Few would argue that the workplace has changed tremendously over a short period of time and will continue to evolve in the years to come. Regardless of whether change is major or minor, lightning fast or painfully slow, change in and of itself may not be sufficient cause for substantial revision of existing theories, such as social exchange theory (SET); the formulation of entirely new theories; or the creation of new constructs. This is for two reasons: (a) the possibility that we overestimate the impact of change on the workplace, and (b) change can be readily incorporated into our existing theories. We expand on each of these points below and describe several possible macrolevel trends that may impact SET in the years to come.
Change Is Not Synonymous With Impact
First, we may overestimate the extent to which change has an impact on work and the worker. For example, anecdotally, a common perception is that technology is redefining our work at a breathtaking pace, making workers faster and more efficient at doing their jobs (Manyika, Reference Manyika2017). Technology, such as digitization, is a key theme in the perspective offered by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) for understanding changes to SET. Although recent technology innovations (e.g., smartphones, social media, cloud computing) have unquestionably had a major influence on work and the worker, the productivity of the American worker over the past decade has grown at the slowest rate since the early 1980s, and output growth following the Great Recession has been the slowest of any economic recovery since 1947 (Sprague, Reference Sprague2017).Footnote 1 Although this stalled growth rate is certainly due to multiple factors, and productivity is only one small and specific indicator of change, productivity growth provides a rare metric for evaluating whether new technology results in the meaningful changes we intuitively expect.
Looking at one example from Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018), the authors propose that perceived organizational support (POS) in the “new workplace” will be increasingly shaped by legislation and court decisions. Although this is certainly possible, it is worth noting that organizational actions, such as the provision of benefits, impact POS only to the extent that such actions are viewed as discretionary on the part of the organization (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, Reference Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli and Lynch1997; Kurtessis et al., Reference Kurtessis, Eisenberger, Ford, Buffardi, Stewart and Adis2017). In other words, laws and regulations that are mandated by external authorities may have little impact on POS due to organizations’ lack of discretion over their implementation. As with technology, changes to the workplace may not necessarily result in the changes we expect to SET and related constructs.
SET Can Easily Accommodate the “New Workplace”
Second, existing theories may be sufficiently flexible and well-developed to readily incorporate changes—major or minor—into their frameworks. A prudent approach when considering whether change will meaningfully impact theory may be to first examine if and how existing theories can accommodate the new realities associated with the current (and future) workplace rather than assuming change will necessarily have an impact. For example, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) suggest that the “new workplace” will be strongly influenced by flexible reward policies. We agree that the proliferation of employee benefits and “cafeteria plans” (where employees choose their benefits from a variety of offerings) may indeed provide an important means of demonstrating the organization's valuation of its employees. However, existing perspectives (e.g., Gouldner, Reference Gouldner1960), which suggest that benefits are most meaningful to employees when they meet individuals’ specific needs, have adequately covered this ground. The same can be said about leader–member exchange (LMX): Although Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu suggest that the relevance of this theory will be diminished for knowledge workers, LMX is a construct that is contextualized to each leader–member dyad. Specifically, LMX differentiation is the process through which a leader forms different quality relationships with each of his or her subordinates by engaging in direct, frequent interactions and different exchange patterns (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, Reference Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski and Chaudhry2009). In some relationships (such as those between knowledge workers and their supervisors), autonomy may be a large driver of LMX quality. Further, communication technologies enable workers to engage in frequent and multimodal interactions through mediums such as email, video conferencing, text messaging, message boards, and so forth. Again, existing theory can adequately handle these changes. Last, although the “new workplace” may have important implications for SET, we caution against unnecessary construct proliferation. For example, although Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) point to a need for exchange-related team constructs (p. 28), existing and well-researched constructs, such as team-member exchange (TMX; Banks et al., Reference Banks, Batchelor, Seers, O'Boyle, Pollack and Gower2014; Seers, Reference Seers1989), may adequately meet these needs.
SET Will Continue to Be Relevant Despite Future Changes to Work and the Worker
Overall, we agree with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) that, in light of macrolevel trends, a careful evaluation of SET is needed. In particular, we agree that globalization and migration have and will continue to result in an increasing diversity of cultural values in the workplace, and existing research on cultural values and LMX (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, Reference Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang and Shore2012) as well as POS (e.g., Farh, Hackett, & Liang, Reference Farh, Hackett and Liang2007) supports their importance but also confirms the relevance of SET. Additionally, the use of freelancers and contract workers, collectively known as the “gig economy,” may have profound implications for SET. These nontraditional workers have relationships with coworkers, leaders, and contracting organizations in ways that do not fit neatly inside the theoretical box provided by SET. These arrangements, which resemble a “pay-for-performance” approach to compensation, may increase the relevance of SET because organizations are keenly aware that pay alone will not elicit the beneficial outcomes associated with traditional exchange relationships (e.g., organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors).
There are several other trends in the future of work that are well accounted for by SET. For example:
• Increase in remote workers: As work becomes more global and freelancers become more common, there is less face-to-face contact. This dynamic could actually increase the utility of SET. For example, research on virtual teams indicates that leadership and trust are especially important to effective functioning (Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, Reference Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartiainen and Hakonen2015), which suggests that SET—and LMX in particular—may play a key role in remote work.
• Flattened organizations: As organizations become less hierarchical, supervisor–subordinate dyads become less prevalent. Although this may seem to reduce the relevance of SET, it just shifts the focus to other extant theories, such as TMX. In fact, SET may become more important, as increased connections without a clear hierarchy will likely increase the prevalence and significance of partnerships in the workplace.
• Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Organizations are increasingly prioritizing CSR initiatives due to their impact on business success (Epstein-Reeves, Reference Epstein-Reeves2012). The importance of these efforts represents a major departure from the “old workplace” in which such programs were much less common than they are today. Rather than requiring a revision to SET, these efforts have only reinforced its applicability. For example, Jones (Reference Jones2010) used organizational identification and SET as a framework to show how employees’ participation in a corporate volunteerism program predicted employee-related outcomes such as retention and OCBs.
Concluding Thoughts
The “new workplace” has been billed as one that is substantially different from the workplace of today. Although we do not doubt that will be the case—the workplace of today is quite different from those of several decades ago—we see little reason to think that these changes require a commensurate revision to SET-related models as proposed in the focal article. Instead, a careful evaluation of SET in light of major changes leads us to the conclusion that SET is a flexible, robust theory that is more than capable of incorporating the substantial macrolevel changes that we have been promised will characterize the “new workplace.”
You have
Access
Few would argue that the workplace has changed tremendously over a short period of time and will continue to evolve in the years to come. Regardless of whether change is major or minor, lightning fast or painfully slow, change in and of itself may not be sufficient cause for substantial revision of existing theories, such as social exchange theory (SET); the formulation of entirely new theories; or the creation of new constructs. This is for two reasons: (a) the possibility that we overestimate the impact of change on the workplace, and (b) change can be readily incorporated into our existing theories. We expand on each of these points below and describe several possible macrolevel trends that may impact SET in the years to come.
Change Is Not Synonymous With Impact
First, we may overestimate the extent to which change has an impact on work and the worker. For example, anecdotally, a common perception is that technology is redefining our work at a breathtaking pace, making workers faster and more efficient at doing their jobs (Manyika, Reference Manyika2017). Technology, such as digitization, is a key theme in the perspective offered by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) for understanding changes to SET. Although recent technology innovations (e.g., smartphones, social media, cloud computing) have unquestionably had a major influence on work and the worker, the productivity of the American worker over the past decade has grown at the slowest rate since the early 1980s, and output growth following the Great Recession has been the slowest of any economic recovery since 1947 (Sprague, Reference Sprague2017).Footnote 1 Although this stalled growth rate is certainly due to multiple factors, and productivity is only one small and specific indicator of change, productivity growth provides a rare metric for evaluating whether new technology results in the meaningful changes we intuitively expect.
Looking at one example from Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018), the authors propose that perceived organizational support (POS) in the “new workplace” will be increasingly shaped by legislation and court decisions. Although this is certainly possible, it is worth noting that organizational actions, such as the provision of benefits, impact POS only to the extent that such actions are viewed as discretionary on the part of the organization (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, Reference Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli and Lynch1997; Kurtessis et al., Reference Kurtessis, Eisenberger, Ford, Buffardi, Stewart and Adis2017). In other words, laws and regulations that are mandated by external authorities may have little impact on POS due to organizations’ lack of discretion over their implementation. As with technology, changes to the workplace may not necessarily result in the changes we expect to SET and related constructs.
SET Can Easily Accommodate the “New Workplace”
Second, existing theories may be sufficiently flexible and well-developed to readily incorporate changes—major or minor—into their frameworks. A prudent approach when considering whether change will meaningfully impact theory may be to first examine if and how existing theories can accommodate the new realities associated with the current (and future) workplace rather than assuming change will necessarily have an impact. For example, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) suggest that the “new workplace” will be strongly influenced by flexible reward policies. We agree that the proliferation of employee benefits and “cafeteria plans” (where employees choose their benefits from a variety of offerings) may indeed provide an important means of demonstrating the organization's valuation of its employees. However, existing perspectives (e.g., Gouldner, Reference Gouldner1960), which suggest that benefits are most meaningful to employees when they meet individuals’ specific needs, have adequately covered this ground. The same can be said about leader–member exchange (LMX): Although Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu suggest that the relevance of this theory will be diminished for knowledge workers, LMX is a construct that is contextualized to each leader–member dyad. Specifically, LMX differentiation is the process through which a leader forms different quality relationships with each of his or her subordinates by engaging in direct, frequent interactions and different exchange patterns (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, Reference Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski and Chaudhry2009). In some relationships (such as those between knowledge workers and their supervisors), autonomy may be a large driver of LMX quality. Further, communication technologies enable workers to engage in frequent and multimodal interactions through mediums such as email, video conferencing, text messaging, message boards, and so forth. Again, existing theory can adequately handle these changes. Last, although the “new workplace” may have important implications for SET, we caution against unnecessary construct proliferation. For example, although Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) point to a need for exchange-related team constructs (p. 28), existing and well-researched constructs, such as team-member exchange (TMX; Banks et al., Reference Banks, Batchelor, Seers, O'Boyle, Pollack and Gower2014; Seers, Reference Seers1989), may adequately meet these needs.
SET Will Continue to Be Relevant Despite Future Changes to Work and the Worker
Overall, we agree with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) that, in light of macrolevel trends, a careful evaluation of SET is needed. In particular, we agree that globalization and migration have and will continue to result in an increasing diversity of cultural values in the workplace, and existing research on cultural values and LMX (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, Reference Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang and Shore2012) as well as POS (e.g., Farh, Hackett, & Liang, Reference Farh, Hackett and Liang2007) supports their importance but also confirms the relevance of SET. Additionally, the use of freelancers and contract workers, collectively known as the “gig economy,” may have profound implications for SET. These nontraditional workers have relationships with coworkers, leaders, and contracting organizations in ways that do not fit neatly inside the theoretical box provided by SET. These arrangements, which resemble a “pay-for-performance” approach to compensation, may increase the relevance of SET because organizations are keenly aware that pay alone will not elicit the beneficial outcomes associated with traditional exchange relationships (e.g., organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors).
There are several other trends in the future of work that are well accounted for by SET. For example:
• Increase in remote workers: As work becomes more global and freelancers become more common, there is less face-to-face contact. This dynamic could actually increase the utility of SET. For example, research on virtual teams indicates that leadership and trust are especially important to effective functioning (Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, Reference Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartiainen and Hakonen2015), which suggests that SET—and LMX in particular—may play a key role in remote work.
• Flattened organizations: As organizations become less hierarchical, supervisor–subordinate dyads become less prevalent. Although this may seem to reduce the relevance of SET, it just shifts the focus to other extant theories, such as TMX. In fact, SET may become more important, as increased connections without a clear hierarchy will likely increase the prevalence and significance of partnerships in the workplace.
• Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Organizations are increasingly prioritizing CSR initiatives due to their impact on business success (Epstein-Reeves, Reference Epstein-Reeves2012). The importance of these efforts represents a major departure from the “old workplace” in which such programs were much less common than they are today. Rather than requiring a revision to SET, these efforts have only reinforced its applicability. For example, Jones (Reference Jones2010) used organizational identification and SET as a framework to show how employees’ participation in a corporate volunteerism program predicted employee-related outcomes such as retention and OCBs.
Concluding Thoughts
The “new workplace” has been billed as one that is substantially different from the workplace of today. Although we do not doubt that will be the case—the workplace of today is quite different from those of several decades ago—we see little reason to think that these changes require a commensurate revision to SET-related models as proposed in the focal article. Instead, a careful evaluation of SET in light of major changes leads us to the conclusion that SET is a flexible, robust theory that is more than capable of incorporating the substantial macrolevel changes that we have been promised will characterize the “new workplace.”