Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T23:18:43.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Workplace Working Alliance: The Modern Organizational Relationship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Mark A. North  and
Dylan Jensen
Mark A. North*
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Dylan Jensen
Affiliation:
Utah State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark A. North, Brigham Young University, 1001 KMBL, Provo, UT 84604. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The evolution of organizational working relationships is always a timely discussion, especially in an age where globalization, remote workforces, and most recently artificial intelligence, to name just three, hold great promise but also concern for organizations’ capabilities to build on the strengths of traditional relationship theories while looking forward to and blazing paths toward future relationship theories. We appreciate Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (2018) questioning of the “old” social exchange theory (SET) as a relevant organizing framework and their proposition of a “new” or hybrid workplace relationship theory to reflect today's workforce. In short, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu practice good science by not throwing out what does not seem to fit but rather helping science evolve into what it needs to become (see Gergen's [2001] great commentary on ill-advised practices of ending traditions when criticisms are levied). We also admire Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's willingness to invite “additional organizational behavior [OB] theories” (p. 476) to join the conversation in defining what the new era workplace relationship might look like. With that invitation and a little latitude in what could be defined as “an OB theory,” we propose that the working alliance (WA; Bordin, 1979) be given space in that narrative. The substance of our commentary will describe the WA connection with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's new or hybrid theory, principally as it relates to issues regarding (a) tension toward equality and fairness and (b) mutual reciprocity in exchange relationships.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 517 - 522
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

Adams, S. J. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 422–436. doi:10.1037/h0040968Google Scholar
Adams, S. J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2Google Scholar
Ajmal, S., Farooq, M. Z., Sajid, N., & Awan, S. (2012). Role of leadership in change management process. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (2), 111–124.Google Scholar
Asay, T. P., & Lambert, M. J. (1999). The empirical case for the common factors in therapy: Quantitative findings. In Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 23–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16 (3), 252–260. doi:10.1037/h0085885Google Scholar
Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. Counseling Psychologist, 11 (1), 35–42. doi:10.1177/0011000083111007Google 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
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 425–445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425Google Scholar
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (2013). Personality and work teams. In Christiansen, N. D. & Tett, R. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 744–771). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B., Symonds, D., & Horvath, A. (2012). How central is the alliance in psychotherapy? A multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59 (1), 10–17. doi:10.1037/a0025749Google Scholar
Gergen, K. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56 (10), 803–813. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803Google Scholar
Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader–member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (2), 206–212. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.2.206Google Scholar
Hsieh, L.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2014). Development of group counseling working alliance scale. Chinese Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 40, 59–94.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709–734. doi:10.2307/258792Google Scholar
Powers, B. (2014). With change agents, one size does not fit all. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–4. https://hbr.org/2014/03/with-change-agents-one-size-does-not-fit-allGoogle Scholar
Thayer, S., & Burlingame, G. (2014). The validity of the group questionnaire: Construct clarity or construct drift? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18 (4), 318–332. doi:10.1037/gdn0000015Google Scholar
Wagstaff, G. F. (1994). Equity, equality, and need: Three principles of justice or one? An analysis of “equity as desert.” Current Psychology, 13 (2), 138–152. doi:10.1007/BF02686797Google Scholar