Social Exchange Theory Vs. Self-Determination Theory

Social Exchange Theory Vs. Self-Determination Theory The often quoted theory that supports and explains the relationship between Psychological Contract Breach and Organisational outcomes is the social exchange theory (Blau 1964) and the reciprocity norm (Gouldner 1960). According to the social exchange theory, if the organisation fulfils the employees psychological contracts, the organisation is said to have reached its goal (Rousseau 1995) Critical to this argument is the reciprocity norm which suggests that a generalised moral norm is that individuals are obliged to help individuals who help them . Sticking to this norm employees are motivated to hold negative attitudes which over the time build as deviant behaviours (Bordia

Though the initial work on SDT dates back to 1970s, only the past decade witnessed mushrooming of research in this theory. SDT is an umbrella which holds six mini theories. Firstly, Cognitive Evaluation theory (CET) which postulates that the interaction between social contexts and interpersonal interaction either facilitates or undermines intrinsic motivators. Secondly, Organismic Integration theory which views an individual as any other organism and involves the process of internalization of various extrinsic motives. Thirdly, Causality Orientations theory which brings out the interplay between individual differences and the different aspects of environment which shapes the individuals motivation. Fourthly, Basic Psychological Needs theory (BPNT) elaborates the concept of evolved psychological needs and their relations to psychological well-being. Fifthly, Goal Contents Theory (GCT), grows out of the distinctions between intrinsic and extrinsic goals and their impact on motivation and wellness. Goals are seen as differentially affording basic need satisfactions and are thus differentially associated with well-being. Extrinsic goals such as financial success, appearance, and popularity/fame have been specifically contrasted with intrinsic goals

It is generally considered that managers and supervisors develop close relationships with only a few subordinates and these relationships are characterized by high quality exchanges (Ellemers et al., 2004; Epitropaki and Martin, 2005). Such exchanges are characterized by mutual trust, respect and obligation (Graen and Schieman, 1978; Graen et al., 1982), by positive support, common bonds, open communication, shared loyalty (Dansereau et al., 1975; Dienesch and Liden, 1986; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) and affection (Liden et al., 1993). Thus, a higher-quality rather than lower-quality relationship seems likely to result in a higher level of communication concerning reciprocal obligations between the manager and employee, which in turn, will tend to enhance the level of agreement on these obligations (Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Tekleab and Taylor,