comwhy employees speak to coworkers and bosses
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
1/18
http://job.sagepub.com
CommunicationJournal of Business
DOI: 10.1177/0021943695032003031995; 32; 249Journal of Business Communication
Carolyn M. Anderson and Matthew M. Martinand Organizational Satisfaction
Why Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses: Motives, Gender,
http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/3/249The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Business Communication
can be found at:Journal of Business Communication
Additional services and information for
http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://job.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/32/3/249Citations
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.businesscommunication.org/http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://job.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://job.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/32/3/249http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/32/3/249http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://job.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://job.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.businesscommunication.org/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
2/18
249
Why Employees Speak to Coworkersand Bosses: Motives, Gender, and
Organizational Satisfaction
Carolyn M.AndersonThe University of Akron
Matthew M. Martin
West
Virginia University
Research identifies pleasure, affection, escape, relaxation, control, and inclusionas motives explaining why people communicate interpersonally. These motivesare examined, along with a duty motive, in organizational relationships. Investi-gated are employees motives for communicating with coworkers or with superiorsand their satisfaction with work, satisfaction with superiors, and commitment.Full-time workers (N = 202) report high satisfaction with superiors, as well asmoderate satisfaction with work and commitment, when communicating withsuperiors from pleasure, affection, and inclusion needs but not for escape.Employees report high work satisfaction, along with moderate satisfaction withsuperiors and commitment, when communicating with coworkers for affectionbut not for escape. Females, more than males, communicate with their bosses foraffection and relaxation. Males communicate with coworkers more from control
needs, while females communicate for affection. Both communicate more withcoworkers versus superiors on all of the motives except for duty. Females commu-nicate more from the duty motive with superiors versus coworkers.
Peoplecommunicate to satisfy interpersonal needs, which, in turn, influ-
-L ences their communication choices and behaviors (Rubin, 1979,1981; Rubin & Rubin, 1992). In essence, then, people have motives for
communicating. Understanding peoples motives for communicatingshould lead to a better understanding ofrelationship outcomes. This studyinvestigates motives for communicating in organizations from a need toknow (a) why employees communicate with coworkers and bosses and
(b) how relational outcomes are connected to motives for communicat-ing to satisfy needs. Since relationships at work influence both affectiveand behavioral outcomes, the studys importance is illustrating how
employees communication motives relate to satisfaction with their
superiors, jobs, and organizations. Gender is examined because findingscontribute to a clearer picture of interpersonal relationships at work
(Fairhurst, 1985).Studying communication issues in interpersonal relationships at
work are popular research focuses. One reason is that employees needcommunication with superiors and coworkers to understand their envi-ronments and roles (Jablin & Krone, 1994). In fact, superior/subordinatecommunication is one of the most frequently researched topics (Allen,Gotcher, & Seibert, 1993; Jablin & Krone, 1994).Although studying com-munication in the superior/subordinate relationship is important, com-municationbetween coworkers also provides meaningfulinformation (see
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
3/18
250
a review by Jablin & Krone, 1994). This study is a first step in investi-gating both relationships by examining employees motives for commu-
nicating with coworkers and with superiors. The motives construct is
explainedunder
interpersonalneeds gratification
theory.Interpersonal Needs Gratification
Interpersonal needs gratification theory is a goal-oriented perspec-tive forcommunicatingthat explainswhy people enter into relationships.Needs theory is an outgrowth of uses and gratification theory thatstates people use the media to fulfill interpersonal needs (McLeod &
Becker, 1981; Rubin, 1993). The needs theory also includes Schutzs (1966)ideas that people have individual needs for inclusion, control, and affec-
tion. By definition, inclusion is the need to establish and maintain a sat-isfactory relationship with another person, while affection concernscloseness and intimacy. The control need reflects dominance and powerconcepts. In summary, social and/or psychological needs produce motivesto communicate, which explains why people communicate with others
(Rubin, 1993). Interpersonal communication researchers are examiningmotives in relationship to satisfaction or other relational outcome vari-ables (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Daly, 1987; Graham, Barbato, & Perse,
1993; Katz, Blumler,&
Gurevitch, 1974; Rubin, 1986; Rubin, Perse,&
Barbato, 1988).How one communicates affects relational outcomes because motives
influence communication choices (Graham, et al., 1993). Studies demon-strate when peoples needs are met through satisfying communication,they more than likely build relationships, stay in them, and experiencesatisfaction (Rubin, 1993). Conversely, unfulfilled needs result in coun-
terproductive communication behaviors (Rubin & Rubin, 1992). Coun-
terproductive communication contributes to feelings of dissatisfactionwith superiors, jobs, and organizations (Jablin & Krone, 1994). In one
study, Indvik and Fitzpatrick (1986) suggest that coworkers are perceivedas lower than other relationship types on meeting needs because employ-ees are powerless to pick and choose them.
In summary, this study rests on the belief that employees seek com-munication interactions with coworkers and superiors to fulfill inter-
personal needs. The study answers questions surrounding which motives
employees say they have for communicating at work.Although study-
ing communication motives is still new in an organizational setting, jus-tification is found in other contexts.
Communication Motives
Researchers conceptualize motives as relatively stable, personal vari-ables explainingwhy one chooses to communicate, which, in turn, influ-
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
4/18
251
ences how one communicates (Rubin et al., 1988). For example, a needfor love produces a motive to use communication to seek affection.
The study byRubin et al. (1988) found six motives forwhy people com-municate with another person: pleasure is for fun; affection is caring;escape is the filling of time to avoid other behaviors; relaxation is an
&dquo;unwinding&dquo; concept; control concerns power; and inclusion is sharingoffeelings and avoiding loneliness. The authors encourage researchersto extend findings by examining other motives. In this study, a duty motiveis introduced. The duty motive followsfrom the logic that employees needto communicate with coworkers and bosses in order to get theirjobs done.For example, employees say they communicate with coworkers to obtaininformationabout the task, to discusscompany policies, and to solve prob-
lems (Jablin&
Sussman, 1983; Katz & Kahn, 1966). Communicatingfroma duty motive, then, may contribute to employees satisfaction at work.
Research supports the significance ofstudying communication motivesin relationships. Martin and Rubin (1994) found that competent com-municators converse with a new person for affection, pleasure, andrelaxation but seldom for control. Further, the control motive was relatedto using reward-type affinity-seeking strategies (e.g., Ill like you moreif you do this for me.). On the other hand, people communicating fromthe affection motive reported using other-involvement affinity-seekingstrategies (e.g., altruistic behavior, being concerned for the other, etc.).
.
In a study ofcompliance-gaining strategies and motives, Javidi, Jordan,and Carlone (1994) reported that people communicating from a controlmotive tended to be more directby using simple questions or statements.They also used more aggressive communication, showing more concernfor instrumental gain and less for the relationship. Communication for
pleasure related to more negotiation-type strategies.Graham et al. (1993) studied different relationship types (coworkers,
family members, spouses/lovers, etc.) to find that employees communi-cated with coworkers for relaxation, and they did so using a friendly, ani-mated communicator style.Another aspect of that study examinedmotives and self-disclosure to find that people communicating for plea-sure or affection discussed a number of topics but on a less personal level.Yet communicating for inclusion requiredbothbreadth and depth in con-versations. Similarly, Martin and Anderson (in press) found that peo-ple with different motives will self-disclose differently. For example, peoplewho communicate to satisfy affection needs reported being more hon-
est in their self-disclosures. The results fromthese studies indicate, then,that people with different motives for communicating do communicatedifferently.
In task groups,Anderson and Martin (1995) found that (a) members
communicating for pleasure are more responsive to others, which leadsto higher satisfaction, and (b) members communicating from a need for
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
5/18
252
affection are more satisfied. In organizations, the relationships betweencommunication variables and satisfaction are established (Allen et al.,1993). This study contributes to that research by showing how commu-nication motives relate to satisfaction and commitment.
Satisfaction and Commitment
Commitment and relationship satisfaction are popular themes inorga-nizational research (Allen et al., 1993). One reason is that interpersonalrelationships atwork are contributingfactors (Jablin, 1979; Jablin & Krone,1994).As one example, Gorden,Anderson, and Bruning (1992) found that
employees satisfied with jobs and coworkers perceived their companiesas committed to their welfare and rights and even product quality. Simi-
larly,in this
study,it was
thoughtthat motives for
communicatingshould
relate to positive outcomes concerning employees commitment to their
companies and satisfaction with superiors and jobs.Commitment is an attitude or a behavior, although Mowday, Porter,
and Steers (1982) suggestboth are linked in thateach reinforces the other.Buchanan (1974) defines commitment as an employees adoption ofthe
organizations values (identification), involvement (psychologicalimmer-
sion), and loyalty (affection/attachment). Others see commitment asthe extent to which employees (a) contribute to the organizations well-
being (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1979), (b) share in managerially pro-moted organizational images (Tredwell & Harrison, 1994), or (c) are
partners in a social-exchange idea in that each gives to the other (Eisen-berger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990).
Leverings (1988) quid pro quo (partnership) model supports an argu-ment that an employees commitment should be balanced by the
employers. Employers commitments focus on: (a) product quality, (b) goodworking environment, and (c) employees welfare in the form of fair pay,benefits, etc. In two studies, Eisenberger et al. (1990) learned that
employees perceived that their organizations cared and valued contri-butions related to positive performances. Buchanans (1974) longitudi-nal study found that employees socialization is important, especiallyduring the first year.After that, employees needed good interactionswithcoworkers and superiors to maintain positive attitudes.
Communication studies find commitment is linked to employee voiceand argumentativeness, which concepts involve freedom to speak up aboutconcerns and ability to argue issues surrounding those concerns (Gor-
den & Infante, 1991; Gorden, Infante, & Graham, 1988: Infante & Gor-den, 1991).Allen (1992) tested a model of communication sources (topmanagement, coworkers, and supervisors) along with commitment and
perceptions ofsupport.Allen foundcommitment and support comes fromcommunication with top management and, to some extent, with supe-riors. Further, when employees perceived no support from their bosses,
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
6/18
253
communicating with coworkers made them feel a sense ofmembershipthat, in turn, strengthened commitment.
Satisfaction often is measured along with commitment. Mowday etal. (1979) said that while commitment concerns attachment to the orga-nization, satisfaction is a response to the task. Perspectives vary, though,on the satisfaction variable. Satisfaction is viewed from: (a) needs the-
ory or the extent to which needs are met, (b) discrepancy theory or whatemployees actually receive versus what they believe they should receive,(c) equity theory or a combination of input-output balance, or (d)Herzbergs intrinsic (recognition) or extrinsic (pay) factors (Downs,1977; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969; Wanous & Lawler, 1972). Becausesatisfaction is an important variable, several valid instruments exist,
tapping responses to satisfaction withwork, pay, jobs, etc. (Glick, Jenk-ins, & Gupta, 1985; Roberts & OReilly, 1974; Roberts, Walter, & Miles,1971; Smith et al., 1969; Wanous & Lawler, 1972).
In summary, the commitment and satisfaction literature supports thevalue and utility of examining these organizational variables. The fol-
lowing hypotheses address, then, their relationships with communica-tion motives.
HypothesesRelationships are expected between employees motives for commu-
nicating with superiors and coworkers and their commitment to their
organizations, satisfactionwithjobs, and satisfactionwith superiors. Since
existing research tends to find the control and escape motives as nega-tively relating to relational outcomes, while the other motives relate pos-itively, the two hypotheses reflect these findings. The duty motive ispredicted to be in a positive direction because ofthe task nature ofget-ting ones job done.
Hl: Employees commitment and satisfaction with superiors andjobs will be positively related to the pleasure, inclusion, affection, duty,and relaxation motives but negatively related to the control and escapemotives for communicating with superiors.
H2: Employees commitment and satisfaction with superiors and
jobs will be positively related to the pleasure, inclusion, affection, duty,and relaxation motives but negatively related to the control and escapemotives for communicating with coworkers.
Gender
Wood and Phillips (1984) argue against believing that the male cul-ture is normative by suggesting that two distinct, genderized culturescoexist. Reviews ofgender differences and communication are available
(Allen et al., 1993; Baker, 1991; Fairhurst, 1985; Giles & Street, 1994;Jablin & Krone, 1994).
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
7/18
254
Some gender researchers believe as Schwartz (1992) does that cul-tural differences are more complex between the sexes in organizationsthan even such biological concerns as maternity leave.A cultural per-spective is rootedin socialization theory that says males and females are
sex-role trained and expected to behave differently.These differences existin communication patterns. For example, in professional settings, menand women differ in their communication strategies (Baker, 1991).
Although Jablin and Krone (1994) argue that people form impressionsof how employees communicate in organizations from family, schools,mass media, peers, and adolescentpart-timejobs, early male and femalesocialization is an underlying factor.
Research shows thatmen andwomen communicate differently at work
(Baker, 1991). For example,women
displayless
competitivenessthan
males in conflict management strategies (Gayle, 1991), while males use
power strategies more than females (Rossi & Todd-Mancillas, 1987). Brass
(1985) study demonstrated that women engage in informal networks,&dquo;especially with other women,&dquo; more so than men, and that each gen-der tends to &dquo;interact with itself&dquo; (p. 339).Although studies show malesand females may communicate differently, motives were not included.
Therefore, gender and motives are investigatedunder research questions.Four research questions addressed differences in motives for com-
municating with superiors and/or coworkers:RQ 1: Will males and females differ in motives for communicating with
their superiors?RQ 2: Will males and females differ in motives forcommunicating with
coworkers?
RQ 3: Will females differ in motives for communicating with superi-ors versus coworkers?
RQ 4: Will males differ in motives for communicating with superi-ors versus coworkers?
Method
Participantswere 202 (113 females; 89 males) full-time employees rang-ing in ages from 20 to 63 (M = 36.31, SD = 10.71) years old. The major-itywere college graduates (40.7%) or had some college education (34.5%).Employees were either non-management personnel (50.5%) or in super-visory or management positions (49.5%). Theyworkedfrom 35 to 80 hours
per week(M= 44.22, SD = 7.08), with the majority employed at the same
company (67.5%) and for the same boss (67.5%) for two or more years.Organizations were ina major metropolitanand industrial section ofthemidwesternUnited States. Some employingorganizations were reportedas: manufacturing (31.4%), financial (14.4%), and service (12.9%). The orga-nizations represented had 1-20 employees (32.9%), 21-100 employees(35.6%), 101-500 employees (20.6%), and over 500 employees (10.8%). Gen-
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
8/18
255
der was reported for superiors (females = 62; males = 140) and cowork-ers (females = 108; males = 94).
Procedures
Evening students enrolled in a senior-level organizational communi-cation class fulfilled a researchrequirementbyrecruiting at least 10 full-time workers to volunteer to complete a questionnaire. Students had sixweeks to return the questionnaires, with delivery ofthem as proofofcom-
pletion.A cover letter assured recruited participants of anonymity and
confidentiality. Each participant was instructed to place the completed ques-tionnaire in the envelope provided and return it to the person who gaveit to them.An abstract of results was sent by supplying an address.
Instruments
Participants reported motives forcommunicatingwith coworkers and
superiors through Rubin et al.s (1988) Interpersonal Motives Scale
(IMS). The IMS is an 18-item, Likert-type scale measuring affection, con-
trol, escape, inclusion, pleasure, and relaxation dimensions. Three itemswere used (Rubin et al., 1988) for the duty dimension (e.g., because its
expected of me; because it would be rude not to do so; and because its
part ofmy job). Scale range was Almost always true&dquo; (5) to Almost nevertrue&dquo; (1). Since one goal ofthis study was to compare motives across thetwo targets and since six motives (duty is new) are established as reli-able and valid (Anderson & Martin, 1995; Graham et al., 1993; Rubin et
al., 1988), the motives were treated independently.Analyses ofthe inter-nal reliability of the items produced coefficient alphas for communicat-
ing with superiors, as follows: affection = .70; control = .67; escape = .80;inclusion = .71; pleasure = .82; relaxation = .87; and duty = .76. Coefficient
alphas forcommunicating with coworkers were: affection = .64; control=
.74; escape=
.75; inclusion=
.78; relaxation=
.80; pleasure=
.72; andduty = .71.
Commitment was measured by six Likert-type items from Mowdayet al.s (1979) Organizational Commitment Scale. The scale was used byInfante,Anderson, Martin, Herington, and Kim (1993). In the presentstudy, coefficient alpha was .78. Satisfactionwith superior and with workwere each measuredby six, Likert-type items based on the Job Descrip-tion Index (Smith et al., 1969). Other studies employed this scale (Infante& Gorden,1991; Infante et al., 1993; Wheeless, Wheeless, & Howard, 1984).In this study, coefficient alphas for satisfaction with superiors and withwork were .78 and .73, respectively.
Results
The hypotheses predicted relationships between interpersonal motivesand the three organizational outcomes. To investigate the relationship
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
9/18
256
betweenthese two sets of variables, two canonical correlations were con-ducted. The hypotheses predicted positive relationships for pleasure,escape, affection, inclusion, control, relaxation, and duty motives for com-
municating and employees commitment and satisfaction with superi-ors andjobs. The canonical correlations had the motives as one set, withthe relational outcomes as the second set. One significant root wasfound for communicating with superiors (Wilks lambda = .60, p < .001;Rc = .58, Rc2 = .33). Table 1 summarizes the canonical analysis.
Table 1
CanonicalAnalysis ofEmployees Motives for Communicatingwith Superiors and Their Satisfaction and Commitment
Note: Rc = .58, Rc = .33, lambda = .60, F (3, 196) = 5.07, p < .001.
The hypothesis was substantially supported except for the control andrelaxation
motives,which motives cannot be
interpretedas
meaningful.Thus, employees communicating with their superiors for pleasure, inclu-sion, and, to a slight degree, for affection reported high satisfactionandto a lesser extent commitment to their organizations and job satisfac-tion. These same relational outcomes applied to employees communi-
cating not to escape and to a slight extent not because of duty.The canonical correlation for communicatingwith coworkers also pro-
duced one significant root (Wilks lambda = .80, Rc= .40, Rc2 = .16). Table2 summarizes the canonical analysis.
The hypothesis was supported for three motives. Employees com-municating with their coworkers for affection and to a slight degree inclu-
sion, but not for escape, reported high satisfaction with work and to alesser extent satisfaction with their superiors and commitment to their
organizations. Relaxation, duty, control, and pleasure motives were not
significant in this analysis.
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
10/18
257
Table 2
CanonicalAnalysis ofEmployees Motives for Communicatingwith Coworkers and Their Satisfaction and Commitment
Note Rc = .40, Rcl = .16, lambda = .80, F (3, 196) = 2.16,p < .01
Research questions one and two asked ifmales differed from femalesin motives for
communicatingwith
superiorsand/or with coworkers. For
superiors, t-tests revealed that for females the motives of affection (t =
2.52, df = 198,p < .01) and relaxation (t = 1.97, df = 198,p < .05) were sig-nificant. For coworkers, t-tests found that females communicated morewith coworkers out ofaffection needs (t = 3.62, df = 200,p < .001), while
males communicated with coworkers more for control (t = 2.31, df = 200,
p < .05). Table 3 presents the t statistics.Research questions three and four addressed gender differences in
motives for communicating with superiors versus coworkers. The t-test
statistics are in Table 4.The analyses showed that males communicated more with cowork-
ers than with superiors for pleasure, escape, affection, relaxation, con-
trol, and inclusion. The duty motive was not significant. Femalescommunicated more with coworkers than with superiors for pleasure,escape, affection, relaxation, control, and inclusion, but when it cameto duty, communicated more with superiors than with coworkers.
Discussion
Downs, Clampitt, and Pfeiffer (1988) question contributions fromresearchers investigating employees satisfaction and commitment dueto such factors as the variability among organizations. Yet, this study isa case in point for arguing that contributions are being made.A grow-ing body ofresearch finds that peoples communication motives explainsatisfaction interpersonally. This studys utility and value, then, is
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
11/18
258
movement into the organizational context to connect communicationmotives for communicating with superiors and coworkers with employ-ees satisfaction with superiors and jobs, as well as commitment.
Table 3Male and Female Differences in Motives for Communicating
with Superiors and with Coworkers
Note: df = 1,198 (superiors), 1,200 (coworkers), *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Employees who communicate with their superiors for pleasure andnot just to bide time (escape) report high satisfaction with those supe-riors. In fact, the relationship between motives with superior satisfac-tion shows the importance ofcommunication in satisfying needs in this
superior/subordinate dyad. Findings are consistent with those ofInfanteet al.
(1993),Infante and
Gorden, (1991),and otherswho
reportthat
goodcommunication climates lead to satisfaction, e.g, subordinates like supe-riors who are not verbally aggressive towards them or use threateningcompliance-gaining tactics. This is not to say that superiors and subor-dinates have to be good friends or intimates (very personal), but that com-munication between them cannot be totally irrelevant (escape) or totallyinformative/taskfocused (duty). Employees in this study say they com-municate with their bosses to fulfill needs associated with (a) a satis-
factory relationship (inclusion) and (b) closeness (affection).
Althoughresearchers continue studying superior/subordinate powerand status differences, in this study, employees appear &dquo;cognitivelyand
behaviorally&dquo; a part of their organizations (see: Jablin & Krone, 1994).Their motives for communicating extend beyond the relationship toinfluence satisfaction with their jobs and a commitment to their com-
panies. Interestingly, most of the participants in this study worked for
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
12/18
259
their organizations and their bosses for two years or more. Perhapscoworkers meeting each others interpersonal needs may explain reten-tion beyondwhat Buchanan (1974) describes as first-year socializationtactics.
Table 4Gender Differences in Motives for Communicating
with Superiors Versus Coworkers
Note: df = 1, 111 (females), 1, 86 (males), *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
When it comes to motives for communicatingwith coworkers, employ-ees needs differ. Employees communicate for closeness and intimacy
(affection),which motives relate to
job happiness, commitment,and
satisfaction with bosses. Findings supportAndersonand Martins (1995)study reporting a direct relationship between affection and group mem-
bers perceptions ofcohesion and consensus, as well as communicationsatisfaction. Meaningful questions to investigate might be: What otherorganizational outcomes besides commitment and satisfaction withwork and superiors are affected by motives for communicating withcoworkers? Productivity? Subsequent satisfaction in groups?
This studys findings provide evidence that non-task oriented com-
munication motives serve a valuable function in organizations.A nextstep wouldbe to look athow coworkers communicate to satisfyeach othersneeds for affection. What do coworkers say to each other? What com-
municator style is most effective? Since Graham et al. (1993) found thata friendly, attentive style is important interpersonally, findings inan orga-nizational context could provide validity.
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
13/18
260
Although Rubin and Rubin (1985) argue convincingly for the inter-face ofinterpersonal and mediated communication motives, the escapemotive may be more appropriate when exaniining motives and media.
Employees did not communicate at all from a need to escape. Similarly,AndersonandMartin (1995) found escape negatively relates to satisfactionin on-going task groups. This finding is good news for management.Employees communicate for other reasons than to fill in time at workor in task groups. Quite simply, people spending 40 or more hours a week
working need toknow that others aroundthem care about them, like them,etc. We communicate at work for pleasure too.Althoughsome argue that
situation-specificmotivation to communicate is a better predictor of workand performance (Zorn, 1993), there appears to be a consistency of
needs (inclusion, pleasure, affection, etc.) leading to satisfaction that cutacross contexts. This lends support for argument advanced by Schutz
(1966) and Rubin et al., (1988). Making sure that employees understandthat their communication should address each others interpersonalneeds could boost morale and, possibly, productivity.
Researchers should continue to investigate new motives for commu-
nicating even though the duty motive played a minor role in this study.Since motivationcauses and sustains behaviors (Steers, 1981), researchers
might even follow Zorns (1993) suggestions to include Locke and Hennes
(1986) heuristic framework for exploring work motivation as part ofan interactive communication process.An employee could self-reportmotives for communicating, while his/her superior and/or coworkercould rate that employees communication effectiveness and produc-tivity.Although the control motive was not significant in the coworker and
superior analyses, control explains gender differences, with men more
likely to communicate for control (see Table 3). Males appear to com-municate more
instrumentallywith
coworkers,while females commu-
nicate more expressively (for affection). It may be that males have a
greater need to gain compliance, especially from coworkers, althoughRubin et al. (1988) speculate that &dquo;little satisfaction is gained from
interpersonal control&dquo; (p. 621). For females, perhaps more relationally-oriented needs override getting others to behave as they want. On theother hand, feelings of powerlessness are known to stimulate control-
type communication by females (Jablin & Sussman, 1983). Since other
factors, e.g., superiors upward influence, status, job function, etc. can
be mediating factors in the influence process (see: Seibold, Cantrill, &Meyers, 1994), researchers could more closely examine why females donot find communicating from needs associated with functional commu-nication as important as males do.
Females more than males communicate with bosses and coworkers
for affection and with bosses for relaxation. These findings seem to sup-
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
14/18
261
port Bridge and Baxters (1992) study.Although their study did not focuson gender and work/friendship roles, Bridge and Baxter found all-female
groups (63%) perceived coworker and friend roles as blended. Workfriends provide understanding that eases frustrations andjob-related anx-ieties. Since workers in this study had a communication and relational
history with their bosses and coworkers, perhaps for females, feelingsoffriendship with both dyadic partners at work is necessary for qualitywork life. Baker (1991) confirms that women communicate at work foraffiliative reasons (friendships), while males talk more about job issues
(instrumental talk).A reason females may seek affection may be because they perceivetheir organizations as less concerned about their needs (Wood & Con-
rad, 1983). These perceptions could motivate them to engage in com-munication behaviors that seek caring responses. Schwartz (1992) andGorden et al. (1992) suggest that womens special needs include role mod-
els, employee voice, and help with family responsibilities.A limitation is that this study investigated why employees commu-nicate but not how. Do motives influence communication messages that
do, in fact, result in affiliative or instrumentalcommunication patternsthat differ for males and females?
One
illuminating findingis that females and males do not differ in com-
munication motives when it comes to comparing which work relation-
ship type they see as more likely to fulfill needs. Coworkers serve as targetsover superiors, with only females saying the duty motives influences themto speak to superiors over coworkers. Explanations could point to supe-rior/subordinate power/status differences, or simply that employeesspend more time communicating withcoworkers, which leads to greaterintimacy, friendships, etc. Certainly, the findings point out the impor-tance of studying motives along with communication and relational
outcomes in coworker relationships. Organizations benefit from this studyand others that help them understand how to improve employee rela-
tionships. To extend the findings here, researchers could follow Jablinand Krones (1994) suggestion to consider how technology and the
growth of group participation influence communication between co-workers.
-- -
NOTES
1Principal components factor (varimax rotation) analyses ofthe motives produced
noninterpretable results. Six factors emerged for communicating with coworkers,with escape and inclusion loading together. For superiors, four factors were found,with the pleasure, relaxation, and affection items loading together and escape andinclusion motives loading as another factor. The other motive items loaded as
expected.2Two MANOVAs (2 x 2) using employee sex and target sex as the independent
variable, with satisfaction with superior, satisfaction with coworker, and commit-
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
15/18
262
ment as the dependent variables, showed that gender of target was not significantin this study.
3Carolyn M.Anderson (Ph.D., Kent State University), is anAssistant Professorin the Communication Department, The University ofAkron, Akron, OH 44325.
Matthew M. Martin (Ph.D., Kent State University) is anAssistant Professor in theCommunication Department, West Virginia University, Morgantown,WV 26505. Cor-
respondence should be sent to the first author.
REFERENCES
Allen, M. W. (1992). Communication and organizational commitment: Perceived orga-nizational support as a mediating factor. Communication Quarterly, 40, 357-367.
Allen, M. W., Gotcher, J. M., & Seibert, J. H. (1993).A decade oforganizational com-munication research: Journal articles 1980-1991. Communication Yearbook, 16,252-330.
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). The effects of communication motives, inter-action involvement, and loneliness on satisfaction:A model ofsmall groups. Small
Group Research,26,118-137.
Baker, M.A. (1991). Gender and verbal communication in professional settings:Areview of research. Management Communication Quarterly,5,36-63.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Mens and womens networks:A study of interaction patterns andinfluences in an organization.Academy ofManagement Journal, 28, 327-343.
Bridge, K., & Baxter, L.A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associ-ates. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of
managers in work organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 19,533-546.
Daly, J.A. (1987). Personality and interpersonal communication. Issues and direc-tions. In J. C. McCroskey & J.A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal com-munication (pp. 13-41). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Downs, C. W. (1977). The relationship between communication and job satisfaction.In R. C. Huseman, C. M. Logue, & D. L. Freshley (Eds.), Readings in interper-sonal and organizational communication (pp. 363-376). Boston, MA:Allyn &Bacon.
Downs, C. W., Clampitt, P. G., & Pfeiffer,A. L. (1988). Communication and organi-zational outcomes. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook oforga-nizational communication (pp. 171-212). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizationalsupport andemployee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal o f AppliedPsychology, 75, 51-59.
Fairhust, G. (1985). Male-female communication on the job: Literature review and
commentary. Communication Yearbook,9,83-116.
Gayle, B. M. (1991). Sex equity in workplace conflict management. Journal of
AppliedCommunication
Research,19,152-168.Giles, H., & Street, R. L., Jr. (1994). Communicator characteristics and behavior. In
M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication
(pp. 103-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glick, W. H., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1985). Method versus substance: How
strong are underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinaloutcomes?Academy ofManagement Journal, 3, 441-464.
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
16/18
263
Gorden, W. I.,Anderson, C. M., & Bruning, S. D. (1992). Employee perceptions ofcorporate partnership:An affective-moral quid pro quo. Employee Responsibil-ities and Rights Journal, 5, 75-85.
Gorden, W. I., & Infante, D.A. (1991). Test of a communication model of organiza-
tional commitment. Communication Quarterly, 39, 1-7.Gorden, W. I., Infante, D.A., & Graham, E. E. (1988). Corporate conditions conducive
to employee voice:A subordinate perspective. EmployeeResponsibilities and RightsJournal, 1, 101-111.
Graham, E. E., Barbato, C.A., & Perse, E. M. (1993). The interpersonal communi-cation motives model. Communication Quarterly, 41, 172-186.
Indvik, J., & Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1986). Perceptions ofinclusion, affiliation, and con-trol in five interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly, 34, 1-13.
Infante, D.A.,Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Herington,A. D., & Kim, J-K.
(1993). Subordinates satisfactionand
perceptionsof
superiors compliance-gain-ing tactics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and style. Management Com-munication Quarterly, 6, 307-326.
Infante, D.A., & Gorden, W. I. (1991). How employees see the boss: Test ofan argu-mentative and affirming model ofsupervisorscommunicative behavior. WesternJournal of Speech Communication,56,294-304.
Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinatecommunication: The state ofthe art. Psy-chological Bulletin, 86, 1201-1222.
Jablin, F. M., & Krone, K. J. (1994). Task/work relationships:A life span perspec-tive. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commu-
nication (pp. 621-675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Jablin, F. .M., & Sussman, L. (1983). Organizational group communication:A review
of the literature and model of the process. In H. H. Greenbaum, R. L. Falcione,& S.A. Hellweg (Eds.) Organizational communication:Abstracts, analysis &overview, 8, pp. 11-50). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Javidi, M. N., Jordan, W. J., & Carlone, D. (1994). Situational influences on the selec-tion or avoidance of compliance-gaining strategies:A test of motivation to com-municate. Communication Research Reports, 11, 127-134.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The socialpsychology of organizing. New York: JohnWiley.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Uses and gratifications research.Public Opinion Quarterly,37,164-181.
Levering, R. (1988).A great place to work: Why are some employees so good (andmost so bad). New York: Random House.
Locke, E.A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robert-son (Eds.), International review ofindustrial and organizational psychology 1986.Chichester: John Wiley.
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (in press). The father-young adult child relation-ship : Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quar-
terly.Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1994, November).Affinity-seeking in initial inter-
actions. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting ofThe Speech CommunicationAssociation, New Orleans, LA.
McLeod, J. M., & Becker, L. B. (1981). The uses and gratifications approach. In D.D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 67-100). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
17/18
264
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1979). The measurement of organiza-tional commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-227.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee organization link-
ages: Thepsychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Roberts, K., Walter, G., & Miles, R. (1971).A factor analytic study of job satisfactionitems designed to measure Maslow need categories. Personnel Psychology, 24,205-220.
Roberts, K. H., & OReilly, C.A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in orga-nizations : Three possible culprits.Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205-215.
Rossi,A. M., & Todd-Mancillas, W. R. (1987). Male and female differences in man-
aging conflicts. In L. P Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, gen-
der, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts (pp. 96-104). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.Rubin,A. M. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human Commu-
nication Research,5,109-120.
Rubin,A. M. (1981).An examination of television viewing motivations. Communi-cation Research, 8, 141-165.
Rubin,A. M. (1986). Uses, gratifications, and media effects research. In J. Bryant &D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 281-301). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubin,A. M. (1993). The effects of locus ofcontrol on communication motives, anx-
iety, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 41, 162-171.Rubin,A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communi-
cation :A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 36-53.
Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C.A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurementof interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research,14, 602-628.
Rubin, R. B., & Rubin,A. M. (1992).Antecedents ofinterpersonal communicationmotivation. Communication Quarterly,40,305-317.
Schutz,W C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. PaloAlto, CA: Science and Behav-
ior Books.Schwartz, F. N. (1992). Management women and the new facts of life. In K. L.
Hutchinson (Ed.), Readings in organizational communication (pp. 393-403).Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
Seibold, D. R., Cantrill, J. G., & Meyers, R. A. (1994). Communication and interpersonalinfluence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook ofinterpersonal com-munication (pp. 542-588). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfactionin work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Steers, R. M. (1981). Introduction to organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott,Foresman.
Tredwell, D. F., & Harrison, T. M. (1994). Conceptualizing and assessing organiza-tional image: Model images, commitment, and communication. Communication
Monographs,61,63-85.
Wanous. J. P., & Lawler, E. E. (1972). Measurement ofjob satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 50, 95-105.
by Sergio Mndez Valencia on August 19, 2009http://job.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/http://job.sagepub.com/ -
8/10/2019 ComWhy Employees Speak to Coworkers and Bosses
18/18
265
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. (1984). The relationship ofcom-munication with supervisorand decision-participation to employeejob satisfaction.Communication Quarterly,32,222-232.
Wood, J. T., & Conrad, C. (1983). Paradox in the experiences ofprofessional women.
Western Journal of Speech Communication,47,305-322.Wood, J. T., & Phillips, G. M. (1984). Report on the 1984 conference on gender and
communication research. Communication Quarterly, 32, 175-177.
Zorn, T. E. (1993). Motivation to communicate:A critical review with suggested alter-natives. Communication Yearbook,16,515-549.