This article describes four approaches to the employee-organization relationship, as defined from the employer's perspective. An empirical study of employees from ten companies found support for the basic hypothesis that employee responses differ under the four types of relationship. In general, employees performed better on core tasks, demonstrated more citizenship behavior, and expressed a higher level of affective commitment to an employer when they worked in an overinvestment (by the employer) or mutual investment relationship than when they worked in a quasi-spot-contract or underinvestment relationship. These results were obtained even after we controlled for several other variables that could affect employee performance and attitudes.

We initially pose the paradox that employers facing competitive environments simultaneously desire both flexibility in the employment and termination of employees and flexibility of operations afforded by committed employees. Utilizing previous conceptualizations in the literature, two general forms of the employment relationship (i.e., “job-focused" and "organization-focused'') that can achieve one or the other of these over-arching objectives are described. By drawing on several theoretical perspectives such as strategic choice, resource dependence, equity theory, and institutional theory, the paper identifies factors that can influence employers' preferences for the type of employee-organization relationship. These factors are categorized into two sets, those internal to it, and specific propositions are advanced that link particular factors with their effect on different forms of employment relationship. The paper concludes with overall implications of the propositions and suggestions for future research priorities.

The concept of "coalition" has been prominent in the organizational lit­erature for more than 25 years (March & Simon, 1958; Thompson & McEwen, 1958). However, the concept has been applied inconsistently and frequent! , has been a secondary subject of attention by those with primary interests in studying other organizational phenomena. Furthermore, de­spite the existence of research on coalitions in social psychology and po­litical science, the organizational context-we contend-makes generalizations from the findings in these other fields tenuous. The focus of the present paper is on: (1) a review and critique of the use of the term coalition in the field of organizational behavior; and (2) an elaboration of the features of the organizational context that strongly affect conclusions regarding the origins, nature and impact of coalitions. (For a more complete version of the first section of this paper that reviews the historical usage of the concept, see Stevenson, Pearce & Porter, 1985.)