La función del estudiante.

usually build their attitudes to job performance based on their perception of several aspects of the work environment as being able to meet their needs.

Employees in the University environment desire a workplace that is safe and free from threats; a sense of orderliness in their working conditions as well as financial security; a workplace characteristics whereby they feel accepted and belonged; where they feel recognized for their achievements in job performance. In most occasions, the employees also desire to be assigned challenging and meaningful work assignments, which enable them to showcase their innovation, creativity and progress in job accomplishments. In addition, a greater feeling of participation in decision-making especially in areas that concerns their job performance is also a major need of the University employees. Where the employees feel that these needs are achievable within the University environment, they would ultimately become satisfied with their QWL.

This theory has some limitations. First, the theory does not provide a proper method of measuring accurately how satisfied one level of need must be before the next higher need becomes operative. Secondly, the theory does not consider the probability of cultural differences across different societies and organisations; it rather assumed that same needs apply equally to all human cultures. The theory also fails to account for individual differences in needs and assumed that the same needs in the same order apply in equal form from one person to another; an assumption that may be misleading in research designs.

relationship between actors in social contexts. It postulates that all human relationships are shaped by the practice of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the evaluation of alternatives.

For example, when a person perceives the expenditures of relationship as outweighing the perceived benefits, then the theory predicts that the person will become dissatisfied or choose to leave the relationship. In concrete terms, this theory sees all human relations as an exchange process whereby actors in the exchange process seek to satisfy their subjective needs through the exchange contract. The more individuals are satisfied with the exchange process, the more they would become engaged in the social relationships and vice versa. The core assumptions of SET about the nature of exchange relationships are:

1. Social exchanges are characterized by inter-dependence, that is, the capacity to acquire profits in a relationship is contingent on the ability to provide others with rewards.

2. Social exchanges are controlled by norms like reciprocity, justice and fairness.

3. Trust and commitment result from the emergent experiences of individuals within relationships and help to stabilize relationships over the longer term.

4. The dynamics of interaction with relationships and the stability of relationships over time result from the contrasting levels of attraction and dependence experienced by the participants in the relationship.

Early applications of this perspective focused on the explanation of the initiation and termination of social relations in work settings and families and then in the domain of romantic relationships and dating. Topics of interest to researchers included the conception of impartiality in social exchange relations and its connected to relational satisfaction and dissolution, the use of power in social relations based on control of both rewards and costs, and the abuse of power as well as the role of coalitions in altering the balance of power among actors in a network of individuals or organisations. Beyond the application to family

and work settings, exchange theory has been applied in many different contexts to the study of organisations and inter-organisational relations.

Within the ambit of organisational relations, social exchange view of the employment exchange process suggests that when an employee satisfies his or her job demands but perceives the received job resources in return as incommensurate, the employee will perceive it as an inequitable employee–employer relationship (Karasek, 1979; Rousseau, 1995;

Siegrist, 1996) or an imbalance in perceived psychological contract fulfilment, which in turn, will adversely impact job outcomes and ultimately lead to the employee job dissatisfaction.

Other scholars within the social exchange perspective also suggest that when organisational rewards and favourable job conditions, including e.g. pay and job enrichment, are provided to employees, they feel that they are more valued and thus this contributes more to perceived organisational support. This is the case especially if the employees feel that the provisions are voluntary actions from the organisation rather than regulated by external constraints, such as union negotiations (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002)

Relating this assumption to this study, it then goes to say that University employees are only under social exchange process whereby they give their services, potentials and human resources in exchange for their own gains such as financial gains and other extrinsic rewards.

In this view, they expect their QWL to be at best and at commensurate level with their inputs in the University. When the employees perceive that these expectations are not met, they would become dissatisfied with their QWL, which will ultimately lead to organisational inefficiency, less commitment, absenteeism, and job turnover.

Critics against this theory argue that it tends to reduce every socio-economic relationship to the analysis of gains and rewards and tends to make people seem individualistic and reward seeking. One of the assumptions of this theory is that individuals are innately selfish, ready to

terminate socio-economic relationships where the cost outweighs the benefits. However, this assumption is not always true in most situations. Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels and Hall (2016) noted that an important criticism against SET is that it lacks sufficient theoretical precision, and thus has limited utility. According to the authors, scholars who apply the theory are able to explain many social phenomena in post hoc manner but are severely limited in their ability to make useful a priori predictions regarding workplace behaviour.