IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v11y2018i03p517-522_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Workplace Working Alliance: The Modern Organizational Relationship

Author

Listed:
  • North, Mark A.
  • Jensen, Dylan

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • North, Mark A. & Jensen, Dylan, 2018. "The Workplace Working Alliance: The Modern Organizational Relationship," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 517-522, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:03:p:517-522_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942618001050/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:11:y:2018:i:03:p:517-522_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.