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 (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) 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 [Reference Gergen2001] 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, Reference Bordin1979) 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.
The Workforce Working Alliance
The working alliance (WA; Bordin, Reference Bordin1979) describes psychotherapeutic working relationships between therapists and their respective clients to instigate and achieve needed cognitive, affective, and behavioral change and transformation. To establish a WA, at least four conditions need to be met. First, Bordin (Reference Bordin1979) advocated that one member of the alliance acts as an agent of change for the other member. The second, third, and fourth conditions are related to the structure of the WA: goal agreement (GA), task agreement (TA), and emotional bond (EB). In short, therapists and clients seek to reach consensus on (a) what therapy is meant to achieve, (b) the means (i.e., tasks, responsibilities) by which those achievements are to be reached, and (c) a mutual relationship of trust, respect, and appreciation one for another. When these conditions are met and WA ruptures, as they arise, are appropriately addressed and remedied, the WA becomes a significant source of explanatory power for the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, from both a point of view of theory (e.g., Asay & Lambert, Reference Asay, Lambert, Hubble, Duncan and Miller1999) and empirical evidence (e.g., Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, Symonds, & Horvath, Reference Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, Symonds and Horvath2012).
On its face, the four aforementioned conditions are able to be met in various if not most types of workplace relationships. To the first (change agency of one member toward another member), the idea that leaders are change agents is hardly new (e.g., Ajmal, Farooq, Sajid, & Awan, Reference Ajmal, Farooq, Sajid and Awan2012; Powers, Reference Powers2014). To the remaining three conditions (GA, TA, and EB), and as the developer of the WA concept, Bordin (Reference Bordin1983) advanced a supervisory working alliance as therapists oversee the training of therapists in training. Myriad other supervisory relationships in organizational work apply where subordinates seek developmental change from their leaders (e.g., acquisition of knowledge, skills, abilities, or other characteristics that permit them to competently carry out their current or prepare them to assume future roles), and both leaders and subordinates can utilize GAs, TAs, and EBs as the mechanisms through which to facilitate the desired change. In the spirit of Bordin's (Reference Bordin1979) suggestion that the WA “be defined and elaborated in terms which make it universally applicable” (p. 252), we propose the WA be considered for a spot in the “new era workplace relationship” that Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu seek, and doing so would address several of the issues they raised.
Goals and Tasks Agreements
One of Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) concerns for the “old” SET theory is related to issues of fairness in exchange relationships. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu illustrated SET fairness perceptions through Adams's equity theory (1963, 1965). This theory's focus on inputs–outputs is only one of distributive justice. However, organizational justice is also illustrated through procedural justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, Reference Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng2001), with the principles of equality, equity, and need governing justice allocation (Wagstaff, Reference Wagstaff1994). Notwithstanding, fairness, as of late and for many people, is exclusively an issue of equality of outcome: a focus on distributive justice. In other words, if one obtains the same as another it is said to be fair. In vigorous pursuit of distributive justice, we argue that fairness in the new era relationship also incorporate the just application of standards, rules, and laws for all: a focus on procedural justice.
Under the framework of the WA, GAs and TAs appear to be responsive to the aforementioned issue of fairness. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) asked that the new era relationship be “more personally specified” (p. 473) and have the added benefit of preventing the “greater need for labor laws enforcement designed to prevent exploitation and maintain compliance with basic ethical standards” (p. 474). Leaders and followers can build individually and personally specified relationships that are responsive to each other's needs. Rather than assuming that third parties (e.g., governments, courts) are best positioned to determine what constitutes fairness in relationships, GAs and TAs return agency and choice to individuals to enact and dissolve for themselves, without legislature overreach and intervention, fair exchange relationships. At-will employment policies greatly facilitate establishments and dissolutions of working relationships and avoid the potential coercive nature of affirmative action and equal opportunity laws that, despite the good they might achieve in the pursuit of diversity and other outcomes, create a byproduct of forcing individuals into relationships of which they may not want to be part. The exception to this norm may be in cases of potentially exploitative groups (e.g., child labor laws) in which one member is incapable (due to lack of maturation that comes with age, experience, and education) of entering exchange relationships. Goals and tasks agreements satisfy the demands for both distributive and procedural justice, as individuals negotiate the most attractive and beneficial working relationships for both personal and professional reasons. This, too, is an improvement over the traditional SET model because it does not view interpersonal relationships as transactional (e.g., exchanging goods and services with each other) but instead as transformational.
Emotional Bonds
A second of Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) concerns for the “old” SET theory was related to issues of mutual reciprocity in the nature of exchange relationship, with several ways in which this may not be as tenable today as it was in the past. For example, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu expressed concern for knowledge workers, freelancers, and contracted (outsourced) employees. More specifically, they intimated that these categories of employees are accustomed to autonomy and control over how work is completed and expect those who lead them to trust and respect them to get jobs done. Furthermore, they may be predisposed to retain information to themselves, have less identification with and commitment to organizations, and receive less organizational support due to being somewhat “outsiders” contracted for very specific purposes and/or durations. As such, these employees may not stay with organizations for extended periods of time, making the establishment of high-quality, reciprocal interpersonal relationships more challenging. Under a traditional leader–member exchange (LMX; e.g., Graen & Schiemann, Reference Graen and Schiemann1978) where leaders and members are proximal, new era relationships must incorporate distal options that are amenable to both direct (leader-to-member) and indirect (mediated; e.g., leader–contractor–member) relationship forms.
In the previous section, we highlighted two forms of organizational justice: procedural and distributive. Third and fourth forms, interactional and informational justice, contend fairness to be functions of (a) polite, respectful, dignified, and courteous interactions with, and (b) honest, open, and timely communication of relevant information to members and relevant third parties when executing procedural or distributive forms of justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, Reference Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng2001). We argue that these forms of justice also be added to and considered in juxtaposition to procedural and distributive justice when determining what fairness is and when it is achieved. The establishment and successful execution of goals and tasks agreements, as outlined in the previous section, should also provide fertile ground from which to naturally establish emotional bonds that then can serve for future iterations of WAs, either with the same or future leaders. The reverse, too, may be true, when WA participants rupture those relationships through significant, sustained, and/or ill-timed failures to follow through on the agreed-upon parameters of the working relationships. All WA members, be they supervisors or subordinates, must take great care to not trivialize the agreements they make with each other and to take all necessary measures to ensure those agreements are upheld.
Under the framework of the WA, EBs also appear to be responsive to the aforementioned needs for worker autonomy, trust and respect from leaders, and control over workplace outcomes and methods. Trust, a willingness to become vulnerable to others (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995), has been shown to be a significant predictor of effective teamwork (Driskell & Salas, Reference Driskell, Salas, Christiansen and Tett2013). Organizations, through leaders acting as agents, provide support and concern for employees’ well-being, happiness, and success in the workplace and their personal lives while members, too, can demonstrate their support of their leaders and, by extension, the organization. As leaders and members take these measures consistent with the WAs they have established, strong interpersonal relationships develop across time and to meet the interdependent and aligned needs of members. This, too, improves upon the traditional SET model because the relationship is not anymore viewed as a means to an end but rather the indispensable end itself.
Important Working Alliance Variations
Because organizations are becoming less hierarchical, two important WA variations are important to overtly mention. First, leaders typically will have many direct or indirect reports with these employees working toward common goals in teams and/or groups. Although the WA may typically be viewed as dyadic relationships (i.e., between therapists and their respective clients), the prototypical “one-to-many” nature of leader–member relationships must be taken into consideration as the WA is reviewed as tenable for organizational life. Second, the team-orientation aspect of the nature of work may also give rise to consideration of group-level WAs (i.e., of members within and between themselves, absent a centralizing leader). Research in group therapeutic settings (e.g., Hsieh & Lin, Reference Hsieh and Lin2014) has several robust findings in this regard. Although what constitutes group-level therapeutic WAs is debatable (e.g., Thayer & Burlingame, Reference Thayer and Burlingame2014), and this tension will likely play itself out in the proposition of a workforce WA, these findings should be welcoming for both leaders and members: that members’ team orientation and strong relationship building, whatever their structural forms, can be conduits through which to drive individual, group, and organizational performance.
Conclusion
Understanding group dynamics and relationships in modern workforces and organization is essential to the workplace. We agree with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) that exchange relationships need a facelift. Although social exchange theory (SET) may have provided the workforce with an organizing framework for describing the interrelatedness and rewards that govern relationships, new workforce and organizational dynamics must dictate new directions relationships should take to keep pace. Although Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu raised several concerns in their focal article, two issues of equality/equity and mutual reciprocity in relationships were particularly poignant and served as sources for our suggestion that the working alliance (WA; Bordin, Reference Bordin1979), although not (yet) an organizational behavior (OB) theory, be considered in defining and operationalizing the new era workplace relationship. As leaders and members focus on goals and tasks agreements (the ends and the means to their working relationships) as well as the emotional bonds that facilitate their common and sustained efforts across times, individuals, groups, organizations, and societies will benefit greatly.
Although these working relationships may be considered by some to be too time- or energy-consuming, with perhaps many bumps and bruises along the way, the timeless reminder that nothing worth pursuing is ever easy needs to be infused in all aspects of organizational work, especially relationship building. By doing so, there is so much to gain and, comparatively speaking, so little to lose.
You have
Access
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 (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) 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 [Reference Gergen2001] 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, Reference Bordin1979) 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.
The Workforce Working Alliance
The working alliance (WA; Bordin, Reference Bordin1979) describes psychotherapeutic working relationships between therapists and their respective clients to instigate and achieve needed cognitive, affective, and behavioral change and transformation. To establish a WA, at least four conditions need to be met. First, Bordin (Reference Bordin1979) advocated that one member of the alliance acts as an agent of change for the other member. The second, third, and fourth conditions are related to the structure of the WA: goal agreement (GA), task agreement (TA), and emotional bond (EB). In short, therapists and clients seek to reach consensus on (a) what therapy is meant to achieve, (b) the means (i.e., tasks, responsibilities) by which those achievements are to be reached, and (c) a mutual relationship of trust, respect, and appreciation one for another. When these conditions are met and WA ruptures, as they arise, are appropriately addressed and remedied, the WA becomes a significant source of explanatory power for the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, from both a point of view of theory (e.g., Asay & Lambert, Reference Asay, Lambert, Hubble, Duncan and Miller1999) and empirical evidence (e.g., Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, Symonds, & Horvath, Reference Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, Symonds and Horvath2012).
On its face, the four aforementioned conditions are able to be met in various if not most types of workplace relationships. To the first (change agency of one member toward another member), the idea that leaders are change agents is hardly new (e.g., Ajmal, Farooq, Sajid, & Awan, Reference Ajmal, Farooq, Sajid and Awan2012; Powers, Reference Powers2014). To the remaining three conditions (GA, TA, and EB), and as the developer of the WA concept, Bordin (Reference Bordin1983) advanced a supervisory working alliance as therapists oversee the training of therapists in training. Myriad other supervisory relationships in organizational work apply where subordinates seek developmental change from their leaders (e.g., acquisition of knowledge, skills, abilities, or other characteristics that permit them to competently carry out their current or prepare them to assume future roles), and both leaders and subordinates can utilize GAs, TAs, and EBs as the mechanisms through which to facilitate the desired change. In the spirit of Bordin's (Reference Bordin1979) suggestion that the WA “be defined and elaborated in terms which make it universally applicable” (p. 252), we propose the WA be considered for a spot in the “new era workplace relationship” that Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu seek, and doing so would address several of the issues they raised.
Goals and Tasks Agreements
One of Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) concerns for the “old” SET theory is related to issues of fairness in exchange relationships. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu illustrated SET fairness perceptions through Adams's equity theory (1963, 1965). This theory's focus on inputs–outputs is only one of distributive justice. However, organizational justice is also illustrated through procedural justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, Reference Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng2001), with the principles of equality, equity, and need governing justice allocation (Wagstaff, Reference Wagstaff1994). Notwithstanding, fairness, as of late and for many people, is exclusively an issue of equality of outcome: a focus on distributive justice. In other words, if one obtains the same as another it is said to be fair. In vigorous pursuit of distributive justice, we argue that fairness in the new era relationship also incorporate the just application of standards, rules, and laws for all: a focus on procedural justice.
Under the framework of the WA, GAs and TAs appear to be responsive to the aforementioned issue of fairness. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) asked that the new era relationship be “more personally specified” (p. 473) and have the added benefit of preventing the “greater need for labor laws enforcement designed to prevent exploitation and maintain compliance with basic ethical standards” (p. 474). Leaders and followers can build individually and personally specified relationships that are responsive to each other's needs. Rather than assuming that third parties (e.g., governments, courts) are best positioned to determine what constitutes fairness in relationships, GAs and TAs return agency and choice to individuals to enact and dissolve for themselves, without legislature overreach and intervention, fair exchange relationships. At-will employment policies greatly facilitate establishments and dissolutions of working relationships and avoid the potential coercive nature of affirmative action and equal opportunity laws that, despite the good they might achieve in the pursuit of diversity and other outcomes, create a byproduct of forcing individuals into relationships of which they may not want to be part. The exception to this norm may be in cases of potentially exploitative groups (e.g., child labor laws) in which one member is incapable (due to lack of maturation that comes with age, experience, and education) of entering exchange relationships. Goals and tasks agreements satisfy the demands for both distributive and procedural justice, as individuals negotiate the most attractive and beneficial working relationships for both personal and professional reasons. This, too, is an improvement over the traditional SET model because it does not view interpersonal relationships as transactional (e.g., exchanging goods and services with each other) but instead as transformational.
Emotional Bonds
A second of Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) concerns for the “old” SET theory was related to issues of mutual reciprocity in the nature of exchange relationship, with several ways in which this may not be as tenable today as it was in the past. For example, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu expressed concern for knowledge workers, freelancers, and contracted (outsourced) employees. More specifically, they intimated that these categories of employees are accustomed to autonomy and control over how work is completed and expect those who lead them to trust and respect them to get jobs done. Furthermore, they may be predisposed to retain information to themselves, have less identification with and commitment to organizations, and receive less organizational support due to being somewhat “outsiders” contracted for very specific purposes and/or durations. As such, these employees may not stay with organizations for extended periods of time, making the establishment of high-quality, reciprocal interpersonal relationships more challenging. Under a traditional leader–member exchange (LMX; e.g., Graen & Schiemann, Reference Graen and Schiemann1978) where leaders and members are proximal, new era relationships must incorporate distal options that are amenable to both direct (leader-to-member) and indirect (mediated; e.g., leader–contractor–member) relationship forms.
In the previous section, we highlighted two forms of organizational justice: procedural and distributive. Third and fourth forms, interactional and informational justice, contend fairness to be functions of (a) polite, respectful, dignified, and courteous interactions with, and (b) honest, open, and timely communication of relevant information to members and relevant third parties when executing procedural or distributive forms of justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, Reference Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and Ng2001). We argue that these forms of justice also be added to and considered in juxtaposition to procedural and distributive justice when determining what fairness is and when it is achieved. The establishment and successful execution of goals and tasks agreements, as outlined in the previous section, should also provide fertile ground from which to naturally establish emotional bonds that then can serve for future iterations of WAs, either with the same or future leaders. The reverse, too, may be true, when WA participants rupture those relationships through significant, sustained, and/or ill-timed failures to follow through on the agreed-upon parameters of the working relationships. All WA members, be they supervisors or subordinates, must take great care to not trivialize the agreements they make with each other and to take all necessary measures to ensure those agreements are upheld.
Under the framework of the WA, EBs also appear to be responsive to the aforementioned needs for worker autonomy, trust and respect from leaders, and control over workplace outcomes and methods. Trust, a willingness to become vulnerable to others (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, Reference Mayer, Davis and Schoorman1995), has been shown to be a significant predictor of effective teamwork (Driskell & Salas, Reference Driskell, Salas, Christiansen and Tett2013). Organizations, through leaders acting as agents, provide support and concern for employees’ well-being, happiness, and success in the workplace and their personal lives while members, too, can demonstrate their support of their leaders and, by extension, the organization. As leaders and members take these measures consistent with the WAs they have established, strong interpersonal relationships develop across time and to meet the interdependent and aligned needs of members. This, too, improves upon the traditional SET model because the relationship is not anymore viewed as a means to an end but rather the indispensable end itself.
Important Working Alliance Variations
Because organizations are becoming less hierarchical, two important WA variations are important to overtly mention. First, leaders typically will have many direct or indirect reports with these employees working toward common goals in teams and/or groups. Although the WA may typically be viewed as dyadic relationships (i.e., between therapists and their respective clients), the prototypical “one-to-many” nature of leader–member relationships must be taken into consideration as the WA is reviewed as tenable for organizational life. Second, the team-orientation aspect of the nature of work may also give rise to consideration of group-level WAs (i.e., of members within and between themselves, absent a centralizing leader). Research in group therapeutic settings (e.g., Hsieh & Lin, Reference Hsieh and Lin2014) has several robust findings in this regard. Although what constitutes group-level therapeutic WAs is debatable (e.g., Thayer & Burlingame, Reference Thayer and Burlingame2014), and this tension will likely play itself out in the proposition of a workforce WA, these findings should be welcoming for both leaders and members: that members’ team orientation and strong relationship building, whatever their structural forms, can be conduits through which to drive individual, group, and organizational performance.
Conclusion
Understanding group dynamics and relationships in modern workforces and organization is essential to the workplace. We agree with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) that exchange relationships need a facelift. Although social exchange theory (SET) may have provided the workforce with an organizing framework for describing the interrelatedness and rewards that govern relationships, new workforce and organizational dynamics must dictate new directions relationships should take to keep pace. Although Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu raised several concerns in their focal article, two issues of equality/equity and mutual reciprocity in relationships were particularly poignant and served as sources for our suggestion that the working alliance (WA; Bordin, Reference Bordin1979), although not (yet) an organizational behavior (OB) theory, be considered in defining and operationalizing the new era workplace relationship. As leaders and members focus on goals and tasks agreements (the ends and the means to their working relationships) as well as the emotional bonds that facilitate their common and sustained efforts across times, individuals, groups, organizations, and societies will benefit greatly.
Although these working relationships may be considered by some to be too time- or energy-consuming, with perhaps many bumps and bruises along the way, the timeless reminder that nothing worth pursuing is ever easy needs to be infused in all aspects of organizational work, especially relationship building. By doing so, there is so much to gain and, comparatively speaking, so little to lose.