Interpersonal Communication: Empirical, Theoretical, And Critical Assessment Of The Social Exchange Theory - Coursework Example

? Interpersonal communication: Empirical, theoretical, and critical assessment of the social exchange theory 2 May Interpersonal communication: Empirical, theoretical, and critical assessment of the social exchange theory Interpersonal communication continues to be a well-researched phenomenon, because of its impact on social and business relationships (Befu; Whitener et al.). Interpersonal communication refers to “an interactional process between two people (a dyad), either face-to-face or through mediated forms” (Lane). There are many kinds of interpersonal relationships, such as between friends, family members, and co-workers, as well as between the management and employees. This paper will focus on the interpersonal relationships found in business, such as between customers and companies, among co-workers, and between managers/supervisors and their subordinates. This paper provides an empirical description of the Social Exchange Theory, a theoretical explanation of the phenomenon, and a critical evaluation of the validity and utility of the theoretical explanation. There is an empirical description of the Social Exchange Theory, which begins with the concept of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is an important goal of interpersonal communication at organizations, because it can yield competitive advantages (Wu et al. 84). Nonetheless, organizations do not always exert adequate effort to develop mechanisms that successfully persuade employees to share knowledge (Wu et al. 84). Knowledge is precious and knowledge-sharing behavior is an example of social exchange in the workplace (Wu et al. 84). People who have the knowledge do not always feel free to share them, unless there are perceived benefits in doing so, which is a fundamental argument of the Social Exchange Theory. The Social Exchange Theory argued that people seek to lessen costs and exploit rewards and then use the probability of developing a relationship, after assessing perceived possible results (Lane). When there are perceived greater results, people tend to disclose more and develop a closer relationship with that person (Lane). Wu et al. studied the association between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing, as well as the effect of “individual altruism” and “a social interaction environment.” The sampling came from Taiwanese high-tech industries, particularly research and development (R&D) teams. Finding showed that employees’ “perceived interpersonal trust,” from colleagues or supervisor, was found to be positively associated with their propensity to share knowledge (91). Employees’ altruism is also a trait that affected the tendency to share knowledge in the workplace and altruism also lessened the association between trust of colleagues and knowledge sharing (91). Furthermore, an “organizational social interaction environment” improves the positive association between trust of colleagues and knowledge sharing (91). Hence, trust is critical to knowledge sharing or the formation of some of the basic interpersonal relations that organizations require to become competitive. Whitener et al. explored the kinds of behavior managers may perform to build trust. They used the agency and social exchange theories and proposed an exchange relationship framework that recognizes organizational, relational, and individual factors that support or restrain managerial trustworthy behavior. Their model argued for the importance of trust in creating strong and knowledge-sharing relationships. The empirical research showed that the social exchange theory is grounded on trust and from trust and expectations of benefits, positive social exchange can occur. A theoretical explanation of the phenomenon will further help understand the social exchange theory. The social exchange theory, as developed by Blau in 1964, states that an individual may seek to create an exchange relationship with others by willingly giving benefits to others first and then expecting some level of return in the future (Wu et al. 85). Trust is an integral part of the social exchange relationship, where the higher the level of trust felt by the giver and the recipient, “the stronger will be the social exchange relationship that exists between them” (Wu et al. 85). In terms of co-workers, there is a theoretical belief that in terms of trust of colleagues (TOC) and knowledge sharing, people who have knowledge and who have high TOC might be more expected to think that when they distribute their knowledge with colleagues, they could also expect returns from them in the future (Wu et al. 85). Trust is based on the give-and-take relationship expected from one another. As for consumers, the majority of personal influence for consumer products and services happens at the peer group level (informal level) (Gatignon and Robertson 534). Furthermore, the firmness of personal authority throughout time relies on reciprocity (Gatignon and Robertson 534). An individual who gives information to another person necessitates the recipient to give back (Gatignon and Robertson 534). Givers expect benefits. A primary benefit for assuming the influencer role is to increase support and validation for a purchase decision (Gatignon and Robertson 534). In a way, the giver of information wants to seek the “legitimation” of peers to reduce cognitive dissonance (Gatignon and Robertson 534). Research showed that giving information occurs more after the purchase and declines after that (Gatignon and Robertson 534). A second major advantage from information giving is “social status and power” (Gatignon and Robertson 534). The influence attains a superior benefit by having recognition and power (Gatignon and Robertson 534). This paper proceeds to the validity and utility of the theoretical explanation of the social exchange theory. The theory is valid, because it supports the theory of goal-seeking behavior, where people are also motivated by the rewards they perceive to receive. At the same time, they are not motivated to do something, when there is punishment or lesser rewards. The theory has great utility in the business environment, particularly in performance management. If managers want to enhance social exchange that will help achieve their goals, they should consider the social exchange process in the workplace. They should ask themselves: What is the trust level in the workplace? Do employees trust each other? Do they trust their managers and supervisors? What are their perceived rewards that will motivate them to work together and become more dedicated to their jobs? These are some of the fundamental questions that are pertinent to the social exchange theory and can improve performance management tools and approaches. However, two of the weaknesses of the social exchange theory are the lack of consideration for altruism that seeks no external benefits or rewards and the difficulty of aligning diverse expected rewards. First, the theory disregards altruism that is not based on external rewards. Some people actually find their job fulfilling, due to job design or internal benefits, such as the feeling of community and value to the company. The management should make sure to also consider these factors, when analyzing interpersonal communication and their antecedents. Second, the theory does not provide a guideline in aligning diverse expected rewards. Individuals may have different expected rewards. An employee might work harder if the rewards are extra time off, while others want bonuses and other financial rewards. The social exchange theory fails to provide a usable framework for responding to diverse stakeholder needs. The social exchange theory has empirical support that connects knowledge-sharing behavior and trust among employees and between the management and employees. Theoretical explanation asserts the central value of trust to forming interpersonal relationships. It is not enough to perceive rewards, because trust must also be present to expect these rewards. The theory is valid, because it supports the theory of goal-seeking behavior, and it has immense utility in performance management development. However, two of the weaknesses of the social exchange theory are the lack of deliberation on altruism that seeks no external benefits or rewards and the complexity of aligning diverse expected rewards. Thus, the social exchange theory is a valuable theory that explains an important aspect of interpersonal communication. Works Cited Befu, Harumi. “Social Exchange.” Annual Review of Anthropology 6 (1977): 255-281. Print. Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson. “An Exchange Theory Model of Interpersonal Communication.” Advances in Consumer Research 13.1 (1986): 534-538. Print. Lane, Derek L. “Interpersonal Communication Defined.” 2011. Web. 1 May 2011 < http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpersonal/>. Whitener, Ellen M, Brodt, Susan E., Korsgaard, M. Audrey, and Jon M. Werner. “Managers as Initiators Of Trust: An Exchange Relationship Framework For Understanding Managerial Trustworthy Behavior.” Academy of Management Review 23.3 (1998): 513-530. Print. Wu, Wei-Li, Lin, Chien-Hsin, Hsu, Bi-Fen, and Ryh-Song Yeh. “Interpersonal Trust And Knowledge Sharing: Moderating Effects Of Individual Altruism And A Social Interaction Environment.” Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 37.1 (2009): 83-93. Print. Read More