_......:._: :2
.........:. ,
. .

r
,. . 1‘... .3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

: L2,
Z ..
.. . ::

 

3 . .

$1.2

I.
, .

 

1.....9

.V 1.1.7..
2.3.11.1... . ..
. r :1 , 3.3%..
t V.
"10.33. .P I :
a. . .. l
. .. .

.

 

 

‘mgms

I
N, \l‘ 3 '1“.
C" .

 

LIBRARY
Michigan 93:6
l University

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEES' RECALLED
ROLE NEGOTIATION EPISODES

presented by

Letticia Noelle Callies

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Communication

MW ma

Major professor

 

Date //,//q//0/

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

{‘0’

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

(-er
1' 1
AV

DS‘IHBFO'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cICIRCIDdoDuupos-ms

 

AN ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEES’ RECALLED ROLE NEGOTIATION EPISODES
By

Letticia Noelle Callies

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2001

ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEES’ RECALLED ROLE NEGOTIATION EPISODES
By

Letticia Noelle Callies

Despite its importance to employee adjustment and role development, research to date
largely overlooks both communicative aspects and contexts of employee role negotiation
efforts. This study focuses on the inﬂuence of the supervisor-subordinate relationship
quality on employee role change efforts, especially elemental negotiation behaviors such
as information seeking, information giving, problem-solving, and logrolling during role
change attempts. Although the study’s hypotheses were not supported, analyses indicate
that engaging in problem—solving, versus making simple role requests, is related to giving
and seeking more information on ideas/plans as well as success and satisfaction in role
negotiation. Employees are also more apt to problem-solve when seeking pivotal role
changes and make simple requests when seeking relevant role changes. Implications for

future research are discussed.

Copyright by
Letticia Noelle Callies
2001

Dedicated to my Teacher-God, and all the special people
He put in my life that supported me through this project.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I want to thank God for giving me the strength and patience to
complete this thesis, proving to me that what I thought was impossible, You made
possible.

Thank you Dr. Vernon Miller for all your hard work, guidance, and dedication.
You have supported me in numerous ways and worked with me to bring out my
strengths. This thesis paper would not have been successful without you. Dr. Sandi
Smith and Dr. Kevin Ford, thank you for all your input and guidance and for all the hard
work you put into shaping and perfecting this thesis paper. Your time and effort are very
much appreciated. Thank you Jennifer Veit and Jennifer Rathje for your dedication and
determination with coding and organizing the data You were there for me especially at
those last minute calls. Thank you for helping me make this possible.

I would like to give special thanks to all the organizations that opened their doors
and allowed me to use their employees to collect my data. Truly, if it wasn’t for your
generous time and cooperation, I would not have been able to complete my analysis.
Thank you so much.

I would also like to thank my wonderful husband, Byron, for all your support,
patience, understanding, and love. You are “My Hero”. You came through for me
especially when I needed you most. I would have never made it without you.

Thank you Mom and Dad for all your support and prayers. You helped me make
it through the hard times and you gave me a boost when I needed to be lifted. Thank you
for raising me to always believe in myself and for teaching me to strive for even the most

unreachable goals. I wouldn’t be here if it were not for you.

Rachelle, thank you for your support and prayers. You have always been there
for me since I was in diapers. You always bring out the best in me. Thank you for
believing in me.

David and Manny, you are the best. Thank you for your prayers and support.
You made me smile and laugh especially on those tough days.

Mom and Dad Callies, Melissa, Clairene, Grandma, and the whole family, thank
you for your prayers and support. You gave me so much love and joy that I knew I
would make it through. I share my happiness with you.

I would like to thank all my friends for your prayers and support especially
Giselle, Maria, Lizy, Ysy, Cherie, Maribel, Faudia, Suzy, Misako, Fay, and Michael. I
am so grateful for our friendship. Thank you for being there for me. You all are
wonderful.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank all my ﬁ'iends here at Michigan State
University, especially Marge, Isa, Merissa, Stacie, Jill, Eric, Professors, and fellow
Graduate Students; you supported me with your time, guidance, suggestions and

emotional support.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. viii
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 3
Organizational Roles .................................................................... 3
Motivation to Change Roles .................................................. 4
Negotiated Changes ..................................................................... 5
Role Negotiation Research ..................................................... 7
Role Negotiation Behaviors ................................................... 9
Leader-Member Exchange ........................................................... l3
Leader-Member Exchange and Negotiation Behaviors ......... 14
CHAPTER 2
METHODS ........................................................................................ 1 7
Participants ................................................................................... l 7
Procedure ..................................................................................... 1 8
Role Change Stimulus .................................................................. 18
Survey Measures .......................................................................... 19
Quality of Leader-Member Exchange .................................... 19
Negotiation Behaviors ............................................................ 19
Background and Role Change Outcomes .............................. 23
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS .......................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 33
Negotiation Behaviors .................................................................. 33
Role Making ................................................................................. 36
Workplace Implications ............................................................... 39
Limitations ................................................................................... 41
Future Research ............................................................................ 43
APPENDICES ................................................................................... 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 52

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 ............................................................................................ 21
TABLE 2 ............................................................................................ 26
TABLE 3 ............................................................................................ 31

viii

INTRODUCTION

Employees are thought to modify continually their roles to suit their needs,
abilities, and desires (Jablin, 2001; Schein, 1968, 1971). One form of modiﬁcation, role
negotiation, involves the exchange of information leading to a revision of supervisory
expectations of subordinate roles and behaviors (Miller, Jablin, Casey, Lamphear-
Vanhom, & Ethington, 1996). These information exchanges are characterized by the
giving and seeking of information, building upon shared interests, modifying initially
proposed positions, and developing a co-orientation or agreement on the nature and
manner of the role change (Miller et al., 1996).

Role negotiation is an important communicative event in organizations. Role
negotiation represents an active form of adjustment, or role-making (Graen, 1976; Graen
& Scandura, 1987) where employees move beyond received roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978)
and attempt to alter the expectations of members of their role set. As an overt
communication act, role negotiation involves the management of conversation, facework,
persuasion, and bargaining (Jablin, 2001; Miller et al., 1996). In contrast to covert role
change forays, role negotiations can be collaborative where the rationale, parameters, and
implications of desired role changes are deliberated. In addition, these superior-
subordinate information exchanges focus on roles and their enactments, which are the
fundamental building block of social systems (Katz & Kahn, 1978), the source of
considerable stress and discussion (Ilgen & HollenbeCk, 1991), and the foci of upward
inﬂuence attempts and conﬂict management (J ablin, 2001).

Despite its importance to employee adjustment and role development, research to
date (e. g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Lamphear-Van Horn, Boster, Miller, & Johnson,
2000; Miller, Johnson, Hart, & Peterson, 1999) largely overlooks both communicative

aspects and contexts of role negotiation efforts. With the exception of Olufowote and

Miller (2001) who compared employee reports of successful upward inﬂuence tactic use
with the importance of the role change, little is known about factors inﬂuencing
employee role change efforts. Paradoxically, even less is known about elemental
negotiation behaviors such as information seeking, information giving, problem-solving,
and logrolling (e.g. Jordan & Roloff, 1997; Pruitt, 1983; Tutzauer & Roloﬁ, 1988) during
role change attempts.

Consequently, in keeping with calls for research on the communicative elements
of role negotiation (Jablin, 2001; Miller et al., 1999), this study considers how the
perceived quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationship inﬂuences how employees
negotiate their roles. Speciﬁcally, this study tests the notion that the relationship quality
differentially creates opportunities and constraints on communication exchanges
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga ,1975; Dienesch & Linden,1986; Fairhurst, 2001; Linden,
Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) as evidenced in employees recall of information giving,
information seeking, problem-solving, and logrolling negotiation behaviors (Jordan &
Roloff, 1997; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988). The ﬁrst chapter reviews theory and research
related to role negotiation, communicative behaviors associated with role negotiation, and
role change contexts as situated in leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships. The
next chapter reports the methods used in the investigation. The third and fourth chapters
report the results of the investigation and discuss their implications for theory application,

respectively.

Chapter 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

Organizational Roles
Roles are socially constructed portrayals of the expected behaviors,

responsibilities, and style associated with individuals’ positions (Jablin, 2001; Zurcher,
1983). Employee roles encompass jobs, “a set of task elements grouped together under
one job title” (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991, p. 319), as well as functions that serve
individual, unit, and organizational needs. This composite of tasks and functions may be
formally or informally speciﬁed and can be assessed by examining the stated
expectations of role set members (J ablin, 2001; Katz, 1980). Roles are also associated
with certain rights, duties, and privileges (Jablin, 2001), and their centralin to organizing
personal and work routines and managing the complex dynamics of interpersonal
relations leads Katz and Kahn (1978) to refer to roles as “at once the building block of
social systems and the summation of the requirements with which the system confronts
the individual members” (p. 186).

Supervisors’ expectations of employee tasks and functions that comprise a role
can be categorized as pivotal, relevant, or peripheral (Schein, 1968). Pivotal role
elements are those critical to task completion or even unit success, and failure to fulﬁll
pivotal expectations is likely to result in disciplinary action. Relevant role elements, less
critical to task or unit success, may afford employees with more discretion regarding the
manner and timing of completion. Peripheral elements are tangential or picayune, and
peripheral expectations can often be sidestepped with few consequences (Zurcher, 1983).

Roles are dynamic, not static, and change in accordance with individual, role set
(supervisor, co-workers, and key others), and organizational needs. This investigation is

particularly interested in employee-initiated changes to the formal and informal rights,

duties, and privileges that comprise an employee’s role (Jablin, 2001). The following
considers employees’ motivation to change their roles, negotiation as a mechanism for
role change, and research to date on role negotiation.

Motivation to Change Roles. The motivation for employees to modify their roles
stems from several sources. For one, newcomers may attempt role change in order to
align their tasks and responsibilities with their pre-entry expectations. When individuals
enter an organization, they are given a position and are primarily subject to others
expectations about how the role should be performed (J ablin, 1982; Wanous, 1980). As
new hires become more acclimated, they attempt to “individualize” (Jablin, 1982, p. 256)
their role by modifying its components to meet their needs, desires, and abilities. Thus,
rather than generally accepting the role as dictated by the organization (i.e., role-taking;
Katz & Kahn, 1978), employees partake in role-making (Graen, 1976; Graen &
Scandura, 1987) and actively seek to modify elements of their job.

Employees are also motivated to alter their roles when faced with role conﬂict
and role ambiguity. Role conﬂict is marked by “the simultaneous occurrence of two or
more role sendings that compliance with one would make more difficult the compliance
with the other” (Katz & Kahn, 197 8, p. 204). In order to avoid recriminations from not
fulﬁlling others’ role expectations, employees may negotiate with the role-sender(s) to
attain role clarity and reduce the occurrence of conﬂicting expectations. In turn, role
ambiguity, resulting from vague information about the scope of responsibilities, task
objectives, available resources, and evaluation standards (Katz & Kahn, 1978), may also
pose considerable difﬁculty for employees (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). In order to
clarify supervisory expectations, subordinates may seek information from their supervisor
and/or a co-orientation on task priorities and the basis of task evaluation.

It would be remiss not to point out that some individuals seek role change when
they become bored with their set of duties and desire new challenges. Others seek to

realign their responsibilities in order to improve their or their unit’s efﬁciency (Axtell et

al., 2000; Frese, Teng, & Wijnen, 1999; Jassen, 2000). At other times, assigned roles
may pose formidable challenges and create undue stress (Kalm, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek,
1964; Katz, 1985). Other individuals may desire role changes so that the majority of
their responsibilities become ones that they enjoy, will be politically, monetarily, or
socially beneﬁcial and/or require less efforts (Zurcher, 1983).

In short, there are many reasons why individuals seek proactively to alter their
roles and their supervisor’s expectations. Efforts to achieve greater effectiveness,
efﬁciency, or convenience through role change are also not conﬁned to organizational
entry, but probably occur throughout employees’ tenure in the organization (J ablin,
2001). As such, role-making theory (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987) suggests
that individuals co-construct their roles, and the sustaining of role enactments is highly
dependent upon others (Katz, 1980; Zurcher, 1983).

Negotiated Changes

Role negotiation “occurs when two or more persons consciously interact with the
express purpose of altering the other’s expectations about how a role should be enacted
and evaluated” (Miller et al., 1996, p. 296). As a forum for supervisors and subordinates
to discuss job elements, tasks, and responsibilities as well as employee needs and desires,
resulting joint agreements and understandings appear to be central to meeting
subordinates’ needs and organizational requirements (J ablin, 2001).

Employees may instead opt for other forms of role change where there is minimal
interaction with their supervisor. For instance, secondary adjustments, as coined by
Goffman (1961), refer to role changes without supervisory approval (Zurcher, 1983).
Employees assume (or cease) new tasks/responsibilities on their own initiative and
continue to perform such until the supervisor observes the change and then implicitly or
explicitly approves the changes or disciplines the subordinate. These changes may
signiﬁcantly improve their job performance or unit efﬁciency (e. g., new methods or

techniques to achieve production goals,l trading responsibilities with coworkers) or,

conversely, lessen individual’s or their work unit’s effectiveness in the eyes of the
supervisor. 1 Secondary adjustments are principally covert in nature and have the potential
to create gaps between the superior and subordinate in their shared understanding of role
objectives and actual performance. Covert actions are likely to result in a host of
undesirable outcomes such as violation of trust, demotion, hurt feelings, ostracism, or
even dismissal, especially when performance is weakened. In contrast, role negotiation is
primarily an overt form of change. Manifested in proposals, stated rationales, and

rej oinders between supervisors and subordinates, these negotiations are based on
cooperative relationships and, comparatively, open message exchanges. Consequently,
this study focuses on role negotiation and its communicative aspects.

The manner by which employees negotiate their roles has considerable
importance to communication researchers, primarily because role negotiation processes
highlight the importance of information exchange. In some cases, the objective of role
negotiations may concur with the supervisors’ inclination, and negotiations may go
smoothly. At other times, supervisors may be reluctant or even oppose the stated (or
suspected underlying) change objective, and negotiations may require considerable
reworking of initially proposed ideas, sacriﬁcing a few objectives in order to secure other
gains, and/or even accepting additional duties to attain the original objectives.
Regardless, exchanges of information between superiors and subordinates are central to
the sharing of role requests, expectations, and responsibilities leading to their agreement
or eo-orientations for role change (J ablin, 2001; Miller et al., 1996).

Through overt message exchanges, role negotiations provide superiors and
subordinates with opportunities to set forth personal, task, group, and organizational
information pertinent to the requested role change. Such exchanges are likely to include
rationales and motivations in support or opposition to the change (Miller et al., 1996).
Although at times both parties may be less than forthcoming about their motives or even

support/oppose the change, at the very least there is some degree of effort to verbalize the

desire for and the nature of change. In this respect, role negotiations emulate
participative decision-making where subordinates are afforded some degree of authority
over their roles and contribute to its co-construction (Seibold & Shea, 2001).

Role negotiation also represents the conﬂuence of upward inﬂuence, negotiation,
and conﬂict management behaviors in dyadic settings. Employees use upward inﬂuence
tactics such as expressing verbal assertiveness, explaining reasons for request, coalitions,
upward appeals, ingratiation, and leveraging past favors to press for acceptance of their
sought-after change (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Olufowote & Miller, 2001;
Schriesheirn & Hinkin, 1990). Role change requests are likely to be tailored in the most
persuasive manner possible to suit the supervisor’s interests and unit’s needs. In turn,
role negotiation may involve “an exchange of proposals and counterproposals as a means
of reaching a satisfactory settlement” (Putnam, 1985 p. 129). It would not be surprising
for role change requests to undergo several iterations where some elements are dropped
and others are included (Miller et al., 1996). Employee conﬂict management behaviors
may also be central to role change efforts when working toward integrative solutions and
discussing interpersonal tensions or conﬂicts (Putnam & Poole, 1987).

Role Negotiation Research. Whereas investigations of upward inﬂuence,
negotiation, and conﬂict management may provide valuable insights into role
negotiations, such research is presently limited. For instance, upward inﬂuence studies
rarely examine speciﬁc job- or role-related changes as targets or objects of inﬂuence and
have little consideration for the long-term effect of inﬂuence attempts on employee job
performance or circumstances (J ablin, 2001; Olufowote & Miller, 2001). Negotiation
tactics such as logrolling and integrative tactics (e.g., Jordon & Roloff, 1997) are thought
to have a central place in role negotiation (Miller et al., 1996), yet negotiation research
typically addresses issues such as hours, wages, and power differentials in dyadic
relationships (Putnam & Poole, 1987). A number of investigations of employee conﬂict

management behaviors are at times directed at gaining insight into and improvement in

supervisor management skills (Putnam & Poole, 1987), and these cases typically consider
work conditions, complaints, supervisory style, personality differences (Roloff, 1987;
Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999) and performance appraisals (Grisby, 1983) with
little regard to employee role changes. Commenting on research on employee upward
inﬂuence attempts, voice, and perceptions in role/self development, Jablin (2001) asserts
that "it is evident that we need to conceptualize and study role negotiation in terms of the
interdependent inﬂuence and negotiation strategies that newcomers and other
organizational members use in the process of negotiating roles over time” (p. 781).

Research to date explicitly examining role negotiations can be grouped into three
categories: perceived negotiation ability, proactive socialization, and relationships. For
example, Miller et al. (1999) report that the openness of the superior-subordinate
communicative relationship and supervisor facilitation of employees’ work positively
affect insurance company employees’ perception of their ability to negotiate their roles.
In turn, perceived role negotiation ability is negatively related to their role conﬂict
experiences, but positively related to their reported job satisfaction. In a re-analysis and
extension of the same study, Lamphear-Van Horn et al. (2000) ﬁnd that employee
integrative conﬂict style was positively while nonconfrontation style was negatively
related to their role negotiation ability and that role negotiation ability mediated the
impact of conﬂict style on their level of job satisfaction.

Using a longitudinal sample of MBA graduates, Ashford and Black (1996) found
that those with a high desire for control are likely to report negotiating job changes with
their supervisors and coworkers. Kramer and Noland (1999) report that 65% of a sample
of recently promoted employees attempted to change other employees’ (i.e., former peers
who are now subordinates) expectations while the remainder of the sample sought to
change superiors’ expectations, especially with regard to guest complaints, customer
relations, and training. However, recently promoted employees report that their change

attempts frequently fell short of their goals.

In an examination of upward inﬂuence tactics, J ablin and Miller (1993) report that
recent college graduates’ use of speciﬁc inﬂuence tactics (e.g., rationality, exchange,
ingratiations, coalitions) in role change attempts increased between six months and 18
months following organizational entry. Further, increases in exchange tactic use are
linked to newcomers’ self-report of higher levels of communication competence and
participation in cohesive work groups. Over time, newcomers report a decrease in their
use of ingratiation, rationality, and coalition tactics. Olufowote and Miller’s (2001)
investigation of automobile assembly employees indicates that high LMX employees
report using rationality tactics, but low LMX employees report using exchange of
beneﬁts tactics to achieve pivotal changes.

In sum, research to date provides initial insights into the antecedents, conditions,
communication approach (i.e., upward inﬂuence strategy), and general outcomes of role
negotiation. While these ﬁndings are useful, they still largely overlook the details and
dynamics of role negotiation behavior. In particular, there is little understanding of the
interactions between subordinates and their supervisors in terms of how employees
repackage arguments, the extent to which individuals provide or seek information to
create more acceptable positions, how subordinates initiate role change conversations, or
how successful role negotiations are achieved. The following section considers several
communicative behaviors that employees may use in role negotiations.

Role Negotiation Behaviors. Research on negotiation behaviors in organizations
considers a number of perspectives, ranging from bargaining positions and relational
tactics to conﬂict strategies and message exchanges (Putnam & Roloff 1992; Bazerrnan
& Lewicki, 1983). In general, successful and unsuccessful negotiations are thought to
revolve around the distributive and integrative approaches. A distributive approach,
characterized by the use of threats, positional commitment, and arguments why the other
party should concede, reduces the likelihood of joint agreements. Parties polarize or

present plans constructed with incomplete information. A collaborative approach,

characterized by the exchange of information and willingness to accept trade-offs,
increases the likelihood of joint agreements (Pruitt & Lewis, 1975). Parties have greater
opportunities to construct positions leading to successful negotiations when informed of
the other’s needs and rationale. In an effort to explore communicative behaviors
associated with role negotiation, this study examines behaviors considered prominent in
successful negotiations: information giving, information seeking, problem-solving, and
logrolling (Jordon & Roloff, 1997; Pruitt, 1983; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988).

Information exchange refers to the giving and seeking of information between
two parties to ascertain salient issues, to locate areas for trade-offs, and to assign meaning
to the other persons actions (Putnam, 1985). Information exchange is thought to be
critical in the achievement of integrative agreements (i.e. agreements that reconcile both
parties’ interests yielding joint beneﬁt as opposed to agreements forced upon one party).
According to Pruitt (1981) information exchange and subsequent insights lead to
integrative agreements only when bargainers believe that each member is concerned with
the needs of the opponent. Camevale, Pruitt, and Seilheimer (1981) posit that the
exchange of information about values and priorities allows negotiators to think
simultaneously about both parties’ welfare. Information exchanged in role negotiations is
likely to fall under evaluative work and descriptive work categories in Hudson & Jablin’s

(1992) Information-Giving Message Categorization Scheme:

“Evaluative work information includes utterances expressing opinions or
judgments related to discrepancies between expectations and experiences (overt
surprises), job stress, self-evaluation of performance, qualities and attributes of
the work role, and evaluations of individuals afﬁliated with the organization and
the organization itself....Descriptive work information includes nonevaluative
utterances related to such matters as task understanding, causes for task
performance, task goals, and task instructions” (Jablin, 2001, p.774).

Employees give information in order to establish or solicit reciprocity, identify

positions, and inform the other party about expectations. Key information to be shared in

10

role negotiations includes the nature of the proposed role (e.g., ideas, plans), its rationale,
how others will be impacted, and the employee’s ability to perform effectively in the new
role conﬁguration (e. g., justifying ability to handle new responsibilities). Fisher and Ury
(1981) suggest giving information in general to clarify misunderstandings, to identify
future accomplishments, and to reveal the speciﬁc desires and concerns of interests that
motivate negotiation. Pruitt and Lewis (1975) report that giving information about one’s
own proﬁt schedule is positively related to joint proﬁt.

Information seeking refers to the soliciting of evaluative and descriptive work
information from the other party in order to learn others’ expectations and align both
parties’ positions in hope of reaching an agreement. At the most basic level, employees
seek information by asking questions to generate responses from the other party (Fisher
& Ury, 1981). In role negotiations, employees may seek supervisory feedback regarding
their ideas, rationale, or ability to perform. Tutzauer and Roloff (1988) report that
information seeking leads to insight into opponents’ priorities, resulting in integrative
outcomes and subsequent satisfaction with negotiations. Further, Pruitt and Lewis (1975)
report asking for information about the opponents’ proﬁt schedule is positively related to
joint proﬁt.

A particularly important communicative aspect of employees role negotiations
concerns their making simple role-change requests of their supervisor or engaging in
problem-solving behaviors. Employees may make simple requests when they seek
relatively minor changes in their roles, incur little opposition to their request, and/or
solidify their responsibility for a task that they are already performing. Alternatively,

employees may engage in problem-solving behavior when the change request involves

11

role set members, there are equally preferred alternatives, an easy solution to a complex
situation does not exist, and/or an innovative solution is required. Problem-solving to
facilitate role change requests is a central aspect of integrative agreements where both
parties’ interests are reconciled and joint beneﬁts result (Pruitt, 1983, Tutzauer & Roloff,
1988). Problem-solving may be especially useful as a means to resolve role conﬂicts and
attain goals, rewards, and role clarity (Roloff, 1987).

One important aspect of problem-solving is logrolling, the trading off or yielding
issues of low-priority for gains on high priority issues (Pruitt, 1983; Tutzauer & Roloff,
1988). Tutzauer (1992) reports that trade-offs achieved through logrolling lead to
settlements beneﬁcial to both parties. Miller et a1. (1996) suggest that maternity
leavetakers through logrolling may sacriﬁce something of high value (e.g., guarantees of
returning to the same position) to gain other values (e.g., a longer maternity leave).
However, the awareness of others’ needs (Pruitt, 1981) and self-monitoring (Jordon &
Roloff, 1997) may be critical in the planned use of logrolling in negotiations. Hence,
while trade-offs among issues can be mutually beneﬁcial (Tutzauer, 1992), Jordan and
Roloff (1997) urge participants to be aware and take into account both sides of the issue
and be willing to abandon the narrow-minded positions for those more acceptable to
others.

To date, negotiation researchers primarily use information giving, information
seeking, problem-solving, and logrolling behaviors to examine more macro issues as part
of buyers and sellers or labor unions’ strategies (Pruitt & Lewis, 1975; Putnam & Jones,

1982; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988). Nevertheless, these negotiation behaviors may provide

12

valuable insights into the means to successful role negotiations. Consequently, this study
asks,

RQl: To what degree do employees’ report the use of information giving,
information seeking, problem-solving versus simple requests, and
logrolling in successful role negotiations?

L_eader-Member Exchange

According to Graen (1976) and others (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen &
Scandura, 1987; Graen & Schiemann, 1978), supervisors do not enact the same style or
managerial behavior across all their subordinates. Instead, supervisors differentiate in
their relationships with subordinates based on employee performance, background, and
trustworthiness. High LMX or “in group” relationships are characterized by mutual trust
and support (F airhurst & Chandler, 1989), working closely together with internal
common goals and mutual inﬂuence (F airhurst, 2001), and social exchanges extending
beyond what is required of the employment contract (Linden et al., 1993), leading some
to characterize these as “high quality relationships” (Fairhurst, 1993; Fairhurst, 2001;
Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987; Deluga & Perry, 1991).

Dansereau et a1. (1975) posit that “negotiating latitude,” the extent to which
superiors are willing to consider employees’ requests concerning role development, is
prototypical of high quality LMX relationships. In general, a high degree of negotiating
latitude is associated with high quality relationships while a low degree of negotiating
latitude is associated with low quality LMX or “out-group” relationships. Low quality
LMX relationships are characterized by the use of formal authority, exchanges that are
contractual in nature and role-bound, low levels of trust and support, and supervisory
perceptions that the subordinate is remiss with regard to work-related issues (F airhurst,
2001; Linden et al., 1993).

Research evaluating the quality of LMX relationships considers a variety of issues

including employee job satisfaction and performance (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen &

13

Schiemann, 1978), use of upward inﬂuence tactics (Deluga & Perry, 1991; Farmer,
Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997; Krone, 1992; Lee & Jablin, 1995; McClane, 1991;
Olufowote & Miller, 2001; Waldron, 1991), peer relationships (Sias, 1996), perceived
similarities (Linden, et al., 1993), participative decision making (Krone, 1994), and
communication expectations and gender (Lee, 1999). A recent meta-analysis (Gerstner
& Day, 1997) indicates that high quality LMX relationships are positively related to
employee job satisfaction, performance ratings, satisfaction with supervisor, organization
commitment, and role clarity, but negatively related to role conﬂict and turnover. In
short, the quality of the LMX relationship yields considerable inﬂuence on individuals’
work experiences.

However, few studies examine how the nature of superior-subordinate
interactions on role-related issues differ due to the quality of the LMX relationship. Such
investigations may provide insights into the elements and negotiation behaviors, which
contribute to high as well as low LMX employees’ success in changing their roles,
information that may be helpful for others as they attempt to alter their roles.

Leader-Member Exchangt; and Negotiation BehaLviors. As noted earlier, trust is a
distinguishing element in the quality of the LMX relationships (Graen, 1976; Graen &
Scandura, 1987). An investigation of dyadic loyalty (Jennings, 1967) indicates that in-
group relationships thrive on openness to ideas, reciprocal support, and propensity to
protect subordinates (Graen & Cashman, 1975). In contrast, low LMX employees
manifest communication behaviors indicative of low trust in their supervisors such as
avoiding interactions, deception and distortion, restrained expression, and few attempts at
creating closeness (Lee & Jablin, 1995). A number of other behavioral manifestations in
low quality LMX relationships are indicative of low trust within the superior-subordinate
dyad. For instance, Fairhurst, et a1. (1987) report that low LMX employees with
dominant managers have less decisional involvement, less negotiating latitude, and

poorer performance ratings than high LMX employees. Low LMX employees have little

l4

opportunity to discuss role change whereas supervisors of high and medium LMX
employees initiate opportunities for discussion of role expectations.

While not speciﬁcally examining the element of trust, Fairhurst and Chandler’s
(1989) analysis of superior-subordinate dialogues certainly portrays supervisors shaping
interactions based on the trustworthiness of subordinates’ ideas. They indicate that high
quality LMX supervisor-subordinate dyads have comparatively collaborative exchanges,
which are characterized by ample interactions, offers, and counter offers with minimal
power and status differences. As a consequence, high quality LMX dyad dialogues
mostly consist of idea exchange and discussion of plans and may not ﬁnd resolution in a
single episode or even over several episodes (e.g., Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989). In low
quality LMX dyads, there are few opportunities to discuss issues, and those discussions
are characterized by supervisory use of downward inﬂuence, giving instructions, few
suggestions, and a general unwillingness to continue discussions. Low quality LMX
dyad dialogues primarily consist of instruction and disregard of subordinate ideas and
Opinions, leading to agreement in a single episode in favor of the supervisor through
submission of the subordinate.

It is also anticipated that trust (or the lack thereof) in the supervisor-subordinate
relationship will have considerable inﬂuence on employees’ negotiating behaviors. A
number of factors increase the likelihood of high LMX employees’ negotiating success:
negotiating latitude, supervisory supportiveness, receptivity to ideas, opportunities for
and inﬂuence in decision making, frequent interactions, and the luxury to disagree and
continue dialogue over an issue (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989; Fairhurst et al., 1987;
Graen & Cashman, 1975). With access and the ability to present and discuss ideas at
length, high LMX employees seeking to change their role through negotiation are likely
to present their ideas and plans for change. They are also likely to present a rationale for
change in response to supervisory questions. High LMX employees are likely to focus

their information seeking efforts on supervisory reactions to role change ideas and the

15

soliciting of suggestions. The trust and support present in high quality LMX

relationships will also enable these employees to engage in problem-solving and

logrolling behaviors so that role change objectives can be attained.

Low LMX employees, however, face considerable obstacles in negotiating role

change. Supervisors’ lack of continuation of their ideas and cutting off of conversation

(Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989; Graen & Cashman, 1975) are likely to lead low LMX

employees to spend considerable energy justifying their positions and their ability to

perform under new a role conﬁguration. As such, the focus of low LMX employees’

information giving is likely to consist of justiﬁcations of their ability to perform or

implement changes. Similarly, low LMX employees are likely to concentrate their

information seeking efforts on supervisory expectations of their ability to perform

effectively under a new role conﬁguration. In turn, these employees are unlikely to

engage in logrolling behaviors unless initiated by the supervisor, and in these cases,

logrolling is likely to consist of trade-offs more beneﬁcial to supervisory expectations

than to the employee.

Thus, this study hypothesizes,

H1:

H2:

H3:

H4:

In successful role changes, high quality LMX employees will be more likely
to report giving more information about ideas and plans than low quality
LMX employees.

In successful role changes, high quality LMX employees will be more likely
to report seeking more information about approval of ideas and plans than
low quality LMX employees.

In successful role changes, high quality LMX employees will be more likely
to report using problem-solving behaviors than low quality LMX employees.
Conversely, low quality LMX employees will be more likely to report
making simple requests than high quality LMX employees.

In successful role changes, high quality LMX employees will be more likely
to report engaging in logrolling behaviors than low quality LMX employees.

16

Chapter 2

METHODS

Participants

Participants in the study were solicited from seven different organizations in the
Midwest that were targeted for participation due to their representation of the diverse and
hierarchical organizational roles of the larger population in the local business area. These
locals were either major departments of large organizations or branches of national ﬁrms
and employed between 4-1000 employees. In order to participate in the study the
employees were required to be full-time employees for at least one month and report to a
supervisor. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed that any
information reported in the survey would be kept conﬁdential and only used for research
purposes. A total of 302 surveys were distributed and 140 (46%) were returned.1 Out of
140 returned surveys, 65 (46%) reported details of a successful role negotiation episode
within the past six months.

Participants providing details of their role negotiation episodes could be described
as: about slightly more than half females (57%) and less than half males (43%); having
slightly more male supervisors (57%) than females (43%); being employed from 3 to 400

months (M= 81, Mdn = 33); and reporting to their immediate supervisor from 2 to 288

 

' The researcher distributed the surveys via mail to two organizations (response rates:
local Women’s Association 15%; local surveying company, 13%), personal presentation
to departments in one organization (response rate: local hospital administrative staff,
63%), and supervisors in ﬁve organizations (response rates: copying ﬁrm, 50%; cellular
phone branch, 100%; local apartment ofﬁce, 100%; Chamber of Commerce office, 53%).

17

months (M= 28, _M_dn_=18). There were no signiﬁcant differences between research
participants reporting the details Of a role negotiation episode and those only providing
background and demographic information.2
Procedure

Following Olufowote and Miller (2001), participants received a survey asking
them to describe a successful role change within the last six months that they initiated
and negotiated with their supervisors. Instructions related to the limited time frame were
deemed effective as a number of those responding to the survey, but those not reporting a
role negotiation episode indicated that they were in the process of negotiating a role
change or their most recent role change had occurred over Six months ago. Returned
surveys were divided into two categories, those providing details of a role negotiation and
those not. Except to compare background and demographic data between groups,
subsequent analysis were based only on those participants providing role negotiation
details.
Role Change Stimulus

In order to help participants recall their role change experience, they were given
instructions to describe: the aspect of their role that was changed, the reasons for the
change, and any dialogue between themselves and their supervisor (See Appendix A).

Participants were provided with a sheet of paper on which there were headings marked

 

2 Tests for differences between participants reporting role negotiation details versus those
not reporting such information on the distribution of their sex, their supervisor’s sex,
length of employment, length of reporting to their current supervisor, and their
organizational status were non signiﬁcant. Non-role negotiation reporting participants
were half male (50%) and female (50%), with more male supervisors (66%) than female
(44%), being employed by their organization for 2 to 384 months (1315102, M=54) and
reporting to their current supervisor for 1 to 168 months (M=30, Mdrfl 7).

l8

“You” and “Supervisor” in the margin to prompt participants’ reporting of their
interaction during role negotiation.
Survey Measures

Quality of Leader-Member Exchange. The quality of the LMX relationship was
measured from the subordinate’s perspective using the LMX-7 scale (Graen, Novack, &
Sommerkamp, 1982), modiﬁed (Fairhurst et al., 1987) to a ﬁve point Likert scale where
“strongly disagree”=l and “strongly agree”=5. A conﬁrmatory factor analysis (Hunter &
Gerbing, 1982; Hunter & Hamilton, 1986) revealed 08 (21, N=65) = 3.30, p< .05, SSE >
.05) the scale to be unidimensional with factor loadings ranging from .68-to .89, with a
reliability of or=.91. To test Hypotheses 1-4, a mean split at 3.00 was computed to create
high Q = 50) and low (r_r = 15). While the Mean (3.77) and Median (4.00) were
considerably higher, the hypothetical Mean was selected to reﬂect the larger distribution
in society (Graen & Scandura, 1987). A test between participants reporting and not
reporting role negotiation details in the last six months on LMX revealed a signiﬁcant
difference between the two groups (1 (134) = 2.98, p_<.05). Speciﬁcally, the group
reporting role negotiations were more likely to have a higher LMX score (M = 3.77) than
those not reporting a role negotiation episode (M = 3.21).

Nggtﬂamon BehaLiors. The negotiation behaviors were measured using a
modiﬁed coding scheme adapted from Jordan and Roloff (1997) and Tutzauer and Roloff
(1988). The content of the dialogue in the surveys were analyzed and divided into units
of analysis called statements. For the purpose of this study, a statement was an idea,
answer, question, or suggestion. Anything that indicated a pause, end of sentence, or shift

in topic, conversation, or behavior was the beginning of a new statement. Each turn

19

could include more than one statement (e. g., a subordinate who gives an answer followed
by a question would be two statements). While the negotiating portion of the survey was
formatted in a repetitive vertical list to encourage the reporting of speaking turns (e. g.
“You” and “Supervisor”), some participants reported the role change in a paragraph form
which included descriptions of the scenario as well as passive interaction dialogue (e.g.
“My supervisor was very supportive of the idea” versus the supervisor saying “That is a
good idea”). The paragraph descriptions were coded into statements using the portions of
the report that indicated or implied passive dialogue during the negotiation versus the
descriptive and narrative portions. The coding procedure was divided into six steps (See
Appendix B).

First, the statements were unitized. Second, the dialogues were reviewed to
separate utterances that were work-related (e.g., evaluative work and descriptive work;
Hudson & J ablin, 1992) from general conversations that were not work-related. Third,
the dialogues were read through once to identify information giving statements and then
again to identify information seeking statements. Informaﬁon gm statements were
evaluative or descriptive work utterances designated as proclamations, informing, or an
answer to a question. Informﬂion m statements were evaluative or descriptive
work queries targeted at the supervisor. Any statements that were not information giving
or seeking were coded into Miscellaneous. Fourth, the subordinates’ information giving
and information seeking statements were further analyzed to determine if the information
was (a) introducing plans or ideas for change, (b) defending or justifying the
subordinate’s ability to perform, (c) building trust and/or a positive relationship, or ((1)

other (See Table 1 for examples).

20

£2233 3:385 com voE>oa 2a .838me 8: .mcouﬁuonun

38am non 30¢. mew—com Ea wﬁzw cognac-«5 mo “3:52 30H 8 8A.. mo ovum gov/Ta

.bowoﬁo £5 5

maﬁa mm Beau 053 8588—3 0: $5 3865 8:ng .mcoungow 935$ E0852 macaw—~23 E came—one 85:3 .082 no M Z

 

 

 

 

3 3922? o: 55 3388 Hmong.“ RES 533% 038mm
a 03288 859535 3383230 98 883mm— wﬁZS-Eozem
N 33 Sm .33 mo mosmmm mo wane—om» ammo-ova:- was—0&3
emcee/30m 33385
m - o Amm. C m ﬂ ._ E. :33 9 22% uoom m 26: m? msooaazoommE
I- -- -I I- I- teamed
coueomcei
$3 8. e - o 83 mm. mm 2% e88 _ ea: 2: emcee“. 2,» 280.. 835:
$3 8. e - o 83 R. em 9.28m essence:
$3 5. N - o GS 8. N . 2.8 58 e5 ea; :3, as sea. _ .53.. 22:5
ARE 2. m - o am. 3 em. 8 . .wESaE as, as has 3 a; r eeeaeeé
:3 mm. m - o 8a. 3 cad wﬁ :. . duo.“ #93 a 886 9 8:— 233 r. «veg—m
G _ .V a. e - _ 8. .8 m2 9N maze essence:
m6< gang—agony
eocoﬂno com $o< mo 882.580 382.580 moaqﬁwxm 333.

A58 502 amend .02 :32 .02 Ecu-

 

ﬁaoESSm SAME—:35 mo mound tam mcouﬂzn Pawn—am £582 .moﬁﬁwxm

m 2an

21

Fifth, following Jordon and Roloff’s (1997) example of coding a series of
negotiation statements, participants’ role change dialogues were subsequently coded as a
simple request or problem-solving behavior. A simple request was deﬁned as an episode
where the subordinate’s initial proposal was accepted by the supervisor with minimal
effort (e. g., Subordinate: “I would like to change the design of the linen room”,
Supervisor: “Go for it.”) and without elaborate discussion of the proposed idea or plan.
Simple requests did not require collaborative efforts to overcome conﬂicting interests or
the discussion of alternative options. In a goblem-solving episode the supervisor and
subordinate worked together to reach a solution that was beneﬁcial to both parties and the
organization (Pruitt, 1983). Problem-solving included: (a) detailed discussion about the
rationale and implementation strategies of the plan, (b) discussion and evaluation of
potential outcomes, (c) consideration of possible alternatives, and/or ((1) modiﬁcation to
ideas or plans following input from supervisor. Sixth, the dialogues were reanalyzed for
evidence of logrolling behaviors. Logrolling was deﬁned as trade-offs or yielding on
issues of low-priority for gains on high priority issues (Pruitt, 1983; Tutzauer & Roloff,
1988)

Following the coding of all reported episodes, miscellaneous statements were
disregarded. The number of employees overall information giving statements,
information giving ideas/plans, information giving justiﬁcations, information giving
rapport, overall information seeking, information seeking ideas/plans, information
seeking justiﬁcations, and information seeking rapport per episode were then calculated

and each was divided by the total number of episodic employee statements. These ratios

22

of statements served as the dependent variables to H1 and H2.

Aﬁer the reported episodes were reviewed for information giving and seeking,
each episode was coded for problem-solving or simple request behaviors. Episodes were
coded as one (1) for problem-solving and zero (0) for simple request. Subsequently, the
episodes were reviewed again for the use of logrolling behavior. Episodes showing
evidence of logrolling behavior were coded as one (1) and those without logrolling were
coded as zero (0). These categorical data served as the dependent variables for H3 and
H4.

Sixty-ﬁve role negotiation episodes produced 347 statements from the dialogues
reported by subordinates. Supervisory statements (n = 256) were not included in this
study. For the purposes of assessing reliabilities, a primary coder coded all of the
reported episodes and unitized statements. A secondary coder recoded l9 dialogues
(29% of the sample) and 111 statements (32% of total subordinate statements). A third
coder resolved any disagreements between the ﬁrst two coders. Reliability of coding as
determined by Cohen’s kappa was .89, with 95% agreement for information giving
ideas/plans, 88% agreement for information giving justiﬁcation, 100% agreement for
information giving rapport, 86% agreement for information seeking ideas/plans, and 95%
agreement for miscellaneous statements. Reliability for problem-solving versus simple
plans was Cohen’s kappa = 1.00, (100% agreement), and 1.00 for Cohen’s kappa for
logrolling (100% agreement).

Background and Role Chgge Outcomes. Using Jablin’s (1982) organizational
status measure with “1=top” and “5=bottom,” 5% of participants were in the top ﬁfth of

the hierarchy, 14% were in the second ﬁfth, 49% in the middle of the hierarchy, 24% in

23

the next to bottom ﬁfth, and 8% in the bottom of the hierarchy. Participants also reported
perceiving that 37% (n=23) of their supervisors viewed their role changes as a pivotal
change while 44% and 19% viewed the role change as relevant and peripheral,
respectively (Miller, Meiners, Beery, & Kim, 2000).

In addition, participants reported considerable variability in how easy it was to get
their supervisors to agree to role changes like the one they provided here (M = 3.33, S_D =
.99), the degree of change experienced in the strategic purpose of their job within the last
six months (M = 2.94, S_D_ = .94), the degree of change experienced in the manner of
performing tasks in the last six months (M = 3.00, SQ = .91), their satisfaction with role
change (M = 3.27, S_D = 1.00), and the extent they were successful in negotiating what
they wanted in the role change (M = 3.33, _S§ = 1.02). Participants responded to the
items using ﬁve point scales ranging from 1 = low to 5 = high. (The scale anchors are

reported in Appendix C).

24

Chapter 3

RESULTS '

Research Question One inquired into subordinates’ reported use of various
communicative acts associated with role negotiation. As reported in Table 1, out of 347
statements reported by participants, 246 (71%) were identiﬁed as information giving acts,
24 (7%) were information seeking statements, and 77 (22%) were miscellaneous
statements (x2 (2, N = 65) = 64.42, p<.0001). When removing miscellaneous statements,
the mean ratio of overall reported information giving acts to all other acts per episode
was .93 with information giving ideas/plans occurring at M: .73, justiﬁcation at M

ratio = .19, and rapport at M ratio = .01 per episode. The mean ratio of overall reported

 

information seeking per episode was .07, mirroring the M = .07 per episode for
employees seeking ideas/plans. Participants did not report any seeking justiﬁcations or
rapport. Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations between these
variables and background and outcome variables.

An analysis of the overall role negotiation episodes indicated that in 44 (68%) of
these episodes, participants made simple role change requests. In contrast, in 21 (32%)
episodes participants engaged in problem-solving behaviors. A ﬁnal re-analysis of all
episodes reported in this study revealed logrolling occurring in two (3%) out of 65
possible instances.

Hypothesis One predicted that high quality LMX employees would report
providing more ideas and plans to their supervisors than low LMX employees. T-tests

revealed no signiﬁcant differences (at p_<.05) in the mean ratio per episode of giving

25

.5. V ma... .mo. V m...

mouZ

 

aahm.
aaow.
MN.
com.
aaho.

E

3.
Q.
Q.
2.

No.

6V

3.
N".
Z.
2.

mo.

nice;

6

mo.
ac.
co.
3.
oo.
m g.
co.-
co.-

A3

No.-
mo.
co.-
co.
3.-
no.
8.-
mo.-
3.

6

we.-
mo.-
co.-
:.-
8.
ho.-
aavv{
aavvr
MN.-
*awwf

6

”or No;
o_.- co;
N_.- 3.
2.- 3.
nor am.
co. mm.
2.3.- 26
tumor 2.
no. we.
8. mm.
1.3. gm.
- 2.
3 mm

mm.m
5N6
86.
mod
MOM
Rd
no.
no.
8.
a _ .
mu.
8.

502

omega mo downtown: E 3303 Bﬁoﬂom 33
28 5 omega 5MB cowoﬂmumm 2 5
x93 wﬁgotoa me 5:52: E 09.30 83

90:0 omega omwoﬁbm 5 own—EU

omega 5m? 3258? “83.695 mo 8mm
oweenoxm 53802-833

med—m magnum coves—e85 mo ovum

=Eo>o mama—com sewage? mo owed
wEEBn tongue wﬁﬁw seams—BE mo ovum
:ouwomwmsm wﬁzw cognac: mo owed
mam—a wﬁﬁw nowmgomﬁ mo ovum

=80; wEZw soueeuomﬁ mo ovum

av
g
5
GO
5
ca
5
5
€

 

 

 

$56580 :ouwn—oboo Ea acoumgoﬂ 2356 882

N 29¢

26

.5. V .92.. .mo. V m...

 

monz
- :Q. .3. .mm. .3. N3 m2 omega? 838mg...mmooosmBzoeoimc
- :3. :mm. :8. 2: RM geaowﬁﬁ amaaouoamﬁmcs
- :8. .wm. a. 8d xmsmaéotagossaeeowgus:
- .3. g. 3m coco ”8&3 233% a ”mass av
- oo. mm.m omega 53> EoEoBmm acmmtazm mo omwm 3v
8. R... ”9356 “3802.384 5
25 S. 8% wags... 8.38555. 25. 6v
2. 8. €05 @203 Swansea? 23m 6
3. 8. was? 2238 3% 85:35 Mo 25 E
R. 2. cassava... 3% 8.3.503? 23m 5
:u 2.. 8% wazw nouméeaco 23m 6
2. 8. .326 3% 8:853? 25 E
a: c: 8: € 5 am :82

 

 

 

$565000 norm—BSD can mcoummﬁa @8935 332

3.83 N 22¢

27

ideas and plans between high and low LMX employees. Analyses of mean differences
between high and low LMX employees’ ratios of information-giving justiﬁcations and
rapport were also non signiﬁcant. No signiﬁcant differences were present in the ratio of
overall information giving acts between the two groups. 3

The second hypothesis predicted that high quality LMX employees would report
seeking information about their ideas and plans for role change to a greater degree than
low LMX employees. T-tests revealed no signiﬁcant differences in the mean ratio per
episode of high and low LMX participants’ seeking information about their proposed
ideas and plans. No signiﬁcant differences were found for subsequent exploratory
analyses of mean differences in ratios of overall information seeking acts between high
and low LMX employees.

Hypothesis Three predicted that high quality LMX employees were more likely to
report using problem-solving behaviors than low LMX employees while low LMX
employees were more likely to make simple role change requests than high LMX
employees. Results of a chi-square test revealed no signiﬁcant differences in the
problem-solving and simple request behaviors of high and low LMX employees.
Subsequent exploratory analyses inquired into the relationship of problem-solving/simple
requests with the giving and seeking of information on role change ideas and plans. Chi-
square analyses revealed those making simple requests were more likely to provide

between zero to two idea/plan statements while those engaging in problem-solving were

 

3 For tests of H1-2, power analysis for high LMX cells was determined to be .999 for
large effects, .960 for medium effects, and .235 for small effects. For low LMX cells,
power was determined to be .889 for large effects, .480 for medium effects, and .097 for
small effects.

28

more likely to provide between three to eight idea/plan statements (12 (4, lg = 65) =
10.65, p<.05). Similarly, chi-square analyses indicated that those making simple requests
were more likely to either never or on one occasion to seek information regarding
supervisory reaction to their ideas or plans while those engaging in problem—solving were
more likely to seek such information between two and four times per episode (x2 (4, E =
65) = 14.56, p<.006).

The fourth hypothesis predicted that high quality LMX employees were more
likely to engage in logrolling than low LMX employees. Chi-square tests failed to reveal
signiﬁcant differences in logrolling behavior between high and low LMX participants.

Subsequent post hoc exploratory analyses examined differences in reported role
negotiation circumstances and outcomes. Speciﬁcally, further analyses centered on the
inﬂuence of participants’ enactment of problem-solving or simple request communicative
acts and the quality of LMX relationship on role negotiation circumstances and
outcomes. Results of two-way analysis of variance indicated (high/low LMX x problem-
solving/simple request) a signiﬁcant interaction effect for participants’ report of their
success in getting what they initially sought in their role negotiation (E (1,60) = 5.15,
p<.03, 113 = .08) and near signiﬁcant interaction for their satisfaction with role
negotiations (E (1,60) = 3.07, p<.09, ni= .05). Post hoc tests also showed a signiﬁcant
main effect in their enactment of problem-solving versus simple role requests on

participants’ success (E (1,60) = 6.18, p<.02, 113 = .09) and their satisfaction with the role

change (E (1,60) = 6.08, p<.02, n: = .09). Signiﬁcant main effects were not found for
LMX on these outcomes. While these ﬁndings must be interpreted cautiously due to the

small number of low LMX participants who engaged in problem-solving in the study, as

29

suggested in Table 3 low LMX employees who engaged in problem-solving reported
greater success (M= 4.00) and satisfaction (M = 4.00) in their negotiations than low
LMX employees who offered simple role change requests (M = 2.25, M = 2.42,
respectively). No other signiﬁcant interactions were present among other role change
circumstances or outcome variables.

Post hoc analyses also identiﬁed signiﬁcant differences associated with problem-
solving versus simple requests in negotiations circumstances and outcomes. Specifically,
employees who enacted problem-solving were more likely to report a greater change in
the manner of performing their job (M=3.35; E (1,62) = 4.56, p<.04, 113 = .07) than those
who made simple requests (M = 2.84).

Analyses also revealed that the nature of the role change (i.e., pivotal, relevant, or
peripheral) varied between problem-solving and simple request communicative acts (x2
(2, E = 63) = 6.12, p<.05). Subsequent analyses revealed that employees seeking pivotal
role changes engaged in problem-solving acts to a greater degree than by chance while
those seeking relevant role changes made simple requests to a greater degree than by
chance. There were no signiﬁcant differences in participants’ report of the ease of
getting their supervisor to agree to the role change or change in the strategic purpose of
their job.

Finally, post hoc analyses revealed that high LMX employees (M = 3.64) reported
greater ease in getting their supervisor to agree with the proposed role change (E (1,62) =

34.57, p<.0001, n3= .36) than low LMX employees (M = 2.21). High and low LMX

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m g RA NVN N co. ooé cowoﬂmgm mm 5. 3nd 3 on. Ed 3
2 we; mm.m m oo. ooé wmwdmmlmu mm No. mm.m M: as. GM 3
m ﬂaw :32 w. «Em :82 m gm :32 m 4% :32
measles mega gala a
£95m -8038; 295m -8030:—
lxglﬂﬂﬂ x24 E
.aouﬂaouuz

 

 

 

 

2cm 5? cowomMmumm 2% E mmuoosm you coumwowoz an X53 mo $3.. :8 5m Bﬁﬂomtwm mo .8983: 98 3098328 Ewe—ham 3on

m 2an

1

3

employees did not signiﬁcantly differ in the pivotal, relevant, and peripheral nature of the
role requests, change in the strategic purpose of their job, or change in the manner of

performing their job.

32

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

While it is generally believed that communicative behaviors are vital, even
necessary, for successful change in individual’s jobs and work settings (Graen &
Scandura, 1987; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Katz & Khan, 1978), few studies explore the
communication behaviors surrounding role change or contributing to successful role
changes (J ablin, 2001). This study seeks, in an exploratory fashion, to investigate oﬁen
glossed-over details of communication related to role change. While results from the
study should be viewed cautiously due to their exploratory nature and the limited sample
of reported role episodes, the study extends insights well-founded in negotiation behavior
research (Jordon & Roloff, 1997; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988) and illuminates selective
aspects of communication within the role-making process (Graen, 1976; Graen &
Scandura). The following discussion considers this study’s contributions toward
understanding role negotiation, limitations of this investigation, and suggests directions
for future investigations in this area.

Mtion Belgvior;

Scholarly works on negotiation, particularly on interactions during bargaining
between buyers and sellers (Jordon & Roloff, 1997; Pruitt, 1981; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975;
Tutzauer, 1992; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988) identify a number of communicative behaviors
such as information sharing and integrative procedures (e.g., problem-solving, logrolling,
expanding the pie) that are associated with greater joint gains and satisfaction among

participants. Indeed, this body of research sets forth a template for exploring negotiations

33

of all sorts within organizational settings.

In comparison to current negotiation and bargaining studies, this study’s
methodology is both elemental and limited. For some time now, scholars investigating
exchanges in interpersonal and ﬁnancially related bargaining and negotiations commonly
consider hundreds or thousands of statements, interaction patterns between participants,
and strategies emerging from dialogue (e.g., Bazerman & Lewicki, 1983; Jordan &
Roloff, 1997; Putnam, 1985; Putnam & Jones, 1982; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975; Tutzauer &
Roloff, 198 8). These investigations are aided by transcripts of interactions and limited
topics at times set within a time frame. In contrast, this investigation relies on the recall
of participants who provided information on an interaction that took place up to six
months previously. However, the long neglect of communication behaviors associated
with role change (Jablin, 2001) and even the potential value of rather broad, inexact
conversational recalls in this case outweighs rather substantial methodological
disadvantages anticipated by Stafford & Daly (1984). As such, interpretation of these
ﬁndings should be guided by the recognition that employees are providing details of past
conversations and that any one, particular reported episode may not be representative of
their other interactions with their supervisor or of other role negotiations.

Within the conﬁnes of these limitations, however, this study provides important
insights into employee role negotiation behaviors. Moving away from the narrowly
deﬁned salary or personal disputes associated with many organizational bargaining and
conﬂict investigations, this research examines episodes affecting work processes and
other employees. This study also considers role change efforts deemed “successful” in a

very broad sense.

34

A particularly compelling set of ﬁndings from this study concerns the quantity of
information giving statements, particularly with regard to giving ideas and plans for
change reported across role episodes. Information exchange is a hallmark of integrative
agreements (Pruitt, 1983), and it behooves employees to provide information on the
parameters of the change and its rationale and to respond to any concerns expressed by
their supervisor (Miller et al., 1996). As would be expected in episodes characterized as
problem-solving, employees provide more ideas and plans than in episodes characterized
as making simple requests. Employees engaging in problem-solving also seek
information from their supervisors regarding these ideas and plans more than those
making simple requests. Problem-solving may be the most appropriate tactic when role
issues are complicated, others (i.e., role set members) are affected, the rationale or
strategy for implementation requires explication, alternative actions must be weighed,
and/or others must sign off on the idea or plan. Indeed, participants whose role change
efforts were characterized as problem-solving report greater change in the manner of
performing their jobs compared to those who make simple requests. Similarly,
employees seeking pivotal role changes were more likely to engage in problem-solving
while those employees seeking relevant role change were more likely to make simple
requests. Pivotal changes, which alter the strategic nature of the role change (Schein,
1968), may affect other unit members’ core responsibilities and be difﬁcult to reverse if
the change does not succeed.

Overall, the need for co-orientation when seeking role modiﬁcations and its
importance to individuals and their units forms an important link between negotiation

research (Pruitt, 1983, 1981; Putnam, 1985; Putnam & Poole, 1987; Putnam & Roloff,

35

1992; Tutzauer, 1992) and role research (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Ilgen & Hollenbeck,
1991; Jablin, 2001; Kahn et al., 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Data capturing efforts to
modify organizational roles can provide researchers with a fertile and important range of
issues that parties have high interest in settling amicably and quickly.

Role-making

Graen & Scandura (1987) posit that in role-making supervisors and subordinates
deﬁne the nature of their dyadic relationship and reveal how they will behave in
problematic situations. The role-making process aptly describes employee
“individualization” and/or modiﬁcation of their roles during their assimilation into the
organization (e. g., Jablin, 1982; Fairhurst, 2001). While role-making portends to be a
critical element in understanding employees actions and adjustments, with few
exceptions (e.g., Zurcher, 1983) relatively scant details exist regarding how employees
modify their roles and even less is known regarding its communication elements. While
narrow in sc0pe, several important initial indicators emerge from this investigation.

As an initial observation, it is interesting to note that two-thirds of participants in
this sample make simple requests targeted at relevant role changes while a greater
proportion of problem-solving interactions aim at pivotal role changes. Still, there are
instances of employees making successful simple requests for pivotal and peripheral
changes as well as employees successfully engaging in problem-solving to achieve
relevant and peripheral role change. These ﬁndings suggest that role negotiations should
be conceived very broadly to accommodate a simple request and ascent with little or no
prior ground work as well as a protracted (e. g., over several weeks) and possibly difficult

information exchanges. It is also evident that over half of the initial sample did not

36

experience a successful role change negotiation in the last six months, although it is
unclear if the lack of negotiated changes is indicative of their overall work experience.
For instance, some participants not reporting a role negotiation episode indicated that
their most recent successful role negotiation was six months past. Others reported that
they were in the midst of role negotiations. For the majority of participants not reporting
role negotiation episodes, it is not known whether the others had successfully modiﬁed
their roles through role negotiation or secondary adjustments, were in jobs that ﬁt their
needs and did not require adjustments, whether their supervisors were not receptive to
role negotiations, or they had failed to achieve “success” in their negotiation efforts.

With regard to LMX relationship status, the mutual trust and support (Fairhurst &
Chandler, 1989), common internal goals, mutual inﬂuence (F airhurst, 2001), and
considerable social exchanges provide high LMX employees’ (Linden et al., 1993)
considerable advantages in role negotiations. For instance, they report greater ease in
getting their supervisor to agree to their role change goals, perhaps an outcome of their
considerable supervisory access. In contrast, a lack of trust and support plus
shortcomings perceived by their supervisors (Fairhurst, 2001; Linden et al., 1993) limit
low LMX employees’ negotiating latitude.

The emphasis on high LMX employees’ prowess, however, should not obscure
several important aspects of role negotiation. First, as evident from tests of the
hypotheses, LMX status in this study is not a good predictor of employees’ reported
information giving or seeking behaviors or their engagement in problem-solving or
simple requests. It is yet to be determined if the propensity to problem-solve or make

simple requests over the course of a superior-subordinate relationship is due to the LMX

37

relationship, the nature of the proposed role change, or employees intrinsic
communication patterns. _ Nonetheless, the results of this study suggest that role
negotiation transcends the simple dichotomies oﬁen associated with LMX theory, which
would suggest that high LMX employees can while low LMX employees can not
negotiate their roles.

Second, while ﬁndings related to low LMX employees in this study should be
viewed with caution, it is evident that low LMX employees do believe that they can
negotiate their roles through problem-solving or making simple requests. Their success
suggests that they were able to acquire information regarding their supervisor’s
preferences and/or needs in order to present or arrive at an acceptable role change. Such
information seeking (Ashford & Black, 1996; Miller, et al., 1996) may be indicative of
individual’s overall reconnoitering pattern or isolated motivation to gather information to
achieve a role change in a particular instance. Future role negotiation research should
consider individual negotiation skills as some employees may readily accomplish role
change through negotiation, regardless of their LMX status. Future investigations should
also consider differences in supervisory negotiation skills (even among high LMX dyads)
as some supervisors may be able to lead employees to or more quickly ﬁnd integrative
solutions. In considering the implications of low LMX employee role negotiation
success, it is important to remember that roles are not static (Katz & Kahn, 1978), but
constantly evolving (Jablin, 2001). Successful role negotiations and subsequent
competent job performance, especially in the case of low LMX employees, could
improve subordinates’ relationship standing and result in supervisors being more open

and trusting. Alternatively, success in negotiating and performing their roles could lead

38

some subordinates to become more goal-oriented, more knowledgeable of the social work
environment, and emboldened to negotiate other aspects of their role.
Workplace Implications

Negotiation is a chief means to achieve coordination and trust between opposing
parties and to gain jointly beneﬁcial outcomes (Pruitt, 1983; Putnam & Roloff, 1992;
Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988). As employees seek to modify or change their roles in the
workplace, it is vital that they understand role negotiation to be a viable means to attain
their desired role change. Role negotiation even holds promise for low LMX employees
as this study indicates that low LMX employees can successfully negotiate their roles.
However, several issues should be considered by parties seeking to negotiate their roles:
simple request versus problem-solving, information giving and seeking, and the
importance of the role change.

Simple requests and problem-solving are both potential negotiation paths to attain
successful role changes. Yet, even in simple requests, a minimal explanation of the
rationale for the change, how to implement the change, and how related issues could be
handled to everyone’s beneﬁt are likely to ﬁgure prominently in the immediate
supervisor’s mind. Problem-solving is likely to entail more elaborate discussion of details
and implementation strategies, including alternative options and trade-offs. Such
information may provide sufﬁcient details for the supervisor so that the needs of the
employee and work unit can be met. In this sense, information giving and seeking form
the foundation to negotiations (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Pruitt, 1983, 1981). Integrative
agreements, particularly problem-solving, depend on supervisors and subordinates

acquiring and disclosing information sufficient enough in scope so the desired role

39

change can be seen in relation to unit needs and the function of other role set members.
While considerable emphasis has been given to employee information seeking in recent
years (e. g., Ashford & Black, 1996), researchers and organization practitioners should
also focus on employees’ infonnation giving skills so they can learn to provide detailed
information and respond to supervisors’ queries and alternative suggestions.

In terms of achieving pivotal role changes, employees’ information giving and
seeking skills may be particularly crucial. Pivotal changes that alter the strategic nature
of the role, may have a profound impact on the unit, and, as suggested by this study, are
associated with problem-solving behaviors and considerable information giving and
seeking. Those seeking pivotal changes may need to discuss: who will be affected by the
role change; who (other than supervisor) will partake in the decision making process; the
potential costs/beneﬁts to the subordinate, supervisor, co-workers, and organization; and
the anticipated time for and process of implementation.

As noted earlier, comments from several participants in this study not reporting
dialogues suggest their supervisor would never listen to their ideas. While these remarks
come from the employees’ perspective, organizations might consider encouraging their
managers to be more open to employee ideas and suggestions for role change.
Supervisors could be trained in listening skills as well as the use of negotiation tactics
that would beneﬁt themselves, the employee, and the organization as a whole. In other
cases, as one conversation between the researcher and a supervisor of participating
employees suggests, at times employees need to be more assertive and persistent in their

role change requests.

40

Limitations

To gather data on employee role negotiation episodes as opposed to an artiﬁcial
laboratory setting, this study relies on participants’ recall of the conversations with their
supervisors. Further, the mode of collecting the data is written rather than oral. As
Stafford and Daly (1984) indicate, the total amount of details recalled using a written
mode is signiﬁcantly lower than when using an oral mode, due to hindrances of the free-
ﬂow of ideas that may occur in actual conversations. Akin to interpersonal
communication research, participants may be more likely to recall the details of their
supervisors’ contribution to the conversation than their own (Stafford & Daly, 1984),
thereby decreasing reports of their own information giving and seeking behaviors. On a
related note, the importance of the change to the participant might also inﬂuence the
amount of recalled information so that pivotal or possibly more beneﬁcial (e.g.,
proﬁtable, stress-relieving) changes would be recalled to a greater degree compared to
other changes. Future research would be well-served to pursue actual recordings of role
change conversations or gather additional information on negotiations through interviews
following survey completion. Such detailed data may shed greater insight into
employees’ use of logrolling behaviors, which may not have been accessed by
participants’ written reports.

Using a widely-held practice (e.g., Fairhurst, 1993; Fairhurst et al., 1987; Lee,
1999), participants provided information on their LMX relationships. This study also
relies on participants’ perception of their supervisors’ view of the magnitude or
importance of the role change. While participants’ perspective is valuable, subordinates

tend to overestimate their supervisors’ position (Schwab, 1999). Future research should

41

endeavor to produce a sampling design that obtains information from supervisors and
subordinates. In addition to reducing the reliance on participants’ perceptions of
another’s viewpoint, such data may provide a validation on the degree of the parties’ co-
orientation or agreement on the role change.

While role negotiation episodes reported by participants include recalled
information of participants’ and supervisors’ conversations, only the partcipants’
contributions are coded and analyzed. The coding of their information giving, seeking,
problem-solving or simple requests, and logrolling behaviors provides insights into
employees’ mindset, but the inﬂuence of supervisors prompting and/or directing
conversations on the role change is absent. Future research should seek to assess both
supervisor and subordinate information exchange and negotiation behaviors to identify
their impact on employee communicative behaviors during their role episodes.

Analyses of the data are also limited due to the number of low quality LMX
participants. The comparably small number of low LMX participants reporting role
negotiation episodes produces a restricted range of responses, especially in the low LMX
by problem-solving cell. Future research should seek to obtain equal numbers of high
and low quality LMX participants.

Finally, this study limits the allotted time (i.e., within the last six months) for
reporting a past role change. Due to this time restraint, some participants do not report
role changes occurring six months prior. It is important to note that a deﬁning role
modiﬁcation may have occurred before these parameters, a modiﬁcation that may reduce
employees’ need to engage in role-making. Alternatively, a major role change may have

occurred outside the time frame of the study, and that change may have resulted in

42

employees seeking comparatively minor changes (e. g., simple requests) in the current
study. Thus, researchers should consider collecting data longitudinally to assess such
possibilities.
Future Research

Organizational scholars’ understanding of roles and the fundamental process by
which employees modify and change their roles can largely be traced to Katz and Kahn
(1978) and Graen (1976). According to Ilgen and Hollenbeck (1991), Katz and Kahn
(1978) introduce role properties, their parameters, and role-taking, where supervisors
direct or initiate change and subordinates respond by enacting the role in a certain
manner. For Graen (1976), in role-making subordinates initiate or modify their roles, and
the role development process more closely reﬂects mutual inﬂuence. While these
scholars greatly contribute to understanding employees’ embracing or modifying their
roles, much of the communicative aspects of these processes remains to be explored.
Given that role-making is largely a communicative process (Graen & Scandura, 1987;
Jablin, 2001; Katz, 1980) and that employees modify their roles throughout their tenure
in a position (J ablin, 2001), it seems important to provide supervisors and subordinates
with knowledge and skills to aid in negotiating their roles. Approaching role negotiation
from a communication perspective promotes the analysis of the ﬂow of information
exchange, communicative behaviors associated with role change, forms of reciprocal
inﬂuence between supervisors and subordinates, and impact of communicative behaviors
during role negotiation on ﬁlture role negotiation attempts.

Future research should consider the degree of complexity or associated issues

inherent in the sought role change. The reasons that subordinates enact problem-solving

43

or simple plans could depend on what individual(s) will be affected by the role change,
others who must assent to the role change or participate in the decision making process,
and/or whether the role change will be immediate or is introduced over a period of time.
Using surveys or interviews to uncover these details would provide greater insight into
individuals’ negotiating style. Researchers should also consider the complexity of the
communication exchanges in role negotiation episodes. Information on supervisors cues,
tone of voice, quickness of responses, and the like could provide a more thorough
understanding of exchanges during role negotiations.

Future research should also evaluate subordinates’ and supervisors’ negotiating
ability. Individuals vary in their communication skills and savvy in enacting those skills
(J ablin & Sias, 2001). Researchers should examine participants’ negotiation abilities to
determine, for example, if simple plans are offered (versus problem-solving) due to
circumstances prohibiting the offering or seeking of ideas for complex role problems
behaviors or due to personality orientations affecting their negotiation styles (Putnam &
Roloff, 1992; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988).

In sum, role negotiation is an effective means for employees to modify or change
their roles. Through role negotiation, employees can effectively add or lessen their
workload, contribute creative and innovative ideas and plans, and participate in the
decision making process determining their future role responsibilities. It is hoped that
scholars will pursue role negotiation research in order to develop theoretical explanations
and practical advice for employees seeking to modify their roles in conjunction with their
supervisors. As such, research can provide insight into the details of the communicative

aspects of role change and the development of the superior-subordinate relationship.

44

APPENDICES

45

APPENDIX A
ROLE CHANGE STIMULUS

Most if not all employees have certain tasks they are required to perform as a member of
their organization or company. But from time to time, and for various reasons,
employees naturally come up with ideas about changing an aspect of their role(s) that
beneﬁted themselves or the organization. In some instances these changes are
fundamental aspects of our job(s), and at other times they are unimportant aspects of our
job(s).

We are interested in 9% change that you have sought within your job (in what you do or
how you- do your job), the importance of the change, and the behaviors and interactions
between you and your supervisor to allow the changes.

Here are some examples of changes within their jobs that others have reported: Coming
up with new assignments, improving the method of performing a job task, adding to or
lessening my responsibilities, changing my work schedule, taking over a co-worker’s
tasks, creating new protocols, working at home one day a week, implementing an
addition to the web site.

In the box below, please describe your successful role change experience and how you
negotiated this change with your supervisor. Be sure to describe what you wanted to
change, the importance of the change, and any dialogue and behaviors that you recall
between you and your supervisor during the role change. Please use the same dialogue
format as the example with the separation of what you said and did and what your
supervisor said and did. If you need more room, please use the back of the paper. Be
sure that your role change experience meet the following criteria:

0 One speciﬁc change within your job - a change in what you do or how you do your
job;

0 A change within your current job, NOT a change to a “new job” or position with a
new job title or new supervisor; and

0 A change that YOU initiated and discussed with your supervisor, NOT a change you
made without approval, or a change initiated by your supervisor.

46

APPENDIX B
SIX STEPS FOR CODING STATEMENTS

Identiﬁz statements. A statement is a single idea, answer, question, or suggestion
articulated by an individual partaking in a negotiation. Anything that indicates a
pause (where the other party begins talking), end of sentence, or shift in topic,
conversation, or behavior is the beginning of a new statement.

Each turn that an individual takes to speak can include more than one statement.
For example, a person may ask, “What additional tasks are available for me to do
on my spare time? The reason I am asking is because I have too much dead time
and I would like some more work.” This example would be three separate
statements.

Identiﬁ» statements into evaluative work and descriptive work or evaluative non-
work and descriptive non-work. “Evaluative work information includes
utterances expressing opinions or judgments related to discrepancies between
expectations and experiences (overt surprises), job stress, self-evaluation of
performance, qualities and attributes of the work role, and evaluations of
individuals afﬁliated with the organization and the organization
itself....Descriptive work_ information includes nonevaluative utterances related to
such matters as task understanding, causes for task performance, task goals, and
task instructions” (J ablin, 2001, p.774). This portion of the coding separates work
related conversations from non-work related conversations.

Code evaluative work and descriptive work statements into one of three
categories: information seeking, information giving, miscellaneous. For each
dialogue, ﬁrst identify all information seeking statements, then review again and
identify all information giving statements. Any statements that are not
information giving or seeking should be coded into the miscellaneous category.

Information seeking refers to the soliciting of evaluative and/or descriptive work
information from the other party in order to learn others’ expectations and align
both parties’ positions in hope of reaching an agreement.

Information ENE refers to providing evaluative and/or descriptive work
information through answering questions or responding to inquiries from the other
party in order to establish or solicit reciprocity, identify positions, and inform the
other party about expectations.

Miscellaneous statements include statements that are not directly related to plans
or ideas for change, justiﬁcation of ability, or rapport building. Miscellaneous
statements may include introductory dialogue such as “hello, can I have a moment
of your time”, conversation ﬁllers or slang such as “Yep, Uh h ”, concluding
statements such as “thank you for your time” or any dialogue related to gossip,
friendship, or extracurricular activities.

47

APPENDIX B (cont)

Code subordinate information seeking and information giving statements into one
of three categories: idea or plan for change; ﬁrstiﬁcation, and rapport. First code
all information seeking statements then code all information giving statements.

Iiegoglm for chlnge statements include statements that propose or present the
individual’s ideas or plans to change an existing work issue or condition. The
idea or plan may contain details such as steps and/or time for implementation,
additional responsibilities, areas or people that may be affected, rationale, or
strategies.

Examples of idea or plan for change statements:

“The current computer system needs to be updated with the new customer service
software and someone needs to be responsible to make sure we always have the
latest version. I would like to take the responsibility to keep up to date with the
latest software, and install it on each computer.”

“I think that the sales department needs to be crossed trained in all the areas so
that if one of us is overwhelmed with work, the other people can help out. Since I
am familiar with all the areas of sales, I would like to be responsible to train my
peers and anyone else who would like to be trained.”

Justiﬁcation statements include statements where the individual is explaining or
defending his/her ability to perform additional tasks. Justiﬁcation statements may
contain details such as physical capability or incapability, mental/emotional
capability or incapability, availability of time, issues of fairness, reﬂection on past
performance, education, or comparison to others inability to do the same tasks.

Examples of justiﬁcation statements:

“I think that I am capable of doing sales summary reports for the department. I
know that I have extra time in my schedule and I think will be able handle more
work. I know that my performance when I ﬁrst started was not the best, but I
have improved and my productivity level has increased.”

“I know that I have become friends with most my co-workers, but that will not
interfere with my work if I am in charge of the department. I will be fair to
everyone. I have taken management courses before and I know what it entails. I
don’t think that anyone else in this department is more qualiﬁed than me to
perform this management task.”

48

APPENDIX B (cont)

“Since the company downsized, my duties have increased and I ﬁnd the workload
to be too overbearing. I don’t have time to complete all my tasks effectively and I
would like to distribute my work among other staff members.”

Rapport statements include statements that focus on wanting to build trust or build
a positive relationship. Rapport building statements may include references to the
current relationship or explicitly stating the desire to improve trust or build trust
between the two parties.

Examples of rapport building statements:

“I would really like to see us work together on this project seeing that we have
been working with each other for one year now.”

“You can count on me to complete this job especially since you have always
come through for me.“

. Identiﬁ/ negotiating behaviors. Review the dialogue in the episode and identify if
the subordinates used simple request or problem-solving techniques to achieve
their role change.

A simple request is an episode where the subordinate’s initial proposal was
accepted by the supervisor with minimal effort and without elaborate discussion
of the proposed idea or plan. Simple requests do not require collaborative efforts
to overcome conﬂicting interests or the discussion of alternative options.

Example of simple request:

You: I think it would be better to copy the travel itinerary and give the
traveler the copy as opposed to the original.

Supervisor: So we wouldn’t have to track down the original itinerary because
we already have it?

You: Yup.

Supervisor: I talked to Linda and told her we were going to keep the original
itinerary and give the copy to the traveler.

You: Okay.

A problem-solving episode is when the supervisor and subordinate work together
to reach a solution that is beneﬁcial to both parties and the organization.
Problem-solving includes: (a) detailed discussion about the rationale and
implementation strategies of the plan, and (b) discussion and evaluation of
potential outcomes, (c) consideration of possible alternatives, and/or ((1)
modiﬁcation to ideas or plans following input from supervisor.

49

6.

APPENDIX B (cont)

Example of Problem-solving:

You:

Supervisor:

You:

Supervisor:

You:

Supervisor:

You:

Supervisor:

You:

Supervisor:

You:

Supervisor:

You:

Supervisor:

You:

Supervisor:

I think we have the opportunity here to expand our role at the
hospital when you leave.

How so?

Instead of me becoming the “Security Manager” I could become
the “Safety & Security Manager”. I would manage both
departments. We could hire a new Safety ofﬁcer plus an assistant.
Why would we (Company X) and the hospital want that?

First, we would be expanding the account by 40 hours a week, plus
we would cement our Safety service to the hospital.

Sounds good but the hospital rs already going to be upset with
Company X with changing safety ofﬁcers yet again.

Well we could sell it by saying that my new expanded position
actually brings more stability and emphasis on safety, especially as
the federal inspections are coming up.

Who and how would we ﬁnd a new Safety Ofﬁcer and assistant?
How about that Navy guy who just applied? He has a health
related degree and training. And we could promote one of our own
for his assistant.

Let me run this by (Company X boss) and (Company Y Boss).
Okay

(week or so later) Company X boss said it’s a go if Company Y
boss buys off on it.

Great, you’ll run it by Company Y boss? Do you want me to
attend?

I’ll take care of it.

Okay.

(week or so later) Company Y boss likes the idea. Let’s do it.

Identiﬁt logrolling behaviors. Review dialogue and identify if logrolling has been
used in the role change episode. Logrolling refers to the yielding or trading off of
issues of low-priority for gains on high priority issues.

Example of logrolling:

You: I would like to start visiting all the clients with the sales
representatives.

Supervisor: That is a big step. How about assisting in preparing the agendas?

You: That won’t give me the experience I really need.

Supervisor: At least you will be aware of what is being presented.

You: Okay, I will prepare the agendas as long as I can visit at least one
or two clients on occasion.

Supervisor: That sounds like a great plan.

50

APPENDIX C
ROLE INFORMATION QUESTIONS

l= Low, 5 = High

1.

It is relatively easy to get my supervisor to agree to changes like the one I just
described.

1 5
to a to a to to a to a
very little little some great very great
extent extent extent extent extent

Overall, how much did the strategic purpose of your job change in the last six
months?

1 5
no minor some major total
change change change change change

Overall, how much did the manner of performing tasks or the way you did your
job change in the last six months?

1 5
no minor some major total
change change change change change

To what extent were you satisﬁed with the role change?

1 5
to a to a to to a to a
very little little some great very great
extent extent extent extent extent

To what extent were you successful in negotiating what you wanted in the role
change?

1 5
to a to a to to a to a
very little little some great very great
extent extent extent extent extent

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

52

BIBLOGRAPHY

Ashford, S.J., & Black, J .S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The
role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology. 81. 199-214.

Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., &
Harrington, E. (2000). Shopﬂoor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and

implementation of ideas. J ourn_al of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 73.
265-285.

Bazerrnan, M.H., & Lewicki, R.J. (Eds.). (1983). Npgotiating in organizations.
Beverly Hill: Sage.

Camevale, P.J.D., Pruitt, D.G., & Seilheimer, SD. (1981). Looking and
competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of
Personaliﬁ and Social Psycholog1AO. (1), 111-120.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership with formal organizations. Orgﬂizational Behavior aid Human Performance.
_l__3_,_48-78.

Deluga, R.J., & Perry, J .T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward
inﬂuence behavior, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member
exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 64, 239-252.

Dienesch, R., & Linden, R. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of
leadership: A critique and ﬁrrther development. Academy of Management Review. 11
(3), 618-634.

Fairhurst, GT. (2001). The communication between leaders and their followers:
A review and commentary. In F.M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds), The new hJandbooﬁa
organizational communicﬁafion (pp. 379-439). Newbury Park, CA; Sage.

Fairhurst, GT. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders
in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321-351.

F airhurst. G.T., & Chandler, TA. (1989). Social structure in leader-member
interactions. Communication Monographs. 56. 215-239.

Fairhurst, G.T., Rogers, L.E., Sarr, RA. (1987). Manager-subordinate control
patterns and judgments about the relationship. Communication Yearbpojk. 10. 395-415.

Farmer, S.M., Maslyn, J .M., Fedor, D.B., & Goodman, J.S. (1997). Putting
upward inﬂuence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational BehaviorLl 8, 17-42.

53

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without
giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin.

Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C.J.D. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion
systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Joupnal of Organizational
Behavior. 20, 1139-1 155.

Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member
exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82.
(6), 827-844.

Goffrnan, E. (1961). Asylums. New York: Doubleday.

Graen, GB. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In
M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psvcholog (pp. 1201-
1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal
organizations: A developmental approach. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Lawson (Eds.),
Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-
member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction - testing a dual
attachment model. Organizatioﬁng Belpaﬂor and Human Performance. 30. 109-131.

Graen, G.B., & Scandura, TA. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic
organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior. 9. 175-208.

Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad
linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psycholtgy. 63. 206-212.

Grisby, D.W. (1983). Improving individual performance. In M.H. Bazerrnan &
R.J. Lewicki (Eds.), Iﬁgotiating in organization_s_ (pp. 320-338). Beverly Hills, CA;
Sage.

Hudson, D.C., & Jablin, F.M. (1992). Newcomer information-giving during
organization entrv: Conceptua_liLation and the development of a message categorization
scheme. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, Miami, FL.

Hunter, J. E. (1980). Factor analysis. In P. M. Monge & J. N. Cappella (Eds),
Multivajate techniques in human communication research (pp. 229-258). New York:
Academic Press.

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second
order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in organizational behavior, 5, 267-320.

54

Ilgen, D.R., & Hollenbeck, J .R. (1991). The structure of work: job designs and
roles. HandbLok of industrgl and organizational psychology, 2. 311-350.

J ablin, F.M. (1982). Organizational communication: An assimilation approach.
In M.E. Roloff & C.E. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 255-286).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F.M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit.
In F.M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook in organizational
communication (pp. 732-740). Newbury Park, CA; Sage.

Jablin, F.M. & Sias, P. (2001). Communication Competence. In F.M. Jablin &
L.L. Putnam (Eds.), The new hmdmokin organizational communication (pp. 819-864).
Newbury Park, CA; Sage.

Jablin, F.M., & Miller, V.D. (1993). Newcomer supervisor role negatiation
processes: A preliminary report of a longitudiaal investigation. Paper presented at the
annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL.

J assen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and
innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 73,
287-3 02.

Jennings, BE (1967). The mobile manager: A study of the new generation of top
executives. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jordon, J .M., & Roloff, ME. (1997). Planning skills and negotiator goal
accomplishment. Communication Research. 24. (1), 31-63.

Katz, R. (1985). Organizational stress and early socialization experiences. In
T.A. Beehr & R.S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress in organizations: An integgated
perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. Research in
Organizational Behavior. 2. 81-121.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., & Snoek, J .D. (1964). Organizational
stress: Studies in role conﬂict and ambigpig. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, 1. (1980). Intraorganizational inﬂuence
tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

55

Kramer, M.W., & Noland, TL. (1999). Communication during job promotions:

A case of ongoing assimilation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 335-
355.

Krone, K.J. (1992). A comparison of organizational, structural, and relationship
effect on subordinates’ upward inﬂuence choice. Communication glarteﬂy, 1, 1-15.

Krone, K.J. (1994). Structuring constraints on perceptions of upward inﬂuence
and supervisory relationships. Southern Communication Journal 59 215-226.

 

Lamphear-Van Horn, M., Boster, F., Miller, V.D., & Johnson, J .R. (2000).

Employee conﬂict management style and the ability to negotiate organizational roles.
Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lee, J. (1999). Leader-member exchange. gender. and subordinate’s
communication expectations with superiors. Paper presented at the National
Communication Conference, Chicago, IL.

Lee, J ., & Jablin, F .M. ( 1995). Maintenance communication in superior-
subordinate work relationships. Human Communication Research. 22. 220-257.

Linden, R.C., Wayne, S.T., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the
early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78.
662-674.

McClane, W.E. (1991). Implications of member role differentiation: Analysis of
a key concept in the LMX model of leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 16,
102-113.

Miller, V.D., Jablin, F.M., Casey, M.K., Lamphear-Van Horn, M., & Ethington,
C. (1996). The maternity leave as a role negotiation process. Journﬂ of Managerial
Issues 8 286-309.

 

Miller, V.D., Johnson, J .R., Hart, Z., & Peterson, BL. (1999). A test of
antecedents and outcomes of employee role negotiation ability. Journal of Applied
Communication Research. 27. 2443.

Miller, V.D., Meiners, E., Beery, S., Kim, E.S., & Lamphear-Van Horn, M.
(2000). Self-an;d supervisor initiated role change. Paper presented at the 50th meeting of
the International Communication Association Conference, Acapulco, Mexico.

Olufowote, J .O., & Miller, V.D. (2001). Upward inﬂuence tactics and employee

role change obiectives: An exploratoy investigation. Paper presented at the National
Communication Conference, Seattle, WA.

Pruitt, D.G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M.H. Bazerrnan & R.J.
Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organization_s (pp. 35-50). Beverly Hills, CA; Sage.

56

Pruitt, D.G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Pruitt, D.G., & Lewis, SA (1975). Development of integrative solutions in
bilateral negotiation. Jouraal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31. 621-633.

Putnam, LL. (1985). Bargaining as organizational communication. In R.D.
McPhee & P.K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and
new directiog (pp. 9-32). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L.L., & Jones, TS. (1982). Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of
bargaining interactions. Communication Monoggaphs. 49. 171-191.

Putnam, L.L., & Poole, MS. (1987). Conﬂict and negotiation. In F.M. Jablin,
L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts, & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 549-599). Newbury Park: Sage.

Putnam, L.L., & Roloff, ME. (1992). Communication perspectives on
negotiation. In L.L. Putnam & M.E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negptiation (pp.
21-45). Newbury Park: Sage.

Roloff, ME. (1987). Communication and conﬂict. In C.R. Berger & S.H.
Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 484-534). Newbury Park, CA.

Schein, EH. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of
management. Induaﬂal Management Review. 1-16.

Schein, EH. (1971). The individual, the organization, and the career: A
conceptual scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7. 401-426.

Schriesheim, C.A., & Hinkin, TR. (1990). Inﬂuence tactics used by
subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and reﬁnement of the Kipnis, Schmidt,
and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257.

Schwab, DP. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Seibold, D.R., & Shea, BC. (2001). Participation and Decision Making. In F .M.
Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.), The new_h_andbook in organizational communication (pp.
664-703). Newbury Park, CA; Sage.

Sias, PM. (1996). Constructing perceptions of differential treatment: An
analysis of coworker discourse. Communication Monographs, 63 (2), 171-190.

Stafford, L. & Daly, J .A. (1984). Conversational memory: The effects of recall
mode and memory expectancies on remembrances of natural conversations. Human

57

Communication Research 10 379-402.

 

Tjosvold, D., Morishima, M, & Belsheim, J .A. (1999). Complaint handling on
the shop ﬂoor: Cooperative relationships and open-minded strategies. The International
Journal of Conﬂict Management. 10 (1), 45-68.

Tutzauer, F. (1992). The communication of offers in dyadic bargaining. In L.L.
Putnam & M.E. Roloff (Eds.), CommunicatioL and negotiation (pp. 67-82). Newbury
Park, CA; Sage.

Tutzauer, F., & Roloff, ME. (1988). Communication processes leading to
integrative agreements: three paths to joint beneﬁts. Communication Research. 15 (4),
360-380.

Waldron, V.R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate
relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication

Monoggaphs, 58, 289-306.

Wanous, JP. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection a_na
socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Zurcher, LA. (1983). Social roles: Conformity. conﬂict and creativity. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

58