as performance and altruism as well as affective commitment, suggesting that compared to economic exchange, social exchange relationships yield more desirable benefits for organizations.

Employment Relationships

Drawing on the inducement–contribution model and social exchange theory (March & Simon, 1958), Tsui, Pearce, Porter, and Tripoli (1997) outline four types of employment relationships that differ on two dimensions: the degree of balance/imbalance in each party's contributions and whether the focus of these contributions is economic or social. Briefly, a balanced economic exchange (quasi-spot contract) occurs when the employer offers short-term purely economic inducements in return for highly specified outcomes. A balanced social exchange (mutual investment) takes place when both parties offer an open-ended and long-term investment to each other. The underinvestment approach occurs when the employer expects open-ended commitment and long-term investment from employees in return for short-term economic inducements. The overinvestment approach is characterized by the employer offering long-term investment in return for highly specified employee outcomes. Rather than focusing on particular individuals, the unit of analysis is the job level. Subsequent work examined the nature of the EOR between the organization and groups of employees (Song, Tsui, & Law, 2009). A distinguishing feature of this framework is that it captures the EOR from the organization's perspective vis-à-vis the more employee-centered perceived organizational support and psychological contract frameworks.

Psychological Contracts

The historical development of the psychological contract includes the seminal works of Argyris (1960), Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, and Solley (1962), and Schein (1965). Argyris viewed the psychological contract as an implicit understanding between a group of employees and their foreman and argued that the relationship could develop in such a way that employees would exchange higher productivity and lower grievances in return for acceptable wages and job security (Taylor & Tekleab, 2004). Subsequently, Levinson et al. (1962) influenced by the work of Menninger (1958) introduced a more elaborate conceptualization of the psychological contract. Menninger suggested that in addition to tangible resources, contractual relationships also involve the exchange of intangibles. Furthermore, the exchange between the two parties needs to provide mutual satisfaction in order for the relationship to continue (Roehling, 1997). Levinson et al. defined the psychological contract as comprising mutual expectations between an employee and the employer. These expectations may arise from unconscious motives, and thus each party may not be aware of their own expectations let alone the expectations of the other party. Although Schein's (1965) definition shares some similarities with Levinson et al., he placed considerable emphasis on the matching of expectations between the employee and organization. The matching of expectations and their fulfillment are crucial to attaining positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, and performance. Rousseau's (1989) seminal article is credited with reinvigorating research on psychological contracts. Rousseau defined the psychological contract as “an individual's belief regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party. Key issues here include the belief that a promise has been made and a consideration offered in exchange for it, binding the parties to some set of reciprocal obligations” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 123). This reconceptualization of the psychological contract emphasized obligations rather than expectations and gave less emphasis to matching between the employee and organization in favor of perceived agreement from the employee's perspective. Therefore, the psychological contract shifted from capturing the two parties to the exchange and their contingent interplay to an individual's perception of both parties’ obligations in the exchange.

Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived organizational support (POS) was developed by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) to capture an individual's perception concerning the degree to which an organization values his/her contributions and cares about his/her well-being. Employees make attributions about the organization's benevolence and form a global belief concerning the favorability of the organization's judgment of him/her and the expectancy that he/she would be treated beneficially in a variety of circumstances (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). In forming this global belief, employees personify the organization, reflecting that organizational agents do not simply act as individuals with their own motives in their actions but are rather strongly influenced by the values of upper level managers. Therefore, employees “view the organization as having a personality, using their everyday understanding of personality to try and understand why the organization acts as it does, ascribing persisting traits and motives to the organization” (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011, p. 41). As such, employees think of their exchange relationship as one with a more powerful entity with human-like qualities.

Favorable treatment from the organization has been demonstrated to lead to perceptions of organizational support and more so if this treatment is interpreted as under the discretion of the organization. Organizational fairness is thought to have a cumulative effect on POS, reflecting a concern for the welfare of employees and, in particular, procedural justice. This is consistent with Tyler and Lind's (1992) relational model, which posits that individuals want to feel good about themselves and inclusion within a group contributes to affirming individuals with a sense of self-worth and identity. As Tyler and Lind note, “people are sensitive to procedural nuances because procedures are viewed as manifestations of basic process values in the group, organization, or institution using the procedure” (p. 140). Therefore, procedural justice is likely to signal to employees their relative standing in the eyes of the organization. In addition, Shore and Shore (1995) identify human resource practices that recognize employee contributions as enhancing employee perceptions of organizational support. These practices include training and developmental experiences (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997), job security (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), and job autonomy (Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999). According to organizational support theory, when employees perceive that the organization is supportive, they will reciprocate by helping the organization achieve its goals (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001).

Underlying Explanatory Mechanisms

The dominant explanations underlying the employee–organization exchange relationship are the norm of reciprocity and the extent to which balance exists in the relationship.

Reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity is central to explaining why psychological contract breach/fulfillment and POS are related to outcomes. Gouldner (1960), in his seminal work, suggested that “(1) people should help those who have helped them, and (2) people should not injure those who have helped them” (p. 171). Gouldner distinguished between two types of reciprocity: heteromorphic and homeomorphic reciprocity. Heteromorphic reciprocity occurs when the content of the exchange between two parties is different but equal in perceived value. Homeomorphic reciprocity occurs in exchanges where the content or the circumstances under which things are exchanged are identical. Regarding how the norm of reciprocity operates, Gouldner argues that the strength of an obligation to repay is contingent upon the value of the benefit received. Benefits are more valued when (a) the recipient is in greater need, (b) the donor cannot afford to give the benefit (but does), (c) the donor provides the benefit in the absence of a motive of self interest, and (d) the donor was not required to give the benefit. Therefore, highly valued benefits create a stronger obligation to reciprocate.

Although Gouldner (1960) distinguished between two different forms of reciprocity, this was later extended by Sahlins (1965, 1972) who conceptualized reciprocity based on three dimensions: (a) immediacy of returns—the timing by which the recipient needs to reciprocate in order to discharge the obligation, and this could range from simultaneous reciprocation to indefinite; (b) equivalence of returns—the extent to which exchange partners return the same resource; and (c) interest—the degree to which exchange partners are other-interested, mutually interested, or self-interested in the exchange process. From these three dimensions, Sahlins (1972) outlines three forms of reciprocity: generalized, balanced, and negative. Generalized reciprocity is altruistic in orientation where there is a lack of concern over the timing and the content of the exchange. According to Sahlins, repayment may be conditional upon what the recipient can afford and when the recipient can reciprocate, but this does not preclude the situation where reciprocation never occurs. Hence, this form of reciprocity is viewed as “sustained one-way flow” (Sahlins, 1972, p. 194). Balanced reciprocity is characterized by quid pro quo, and a perfectly balanced exchange is one where there is a simultaneous exchange of an equivalent resource. However, Sahlins states that “balanced reciprocity may be more loosely applied to transactions which stipulate returns of commensurate worth or utility wi...

Table des matières

• Front Cover
• Halftitle Page
• SERIES IN APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Foreword
• Preface
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors
• Chapter 1 Expanding the Boundaries and Challenging the Assumptions of the Employee–Organization Relationship Literature
• PART 1 New Ways of Thinking About the Employee–Organization Relationship
• PART 2 Putting the “R” Back in the EOR
• PART 3 Creation, Maintenance, and Completion of the Employee–Organization Relationship
• PART 4 Organizational and Strategic Implications
• Author Index
• Subject Index