The Explanatory Power Of Social Exchange

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction

Despite decades of scholarly literature examining different approaches to managing the

employment relationship, debate over the means to provide fair, just and profitable work places remains due to the ‘contested terrain’ (Edwards 1979). Hyman (1987) suggests that the contradictory objectives of consent and control in the employment relationship operating within unpredictable external environments means that there is no single best way of managing and furthermore, all managerial strategies are ‘routes to partial failure’ (1987, p.30). It is simply impossible to harmonies ‘the contradictions between forces and relations of production, between the production and realization of surplus value’ (p.30).Hyman provides a thorough analysis that contrasts and ‘disentangles’ (p. 27) the differences between the structure of capitalism and managerial strategy within capitalism. Reiterating statements that have been made in the past (for example, Blackburn 1972, p. 180) and since (for example, Kaufman 2010), there is only one real strategy, to ensure a good rate of return on capital (Hyman 1987).

Managerial strategy is not simple and confineable, but contains competing interests,

must evolve with the environment, and will never be ‘complete’. Hyman suggests that

regardless of any strategy implemented by management, factors that are both external and

internal to the organization and the employment relationship will ensure that the strategy

never completely succeeds and that many ‘managerial strategies’ may very well be little

more than tactical decision-making, rather than strategic (1987, p. 29).

Literature Review

The increasing volatility and complexity of global business has ushered in an era where firms are under pressure to retain talent as well as gain and sustain their competitive advantage. Indeed, within this context, there is an increasing need to study employee–organization social exchange and its impact on individual and organizational outcomes. Additionally, prior research has indicated that within the framework of social exchange theory (SET), organizational justice would be directly associated with the quality of social exchange between individuals and their organizations and also organizational agents such as immediate supervisors.

Organizational justice, which represents employees’ observed fairness at the workplace, governs their social exchange relationships. We test hypotheses proposing social exchange variables such as perceived organizational support and psychological contract as mediators of the relationship between distributive and procedural justice and employee engagement. Distributive justice refers to the apparent impartiality that employees perceive in the allocation of rewards and recognition by their employing organization; procedural justice investigates the reasonability of the rewards allocation process . Employees’ sensitivity regarding distributive justice predicts the degree to which they perceive their organization to value their contribution and take care of them, or, in other words, their opinions about procedural justice, the stronger their perception that the organization has maintained norms of psychological contract, thus enhancing socio-emotional bonds between them.

This study makes theoretical research as well as practical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, given that organizational justice and employee engagement are based on obligations created through perceptions of reciprocal interdependence, SET provides an appropriate theoretical framework for investigating associations between them. This is supported by research, suggesting POS and psychological contract as key variables used to operationalize social exchange relations and explain outcomes of organizational justice as well as antecedents of employee engagement. However, ‘it is unfortunate that research has yet to examine the relevant justice and social exchange variables within one study’.

That POS and psychological contract are increasingly important variables within SET have come out of three distinct streams of research:

(1) Investigations regarding associations between organizational justice and social exchange relationships;

(2) The explanatory power of social exchange in providing a significant basis for employee engagement;

(3) Research related to associations between POS and psychological contract and employee engagement.

Indeed, by investigating the mediating role of POS and psychological contract between organizational justice and employee engagement, our research contributes to these distinct, albeit interconnected, conceptual areas. POS. Similarly, the fairer the employees’ opinions about procedural justice, the stronger their perception that the organization has maintained norms of psychological contract, thus enhancing socio-emotional bonds between them.

Engagement is a multidimensional latent motivational construct with three dimensions, namely vigor, dedication and absorption. Vigor denotes a high level of energy and mental resilience at work, and a willingness to invest effort and persist in the face of obstacles. Dedication is characterized by being involved in one’s work, and, as a consequence, it ignites a sense of pride, significance and enthusiasm. Absorption is characterized by being ‘mentally there’ at work; individuals who are absorbed in their work are engrossed by it so that time at work passes quickly, and one has difficulty detaching from work. Empirical evidence suggests that engagement is a distinct, unique and valid construct.

Leading theorists in the employee engagement literature have emphasized the role of job design in fostering employee engagement. For instance, Kahn’s theory of engagement (1990) is rooted in Hackman and Oldham’s proposal (1980) that characteristics of jobs drive people’s attitudes and behaviours. Kahn (1990) suggested that work contexts create conditions in which individuals can personally engage with their work. In an ethnographic study, he found that when people were doing work that was challenging and varied, they were more likely to be engaged. Bakker and Demerouti’s (2007) job-demands-resources (JDR) model also emphasizes the role of job design in generating engagement.

Specifically, the model states that physical, social or organizational aspects of the job can be a source of engagement for people. This is because job resources reduce the pernicious effects of excessive work demands, foster the achievement of goals, and stimulate personal growth and learning. There is some empirical work that has linked job design and engagement; however, these studies have some limitations that the present study attempts to address.

For instance, in using Hackman and Oldham’s five-facet measure of job design (1980), both May et al. (2004) and Saks (2006) found a positive relationship between the presence of the five job characteristics and engagement. However, in both studies, the job characteristics were combined into a single measure of job enrichment. There are significant theoretical and practical implications of doing so because the results do not provide information on how individual job characteristics can be altered to generate engagement. One of the challenges in job (re)design involves choosing which job design feature to alter to achieve the (re)design goal (Morgeson and Humphrey 2006). Testing each of the five job characteristics, rather than a composite score of them (i.e. motivating potential score), enables the development of specific, actionable recommendations for organizations. Moreover, such an analysis reveals the relative strength of each job characteristic on the dependent measures (Hackman and Oldham 1974).

Four additional studies, which used the JDR as a theoretical framework, examined the effect of a handful of job characteristics on engagement. Feedback (Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Salanova and Schaufeli 2008; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte and Lens 2008), task variety (Salanova and Schaufeli 2008) and autonomy (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte and Lens 2008) were found to lead to higher levels of engagement. However, in all of the above-mentioned studies, the job characteristics were combined into a composite variable with other variables that are unrelated to job characteristics (e.g. leadership, social support). It is therefore impossible to disentangle whether characteristics of the job, or other resources, led to engagement.

Three studies have examined the effect of individual job characteristics of engagement, without confounding the job characteristics with other variables. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli (2009a) and Bakker and Bal (2010) found that autonomy was positively associated with engagement and Christian et al. (2011) found that autonomy, task variety, task significance and feedback were positively related to engagement. A limitation to these studies is that they did not examine all of the job characteristics that have the potential to elicit engagement. The present study extends these findings in an assessment of each of the five job characteristics on engagement, contributing to an understanding of the relative strength of each job characteristic in relation to engagement.

There are theoretical and empirical bases for linking each job design facet to engagement. A job holder whose tasks are varied, in that the incumbent is required to complete various activities throughout the work day, will likely feel challenged by his or her work. Hackman and Oldham (1976) likened the effect of variety at work with ‘parlor games, puzzles and recreational activities’ as they tap into the intellectual or motor skills of the people who do them. When a job involves a variety of tasks, the job Incumbent may experience a sense of energetic connection with work activities. Research that has investigated the effect of monotonous jobs lends support to this theory. For instance, research has shown that monotony leads job holders to experience psychological distress (Melamed, Ben-Avi, Luz and Green 1995), which may in turn cause them to cognitively disengage from their work. Individuals who feel that they engage in a variety of tasks, on the other hand, believe that their work is interesting and motivational.

An important part of the service job is to convey caring, enthusiasm, and interest in helping the customers. Because such emotions are not always natural, employees regulate the emotions they exhibit to customers (surface acting) as well as those they experience internally (deep acting) (Hochschild, 1983). Most researches on the outcomes of emotion regulation have focused on its effect on employees (e.g., Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). Only three studies (Grandey, 2003; Groth, Hennig-Thurau, & Walsh, 2009; Hennig- Thurau, Groth, Paul, & Gremler, 2006) have examined the effects of employees’ emotion regulation strategies on customers. This is surprising considering the major role played by employee–customer interaction in the service experience (Groth et al., 2009). These studies found negative relationships of surface acting and positive relationships of deep acting with customer outcomes such as loyalty intentions, perceived customer orientation, and service quality evaluations. The suggested explanation of these relationships is that the authenticity of emotional display affects customers’ satisfaction with the service (Groth et al., 2009; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006).

However, this explanation disregards the substantial effects of emotion regulation on the employees themselves, which has been found to affect service performance and consequently customer satisfaction and loyalty (Vahey, Aiken, Sloane, Clarke, & Vargas, 2004). The purpose of the present study is to explore the effect of employees’ emotion regulation strategies on customers while considering the effect of those strategies on the employees themselves.

Studies of the effect of emotion regulation on employees consistently show that surface acting is related to such negative outcomes as strain and burnout, due to the considerable effort required to constantly fake one’s emotions and the resulting sense of falsification (e.g., Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). The outcomes of deep acting, however, are less clear. Hochschild (1983) maintained that deep acting has a negative effect on employees because it creates a sense of alienation from one’s own feelings. Other authors (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Johnson & Spector, 2007) suggested that deep acting may have positive outcomes because it buffers the negative effects of surface acting, improves relationships with customers, and generates positive emotions. An addition purpose of the present study is to test this notion by exploring the relationship of deep acting with work engagement.

Well by now we have seen that there have been many researchers who talk about ‘EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT’ in various fields, but none of them talks about employee engagement in IT industry. So, we felt the need to take up this study as in India, IT industry is one of the leading industry with high growth potentials and maximum GEN-Y is employed in this sector. Thus, we take up this research to know the impact of HR practices on IT professionals, what keeps them engaged to their jobs, and what disrupts their engagement.

Objectives of Research

There is a need to analyze the issues which IT companies are facing like attrition, job security and absence of sound leadership in their companies.

To draw a relationship between the level of engagement and other variables like, trust in leadership, job security and turn-over amongst IT Professionals.

To understand the factors of difference between the male and female respondents of IT companies.

Research Design

Type of Research

The research is a descriptive one because many research papers and other data was available on the internet.

Sample Design

Sample frame- working IT professionals

Sample size- 104

Sampling method- Non-probability Sampling (Convenience sampling)

Instruments for Data Collection

Questionnaire is used as an instrument for data collection.

It consists of 12 close ended questions based on Gallup’s Employee Engagement Research.

Research Methodology

The research that is carried out is a quantitative research as its objective is to study the level of employee engagement among IT professionals.

Data will be collected using Gallup’s Employee Engagement questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 12 close ended questions.

The questionnaire would be filled using Google Docs, and the data will be tabulated using Ms-Excel and the tabulated data will help to interpret results.

Data Analysis & Interpretation

The analysis of data indicates that majority of the respondents were male. Out of the total sample size (n=104), 69(66.35%) were males and 35(33.65%) were females.

Out of all the respondents, a majority of them, about 51% belonged to the agr group of 24-27 years.

From all the respondents, 74 of them were from ENGINEERING background, 14 each from commerce/management as well as science, and only 2 from arts/humanities stream.

Out of 104 respondents, 72.11% (74) respondent’s marital status is single, i.e. they are not married, 25.97% (27) are married, 1.92% (2) are divorcee and there was no widow respondent.

From the total of 104 respondents, 87.5%(91) respondents were born in urban places whereas 12.5%(13) were born in rural places.

Out of all employees, 61.53% (64) employees were working in the Delhi-NCR region, whereas other employees accounting to 38.47% (40) were working in other parts of the country.

Most of the respondents 84.62% (88) had joined the IT industry because of their self-interest, whereas 7.69% (8) each had taken up this career because of family pressures and as they had a role model.

Most of the employees, 54.81% (57) respondents, were employed at middle level positions, 29.81% (31) respondents were employed at senior level positions and 15.38% (16) respondents at low level positions.

From the total respondents, 57.69% (60) respondents belong to the IT manufacturing companies, 23.08% (24) respondents were from IT Consultancy companies, 17.31% (18) respondents from IT Outsourced companies and 1.92% (2) from other companies.

You know what is expected of you at work.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

1

You know what is expected of you at work

104

4.09

0.89

0.80

Maximum respondents (47.12%) say that they know that what is expected from them at the work-place, they are well informed of their job specification and description.

A complete knowledge of the job keeps the employee engaged, thus the turnover rate is low.

You have the materials and equipment to do your work right.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

2

You have the materials and equipment to do your work right

104

4.33

0.81

0.65

Majority of the respondents (48.08%) strongly agree that they have the required material and equipment, 40.38% respondents also agree to the same, whereas only 9.62% respondents neither agree nor disagree and 1.92% strongly disagree to this.

If people have correct material, equipment and infrastructure facilities to do the work right, they will be more focused on their jobs, there will be less distractions and they will be more engaged.

At work, you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

3

At work, you have the opportunity to do what you do best everyday

104

3.89

0.98

0.97

Out of all the respondents, about 42.31% Agree to the statement that they have an opportunity to do the best every day, 28.85% respondents strongly agree to it, 22.12% respondents neither agree nor disagree, 2.88% disagree and 3.85 respondents strongly disagree.

About 80% respondents have given positive signs to this statement as they get opportunity to give their best every day at work. Every day they are keen to know about the challenge they are going to get for the day, and it keeps them attached and thus, engaged to the organization.

In the last seven days you received recognition or praise for doing good work.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

4

In the last seven days you received recognition or praise for doing good work

104

3.43

1.28

1.63

Around 27.88% respondents agree that they have got recognition and praise in the past one week for doing good work, 24.04% respondents strongly disagree for the same, 26.92% neither agree nor disagree, 9.62% disagree and 11.54% strongly disagree.

Praise and recognition keep the employees motivated; many employees work well just to get the praises from the bosses or may be to maintain their status in the organization. So, in order to maintain it, people work hard again keeping them engaged to their jobs.

Your supervisor or someone at work cares for you as a person.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

5

Your supervisor or someone at work, cares about you as a person

104

3.64

1.25

1.55

31.73% strongly agree to the statement that there is someone at work who cares for them as a person, 26.92% agree to it, 23.08% respondents neither agree nor disagree, whereas 10.58% disagree and 7.69% respondents strongly disagree to it.

There are people who love to be social, and be within friends, they like it when they are being cared by someone. Such people always tend to be engaged who find someone at work is taking care of them. About 41% respondents find someone at work to take their good care.

There is someone at work who encourages your development.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

6

There is someone at work who encourages your develpoment

104

3.65

1.24

1.55

From all 104 respondents, 34.62% Agree that when there is someone to encourage our development and work, they feel more committed, 28.85% strongly agree to this, whereas 19.23% neither agree nor disagree, 7.69% respondents disagree and 9.62% strongly disagree.

When people are encouraged for their work, they get motivated; and a motivated employee always work for the better of the organization and achieving organization’s goals rather than his own personal goals. So, this improves engagement.

At work your opinions seems to count.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

7

At work your opinions seems to count

104

3.68

1.04

1.07

Of all the respondents, 36.54% agreed that their opinion is counted, 23.08% strongly agreed, 30.77% neither agreed nor disagreed, 4.81% disagreed and 4.81% strongly disagreed to it.

When a manager listens to his employees, and works on their ideas, this motivates the employees as their opinion is getting counted. So they work for the better of the organization with more commitment, thus, and remain engaged.

The mission/ purpose of your company makes you feel your job is important.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

8

The mission/ purpose of your company makes you feel your job is important

104

3.79

1.08

1.16

Out of all the respondents, 37.50% agree that they get motivated and encouraged by the mission/ objectives of the company, 28.85% strongly agree, 21.15% neither agree nor disagree, 8.65% disagree and 3.85% strongly disagree.

A motivated employee will strive to achieve the goals of the organization, and as he is motivated, his commitment level would be very high to the organization and he will be more engaged.

Your associates, fellow employees are committed in doing quality work.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

9

Your associates, fellow employees are committed in doing quality work

104

3.89

0.99

0.99

Out of all the respondents, 39.42% agree to the commitment of associates in doing quality work, 30.77% respondents strongly agree, 20.19% neither agree nor disagree, 7.69% disagree and 1.92% strongly disagree.

Commitment of fellow mates plays an important role in engagement. If they seem to be more committed, one will be the same because of the impact of the ones around us. Here, most of the respondents, about 60% agreed that commitment of fellow-employees affects their engagement.

You have a best friend at work.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

10

You have a best friend at work

104

3.39

1.46

2.12

Out of all the respondents, 28.85% respondents agreed, as well as strongly agreed on having a best friend at work, 12.50% neither agreed nor disagreed, 12.50% employees disagreed, and 17.31% respondents strongly disagreed to it.

Having a best friend at work is yet another factor that keeps people stay and stick to one organization. About 58% of the respondents have a best friend at work, they will always be engaged and committed to the organization as long as their best friend will work at the same place.

In the last six months, someone at work has talked to you about your progress.

.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

11

In the last six months, someone at work has talked to you about your progress

104

3.95

1.02

1.04

When asked about their progress in past 6 months, 37.50% employees agreed that someone at work has talked to them about their progress, 34.62% strongly agreed, 19.23% neither agreed nor disagreed, 5.77% disagreed and 2.88% strongly disagreed.

Everyone wants growth in their life, and if they are known about their progress they will be more committed and motivated in order to climb the ladder to success. Thus, engagement will be more to the job if they are conveyed about their progress.

In the last year, you have had opportunities to learn and grow.

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

12

In the last year, you have had opportunities to learn and grow

104

3.92

1.11

1.24

From all the respondents, 38.46% strongly agree that they had opportunities to learn and grow in the past 1 year, 29.81% agree to it, whereas 22.12% respondents neither agree nor disagree, 4.81& disagree and 4.81% strongly disagree to it.

Growth and opportunities to learn & grow keep the employees to the same organization if they are frequent enough. Maximum respondents had such opportunities in the past one year which means that they all are committed to their organizations and thus, they are more engaged.

Conclusion

The study was conducted to look into the matter of EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT emerging as a problem in IT Professionals. The continued acceleration of change, both domestically and globally, places greater emphasis on the role of HR to develop effective employee engagement strategies for the current and future workforce. IT Companies face many issues at capital, marketing and most importantly Human Resource Management front. Issues like, employee turnover rate, absence of trust in leadership and job insecurity can be addressed by engaging the workforce, which require effective strategies in place. As many authors have stated that these elements bear a direct relationship with the level of engagement of employees. It was noticed that trust in leadership encourages engagement level of employees which further enhances the perception of employees about job security and reduces the turnover intentions. The concept of ‘Engagement’ is thus multidimensional and can bring transformations in IT Professionals. Such companies must establish processes like, fair employee review system, competitive remuneration strategy, feedback mechanisms and opportunities for personal advancement in place to check these issues in time. Also, there is a disparity in the two gender groups (male and female) which further deepens the problem. The Managers need to understand those loopholes and take necessary actions to convert such a workforce into a more engaged team. Factors like appropriate appraisal techniques, family benefits, distribution of workload, upkeep of commitments of employer and fair opportunities for growth and decision making need immediate attention. ‘Women Empowerment’ can be the possible solution to such issues.

Limitations and Avenues for future research:

No study is considered to be complete without any limitations as they open the way to further research. So, there are certain limitations of this study as well.

The study was conducted on a sample of 104 respondents from various companies employed in IT departments or in IT companies.

The results cannot be generalized for the entire population of IT professionals.

There are many other areas which can be explored in further studies.

This study can be extended for a larger sample and in other type of organizations in same or different industry to develop an insight into the working practices of that specific sector.

References

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Frenaissanceleaders.net%2Fresources%2Ftool-kits%2Fgames-and-process-tools%2Fdoc_download%2F72-gallup-employee-survey-sample-questionnairepdf&ei=pg99UbzwOI79rAfR5oGgBQ&usg=AFQjCNER1ufxjdkUusSCk9MzrOq2BU30UQ

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=employee+engagement&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEmployee_engagement&ei=4BB9Uc_gGYHJrAf5m4G4CQ&usg=AFQjCNEcQoYbzvgCluopEPSuQcNtsOAzcw

Rasli A. , Tat H.H. , Chin T.A. ,Khalaf B. (2012). Employee engagement and employee shareholding program in a multinational company in Malaysia. Procedia- social & behavioral sceinces 40 (2012), 209-214.

Keith Townsend , Adrian Wilkinson & John Burgess (2013): Routes to partial success: collaborative employment relations and employee engagement, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-3

Vathsala Wickramasinghe & Shyama Perera (2012): Effects of perceived organisation support, employee engagement and organisation citizenship behaviour on quality performance, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 8-11.

Appendix 1

Table 1.1 - Comparison between Male and Female respondents

Sample

Mean

SD

Variance

Male

3.77

0.18

0.18

Female

3.88

0.22

0.21

Table 1.2 – Factors contributing to Job security

Questions

Items

N

Mean

SD

Variance

1

You know what is expected of you at work

104

4.09

0.89

0.80

2

You have the materials and equipment to do your work right

104

4.33

0.81

0.65

3

At work, you have the opportunity to do what you do best everyday

104

3.89

0.98

0.97

4

In the last seven days you received recognition or praise for doing good work

104

3.43

1.28

1.63

5

Your supervisor or someone at work, cares about you as a person

104

3.64

1.25

1.55

6

There is someone at work who encourages your development

104

3.65

1.24

1.55

7

At work your opinions seems to count

104

3.68

1.04

1.07

8

The mission/ purpose of your company makes you feel your job is important

104

3.79

1.08

1.16

9

Your associates, fellow employees are committed in doing quality work

104

3.89

0.99

0.99

10

You have a best friend at work

104

3.39

1.46

2.12

11

In the last six months, someone at work has talked to you about your progress

104

3.95

1.02

1.04

12

In the last year, you have had opportunities to learn and grow

104

3.92

1.11

1.24

Table 1.3 – Authority possessed by Respondents

Position

Mean

SD

Variance

High Position

3.71

0.19

0.24

Medium Position

3.85

0.19

0.14

Low Position

3.83

0.27

0.41