The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE EMPLOYEE-ORGANIZATION RELATIONSHIP: A TIMELY CONCEPT IN A PERIOD OF TRANSITION
Abstract
The employee-organization relationship (EOR) has increasingly become a focal point for researchers in organizational behavior, human resource management, and industrial relations. Literature on the EOR has developed at both the individual – (e.g. psychological contracts) and the group and organizational-levels of analysis (e.g. employment relationships). Both sets of literatures are reviewed, and we argue for the need to integrate these literatures as a means for improving understanding of the EOR. Mechanisms for integrating these literatures are suggested. A subsequent discussion of contextual effects on the EOR follows in which we suggest that researchers develop models that explicitly incorporate context. We then examine a number of theoretical lenses to explain various attributes of the EOR such as the dynamism and fairness of the exchange, and new ways of understanding the exchange including positive functional relationships and integrative negotiations. The article concludes with a discussion of future research needed on the EOR.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001
Positive psychology: An introduction.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 · Cited by 11,351
Perceived organizational support.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 · Cited by 10,023 · cited 1×
“Similar to LMX, POS represents a perception of what is currently being received from the organization, or the quality of the relationship with the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).”
ResultHUSELID, M. A. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256741 · Cited by 9,342
Sahlins, M., & Graeber, D. (2017) · Routledge (orig. 1972) · doi:10.4324/9781315184951 · Cited by 3,159
Rousseau, D. M. (1990) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030110506 · Cited by 1,811
Self-citationSubjective Construal, Social Inference, and Human Misunderstanding
Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60333-0 · Cited by 404
Cited by
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191 · Cited by 914
Relationships at Work: Toward a Multidimensional Conceptualization of Dyadic Work Relationships
Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. (2009) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206309344741 · Cited by 411
Self-citationThe New Era Workplace Relationships: Is Social Exchange Theory Still Relevant?
Chernyak-Hai, L., & Rabenu, E. (2018) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2018.5 · Cited by 315
Chambel, M. J., & Oliveira-Cruz, F. (2010) · Military Psychology · doi:10.1080/08995601003638934 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Shapiro, J. A.-M. C., Liden, R. C., Parks, J. M., Morrison, E. W., Porter, L. W., Robinson, S. L., Roehling, M. V., Rousseau, D. M., Schalk, R., Tsui, A. S., & Dyne, L. V.
- Venue
- Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
- Publisher
- Emerald (MCB UP )
- Published
- 2004-06-09
- Pages
- 291-370
- ISSN
- 0742-7301 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1496644656
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 8.92
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
