World Applied Sciences Journal 19 (7): 951-956, 2012
ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2012
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.19.07.2297
1
3
1
2
4
3
Abstract: Considering exchange relations at work, this research is directed to see the effects of exchange relations at work. An attempt had been made to see the flow of exchange from relation to organizational outcomes. In the process of inquiry an attempt had been made to peep into good amount of literature to have true picture. Literature is evident that there are three forms of exchange relations at work i.e. organizationalemployee exchange, supervisor-employee exchange relations and employee-employee exchange relation.
On the basis of these findings future recommendations and suggestion have also been given.
Key words: Exchange relation Perceived organizational support Supervisory support Coworker support
Outcomes
INTRODUCTION interdependency can work effectively when employees’
Globalization of firms has made drastic changes within businesses. Now firms are not to operate solely for increasing shareholders’ wealth but they have to share exchange relations are at their best. Exchange relations means when one party offers something valuable or takes care for other party and in return other party reciprocates it with something valuable. This notion is addresses by their returns with all stakeholders. Sometimes they have Blau [2] work on social exchange theory. According to to be socially responsible companies and sometime they social exchange theory when one party offers something have to work green. One of the areas that have transformed way of operations is the change in significance of human resource. Now organizations are looking for their effectiveness and efficiency on the basis of their intellectual capital. This has created new way of operating business i.e. humane organizations, ‘where employees are treated humanely’. Organizations are now bound to provide such working environment where employees feel protected, taken care off and cared for their welfare [1].
This has given new directions to manage workforce i.e. exchange at work. New organizational set-ups are based on interdependency of workforce. This valuable to other party this creates an obligation on the part of receiving party to reciprocate it positively e.g.
[3-5]. Thus a continuous exchange relation or network is created which is based on positive feelings and emotions for each other [2, 6]. These exchange relations can work positively for organizations. As exchange relations increase confidence and trust in each other which can result in positive work behaviors and increased individual outcomes [7-9]. These individual outcomes are significant determinant of organizational outcomes [10]. So positive exchange relations at work are not only important for individuals but it contains great significance for organization
Corresponding Author: Ishfaq Ahmed, Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
951

World Appl. Sci. J., 19 (7): 951-956, 2012
Table 1: Outcomes of exchange relations at work (based on literature)
Outcome
Attitude towards job individual’s performance level
Employees’ stress
Deviant behavior
Increased self-esteem job involvement
Contributor/s
Pepe, 2010; Pack et al., 2007; Janssen, 2004; Ahmad & Baker, 2003; Ko et al., 1997; Leung, 2008; Toh and
Srinivas, 2011
Chiang and Hsieh, 2012; Tang, Choi and Morrow-Howell, 2011; Shelton, Waite and Makela (2010); Riggle,
Edmondson and Hansen, (2009; Takeuchi, et al., (2009); DeConinck and Johnson, (2009); Chen et al., (2009);
Byrne & Hochwarter, (2008)
Richardson et al., 2008; Ali, 2010; Grant-Vallone and Ensher, 2001
Ferris, Brown and Heller, 2009
Ferris, Brown and Heller, 2009
Anvari, Amin and Seliman, 2010; Eisenberger et al . 2001; Rhodes and Eisenberger, 2002
Commitment Anvari, Amin and Seliman, 2010; Pepe, (2010); Riggle, Edmondson and Hansen, (2009); Stinglhambe and
Vamndenberghe (2003); Rhodes and Eisenberger, (2002); Rhoades et al ., (2001); Vandenberghe et al., (2004);
Yew, (2011); Currie and Dollery, (2006); DeConinck and Johnson, (2009); Reade and Lee, (2011)
Reduced turnover/turnover intentions Anvari, Amin and Seliman, 2010; Pepe, 2010; Riggle, Edmondson and Hansen, 2009; Eisenberger et al . 1986;
Innovative behavior
Job satisfaction
Rhodes and Eisenberger, 2002; Stamper and Johlke, 2003; Yew, 2011; DeConinck and Johnson, 2009;
Baranik, Roling and Eby, 2010; Lazarova and Caligiuri, 2001
Eisenberger et al., 1990; Zampetakis, Beldekos and Moustakis, 2009;
Pepe, (2010); Baranik, Roling and Eby, (2010); Riggle, Edmondson and Hansen, (2009); Rhodes and organizational citizenship behavior employee engagement
Eisenberger, (2002)
Rhodes and Eisenberger, 2002; Randall et al., 1999; Whitener, 2001; Husin, Chelladurai and Musa, 2011;
Aryee, Budhwar and Chen, 2002; Little and Dean, 2006
Zacher and Winter, 2011; Xu and Thomas, 2011; Swanberg et al., 2011; Babcock-Roberson and Strickland, 2010;
Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; James et al., 2011; Richman et al., 2008; Bezuijen et al., 2010
There might be different exchange relations at work e.g. exchange relation between coworkers or peers [11-15], exchange relation between supervisor and followers
[11, 16-20], exchange relation between employees’ and
[27], commitment [28], turnover intentions [28]. It also offers many returns like, increased satisfaction, increased level of citizenship behavior, increased engagement with job and organization, high level of involvement, increased organization [6, 11, 13, 21, 22]. All these relations innovative and entrepreneurial orientation, increased require positive exchange from each corresponding party self-esteem. All these outcomes are discussed in literature; Table 1 contains a snapshot of the literature.
[6, 22].
These exchange relations mostly move from top to bottom. For example, exchange relation of organization and employee starts from support from organization, which creates sense of reciprocation in employees and ultimately increases their job performance [12, 23, 24].
Similarly, support from supervisor is the first to determine reciprocation sense in employee e.g. [11, 16, 18]. So a support should move from top to bottom in order to create a strong exchange relation. So three forms of support could be derived from these three forms of exchange relations i.e. co-worker’s support (based on co-workers’ exchange relations), supervisory support
(based on exchange relations between supervisor and co-workers) and organizational support (based on exchange relation between organization and employees)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study is aimed to signify the importance of exchange relations at work. It is purely literature survey based research. In this study an attempt had been made to go through from literature to find out how exchange relations at work create sense of support. It is also aimed to see the outcomes of exchange relations at work.
Literature is taken from renowned databases or publishers
(Science Direct, Emerald, Ebsco Host, Wiley, Springer,
Jstor, Pro Quest etc.).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
[25].
From literature it is clearly evident that exchange relations
All these supports or exchange relations pay off in are inseparable from organization. How these exchange shape of increased individual and organizational outcomes. For example, support at work has direct bearing on employees’ job attitudes e.g. [26]. Provision of support from organization increases individual’s performance e.g.
relations are managed and traded off is an important area in research. There are three forms of exchange relations at work i.e. organization and employee relation, supervisor and employee relation, employee and employee relation.
952

World Appl. Sci. J., 19 (7): 951-956, 2012
These exchange relations are indispensable in There are some directions for future researchers as organization, as organizations are collective whole of well. The first consideration in future research should be humans. These exchange relations create dependency on the ways of increasing bonds or exchange relations at upon all parties to reciprocate it and this reciprocation is work. Secondly, a more thorough literature survey is continuous. The continuous exchange relation offer needed for future studies. Future researchers should also benefits in long run. This exchange offers both individual and organizational outcomes. Individual outcomes include look at the areas being investigated in recent past as these issues would be the prime issues being faced by job satisfaction, OCB, organizational commitment, self-esteem, job and organizational engagement, reduced turnover intentions, job involvement, reduced stress, reduced deviant behavior. Organizational outcomes include performance and efficiency (See annexure-1 for details).
While looking at the benefits of these exchange relations it could be inferred that organizations can realize their dreams by increasing exchange bonds at work.
By providing support at work, which increases bonds of exchange relation, organization can positively mold employees’ job attitudes and behaviors. These work attitudes and behavior ultimately increase individual performance which becomes the organizational performance. Thus creating high bonds and exchange relation is a significant agenda for consideration in todays’ organization.
organizations today. Yet another important consideration could be use of better investigation techniques e.g.
considering both direct and indirect relations of support towards employees’ outcomes; and how supervisor and coworker’s support can determine perception of overall support at work.
REFERENCES
1. Wayne, S.J., L.M. Shore and R.C. Liden, 1997.
Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 82-111.
2. Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and power in social life
New York: Wiley.
3. Wang, Y., 2008. Emotional bonds with supervisor and co-workers: Relationship to organizational commitment in China’s foreign-invested companies
Implications and Future Directions: This research endeavor includes literature on exchange relations at work and how these relations pay off. The literature is evident that these exchange relations create a bond within organizational elements which helps in fostering their positive behavior and job outcomes. Employees’ positive behavior and job outcomes ultimately influence overall organizational outcomes. Thus by increasing bonds of exchange relations at work, organization can reap benefits of increased performance which is core aim of a business.
It leaves a message for top level management that what they have to do to get dream of time. Top management has to create such environment which increases bonds between all forces operating within organization.
Management should support relationship of employees with other employee and supervisors. They should also consider their role as they can significantly increase employees’ relation with organization. Such bonds or exchange relations can be created by three forms of support i.e. managerial support, supervisory support and co-worker support. When these supports are present at workplace, employees will reciprocate it with positive outcomes which will ultimately determine organizational outcomes.
The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19: 916-931.
4. Shore, T., T. Sy and J. Strauss, 2006. Leader responsiveness, equity sensitivity and employee attitudes and behavior Journal of Business and
Psychology, 21: 227-241.
5. Kim, T.H. and K.R. Chang, 2007. Interactional effects of occupational commitment and organizational commitment of employees in sport organizations on turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behaviors International Journal of Applied Sports
Sciences, 19: 63-79.
6. Eisenberger, R., et al ., 2001. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(1): 42-51.
7. Chen, J. and D. Eldridge, 2011. The missing link in newcomer adjustment: The role of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange
International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
19(1): 71-88.
8. Yavuz, M., 2010. The effects of teachers’ perception of organizational justice and culture on organizational commitment African Journal of
Business Management, 4(5): 695-701.
953

9. Anvari, R., et al
4(15): 3391-3405.
Managerial Issues, 19(4): 517-535.
World Appl. Sci. J., 19 (7): 951-956, 2012
., 2010. Strategic training practices, effective organizational commitment and turnover intentions: The mediating role of psychological contract African Journal of Business Management,
10. Muse, L.A. and C.L. Stamper, 2007. Perceived
Organizational Support: Evidence for a Mediated
Association with Work Performance. Journal of
11. Ma, E. and H. Qu, 2011. Social exchange as motivator of hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: The proposition and application of a new three-dimensional framework International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 30: 680-688.
12. Su, S., K. Baird and B. Blair, 2009. Employee organizational commitment: the influence of cultural and organizational factors in Australian manufacturing the
Human Resource Management, 20(12): 2494-2516.
13. Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., B.A. Livingston and H.
Liao, 2011. Perceived similarity, proactive adjustment and organizational socialization Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 78: 225-236.
14. Sloan, M.M., 2011. Unfair treatment in the workplace and worker well-being: The role of coworker support in a service work environment. Work and
Occupation, 20(10): 1-32.
15. Zagenczyk, T.J., et al ., 2011. Psychological contract and organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived organizational support Journal of
Labor Research, 32: 254-281.
16. Kim, S., J.W. O’Neill and H.-M. Cho, 2010. When does an employee not help coworkers? The effect of leader-member exchange on employee envy and organizational citizenship behavior. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 29: 530-537.
17. Sluss, D.M., M. Klimchak and J.J. Holmes, 2008.
Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
73: 457-464.
18. Pazy, A., 2011. The relationship between pay contingency and types of perceived support: Effects on performance and commitment. EuroMed Journal of Business, 6(3): 342-358.
19. Vandenberghe, C., K. Bentein and F. Stinglhamber,
2004. Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor and work group: Antecedents and outcomes Journal of Vocational Behavior,
64(4): 47-71.
20. Stinglhamber, F. and C. Vandenberghe, 2003.
Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 251-270.
21. Chiang, C.F. and T.S. Hsieh, 2012. The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior Journal of Hospitality Management, 31: 180-190.
22. Rhoades, L. and R. Eisenberger, 2002. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 698-714.
23. Asgari, A., et al ., 2008. The Relationship between
Transformation Leadership Behaviors, Leader-
Member Exchange and Organizational citizenship
Behaviors. European Journal of Social Sciences,
24. Ertu¨rk, A., 2010. Exploring predictors of organizational identification: Moderating role of trust on the association between empowerment, organizational support and identification. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
19(4): 409-441.
25. Chou, R.J.A. and S.A. Robert, 2008. Workplace support, role overload and job satisfaction, direct care workers in assisted living. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 49: 208-222.
26. Francis, C.A., 2011. The mediating force of “face”: supervisor character and status related to perceived organizational support and work outcomes Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20(10): 1-10.
27. Jawahar, I.M. and D. Carr, 2007. Conscientiousness and contextual performance: The compensatory effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22(4): 330-349.
28. Pepe, M., 2010. The Impact of Extrinsic Motivational
Dissatisfiers on Employee Level of Job Satisfaction and Commitment Resulting in the Intent to Turnover.
Journal of Business and Economics Research,
8(9): 99-107.
954

Additional Studies
1. Pack, S.M., J.S. Jordan, B.A. Turner and D. Haines,
2007. Perceived organizational support and employee satisfaction and retention. Recreational Sports
Journals, 31: 95-106.
2. Janssen, O., 2004. The barrier effect of conflict with superiors in the relationship between employee empowerment and organizational commitment.
Work and Stress, 18: 56-65.
3. Ahmad, K.Z. and R.A. Bakar, 2003. The association between training and organizational commitment among white-collar workers in Malaysia.
International Journal of Training and Development,
7: 166-185.
4. Ko, J.W., J.L. Price and C.W. Mueller, 1997.
Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s three component model of organizational commitment in South Korea.
Journal of Psychology, 82: 961-973.
5. Leung, S.M., 2008. Matching Ethical Work Climate to In-role and Extra-role Behaviors in a
Collectivist Work Setting. Journal of Business Ethics,
79(1-2): 43-55.
6. Toh, S.M. and E.S. Srinivas, 2011. Perception of task cohesiveness and organizational support increase trust and information sharing between host country nationals and expatriate coworkers in Oman. Journal of Business Research, Article in Press.
7. Tang, F., E. Choi and N. Morrow-Howell, 2011.
Organizational support and volunteering benefits for older adults. The Gerontologist, 50(5): 603-612.
8. Shelton, P.M., A.M. Waite and C.J. Makela, 2010.
Highly effective teams: a relational analysis of group potency and perceived organizational support.
Advances in Developing Human Resources,
12(1): 93-114.
9. Riggle, R.J., D.R. Edmondson and J.D. Hansen, 2009.
A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes:
20 years of research. Journal of Business Research,
62: 1027-1030.
10. Takeuchi, R., M. Wang, S.V. Marinova and X. Yao,
2009. Role of domain-specific facets of perceived organizational support during expatriation and implication for performance. Organization Science,
20(3): 621-634.
11. DeConinck, J.B. and J.T. Johnson, 2009. The effects of perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support and organizational justice on turnover among salespeople. Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 29(4): 333-350.
World Appl. Sci. J., 19 (7): 951-956, 2012
12. Chen, Z., R. Eisenberger, K.M. Johnson,
I.L. Sucharski and J. Aselage, 2009. Perceived organizational support and extra role performance: which leads to which? Journal of Social Psychology,
149(1): 119-124.
13. Byrne, Z. S. and W.A. Hochwarter, 2008. Perceived organizational support and performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23: 54-72.
14. Richardson, H.A., J. Yang, R.J. Vandenberg,
D.M. DeJoy and M.G. Wilson, 2008. Perceived organizational support’s role in stressor-strain relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23(7): 789-810.
15. Ali, A., M.A.U. Rehman, I.U. Haq, F.A. Jam,
M.B. Ghafoor and M.U. Azeem, 2010. Perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment. European Journal of Social Sciences,
17(2): 186-192.
16. Grant-Vallone, E.J. and E.A. Ensher, 2001. An examination of work and personal life conflict, organization support and employee health among international expatriates. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 25: 261-278.
17. Ferris, D.L., D.J. Brown and D. Heller, 2009.
Organizational support and organizational deviance:
The mediating role of organizational-based selfesteem. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 108: 279-286.
18. Yew, L.T., 2011. Understanding the antecedents of affective organizational commitment and turnover intentions of academics in Malaysia: The organizational support theory perspective. African
Journal of Business Management, 5(7): 2551-2562.
19. Currie, P. and B. Dollery, 2006. Organizational commitment and perceived organizational support in the NSW police. Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
29(4): 741-756.
20. Reade, C. and H.J. Lee, 2011. Organizational commitment in Time of War: Assessing the impact and attenuation of employee sensitivity to ethnopolitical conflict. Journal of International
Management, Article in Press.
21. Baranik, L.E., E.A. Roling and L.T. Eby, 2010. Why does mentoring work? The role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 76: 366-373.
22. Lazarova, M. and P. Caligiuri, 2001. Retaining
Repatriates: The role of organizational support practices. Journal of World Business, 36(4): 389-401.
955

World Appl. Sci. J., 19 (7): 951-956, 2012
23. Zampetakis, L.A., P. Beldekos and V.S. Moustakis,
2009.
“Day-to-day” entrepreneurship within role and perceived organizational support. European
Journal of Management, 27: 165-175.
24. Whitener, E.M., 2001. Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management, 27: 515-535.
25. Husin, S., P. Chelladurai and G. Musa, 2011. HRM
Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and
Perceived Service Quality in Golf Courses. Journal of
Sport Management, Article in Press.
26. Aryee, S., P.S. Budhwar and Z.X. Chen, 2002. Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship between
Organizational Justice and Work Outcomes: Test of a Social Exchange Model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 3: 267-285.
27. Little, M.M. and A.M. Dean, 2006. Links between
Service Climate, Employee Commitment and
Employees' Service Quality Capability. Journal
Managing Service Quality, 16(5): 460-476.
28. Zacher, H. and G. Winter, 2011. Eldercare demands, strain and work engagement: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79: 667-680.
29. Xu, J. and H.C. Thomas, 2011. How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leader and
Organization, 32(4): 399-416.
30. Swanberg, J.E., S.P. McKechnie, M.U. Ojha and
J.B. James, 2011. Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: A winning combination for workers in hourly jobs? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79: 613-624.
31. Babcock-Roberson, M.E. and O.J. Strickland, 2010.
The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3): 313-326.
32. Bakker, A.B. and E. Demerouti, 2007. The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3): 309-328.
33. James, J., S.P. McKechnie and J. Swanberg, 2011.
Predicting employee engagement in an age-diverse retail work force. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
32: 173-196.
34. Richman, A.L., J.T. Civian, L.L. Shannon, J. Hill and
R.T. Brennan, 2008. The relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work-life policies and use of formal flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected retention.
Community, Work and Family, 11(2): 183-197.
35. Bezuijen, X.M., K.V. Dam, P.T.V.D. Berg and
H. Thierry, 2010. How leaders stimulate employee learning: A leader-member exchange approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 83: 673-693.
956