Social Exchange Theory, Relational Dialectics Theory, and Communication Privacy Management Theory - Essay Example

Social exchange theory Social exchange has been defined as “voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected tobring and typically do in fact bring from others” (Blau, 1964 cited by Lee, Mohamad & Ramayah, 2010). This communication theory of social exchange is based on the rewards and costs which help quantify the values of the outcome (Thibault & Kelly, 2001). The exchange of benefits makes the relationship more interdependent and establishes mutual trust. One of the examples of this reciprocity is the concept of guanxi or relationship in the Chinese community. The viability of social exchange is based on the assumption that human beings recognize and appreciate the situation in others’ lives, are aware of their needs and are likely to engage in reciprocity. This implies that actions are taken with full knowledge that it would be recognized and reciprocated. Based on the social exchange theory our organization decided to outsource a small part of the work to an external service provider. Ours is in the hospitality sector and we selected a small service provider expecting that we would receive personalized service. This was also the reason that we did not approach one of the recognized firms. However, the communication was not effective. While we wanted to save costs we ended up paying much more as we did not receive the promised services. We had to discontinue with this agent. The evaluation of the service provider is important before signing any contract. In the future we would seek details of the businesses handled and the types of service offered. We did not receive the benefits expected; social exchange was unjust. In the hospitality sector, service excellence counts. The organization recognizes that to deliver excellent service the internal customers have to be focused upon. It is a reciprocal arrangement – the organization focuses on meeting the needs of the employees and the employees deliver service excellence which in turn benefits the organization. To meet this organizational objective, the organization valued their internal customers and provided motivation through different means. The organization was successful in achieving their objective because the employees felt needed and recognized. This served to motivate them and they could deliver their best to the external customers. The employees and the organization, both gained in the process. This example explains the costs and rewards in the relationship, which is the essence of the social exchange theory. On another occasion I needed a day off to attend my ailing brother but was denied the day off. A colleague of mind stood by my side and requested the supervisor to grant me leave. He would extend his working hours and complete my part of the scheduled task. In exchange he asked for something which relieved me of the obligation while benefitting both of us. He wanted a particular item from the downtown area where I lived and which would cost him the entire day to get it. He would have to take leave instead. Hence, if I could do him this favor, it would save him a day off and the journey downtown which was very far from his place of residence. This example of social exchange involves voluntary actions of individuals motivated by the returns expected. I readily agreed because there was no question of indebtedness or owing to each other involved. Thus in the social exchange two parties are involved and work towards mutual trust, benefit and enhancing relationships. This also forms the basis of how social structures are created. Relational Dialectics Theory Relational dialectics suggests that people in relationships constantly feel the push-and-pull of conflicting desires. These conflicting desires include autonomy and connection, openness and protectiveness, and novelty and predictability. Through effective communication they attempt to reconcile these conflicting desires but they continue to have the need for both the opposing pairs. These conflicts, tensions or dialectics cause relationships to be in a constant state of flux. The pressures occur in a cyclical fashion over time. Relational dialectics suggests that as people come closer together more conflicts will occur to pull them apart. Baxter (1988) defines dialectic as the simultaneous presence of two relational forces that are interdependent and mutually negating (cited by Kim & Yun, 2007). Baxter and Montgomery challenged the previous scholars and argued that relationships were not linear and that they were changeable (Wilcken, 2010). The basic premise was that as human beings interacted and created dialogues it led to dialectics. The dialects comprise of four major components – contradiction, change, praxis and totality. Contradictions need not necessarily have a negative aspect. In fact they can lead to better and positive solutions as our team experienced. We were allotted a novel project in the field of IT and all of us in the team came from diverse backgrounds, some with little experience and some experienced. The basic idea was to infuse fresh thoughts and ideas and perhaps better solutions would emerge. The leader soon realized that discussions were going astray and no consensus seemed possible. However, the discussions that lasted over several meetings soon brought to light what contradictions can do. If one is willing to sacrifice some amount of autonomy the results can be phenomenal. This is what we realized when our debates and discussions led to heated arguments, contradictions and finally in unbelievable solution for the client. This is what happens when two opposing forces cope with or adapt to contradictions. In personal relationships people want to be connected to their partners but still maintain their personal identity. For instance, when two people love each other they wish to interact as much as possible but soon one overpowers the other. One of them loses his/her identity but they soon realize this is not what they sought in being connected. A friend of mine experienced just this and was not comfortable with the thought when I pointed out that oneness was supreme. However, she wanted to retain her identity and decided to explain her stand to her partner. Such conflicting desires lead to relational dialectics but these can be resolved through effective communication only if one desires to resolve. Otherwise discussions and counseling can be futile. Women are more likely to experience such conflicting desires because they wish to be dependent but also retain their personal identity. Another colleague was due to get married and was looking out for a suitable match. She did find one and was confused whether to be absolutely transparent with her partner and reveal her past relationships. While the intention was to be as transparent as possible and start a new life with complete openness, she had an inner desire that pulled her towards some sort of privacy. She wanted to be intimate but on her own terms and not what ‘intimacy’ really is. Thus, one wants to have an open relationship but still remains closed. This leads to relational dialectics in an individual. Besides, these dialectics can also change over time. One may suddenly decide to share some information or some parts of a particular incident and not the complete truth. Such relationships continually evolve. Communication Privacy Management Theory The communication privacy management (CPM) theory postulates that individuals must have the ability to manage the extent of information that they wish to keep as private. However, with the proliferation of internet consumer privacy concerns have increased. Petronio gives an overview of the CPM. CPM differs from other theories and areas of privacy concerns in that it uses the metaphor of boundaries to explain the phenomenon. While there may be flow of private information to others the borders mark ownership lines and hence the issues of control are easily understood. Five theoretical suppositions explain the nature of CPM – private information, boundary metaphors, control, a rule-based management system and treating privacy and disclosure as dialectical in nature (Gale, 2008). The privacy concerns are very high in banking and financial transactions and in executing electronic commerce. Online shopping and electronic commerce demand the usage of credit cards but consumers are very reluctant to divulge too much of private information for fear of fraudulent transactions. Here too the dialectics prevail. A colleague indulges very often in online shopping especially for travel deals. Since he makes very frequent bookings for himself and his family, he keeps getting spam mails for deals. This implies that his information has been shared by others. It also possibly denotes that he may not be using secure sites that assure privacy. He has no control over the information that is divulged and is vulnerable to spam. Hence he has registered on this travel site with a separate dedicated email account. This way he manages to keep his private information under his control. The dichotomy is that he does avail of the deals that come through emails. Thus, under the CPM theory disclosure has both benefits and risks inherent in it. Individuals have to be cautious and develop their own rules about the extent to which they wish to share information and what they would like to be, exclusively under their control to minimize risks. Our organization has set up a firewall so that employees cannot log on to public and social networking sites such as gmail and Facebook. They are using sophisticated electronic surveillance technology to manage and influence employee communications. This has lead to tensions between the two groups and has also created discord in communication between the employer and the employee groups. This is in fact encroaching on the right to privacy that employees must be granted. The management felt ownership for employees’ personal mail or websites, if they have any. This antagonized the employees when they came to learn of it. They did not express resentment publically but since some of them are well-versed with technology, they found loopholes in the surveillance system to distract the employers and retain their privacy. Such communication and privacy management perspectives lead to tension between the two groups and this can adversely impact performance. Hence, in future the employers should inform the employees of the boundaries and the limit to privacy. This way the employees can be careful and control the extent of information they would like to share. This would not encroach on their right to privacy. One of my colleagues is using online banking facility as it is very convenient and time saving. Typically bank employees have a lot of customer information and it is up to them how much information they can draw. With an ignorant customer they can extract personal and private information and use it to their convenience. This fear prevails in the mind of my colleague who uses internet banking very often. Banks should set boundary lines which the employees should not be allowed to cross. The bank authorities may not be aware that the employees have been extracting information. Hence the employees should be informed of their limits the boundary protection rules so that disclosure is minimal. The customers should know the extent to which they are liable to provide information. This would help reduce the uncertainties that prevail in the minds of the customers. References Gale, M.R. (2008). Understanding communication privacy in commercial banking. Retrieved online January 18, 2012 from http://gradworks.umi.com/14/58/1458062.html Kim, K.-H., & Yun, H. (2007). Cying for me, Cying for us: Relational dialectics in a Korean social network site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), retrieved online January 18, 2012 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/kim.yun.html Lee, J.W.C., Mohamad, O., & Ramayah, T. (2010). Outsourcing: is the social exchange theory still relevant in developing countries? Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing. 4 (4), 316-345 Thibault, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1952). Social Exchange Theory. INTERPERSONAL CONTEXT, retrieved online January 18, 2012 from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpersonal/socexch.html Wilcken, J.S. (2010). AN APPLICATION OF LEADERSHIP AND RELATIONAL DIALECTIC THEORY. Retrieved online January 18, 2012 from http://www.suu.edu/hss/comm/masters/Capstone/Project/J_Wilcken.pdf Read More