Individuals tend to match goodwill and helpfulness when they perceive that others are acting in good faith—whether it is a girl who has a crush on a boy, within a family setting, in the workplace, or even among strangers.
In organizational contexts, this means that employees are likely to respond positively when they believe their employer is supportive. Over time, such interactions evolve into strong, distinguishable social exchange relationships between employees and their supervisors or organizations (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Social Exchange Theory (SET) offers a foundational framework for analyzing how individuals respond to various social interactions, particularly through the lens of resource exchange. These resources can be tangible—such as goods and services—or intangible, such as social value and emotional support (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958). Central to SET is the concept of reciprocity, wherein individuals seek to balance the benefits they receive with the costs they incur during social exchanges.
Social exchanges typically consist of a series of interactions that generate obligations. These interactions are interdependent and contingent on the behavior of others (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). As such, repeated reciprocal exchanges have the potential to produce high-quality relationships characterized by trust, loyalty, and mutual commitment.
Practical Applications of SET in the Workplace
SET is particularly valuable in understanding workplace behavior. For instance, when organizations treat their employees well—through fair treatment, recognition, and support—employees are more likely to reciprocate with increased job performance and organizational commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
This is often reflected in constructs such as Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), where the quality of exchange relationships significantly influences employee attitudes and behaviors.
In essence, employees are inclined to trade their loyalty and commitment for the support and investment of their organization. This reciprocal relationship fosters a more engaged and productive workforce, ultimately benefiting both the individual and the organization.
This leads to a critical question: should the customer always be considered the king, even at the expense of the employee? Or is it possible for both the employee and the customer to be treated as kings within a balanced social setup?
References
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698