SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORYHYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENTTRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCEcampaign influenced the rate of applications received and the increment of employees’ retention (O’Halloran, 2003).The Social Exchange Theory has been widely used in explaining an organisation member’s relationship. This theory relates to the understanding of workplace behaviour and the way employees and employers interact with one another (Biron & Boon, 2013; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Smith, 2005). A knowledgeable and skillful worker’s intention to whether remain or leave an organization can be explained by the Human Capital Theory (Becker, 1962) and the Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958). These two theories complement each other. The Human Capital Theory has been utilized in many studies researching the connections between Human Resource Management (HRM) practices and key organizational outcomes. This theory postulates that a decision to invest resources is impacted by economic incentives and costs verses benefits comparison. For example, from an organization’s point of view, skills can either be acquired or developed. Therefore, an organization will only invest in training if they ascertain that the advantage is higher than acquisition (Youndt, Snell, Dean & Lepak, 1996). For better understanding on the links between talent management and talent engagement, it is necessary to use a theory based on a two-dimensional exchange process. The Social Exchange Theory can provide a big contribution (Homans, 1958). Like the Human Capital Theory, the Social Exchange Theory is based on a cost-benefit analysis and the evaluation of options. However, it shows that there is a two-way connection between the organization and its employees. The idea of social exchange (see Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958) broadens the exchange concept between an organization and its employees established by Becker (1962). While the Human Capital Theory considers the employee and the organization as two actors operated by the external market, the Social Exchange Theory, in contrast, perceives the employee and his/her employer as part of a broader context and is more dynamic internally. Social exchange revolves on two main dimensions: productivity expectation and mutual trust. Under the Social Exchange Theory, the organisation and its human resources are intertwined in a voluntary action, driven by the anticipation of productivity but each party expects more. Thus, on the one hand, the organization seeks to retain an expert because he/she represents human capital, from whom a return on investment is expected. The form of return investment could be forthcoming profit, the creation of knowledge that is useful, technological innovations, products or processes, an increase in their customer portfolio, customer satisfaction and increase in sales. If this expectation is not achieved, the organization may not retain this particular expert. However, the expert invests in the organisation by being focused at work and portraying loyalty. The expert expects immediate or deferred monetary and non-monetary recognition in return for his or her efforts. If the expert’s expectations are not met, this individual may reduce his or her loyalty to the exchange by finding other jobs or have less job involvement (loss of interest). In short, organizations must ensure that they consolidate social exchange in order to thwart the volatility of experts. Furthermore, social exchange is based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). According to this norm, when an organization treats an employee in a positive way, the employee in return feels the need to treat the organization in a similar way (e.g. by deciding to invest more effort in the job). This exercise could result in additional recognition by the organisation which, in turn, could renew the employee’s desire to give back. In the case of experts, this implies that an organization which treats this category of workers well will create in them a desire to return the same treatment, which will lead to higher commitment and consequently, increased employee retention (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). 108
元のページ ../index.html#108