The Complexity of Workplace Relationships

We question Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) assumption that “employees are motivated to develop positive relations at the workplace” (p. 458), which suggests that all employees seek positively valenced exchanges. Research on abusive supervision, bullying, and workplace incivility consistently indicates that some employees prefer negative interactions (Hershcovis, Reference Hershcovis2011). For example, a study of US lawyers revealed undermining of new junior lawyers to encourage unethical behavior, such as overbilling clients (Kammeyer-Mueller, Simon, & Rich, Reference Kammeyer-Mueller, Simon and Rich2012). Thus the intentions that precipitate employee behavior, which in turn affect workplace relationships, are complex and often negative (Ashkanasy, Ayoko, & Jehn, Reference Ashkanasy, Ayoko and Jehn2014), as is perhaps more evident when Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu discuss perceived organizational politics.

Moreover, workplace relationships are more multifaceted than the like-for-like exchange implied by SET. Methot, LePine, Podsakoff, and Christian (Reference Methot, Lepine, Podsakoff and Christian2016) created the term “multiplex” workplace relationships to denote the inclusion of both work-related and affective (friendship) elements. Multiplex relationships yield both benefits (e.g., positive affect, emotional support) and costs (e.g., emotional exhaustion, maintenance difficulty). To simplify their work relationships, some employees may eschew close friendships to avoid the concomitant obligations (Cooper-Thomas & Wright, Reference Cooper-Thomas and Wright2013) and taxing social demands (Morrison & Macky, Reference Morrison and Macky2017). It is unclear how SET might apply in situations where there are simultaneous positive and negative exchanges, or when employees choose to limit workplace exchanges to work tasks, for example by not reciprocating friendly behavior or social support.

Additionally, workplaces contain complex sets of relationships beyond single behaviors exchanged in a dyad (Cropanzano et al., Reference Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels and Hall2017). One example is transactional chains, where behavior at one level cascades to the next level, and so on down the organization. This is exemplified in Mackey, Frieder, Perrewé, Gallagher, and Brymer's (Reference Mackey, Frieder, Perrewé, Gallagher and Brymer2015) study of employees experiencing abusive supervision who, in turn, exhibited higher levels of deviant behavior toward their coworkers. Additionally, transactional chains of negative behavior can extend beyond the workplace to affect employees’ home lives (Ferguson, Reference Ferguson2012). These broader spillover effects require an expansion of SET. A possible approach that might explain reciprocal behavior that extends beyond the original dyad and is collectively focused—such as OCB and some types of CWB—is the inclusion of generalized exchange and collective identity orientation (Flynn, Reference Flynn2005). Generalized exchange may also explain why relationship-oriented variables moderate associations between other variables that are not pertinent to the relationship, such as the cited research of Chernyak-Hai and Tziner (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Tziner2014) in which the negative relationship between distributive justice from the organization and CWB was only present for those with low LMX (see also Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, Reference Major, Kozlowski, Chao and Gardner1995, for LMX and also TMX as moderators).

Contextual Considerations in Workplace Relationships

It is contended by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (Reference Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu2018) that new ways of working, such as freelancing and remote working, are reducing opportunities for relationships in some organizations (Kelliher & Anderson, Reference Kelliher and /Anderson2008). A key factor driving change in how work is conducted is the financial cost of property, second only to the cost of people (McCoy, Reference McCoy2005). Solutions to reduce this cost not only include outsourcing and remote working, but are also focused on designing office spaces in “agile” ways that necessitate employees working in colleague-dense settings and, in the case of hot desking and activity-based working, with a changing array of colleagues nearby. Open-plan office space is now the norm in much of North America and Western Europe, and is gaining traction in most other regions (Ding, Reference Ding2008; McElroy & Morrow, Reference McElroy and Morrow2010). Thus, although new ways of working may sometimes reduce interpersonal interaction, as Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu contend, at other times they may actually provide increased opportunities for exchanges.

The increased opportunities for communication in shared work spaces may have positive outcomes, enabling closer working relationships (McElroy & Morrow, Reference McElroy and Morrow2010) and facilitating performance (Methot et al., Reference Methot, Lepine, Podsakoff and Christian2016). On the other hand, employees with higher levels of shared office space will simultaneously experience greater social liabilities, exemplified by negative interactions, distrust, and uncooperative behaviors (Morrison & Macky, Reference Morrison and Macky2017). These mixed blessings of shared workspace are illustrated by a study across four Dutch public and private sector organizations using activity-based working, in which the majority of employees reported often being distracted by the conversation of others, with 62% indicating a preference for working at home when they needed to be productive, yet half of the respondents also reported coming into the office to stay in touch with colleagues (Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen, & Janssen, Reference Appel-Meulenbroek, Groenen and Janssen2011).

This raises the question of which behaviors might be reciprocated. For example, if a distraction, such as a loud conversation nearby, is perceived as an unfortunate side effect of an open plan environment as opposed to an inconsiderate colleague, it will be unlikely to merit negative behavior in return. In addition, given the multiplexity of relationships at work, that same distracting colleague may also be helpful. Thus, work context, perceived intention, and attribution may be important additional considerations or boundaries for an expanded model of SET (Ashkanasy et al., Reference Ashkanasy, Ayoko and Jehn2014; Johns, Reference Johns2006).

A further implication for SET across newer modes of working, including activity-based and hot-desk work environments, and occasional remote working, relates to the notion that an employee may work near, and interact with, a changing array of colleagues over the course of their work week. Potentially an employee may not interact with the same person more than a few times in a month, depending on the size of the organization. The long-term exchange relationships that underpin SET, where favors (or retaliation) can be earned and awarded in the context of work, are likely to function quite differently when there are fewer, disconnected interactions between employees. Returning to our earlier example, Amy may help Ben with a spreadsheet on one day due to their proximity; but the next day, if either Amy or Ben are working elsewhere, the chances for reciprocal exchange are reduced.