v ..
um”? ,

an

 

:1. z.-

. ‘ . ‘ . l. .. .: , , h%ﬁeﬁ§m?kw .3
.I .u .11. , E: . woﬁawm... , , .. .V- .7 ‘
.1 @ﬁwuzzmmnr . , 1 ‘ «was: ,. 1 ‘

 

 

NE, 3‘: ‘3

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824- 1048

“7
M\

ééozbgzéi’l

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Getting one’s way vs. Maintaining the relationship: Effects of
LMX quality on upward inﬂuence message production across
two cultures

presented by
Isabel C. Botero

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. degree' in Communication

 

 

M/M

/ Major Professor’ 3 Signature

3%. ﬂLW

ate

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

a.-.—o-.-.--.-.---.-n-u-o-u--a-o-u-o--a-.-;. —a-.-.-.-.-t_ -

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

 

 

‘aﬁi‘arﬁ‘g” 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/DatoDuo.indd-p.15

 

~__..

GETTING ONE’S WAY VS. MAINTAINING THE RELATIONSHIP: EFFECTS OF
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) QUALITY ON UPWARD INFLUENCE
MESSAGE PRODUCTION ACROSS Two CULTURES
By

Isabel C. Botero

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2005

ABSTRACT
GETTING ONE’S WAY VS. MAINTAINING THE RELATIONSHIP: EFFECTS OF
LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) QUALITY ON UPWARD INFLUENCE
MESSAGE PRODUCTION ACROSS TWO CULTURES
By
Isabel C. Botero
This cross cultural study examines how leader-member exchange (LMX) affects

message production in situations in which an employee is trying to gain compliance from
a supervisor to obtain a personal beneﬁt. Competing hypothesis were tested. The
relationship maintenance hypothesis states that when trying to gain compliance from a
supervisor, employees use messages that reﬂect a greater concern with maintaining and
therefore are more polite. Conversely, the idiosyncrasy credit hypothesis states that when
trying to gain compliance from a supervisor, employees use messages that reﬂect a
greater concern for getting their way and therefore can be less polite. One hundred and
twenty-three employees from different organizations in the Midwest United States of
America and 147 employees from different organizations in Medellin-Colombia
participated in this study. Employees wrote hypothetical email messages (EMMS) to their
supervisor asking for a change in work schedule for the following month (high
imposition) and for authorization for vacation time (low imposition). These EMMS were
coded for politeness. Under high imposition conditions data were consistent with the
relationship maintenance hypothesis for the United States sample; whereas in the low
imposition condition data were not consistent with either hypothesis. Additional results

and implications are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would ﬁrst like to thank my family and friends for helping me throughout this
project. Special thanks to Laura and William, my mom and dad, for all their help during
this process and for their coordination of my data collection in Colombia. To Anita Marin
special thanks for all her support and her help in getting access to different organizations
in Colombia. To my fellow graduate students at Michigan State thank you for helping me
contact participants, you made this possible.

Thank you to all my committee members for helping me think outside the box,
learn from your experiences, and ﬁnd new ways to do research, it was a great experience
working with all of you. Special thanks to Dr. Franklin J. Boster for all of your time, your
ideas, and your support during this process. Dr. Janet Lillie, Dr. Tim Levine and Dr. Dan
1] gen, thank you for introducing different and valuable points of view to the project, they
were very useful. To all of my committee thank you for making me a better scholar.

Thank you to staff in the Department of Communication at Michigan State.
Special thanks to Deb and Estrella for all of their valuable ideas and points of view it was
very useful for my thinking process.

And last, but not least, I would like to thank my husband Tom. Your ideas and
support were essential to making it through. Thank you for being my best companion
during this trip, I love you.

Thank you all.

I. C. B.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................

CHAPTER 1

UPWARD INFLUENCE ......................................................................

LMX Quality as an Antecedent of Upward Inﬂuence Message Selection... . .
. . 8
.. 9

Relationship Maintenance Framework ..............................................

Idiosyncrasy Credit Framework ......................................................

CHAPTER 2

IMPACT OF CULTURE ON UPWARD INFLUENCE MESSAGE SELECTION. .
..13
..16

Politeness Theory .......................................................................
Additional Considerations for Upward Inﬂuence Message Selection ...........

CHAPTER 3

THIS STUDY ....................................................................................

CHAPTER 4

METHOD ........................................................................................
Participants ..............................................................................
Procedure ................................................................................
Compliance Situations .................................................................
Translation of Materials ...............................................................
Coding of Mock EMMS ...............................................................
Measures .................................................................................

Power Distance ................................................................
Overall Concern for Getting One’s Way ...................................
Overall Concern for Maintaining the Relationship .......................
Job Satisfaction ................................................................
Voice Behavior ................................................................

Demographic Information ....................................................

iv

...vi

l

3

5

12

.. 18

.. 21
.. 21
. 22
. 23
.. 24
.. 25
. 26

26

..27
. 27
. 27
..28
..28
.. 28

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS .......................................................................................... 29
Measurement .............................................................................. 29
Evaluation of Hypotheses ............................................................... 29
Additional Analysis ...................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 35
Findings and Implications ............................................................... 35
Cross-cultural Findings and Implications ............................................. 37
Additional Analysis and Implications ................................................. 38
Limitations ................................................................................ 40
Summary and Future Research ......................................................... 41

APPENDD( A

CONSENT FORMS .............................................................................. 43

APPENDIX B

CODING INSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................... 46

APPENDD( C

QUESTIONNAIRES .............................................................................. 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 91

TABLE OF FIGURES

TABLE 1:
Deﬁnitions and Examples of Politeness Theory ................................................ 78

TABLE 2:
Politeness Coding Frequencies ................................................................... 79

TABLE 3:
Zero-order Correlations Combined Sample ...................................................... 80

TABLE 4:
Zero-order Correlations Colombian Sample ..................................................... 81

TABLE 5:
Zero-order Correlations United States Sample .................................................. 82

TABLE 6:
Results ﬁ'om Mixed Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance .............................. 83

TABLE 7:
Politeness Means by Different Levels of LMX Quality and Power Distance for the
Two Samples Combined ........................................................................... 84

TABLE 8:
Politeness Means by different levels of LMX Quality, Power Distance for the
Colombian Sample .................................................................................. 85

TABLE 9:
Politeness Means by different levels of LMX Quality and Power Distance for the
United States Sample .............................................................................. 86

TABLE 10:
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern
for Maintaining the Relationship for Combined Sample (N=246) ........................... 87

TABLE 11:
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern
for Getting One’s Way for Combined Sample (N =246) ....................................... 88

TABLE 12:
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern
for Maintaining the Relationship for the United States Sample (N =105) .................. 89

TABLE 13:
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern
for Getting One’s Way for the United States Sample (N=108) .............................. 89

TABLE 14:
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Conoem

for Maintaining the Relationship for the Colombian Sample (N=137) ..................... 90
TABLE 15:

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern

for Getting One’s Way for the Colombian Sample (N =1 37) ................................. 9O

vii

INTRODUCTION

Social inﬂuence is an important process for understanding organizational
behavior. Power shifts and ﬂattening of structures are prevalent in today’s organizations
(Ilgen, 1994). These shifts have implications for employees’ need to inﬂuence others,
especially supervisors, to accomplish their tasks and individual goals (Pfeffer, 2003). A
variety of research has explored the downward, lateral, and upward inﬂuence processes in
organizations (See Porter, Angle, & Allen, 2003 for a complete review). Research in
upward inﬂuence has concentrated on two issues: (1) how can upward inﬂuence
messages best be described (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990; Kipnis, Schmidt, Swafﬁn-
Smith, & Wilkinson, 1984; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Wayne & Ferris, 1990;
Yukl & F albe, 1990), and (2) what factors predict an employee’s use of upward inﬂuence
messages (Farmer, Maslyn, F edor, & Goodman, 1997; Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003;
Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Braxton-Brown, 1989; Maslyn, Farmer,
& F edor, 1996). Although several studies have examined how employees gain
compliance ﬁom their supervisors and what message tactics they use, there is no clear
understanding of why employees use these message tactics. This study examines why
employees use different messages to inﬂuence their supervisors, and how those reasons
might differ across two different cultures: The United States and Colombia.

Research suggests that one of the factors that affects upward inﬂuence message
production is the nature of the relationship between the employee and the supervisor
(Ansari, Tandon, & Lakhtakia, 1989; Barry & Watson, 1996; Gerstner & Day, 1997;

Higgins et al., 2003; Krone, 1991, 1992). This study addresses how the relationship

between employee and supervisor affects message production in situations in which an
employee is trying to gain compliance from a supervisor. This study has two primary
purposes. First, it aims to examine why the type of relationship between employee and
supervisor affects the production of upward inﬂuence messages. And, second, it
examines the consistency of these results across cultures. Competing hypotheses will be
presented and tested to determine whether employees choose certain upward inﬂuence
messages because of their concern in maintaining their relationship with supervisor, or
because they want to get their way.

Initially, upward inﬂuence will be discussed. Second, a summary of how upward
inﬂuence has been studied will be provided. Third, the relationship between employee
and supervisor is discussed as a predictor of upward inﬂuence message selection. Fourth,
the relationship maintenance and the idiosyncrasy credit ﬁ‘ameworks and their predictions
for upward inﬂuence message selection are presented. Finally, the impact of culture on

upward inﬂuence is discussed.

CHAPTER 1

UPWARD INFLUENCE

Most empirical work describes upward inﬂuence as a “deliberate attempt by a
subordinate to select messages that will bring about change in a more powerful target and
facilitate the achievement of personal or organizational objectives”(Waldron, 1999) .
Upward inﬂuence is an intentional and strategic action. Upward inﬂuence in
organizations is inherently risky for at least two reasons: (1) the differences in power
between supervisor and employee, and (2) in organizations the relationship between
supervisors and employees may be long-lasting with both history and future (W aldron,
Hunt, & Dsilva, 1993). In upward inﬂuence situations the supervisor’s status may be
threatened by the ideas that an employee presents. Moreover, in organizational contexts
more powerful others often control the resources that employees need to complete their
work, and they may set the rules that subordinates must follow (Porter, Allen, & Angle,
1980; Waldron, 1999). It is possible that if a supervisor is threatened by what an
employee says (e.g., an upward inﬂuence attempt) the employee may suffer negative
consequences. Furthermore, in organizations the relationship between supervisors and
employees may be long lasting with both history and future. When the supervisor does
not like how an employee behaved, this negative feeling may be long lasting and have
negative consequences for the employee, compounding the risk of engaging in upward
inﬂuence attempts.

Research on upward inﬂuence in the organizational context has concentrated on

understanding the types of messages employees use to gain compliance ﬁcm their

supervisors and the antecedents of message selection. Studies looking at the types of
messages employees use in upward inﬂuence have concentrated on the varying message
tactics used by employees (F albe & Yukl, 1992; Farmer et al., 1997; Kipnis, 1984; Kipnis
& Schmidt, 1988; Kipnis et al., 1980; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990; Wayne & Ferris,
1990; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Guinan, & Sottolano, 1995). Studies looking at
antecedents of message selection have focused on understanding how the type of
relationship between employee and supervisor (Ansari & Kapoor, 1987; Deluga & Perry,
1991; Krone, 1991, 1992; Waldron, 1991; Waldron et al., 1993), goal of the inﬂuence
attempt (Ansari & Kapoor, 1987;Yuk1 et al., 1995; Yukl, Kim, & Falbe, 1996), and
personality characteristics (Barry & Shapiro, 1992; Barry & Watson, 1996) affect
employee selection of upward inﬂuence messages.

Research examining upward inﬂuence situations suggests that there are at least
three situational factors that may affect the perceptions of risk for employees when trying
to gain compliance from their supervisors: (1) the inﬂuence goal of the employee, (2)

‘ employee’s perception of supervisor’s beneﬁt from compliance, and (3) the type of
relationship between supervisor and subordinate. Situations in which employees are
trying to gain compliance from supervisors for actions that would beneﬁt the organization
(e.g., increase in productivity, better ways for doing the job) are expected to be perceived
as less risky than situations in which an employee is trying to get a personal beneﬁt (e.g.,
salary raise, days off, less work). Similarly, in situations in which an employee perceives
that the supervisor can beneﬁt from complying with the employee’s request, it may be
less risky for an employee to try to gain compliance from the supervisor compared with

situations in which the employee perceives that the supervisor will not beneﬁt ﬁom

complying with the employee’s request. Additionally, in situations in which the
supervisor and employee have a very favorable working relationship, it may be less risky
to try to gain compliance from a supervisor, compared with Situations in which the
relationship between employee and supervisor is not as favorable. This study focuses
primarily on how the relationship between employee and supervisor affects the
production of upward inﬂuence messages.
LMX Quality as an Antecedent of Upward Inﬂuence Message Selection

In organizational settings the type of relationship between supervisor and
subordinate can determine employee socialization and advancement opportunities (Graen
& Ginsburgh, 1977; Jablin, 1987; Lee & Jablin, 1995; Waldron, 1991). One way to look
at this relationship is by considering leader member exchange (LMX). LMX is a
ﬁ'amework to conceptualize relationships between subordinates and supervisors. It
suggests that within work units different types of relationships develop between
supervisors and their subordinates (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman,
1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). The relationship that
develops is predictive of outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational level
(Gerstner & Day, 1997). In-group, or high LMX, exchanges are relationships that involve
more communication opportunities and administrative activities, and in which
subordinates enjoy greater work support and responsiveness ﬁ'om supervisors (Dansereau
et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975; Krone, 1991). High LMX relationships are
characterized by mutual trust, respect, reciprocal inﬂuence, strong loyalty, obligation, and
liking between subordinates and supervisors (Deluga, 1998; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;

Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Yukl, 1998). Out-group, or low LMX, dyads tend to develop

more formal, restricted relationships (Graen, 1976). These relationships exhibit low trust,
support, and rewards, and are based strictly on employment contracts (Dansereau et al.,
1975; Graen, 1976). Subordinates in low LMX relationships have less access to the
supervisor, fewer resources, and restricted information (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001).

The LMX model is grounded in role theory (Liden et al., 1997). Role theory
suggests that employees act in a manner that is expected from occupants of a particular
position in an organization, and that occupants of different positions may have differing
sets of expectations. The LMX model suggests that roles are not determined solely by
written job descriptions or formal documents (Graen, 1976). Instead, roles develop
through the role-making process. Therefore, it follows that the behavioral expectations of
occupants in similar positions may differ to some extent. The role making process begins
when members start in their new position, and it involves their supervisors. It consists of
three phases: role taking, role making, and role routinization (Graen & Scandura, 1987).
Role taking involves the supervisor communicating expected behavior to an employee,
the employee receiving the information, and the employee reacting to it. The supervisor
evaluates the reaction and initiates another action. In the second phase, role making, the
supervisor provides the opportunity for the employee to attempt an unstructured task. If
employees accept the opportunity and perform well, they begin to develop a high LMX
relationship with the supervisor. If the opportunity to act is not accepted or performance
is poor, they begin to develop a low LMX relationship. Finally, in the role routinization
phase employee and supervisor become dependent on each other, or not, and after this

point the quality of the relationship stabilizes.

A central premise underlying predictions concerning LMX relationships is that
roles based stricﬂy on employment contracts will result in less positive consequences for
employees than roles that develop beyond the contract (Graen, 1976). Consequently,
members who receive more information and support from the supervisor, and who
engage in tasks that are challenging and require responsibility, develop more positive job
attitudes compared with employees whose roles are based on the employment contract.
Therefore, LMX quality is related to employee satisfaction, promotions, rating of
performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and communication behaviors
(Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997).

Few studies have examined LMX quality as an antecedent of message selection in
upward inﬂuence situations (Deluga & Perry, 1991; Farmer et al., 1997; Krone, 1991).
Results ﬁom these studies focus on what type of message tactics subordinates in high
LMX relationships choose to try to gain compliance from their supervisors, with little
emphasis placed on the types of choices that low LMX subordinates use to gain
compliance ﬁ'om supervisors. Krone (1991) suggests that in-group subordinates select
tactics in which the desired outcomes are disclosed fully, common opinions are stressed,
and ideas of what is important for the supervisor are made known, whereas out-groups
select manipulative upward tactics more frequently than in- groups. Deluga and Perry
(1991) complement these ﬁndings by suggesting that, when compared with low LMX
employees, high LMX employees are less likely to use bargaining, assertiveness,
coalition, and upward appeal. Although this research provides some idea of the different
types of messages used by subordinates to inﬂuence their supervisors, it remains

uninforrnative as to why employees make these choices. This study is an attempt to

understand how LMX quality affects subordinate upward inﬂuence message choices in
situations in which employees pursue personal goals. The following section describes two
ﬁ'ameworks that can promote understanding of why LMX quality affects message
selection in upward inﬂuence situations.

Relationship Maintenance Framework

Relationship maintenance communication refers to messages and behavior used to
preserve an acceptable and lasting relational state (W aldron, 1991). As LMX research
suggests, advancement and other important employee opportunities depend on the type of
relationship that employees have with supervisors. Consequently, the maintenance of a
supervisor relationship is a critical objective to consider when trying to gain compliance
from a supervisor. Given this fact, for employees with high LMX quality (i.e., good
relationship with supervisors) the superordinate objective is to maintain close
relationships with the supervisor, whereas the objective for low LMX subordinates is to
preserve a sense of civility and politeness and to avoid negative sanctions.

This ﬁamework suggests that in upward inﬂuence situations subordinates are
primarily concerned with maintaining a good relationship with the supervisor with the
secondary concern of getting their way. Therefore, the higher the perceptions of LMX
quality by subordinates the more likely employees are to produce messages that are more
polite and reﬂect their concern with maintaining a good relationship with the supervisor.
By choosing more polite messages, employees create positive affect when trying to gain
compliance from a supervisor. This positive affect helps subordinates avoid producing
negative affect in the supervisor, affect that may lower the quality of the relationship. On

the other hand, in relationships characterized by lower quality LMX, subordinates will

choose polite messages. These messages can produce neutral affect, as well as positive
affect, in supervisors. By choosing messages that produce neutral and positive affect in
the supervisor, low LMX employees avoid producing negative affect on the supervisor
and avoid conﬂict that may result in negative consequences for the employee. In other
words, the higher the perceptions of LMX quality by an employee the more polite the
messages they will produce to try to gain compliance ﬁom their supervisor.

Although relationship maintenance is a plausible explanation of why LMX quality
affects the type of messages employees choose to gain compliance from their supervisors,
a competing model provides a different description of why employees choose different
types of messages to inﬂuence their supervisors.

Idiosyncrasy Credit Framework

The idea of idiosyncrasy credit was invoked by Hollander (1958) to explain how
status (legitimacy) in a group changes, and how status can be used to inﬂuence other
members. Idiosyncrasy credits “represent an accumulation of positively disposed
impressions residing in the perception of relevant others” (Hollander, 1958, p. 120).
Credits accrue by demonstrating competence in helping to achieve the group’s task goals
and by conforming to group norms.

Borrowing ﬁ'om this idea it is possible that because employees in higher LMX
relationships have shown commitment, loyalty, ability to perform their tasks, and have
developed interpersonal trust with their supervisor, they are perceived positively by the
supervisor. These positive impressions provide higher LMX employees more latitude to
use messages that reﬂect a greater concern with getting their way than maintaining the

relationship. Put differently, having already gained the supervisor’s trust and respect by

performing work effectively and by demonstrating commitment, employees in higher
LMX relationships can be more risky with the type of messages they use to gain
compliance ﬁom supervisors and can use less polite messages when trying to gain their
supervisor’s compliance. These high LMX employees know that they can use messages
that are less polite and still be valued because of their past quality of work, commitment
and loyalty to the supervisor. These employees also know that if they have done an
important job for the supervisor in the past, the supervisor might highly value their work
and their input, giving high LMX employees the ability to use messages that are more
risky (i.e., less polite) when making a request. On the other hand, for employees in lower
LMX relationships the situation is very different. The idiosyncrasy credit framework
suggests that employees in lower LMX relationships are concerned primarily with trying
to avoid punishment and a lower quality of work life. Because, in the perceptions of the
supervisor, these employees have not invested as much time and effort in the goals of the
team, they do not have sufﬁcient idiosyncrasy credit to allow them to deviate from what
is expected of them. Thus, employees in lower LMX relationships will only use very
polite messages. These messages will produce neutral or positive affect in the
supervisors, and will help lower LMX employees avoid possible negative consequences
that could worsen their situation. Said differently, the idiosyncrasy credit hypothesis
suggests that the higher the perceptions of LMX quality by an employee the less polite
the messages they will produce to try to gain compliance from their supervisors.

In summary, the idiosyncrasy credit framework suggests that the higher
employees’ perceptions of LMX quality, the higher their concern for getting their way.

Therefore, employees will use messages that are more risky (i.e., less polite) when trying

10

to gain compliance from their supervisor. In contrast, the relationship maintenance
ﬁ'amework suggests that the higher the perceptions of LMX quality by an employee the
more likely they are to be concerned with maintaining their relationship, therefore

choosing more polite messages that produce positive affect in the supervisor.

ll

CHAPTER 2

IMPACT OF CULTURE ON UPWARD INFLUENCE MESSAGE PRODUCTION

Research that addresses how employees in different cultures try to inﬂuence or
gain compliance from supervisors is lacking. Very few studies have examined if cross-
cultural differences affect the selection of inﬂuence messages (Burgoon, Dillard, Doran,
& Miller, 1982; Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986; Holtgraves & Yang, 1990, 1992; Kipnis,
1984; Ralston, Giacalone, & Terpstra, 1994; Ralston et al., 2001; Schermerhom & Bond,
1991; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992; Xin & Tsui, 1996). Studies examining how cultural
differences affect the selection of inﬂuence messages often suggest that culture does have
an impact on the selection of compliance gaining messages, but there is no clear
understanding of what it is that culture affects. For example, Burgoon and colleagues
(1982) compared the types of compliance gaining strategies used by members of Asian
and American cultures. The authors found that Asians use a wider variety of strategies
than Americans, and tend to rely on positive oriented strategies (e. g. “promise”, “positive
expertise”, and “positive esteem”). Subsequently, and concentrating primarily on
downward inﬂuence, a study by Kipnis and colleagues (1984) suggested that there were
no differences in how managers exercised their inﬂuence. Although their study included
a sample of United States, British, and Australian managers, their results can be
explained when considering that these countries share a similar cultural heritage
(Hofstede, 1980). Additional studies looking at downward inﬂuence suggest that culture
does affect the inﬂuence messages that supervisors are willing to use when trying to gain

compliance ﬁ'om their subordinates (Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986; Schermerhom &

12

CHAPTER 2

IMPACT OF CULTURE ON UPWARD INFLUENCE MESSAGE PRODUCTION

» Research that addresses how employees in different cultures try to inﬂuence or
gain compliance from supervisors is lacking. Very few studies have examined if cross-
cultural differences affect the selection of inﬂuence messages (Burgoon, Dillard, Doran,
& Miller, 1982; Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986; Holtgraves & Yang, 1990, 1992; Kipnis,
1984; Ralston, Giacalone, & Terpstra, 1994; Ralston et al., 2001; Schermerhom & Bond,
1991; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992; Xin & Tsui, 1996). Studies examining how cultural
differences affect the selection of inﬂuence messages often suggest that culture does have
an impact on the selection of compliance gaining messages, but there is no clear
understanding of what it is that culture affects. For example, Burgoon and colleagues
(1982) compared the types of compliance gaining strategies used by members of Asian
and American cultures. The authors found that Asians use a wider variety of strategies
than Americans, and tend to rely on positive oriented strategies (e. g. “promise”, “positive
expertise”, and “positive esteem”). Subsequently, and concentrating primarily on
downward inﬂuence, a study by Kipnis and colleagues (1984) suggested that there were
no differences in how managers exercised their inﬂuence. Although their study included
a sample of United States, British, and Australian managers, their results can be
explained when considering that these countries share a similar cultural heritage
(Hofstede, 1980). Additional studies looking at downward inﬂuence suggest that culture
does affect the inﬂuence messages that supervisors are willing to use when trying to gain

compliance from their subordinates (Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986; Schermerhom &

l2

Bond, 1991; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992; Xin & Tsui, 1996). In one of the few studies looking
at the effects of culture on upward inﬂuence message selection, Ralstone and colleagues
(2001) examined how managers ﬁ'om six different countries (United States, Netherlands,
Germany, India, Hong Kong, and Mexico) differed on the types of messages they were
willing to use to gain compliance from their supervisors. Although participants from
these six countries viewed soft strategies (i.e., more polite messages) as the best way to
gain compliance from their supervisors and hard strategies (i.e., less polite messages) as
the worst way to gain compliance from supervisors, participants from the six countries
differed from each other in how acceptable they found each strategy. Given these mixed
ﬁndings, there is a need for an explanatory mechanism to help understand the effect of
culture on upward inﬂuence message production. This explanatory mechanism might be
Politeness Theory.

Politeness Theory. Brown and Levinson (1988) offered a universal model
designed to explain how different cultures use language in similar ways. Politeness
theory suggests that when communicating people are concerned about their face (i.e., the
self-image they present to others), and they recognize that others are too. There are two
types of face: Positive face, which indicates whether one feels liked, respected, or valued
by others, and negative face, which indicates whether one feels constrained or restricted
in one’s actions with loss of autonomy or freedom. Any communication act is a potential
face threat. Requests, threats, compliments, and apologies are examples of possible face
threatening acts (FT A). Politeness is used to try to diminish the threats of communication
acts. And, when contemplating performing a FTA, one may select among ﬁve strategies

that vary in level of politeness. The ﬁrst strategy (bald on record), and the least polite, is

13

to state the information without politeness to soften the message. The second strategy
(positive politeness) involves indicating solidarity with the target. The third strategy
(negative politeness) involves respecting the target’s ﬁ'eedom, using restraint, and being
formal and self-efﬁcacious. The fourth strategy (off-record) involves stating the
information by using hints, metaphors, irony, or understatements. And, the ﬁfth strategy
(no communication), and the most polite of all, is not engaging in any communication act
so there cannot be any FT As (See Table 1 for deﬁnitions and examples).

A speaker’s choice of which strategy to use depends on three factors: social
distance between the speaker and the target, power of the target relative to the speaker,
and the level of imposition of the request. Social distance refers to the extent to which the
speaker and the target know each other, perceive themselves as similar, like each other,
and interact with each other (Brown & Levinson, 1988) . Power, in this case, refers to the
degree to which targets can impose their own plans and own face at the expense of the
Speaker’s plans and face (Brown & Levinson, 1988). Finally, the level of imposition of
the request refers to the degree to which the Speaker and the target consider the message
or request to be costly in energy, time, or money (Brown & Levinson, 1988). By
considering these three factors speakers determine the threat of the communication act
(i.e. weightness) and decide which strategy to use. Increases in social distance, power,
and imposition of the request will each result in the need for the speaker to use less
threatening strategies (i.e., more polite strategies) or to opt not to perform a
communication act.

Politeness theory also provides a framework for explaining cultural similarities

and differences in communication acts (Holtgraves & Yang, 1992). Similarities come

14

from at least two factors. First, they arise from the assumption that, independent of
culture, persons are concerned with saving their own face and that of the target. If those
from different cultures are concerned with their face and that of the target, they will try to
maintain face by being polite in their communication acts. The second similarity comes
from similar perceptions of social distance, power, and level of imposition. To the extent
that people from two different cultures perceive the social distance, power, and level of
imposition to be similar the greater the likelihood they will use Similar politeness
strategies. On the other hand, differences between cultures can arise form at least three
factors (Holtgraves & Yang, 1992). First, different cultures might perceive social
distance, power, and level of imposition in different ways. These differences in
perceptions may explain why persons from different cultures use different politeness
strategies in similar situations. Second, those from different cultures might weight social
distance, power, and level of imposition in different ways. Therefore, an increase in the
weight on one dimension will result in more variability in politeness strategy selection as
a function of this dimension (Holtgraves & Yang, 1992). Finally, some cultures might be
more concern with face than others. Thus, those cultures in which saving face is very
important are more polite in their communication acts compare to those cultures in which
saving face may be less important.

Studies by Holtgraves and Yang (1990, 1992) have examined how politeness
theory works across cultures. Results from their studies suggest that across cultures
verbal strategies for FTAS can be ordered on a politeness continuum based on the concern
for face (Holtgraves & Yang, 1990), as suggested by Brown and Levinson (1988).

Additionally, their studies suggest that at least for Americans and Asians the relationship

15

between power, social distance, request size, and politeness use is similar. Power and
social distance did not combine additively to predict perceived likelihood of politeness
strategy use, however. In this case, the effects of power on the selection of a politeness
strategy was effective only when the perceived social distance was large; and the effects
of distance on politeness strategy selection only emerged when power was perceived as
equal. Borrowing ﬁ'om this ﬁamework it is possible to think that to the extent that
employees ﬁnal two countries have different perceptions of power, social distance, and
degree of imposition of a request they will use messages that differ in politeness when
trying to gain compliance ﬁorn their supervisors.
Additional Considerations for Upward Inﬂuence Message Production

Additional factors expected to affect upward inﬂuence message production
include job satisfaction, voice behavior, and union membership. Job satisfaction refers to
the employee’s affective reactions to a job based on a comparison of actual outcomes
with desired outcomes (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). Job satisfaction might be related
to the concern for maintaining the relationship, and to the concern with getting one’s
way. It is possible to think that employees who are satisﬁed with their job would want to
maintain their job. One way to maintain one’s job is to have a good relationship with the
supervisor. Therefore, employees who are satisﬁed with their job might be interested in
maintaining their relationship with their supervisors and to do so they choose messages
that do not hurt their relationship with their supervisor (i.e., more polite messages) when
trying to gain compliance. Similarly, employees who are not satisﬁed with their job

might not be interested in keeping this job and might be willing to choose messages that

16

could hurt their relationship with their supervisor (i.e., less polite messages), indicating a
greater concern for getting their way.

Voice behavior and union membership might also affect the production of upward
inﬂuence messages. Voice behavior describes the propensity of employees to make
proactive suggestions for change in the organization (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998). Employees who engage in voice behavior are more likely to say
what they think to others in a group (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Therefore, it is possible
that those employees who often engage in voice behaviors are also going to be more
likely to say what they think and be less concerned with how polite they sound when they
try to gain compliance ﬁ'om their supervisor. On the other hand, employees who do not
engage in voice behavior are less likely to say what they think or engage in any form of
communication when trying to gain compliance ﬁ'om their supervisor. Thus, those
employees who do not engage in voice behavior often will be more concerned with being
polite when trying to gain compliance ﬁ'om their supervisor. Regarding union
membership, employees who belong to a union might have speciﬁc procedures they must
follow when trying to gain compliance from their supervisor. Therefore union
membership might also affect the likelihood of an employee choosing a message to gain
compliance from a supervisor, although the direction of the effect is likely dependent

upon speciﬁc union strictures.

l7

CHAPTER3

THIS STUDY

This study considers how and why LMX quality affects employee’s choice of
compliance-gaining messages when attempting to gain compliance ﬁ'om their
supervisors. Employees from different companies in Colombia and in the United States
were asked to participate in a web survey designed to understand how they communicate
and present ideas to their supervisors. Participants responded to questions inquiring about
their relationship with their supervisor, their perception of power distance, work attitudes,
demographic information about themselves and their supervisors, and information about
the type of organization for which they work. Additionally, participants were asked to put
themselves in two situations. One situation described an instance in which employees
need to ask their supervisor for a change in work schedule for the next month to deal with
an important personal matter (high level of imposition). The second situation described
an instance in which employees need to ask their supervisor to authorize their vacation
time (low level of imposition). After reading each situation participants wrote a mock
EMM to their supervisor asking for time off. The mock EMMs were coded for the degree
of politeness used in each message.

Competing hypotheses as to why employees choose different messages when
trying to gain compliance from their supervisors were tested. If the data were consistent
with the Relationship Maintenance Framework, the higher employee’s perception of
LMX quality the more the mock EMMS would reﬂect higher levels of politeness. Higher

politeness would produce positive affect in the supervisor, and would be less risky

l8

therefore helping the employee maintain a good relationship with the supervisor.
Conversely, if data were consistent with the Idiosyncrasy Credit Framework, the higher
the employee’s perception of LMX quality the more the mock EMMs would reﬂect
moderate levels of politeness. Moderate politeness would not produce negative affect in
the supervisor but would emphasize the importance of getting what the employee wants
from the supervisor.

To test predictions from Politeness theory participants from two countries:
Colombia and United States of America participated in this study. These two countries
represented differences in power distance necessary to test the generalizability of
predicted effects in this dimension. According to Hostede (1980), the United States and
Colombian cultures differ on their perceptions of power distance. On one hand, the
United States represents a culture low on power distance, therefore in the United StateS’
organizational environment employees perceive that their supervisors have minimal
inﬂuence on their behavior. On the other hand, Colombia represents a culture high on
power distance. Thus, in Colombia employees perceive that their supervisors have a
Signiﬁcant inﬂuence on their behaviors. Given this difference, and to examine the
generalizability of these results across countries, and politeness theory, it was expected
that perceptions of social distance (i.e., LMX quality), power (i.e., power distance), and
degree of imposition of the request (i.e., asking for a change in schedule vs. asking for
vacation time) would affect compliance gaining message selection. More Speciﬁcally, it
was expected that participants from the United States and Colombia would differ on how

polite their messages are when trying to gain compliance from their supervisors,

19

Colombia being more polite that the United States because of the differences in power
distance.

Finally, this study also included job satisfaction, voice behavior, and union
membership as control variables to understand more thoroughly the effects of LMX
quality on upward inﬂuence message production. In regards to job satisfaction, it was
expected that participants who were more satisﬁed with their job would produce
messages that were more polite because of their concern with maintaining the
relationship and maintaining a job they like. It was also expected that employees who are
likely to engage in voice behavior would be more likely to say what they think or want
without high concerns for how polite it sounds to the supervisor, whereas those who
engage less in voice behavior would be more concerned with how polite messages are
when trying to gain compliance from the supervisor. Additionally, it was expected that
participants who belonged to a union would differ on how polite they were when
engaging in upward inﬂuence message production, compare to those who did not belong

to a union.

20

CHAPTER 4

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 123 employees ﬁ'om different organizations in the United
States and 147 employees ﬁom different organizations in Colombia. Participants were
selected using a snowball sampling technique. For the United States sample the average
age was 30.29 years (SD = 9.55), 63% were female, 76% were Caucasian, 77% were born
in the US, and 70% had a Bachelor’s, Masters, or PhD. degree. On average, United
States employees had worked 4.46 years (SD = 5.84) in the organization and 2.62 years
(SD = 3.11) in the position. For the Colombian sample the average age was 39.43 years
(SD = 9.98), 63 % were female, and 74% had a Bachelor’s, Masters, or PhD. degree. On
average, Colombian employees had worked 8.66 years (SD = 7.64) in the organization
and 6.52 years (SD = 6.20) in the position. Differences between samples in age (t (246) =
7.30, p < .001), tenure in the organization (t (245) = 4.74, p < .001), and tenure in the
position (t (241) = 5.96, p < .001) where signiﬁcant.

In the United States sample 46% of the participants worked for public
organizations, 30% worked for private organizations, and 11% worked for non-proﬁt
organizations. Thirty-ﬁve percent of these organizations employed less than one hundred
employees, 13 % employed between one and three hundred employees, 7% between three
and Six hundred, 5% between six hundred and one thousand, and 30% employed more
than one thousand employees. In the Colombian sample 49% of the participants worked

for public companies, 37% worked for private companies, and 8% worked for non-proﬁt

21

organizations. Twenty-three percent of these organizations employed less than 100
employees, 12% employed between one and three hundred, 8% between three and six
hundred, 11% between Six hundred and one thousand employees, and 40% employed
more than one thousand employees.

Participants in the United States sample had an average of 4.33 (SD = 4.12)
supervisors in the past, and currently had 1.62 (SD = 1.17) supervisors. Additionally,
43% of the United States sample had a women as a supervisor, and, on average, each
supervisor was responsible for 26.08 (SD = 45.9) employees. Participants in the
Colombian sample had and average of 4.39 (SD = 3.3) supervisors in the past, and
currently had 1.57 (SD = 1.26) supervisors. Thirty percent of the Colombian participants
had a woman as a supervisor, and each supervisor was responsible for 31.39 (SD = 52.02)
employees.

Procedure

Participants received an invitation by electronic mail to participate in a study
about communicating and presenting ideas to supervisors. This EMM presented
participants with a link to the survey designed for this study. When participants visited
the survey cite, they were brought to a page explaining the study and then a second link
that took them directly to the survey (See Appendix A). The survey was divided into ﬁve
sections: (1) Describing the relationship with supervisor, (2) Communicating with the
supervisor part 1, (3) Communicating with your supervisor part 2, (4) Perceptions of
themselves at work, (5) Demographic information about themselves, their supervisor, and

the organization for which they worked.

22

In the ﬁrst section of the survey, participants responded to questions regarding
their perception of LMX quality. In the second section participants were asked to put
themselves in two different Situations: (1) to ask for a change in schedule for next month
(high imposition), and (2) to ask for authorization for vacation time (low imposition).
Participants were asked to write a mock EMM to their supervisor to make these requests.
In the third section of the survey participants were asked about their likelihood of use of
inﬂuence tactics, concern for maintaining the relationship, concern for getting their way,
and perceptions of power distance. In the fourth part of the survey, participants were
asked about their job satisfaction and voice behavior. Finally, in Section Five participants
answered demographic information about themselves and their supervisors and questions
concerning the type of organization for which they worked.

Compliance Situations

In order to understand how and why LMX quality affects employees trying to
gain compliance from their supervisors, and the consistency of these results across
cultures, participants were provided with two situations and asked to write a mock EMM
describing what they would say to their supervisors to gain compliance. The ﬁrst
Situation required the employee to ask the supervisor for a change in work schedule, and
the second situation required the employee to ask the supervisor to authorize vacation
time. The two Situations were selected ﬁom among a set of 19 alternative situations that
were generated in a focus group conducted by the experimenter. These 19 alternative
situations were pre-tested with a sample from the United States and another from
Colombia. In the pretest 20 workers in each country rated the situations on a seven-point

scale (1=low, 7=high) to indicate their perceptions of the degree of imposition of each

23

request. For a situation to be selected it had to be perceived similarly in both countries,
there had to be little variability in these perceptions, and one had to reﬂect a high level of
imposition, whereas a second situation had to reﬂect a low level of imposition. The two
situations that were selected were change in work schedule (United States: M = 4.20, SD
= 2.08; Colombia: M = 3.93, SD = 2.19) as the high level of imposition situation, and
asking for authorization of vacation time (United States: M = 2.60, SD = 1.35; Colombia:
M = 3.00, SD = 1.93) as the low level of imposition situation. These two situations were
presented to participants the following way, and were not counterbalanced:
Situation 1. To deal with an important personal matter it has become very
important that you change your work schedule for the next month. You need to
ask your supervisor to help you by changing your work schedule for the next
month. In the following space please write an e-mail indicating what you would
say to your current supervisor to obtain this change of work schedule.
Situation 2. You and your family are ready to take your annual vacation,
and you need to ask your supervisor to authorize your vacation time. In the
following space please write an e-mail indicating what you would say to your
current supervisor to authorize your vacation time.
Translation of Materials

After all the materials were created in English, they were translated into Spanish.
The compliance situations and other measures were translated into Spanish by two
bilingual speakers. Subsequently, a back translation was prepared by the experimenter.
Adjustments were made when there were differences between the original items and the

back translated items, keeping all items equivalent and consistent with the English

24

version. Most of the English version scales used in this study had been previously used
by other researchers, therefore consistency with these measures was necessary to
compare with previous studies.

Coding of Mock EMMS.

Two independent bilingual coders who were blind to research hypotheses
analyzed each of the mock EMMS. Coders analyzed the degree of politeness used in each
message. Using the coding scheme ﬁ'om Holtgraves and Yang (1992) each message was
divided into three components: (1) address form (i.e., how did the employee start the e-
mail), (2) the request, and (3) the adjuncts (i.e., any additional information or sentences
used to gain compliance from the supervisor). Dividing the messages this way allowed
for a more accurate assessment of politeness because the message was divided into three
different parts and each part was assessed for its politeness independently. The coding of
each of these three components was based the superordinate strategies proposed by
Brown and Levinson (1988).

Coders were ﬁrst trained on the coding system by the principle investigator.
Coders were trained using 10 messages. First, it was explained how to divide the
messages into the three different components (i.e., address, request, and adjunct). Once
they were able accomplish this task accurately the politeness codes for each message
component were explained, and coding instructions provided (see Appendix B). Coders
were then trained on how to use the coding procedure, and practiced on sample requests.
The coders then independently coded the entire set of EMMS in Spanish and English. If
coders had any questions in regards to the coding they met with the principle investigator

to discuss the issue. When messages were coded, each coder created an overall politeness

25

score by adding the politeness score of the address, the request and the adjunct. This
score was arrayed on a nine point scale to measure politeness. A one indicated low levels
of politeness and a nine indicated the highest degree of politeness. The mean of the two
coder’s politeness rating served as the message politeness measure in this study.

Intercoder reliabilities were obtained by correlating the measures taken from the
two independent codings across all EM, and adjusting them with the Spearman-Brown
prophesy formula to obtain the estimated reliability of the average (Ebel, 1951). For the
Colombian sample the reliabilities for situation 1 were .91 for address, .89 for request,
and .93 for the adjunct. The reliabilities for Situation 2 in Spanish were .95 for address,
.91 for request, and .95 for the adjunct. For the United States sample the reliabilities for
situation 1 were .93 for address, .93 for request, and .91 for the adjunct. And, the
reliabilities for situation 2 were .90 for address, .88 for request, and .96 for the adjunct.
(See Table 2 for coding ﬁ'equencies)
Measures

LMX Quality. Fifteen items (United States sample: M = 5.60, SD = 1.17, or =
0.95) ﬁ'om Borchgrevink and Boster (1994) were used to assess participants’ perceptions
of LMX quality for the United States sample. For each of these items participants
indicated their level of agreement using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, and
7= strongly agree). The scale was translated to Spanish, and 16 items (Colombian
sample: M = 5.11, SD = 1.13, or = 0.93) were used to assess the LMX quality perceptions
of Colombian employees. The Colombian measure had one more item because of

translation. The item “My supervisor likes me” required two items to be translated. Given

26

the difference in number of items, an LMX quality score was created by averaging across
all items for each of the samples. The items are presented in Appendix C.

Power Distance. This measure was used to assess perceptions of power
differences across cultures. Power distance is “the difference between the extent to which
a supervisor can determine a behavior of an employee, and the extent to which an
employee can determine the behavior of a supervisor” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 99). Power
distance was measured with three items (United States: M = 2.80, SD = 1.31, or = 0.87;
Colombia: M = 2.60, SD = 1.46, or = 0.68) from Dorfman and Howell (1988). For each of
these items participants indicated their level of agreement using a 7-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, and 7= strongly agree). The items are presented in Appendix C.

Overall Concern for getting one ’s way. To measure the extent to which
employees expressed concerned with getting their way six items (United States: M =
5.70, SD = 0.82, or = 0.75; Colombia: M = 6.12, SD = 0.79, 0. = 0.76) were created. For
each of these items participants indicated their level of agreement using a 7-point Likert
scale (1= strongly disagree, and 7= strongly agree). The items are presented in Appendix
C.

Overall Concern for maintaining the relationship. To measure the extent to
which employees are concerned with maintaining the relationship with their supervisor
ﬁve items (United States: M = 5.30, SD = 1.18, or = 0.83; Colombia: M = 5.11, SD =
1.19, or = 0.79) were developed. For each of these items participants indicated their level
of agreement using a 7-point Likert scale (1= Strongly disagree, and 7= Strongly agree).

The items are presented in Appendix C.

27

Job Satisfaction. Information about the participants’ job satisfaction was
collected as a control variable. Job satisfaction was measured with four items (United
States: M= 5.57, SD = 1.41, or = 0.91; Colombia: M= 6.15, SD = 1.14, or = 0.80) from
the job satisfaction survey developed by Spector (1985). Participants indicated their level
of agreement on a 7 point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, and 7= strongly agree). The
items are presented in Appendix C.

Voice Behavior. Voice behavior was measured with six items (United States: M =
5.39, SD = 1.15, or = 0.90; Colombia: M = 5.50, SD = 1.21, or = 0.85) ﬁom Van Dyne and
LePine (1998). For each of these items participants indicated their level of agreement
with each statement using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, and 7= strongly
agree). The items are presented in Appendix C.

Demographic Information. Participants also answered questions about their own,
and their supervisor’s, demographic characteristics. Regarding supervisors, participants
indicated their sex, ethnic background, and the number of employees for whom the
supervisor was responsible. Regarding the participant’s demographics, participants
completed information about their age, sex, ethnic background, tenure in the
organization, tenure with the supervisor, union membership, type of position in the
organization, type of organization, and size of the organization. The items are presented

in Appendix C.

28

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

Measurement

Conﬁrmatory factor analyses (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) were employed to
ascertain the validity of the LMX quality, power distance, job satisfaction, voice
behavior, concern for getting one’s way, and concern for maintaining the relationship
scales. Analyses were conducted employing the total sample and then separately by
country. Tests of internal consistency and parallelism for the three analyses indicated that
the data were consistent with the predicted six factor solution. For the combined sample
the root mean squared error was .09, for the Colombian sample it was .10, and for the
United States sample it was .12. Correlation among the factors and reliabilities are
presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
Evaluation of Hypothesis

To test whether the data were consistent with the relationship maintenance or the
idiosyncrasy credit hypotheses LMX quality was ﬁrst categorized into three levels.
Participants who scored less than one standard deviation below the mean were considered
low LMX quality, participants who scored more than one standard deviation above the
mean were considered high LMX quality, and all others were treated as moderate LMX
quality. Subsequently, the impact of LMX quality, country, and imposition on message
politeness was estimated in a 3 (LMX quality: low vs. medium vs. high) by 2 (Country:
Colombia vs. United States) by 2 (Imposition: high vs. low) mixed repeated analysis of

variance with the ﬁrst two factors factor occurring between groups, and the imposition

29

factor occurring within groups. Power distance, job satisfaction, and sex were treated as
covariates (see Table 6). Only participants who responded to both of the two situations
were considered for these analyses (Colombia = 128; United States = 98). As expected, in
the high imposition condition (M = 4.11, SD = 1.32) participants used more polite
messages than in the low imposition condition (M = 3.41, SD = 1.30), F (1,217) = 14.309,
p < .001 , n2 =.01. If the data were consistent with the relationship maintenance
hypothesis, participants with high LMX relationships would develop more polite
messages when trying to gain compliance from the supervisor, whereas participants with
low LMX relationships would develop messages that were less polite compared to those
in the higher LMX relationships. On the other hand, if data were consistent with the
idiosyncrasy credit hypothesis, participants with high LMX relationships would develop
less polite messages when trying to gain compliance ﬁ'om their supervisors, whereas
participants with low LMX relationships would develop more polite messages when
trying to gain compliance from the supervisor. Results suggest that there was no main
effect for LMX quality F (2,217) = 0.25, ns. Therefore, participants with low LMX
relationships (M = 3.67, SD = 1.30) were equally polite as those with moderate LMX
relationships (M = 3.73, SD = 1.31) and those with high LMX relationships (M = 3.88,
SD = 1.20) when trying to gain compliance ﬁom their supervisors. LMX quality did
interact with imposition, F (2,217) = 3.843, p < .05, when imposition was high and LMX
quality increased (low M = 3.81, moderate M = 4.12, high M = 4.41) politeness increased;
under conditions of low imposition as LMX quality increased (low M = 3.52, moderate M
= 3.34, high M = 3.34) politeness remained similar. Although there was not a statistically

signiﬁcant three-way interaction between LMX quality, country, and imposition, F

30

(2,217) = 1.88, ns, observation indicates that these variables did affect outcomes when
combined (refer to Tables 7, 8, and 9). For the Colombian sample in the high imposition
condition perceptions of LMX did not strongly affect message politeness (r = .07, ns),
whereas for the United States sample increases in LMX quality substantially increased
the use of politeness (r = .21, p < .05). In the low imposition condition perceptions of
LMX quality did not affect the use of politeness for either the Colombian (r = -.09, ns) or
the United States (r = .03, ns) sample. Therefore these results indicate that in the high
imposition condition the data were consistent with the relationship maintenance
hypothesis for the United States sample only, whereas in the low imposition condition the
data were not consistent with either the relationship maintenance or the idiosyncrasy
credit hypotheses for the Colombian or the United States sample.

To analyze cross-cultural differences in this study the main and interaction effects
for country were examined. It was expected that Colombia and the United States would
differ on how polite their messages were when trying to gain compliance from their
supervisor, Colombia being more polite than the United State. Results indicate that
participants from Colombia (M = 3.72, SD = 0.10) and the United States (M = 3.79, SD =
0.12) were equally polite when trying to gain compliance ﬁom their supervisor, F (1,217)
= 0.11, ns. Additionally, there was an interaction between country and imposition, F
(1,217) = 4.805, p < .05, n2 = .02. In Colombia there was a slightly bigger difference in
message politeness between participants in the high (M = 4.15, SD = 1.39) and the low
imposition (M = 3.35, SD = 1.35) conditions than in the United States (High: M = 4.05,

SD = 1.15; low: M = 3.42, SD = 1.16). There was no interaction between LMX quality

31

and country, F (2,217) = 0.177, us, or between LMX quality, imposition, and Country, F
(2,217) = 1.88, ns.

Job satisfaction, sex and power distance were used as covariates in the analyses.
Job satisfaction did not affect message politeness, F (1,217) = 2.19, ns. Sex had a main
effect on imposition, F (1,217) = 5.46, p< .05, 112 =.02. Females (M = 3.87, SD = 1.31)
generated more polite messages than men (M = 3.49, SD = 1.21) when trying to gain
compliance from their supervisor. Finally, power distance interacted with imposition, F
(1,217) = 10.899, p< .01, 112 = .05. The power distance interaction indicated that in the
high imposition condition participants who scored lower on power distance used the most
polite messages (r = -.13, p < .05), whereas in the low imposition condition power
distance did not affect the use of politeness in compliance gaining messages (r = .06, ns).
When considering the interaction effect of power distance and politeness for each country
separately, results indicate that for the Colombian sample in the high imposition
condition the lower the perceptions of power distance the higher message politeness (r = -
.20, p < .05), whereas in the low imposition condition power distance did not affect
message politeness (r = -.04, ns). For the United States sample in the high imposition
condition power distance did not affect message politeness (r = .01 , ns), and in the low
imposition condition increases in power distance resulted in increases in message
politeness (r = .24, p < .05). Therefore, these results indicate that the effect of power
distance on politeness was different for the Colombian and the United States sample.
More Speciﬁcally, in the high imposition condition data ﬁ'om the Colombian sample were
consistent with the relationship maintenance hypothesis, whereas in the low imposition

condition the data ﬁom the United States sample were consistent with the idiosyncrasy

32

credit hypothesis. Union membership and voice behaviors were removed from the
analyses because they did not have any effect on message politeness, and did not help
predict the dependent variable. Additional analyses including age, tenure in the
organization, tenure in the job and sex of supervisor as covariates were also conducted
and results did not differ.
Additional Analysis

Overall measures for concern in maintaining the relationship with a supervisor
and concern for getting one’s way constitute an additional test of the proposed
hypotheses. If the data were consistent with the relationship maintenance hypothesis,
LMX quality would be a strong and signiﬁcant predictor of the overall concern for
maintaining the relationship (OCMR). Similarly if data were consistent with the
idiosyncrasy credit hypothesis, LMX quality would be a strong and signiﬁcant predictor
of the overall concern for getting one’s way (OCGW). To test cross cultural differences
country was included as an independent variable. To test these competing hypotheses a
multiple regression analyses was conducted to determine how LMX quality and country
affected both the concern for maintaining the relationship and the concern for getting
one’s way. Job satisfaction, power distance and voice behavior were included in the
regression equations as control variables. LMX quality (,6 = .55, p < .001) and power
distance (,6 = .14, p < .05) were important predictors of overall concern for maintaining
the relationship, whereas voice behavior (,6 = -.04, p = .504), job satisfaction (,6 = .09, p =
.138), and country (ﬂ = -.02, p = .680) were not important predictors, F (6,243) = 19.163,
p < .001, R = .572 (see Table 10). When analyzing the predictors for overall concern for

getting one’s way work satisfaction (,6 = .23, p < .01), country (,8 = -.l9, p < .01), and

33

voice behaviors (,6 = .15, p = .055) were important predictors, but LMX quality (,6 = -.01,
p =.582) and power distance (,6 = -.06, p =.125) were not, F (5,241) = 10.620, p < .001, R
= .572 (see Table 11). These results are consistent with the relationship maintenance
hypothesis. LMX quality was a strong and signiﬁcant predictor for overall concern for
maintaining the relationship and not for the overall concern for getting one’s way.
Country was not a signiﬁcant predictor for neither of these dependent variables.
Although there were no strong and Signiﬁcant effects of country on overall
concern for maintaining the relationship (OCMR) or the overall concern for getting one’S
way (OCGW) analyses of the samples independently reveal some differences in the
variables that affect OCMR and OCGW in the United States and Colombian Sample.
When considering the United States sample independently, LMX quality (6 = .55, p <
.001) and power distance (,6 = .27, p < .01) become the strong predictors of the overall
concern for maintaining the relationship, F (4,104) = 16.954, p < .001, R = .628 (see
Table 12), and job satisfaction (,6 = .19, p = .06) and voice behavior (,6 = .36, p < .01) are
important predictors of overall concern for getting one’s way, F (4,104) = 7.162, p <
.001, R = .465 (see Table 13). For the Colombian sample LMX quality ([3 = .52, p < .001)
and job satisfaction (,6 = .15, p = .07) were strong predictors of overall concern for
maintaining the relationship, F (4,133) = 14.224, p < .001, R = .547 (see Table 14). And,
job satisfaction (,6 = .23, p < .05) was the only important predictor of concern for getting

one’s way, F (3,133) = 2.682, p <.05, R = .273 (see Table 15).

34

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION

Findings and Implications

The purpose of this study was to examine why the type of relationship between
employee and supervisor (i.e., LMX Quality) affects the production of upward inﬂuence
messages in sifuations with high and low levels of imposition. Competing hypotheses
were tested to determine whether employees used more polite messages because of their
concern in maintaining their relationship with supervisor, or because they want to get
their way. Results indicate that imposition had an effect on politeness such that messages
in the high imposition condition were more polite than messages in the low imposition
condition. Additionally, there was a substantial interaction between imposition and LMX
quality. Further analysis of the interaction indicated that in the high imposition condition,
increases in the perceptions of LMX quality resulted in increases in the use of politeness
when trying to gain compliance from supervisors, a result consistent with the relationship
maintenance hypothesis. When the sample was separated by country, the effect of LMX
quality on politeness was substantial only for the United States sample. For the low level
of imposition, LMX quality did not affect the use of politeness, indicating that the data
were not consistent with either of the hypotheses.

Two control variables also had substantial effects on the use of politeness when
trying to gain compliance from supervisors. Sex had a direct effect on politeness. Results
indicate that, overall, women were more polite than men when trying to gain compliance

ﬁom their supervisors. The other control variable that had an effect on politeness was

35

power distance. Imposition interacted with power distance such that in the high
imposition condition lower perceptions of power distance led to the use of more polite
messages, whereas in the low imposition condition power distance did not affect message
politeness. When the sample was separated by country to examine this interaction, in the
high imposition condition, power distance had the effect on politeness only for the
Colombian sample, and in the low imposition condition the effect was reversed for the
United States sample. These results indicate that the data were consistent with the
relationship maintenance hypothesis in the high imposition condition for the United
States sample and data were inconsistent with both hypotheses in the low imposition
condition.

These results have at least two implications for understanding how and why LMX
quality affects upward inﬂuence message production. First, the type of relationship
between employee and supervisor does affect how polite employees are when trying to
gain compliance ﬁom their supervisors. Employees who perceive they have better
relationships with their supervisors are very concerned with keeping that type of
relationship and therefore are more polite when trying to gain their compliance. Second,
the results from this study contradict those suggested by Politeness Theory. According to
Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1988) increases in social distance (i.e., LMX
quality), power (i.e., power distance), and imposition of the request will result in the need
for the speaker to be more polite. In this study imposition was the only factor that made a
difference in message politeness in the same way predicted by politeness theory. In
regards to LMX quality, the results were contradictory to the theory. In this study the

higher the perceptions of LMX, the higher the politeness used by participants and

36

politeness theory would suggest that the higher the perceptions of LMX quality the less
polite messages would be. In regard to the effects of country in message production, this
study did not provide a strong test of cultural differences because both the Colombian and
United States samples scored Similar in the regards to power distance. Politeness theory
suggests that social distance (i.e., LMX quality), power (i.e., power distance), and
imposition of the request have an additive effect on politeness, and this study indicates
that at least social distance does not have an additive effect on politeness. Thus, future
research on politeness theory should examine the independent effects that social distance,
power and imposition of the request have on politeness.
Cross-cultural Findings and Implications

It was expected that participants from Colombia and the United States would
differ on how polite their messages were when trying to gain compliance from a
supervisor. More Speciﬁcally and according to politeness theory, because of higher scores
on power distance, participants from Colombia were expected to use more polite
messages than participants ﬁom the United States. In this study these results did not
occur. Participants from Colombia and the United States were equally polite when trying
to gain compliance from their supervisor. One of the reasons for why this result was that
participants from Colombia (M = 2.60, SD = 1.46) scored similar on power distance
compared to those in the United States (M = 2.80, SD = 1.31). These power distance
ﬁndings are different from those by Hofstede (1980), in which Colombia scored high on
the power distance index (PDI = 67) and the United States scored low on the power
distance index (PDI = 40). There might be at least two reasons for why the scores for

power distance in this study differ from those in the Hofstede (1980) study. First, the

37

Hofstede study was done before 1980 and the workforce in Colombia was very different
then, being mostly males in power. The present study was done 24 years later and the
work force in Colombia is more diverse now, having more female workers and more
females as subordinates (Lora, 2003). Given this fact, the differences in power distance
might have been due to the changes in work force composition over time. A second
reason for the differences in power distance might be the number of organizations
involved in the sample. Hofstede (1980) only looked at employees in the IBM Company
but this study included many different companies. Therefore, the results from Hofstede
(1980) might reﬂect only the IBM culture whereas the present study might be more
reﬂective of the Colombian culture.

Results from this study also indicate that there was an interaction between country
and imposition. This interaction showed that in Colombia there were higher differences
in politeness between the high and low imposition conditions compared to the United
States, but neither in the high nor the low imposition conditions was there a difference
between the Colombian and the United States Sample. Taken all together these results
indicate that there were no substantial differences between the two countries in
perceptions of power distance, imposition of the request, and LMX quality.
Consequently, it is not surprising that both countries were Similar in message politeness.
Additional Analysis and Implications

Overall measures for concern for maintaining the relationship and concern for
getting one’s way were developed for this study. These measures assessed the overall
concern that employees may have when communicating with their supervisors. Although

no speciﬁc hypotheses about overall concern for maintaining the relationship, or overall

38

concern for getting one’s way, were proposed these two measures can help clarify the
reasons employees are concerned for getting their way or maintaining the relationship
when communicating with their supervisors. For the overall sample, LMX quality and
power distance were strong predictors of overall concern for maintaining the relationship,
and job satisfaction, country, and voice behavior were strong predictors of concern for
getting one’s way. When separating the sample by country, results indicated that for the
United States sample LMX quality and power distance were strong positive predictors of
concern for maintaining the relationship and job satisfaction and voice behavior were
important predictors of concern for getting one’s way. For the Colombian sample results
indicate that LMX quality and job satisfaction are positive predictors of concern for
maintaining the relationship, and work satisfaction is a positive predictor of concern for
getting one’s way.

Taken together these results have at least two implications for understanding why
people are concerned with getting their way or for maintaining the relationship. First, it
may be that the concern for getting one’s way, and the concern for maintaining the
relationship are predicted by different variables. If these two processes have different
predictors, LMX quality might only affect the concern for maintaining the relationship,
therefore producing no evidence consistent with the idiosyncrasy credit hypothesis. A
second implication is that both of these processes may occur Simultaneously. That is,
employees are both concerned with maintaining the relationship and for getting their
way. If so, then this study might not be able to capture how the two processes happen
simultaneously because the way the dependent variable is measured. Therefore, this issue

needs to be addressed in future studies.

39

Limitations

This study has several important limitations. The ﬁrst limitation is the type of
sample used. The use of a convenient sample may limit the generalizability of the results.
Because participants in this study were similar in education, types of job, and
organizations for which they worked, this sample is overly homogeneous, so that future
research may beneﬁt from using employees from different organizations or from
multinational organizations with ofﬁces in different countries.

A second limitation may come from the use of scenario situations. One issue
about the scenarios is the perceptions of realism, and although participants were asked
about what they would say to their current supervisor, some employees might not
perceive the situation as applicable. A second issue related to the use of scenarios is that
although participants indicated that they would communicate a certain way with a
supervisor, when faced with the situation they might respond differently. Therefore,
future research can consider archival data that indicates how employees make different
written requests to their supervisors and direct observations of how employees make
requests ﬁ'om a supervisor.

A third limitation is related to the translation of questionnaires and scenarios. The
translation of questionnaires and scenarios can be an issue because there are some words
and questions that do not have an equivalent translation in Spanish. This translation issue
can be a problem because participants ﬁ'om the Colombian sample might interpret
questions or their meaning in different ways. To address this issue the experimenter had
two bilingual speakers independently translate the questionnaire and scenarios into

Spanish and then a back translation was prepared by the experimenter to English. This

40

resulted in the need to add extra questions into the Spanish version of the questionnaire to
try to capture the meaning for each language. Adding new questions helped the keep
equivalence in the meaning and understanding of the questions and situations. A second
aspect of translation being a limitation is the fact that most of the scales employed in this
study were developed in English speaking countries therefore Showing high scale
reliabilities for English Speakers. In this study, reliabilities ﬁ'om the power distance and
job satisfaction scales were very different for the Colombian (power distance a = 0.68,
job satisfaction (1 = 0.80) and the United States sample (power distance a = 0.87, job
satisfaction (1 = 0.91). Differences in the reliabilities might indicate that participants in
the Colombian sample interpreted questions differently than those in the United States
sample. These differences in interpretation can be due to translation difﬁculties or to
construct meaning. Further research is necessary to see how reliabilities in the power
distance and job satisfaction scales can be improved.
Summary and Future Research

Overall, ﬁndings from this study indicate that perceptions of LMX quality affect
message politeness only in high imposition conditions. In these Situations, increases in
perceptions of LMX quality lead to increases in message politeness when employees are
making requests ﬁom supervisors. These ﬁndings are consistent with the relationship
maintenance hypothesis. Further analysis also indicate that the overall concern for
maintaining the relationship with a supervisor and the overall concern for getting one’s

way might be two different processes that are simultaneous and have different predictors.

Future research would beneﬁt from identifying if these two processes happen

41

Simultaneously and, if so, what are the different predictors that affect each process when

an employee is producing messages to gain compliance from a supervisor.

42

APPENDIX A

CONSENT FORMS

43

Consent F orm —English Version

This study concerns how employees communicate with their supervisors. If you
choose to take part in this study, you will answer questions describing your interactions
with your immediate supervisor at your work. You will also answer some questions
describing your relationship with your supervisor, some of your perceptions about your
work environment, and some demographic characteristics. All the information you
provide in this study will be conﬁdential and your privacy will be protected to the

maximum extent allowable by law.

Full participation in this study will take 20 minutes or less, and your participation
is voluntary. Although participation in this study is not expected to produce discomfort or
stress, please note that you may refuse to answer certain questions or withdraw from the

study at any time without penalg. The experimenter can answer any questions you have
about the study to help you choose whether to participate.

All information will be used only for research purpose and reports will include
aggregate data only. Your name will never appear in any report and the report will not
include any information that will allow anyone to identify you or your response. Only
members of the research team will have access to the data, which will be stored in a
locked ﬁle and in a password protected computer ﬁle. The surveys will be destroyed after

ﬁve years.

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact Isabel C.
Botero (e-mail: boterois@msu.edu; phone: 517 353 0666; Ofﬁce: 459 CAS building, East
Lansing, MI 48824-1212). If you have any questions concerning your rights as a study
participant, or if you are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vaselinko, Ph.D., Chairman of University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone (517-355-2180),
fax (517-432-4503), email (ucrihs@msu.edu), or regular mail (202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824).

 

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by completing

the following on-line survey.

Consent Form — Spanish Version

Esta es una investigacién que busca entender la comunicaciOn entre ernpleados y
sus j efes inmediatos. Si usted decide participar en este estudio, respondera preguntas
acerca de la interaccién con su jefe inmediato. Ademas, respondera preguntas acerca de
su relaciOn con su jefe, su ambiente de trabajo, algunas caracteristicas personales y de la
institucién donde trabaja. Esta encuesta es anOnima, todas sus respuestas seran
conﬁdenciales y su privacidad sera protegida en todo sentido.

Su participacién en esta investigacién es voluntaria, y debe tomar cerca de 20
minutos. Aunque su participacién no le producira estrés, puede dejar de contestar a1 guna
pregunta si asi lo considera, o podra interrumpir su participaciOn en el momento que lo
considere conveniente.

Toda sus respuestas en esta encuesta seran usadas con el propOsito de la
investigacién, y los reportes que se produzcan seran creados agregando las respuestas de
todos los participantes. Su nombre nunca aparecera en ningr’rn reporte, y el reporte no
tendra informacién que facilite la identiﬁcaciOn suya 0 de alguna de sus respuestas. Solo
rrriembros del equipo investigativo podrén ver las respuestas. Esta informacién sera
almacenada en un archivo protegido con clave para acceso, y las encuestas serén
destruidas en cinco aﬁos.

Si usted tiene preguntas acerca de esta investigacién, por favor contacte a Isabel
Cristina Botero Laverde (e-mail: boterois@rnsu.edu; teléfono: 517 353 0666; Direccién:
Michigan State University, 459 CAS building, East Lansing, MI 48824—1212, USA). Si
usted tiene alguna pregunta con relacién a sus derechos como participante de esta
investigacién, o si usted no esta satisfecho con alguna parte de esta encuesta, usted puede
contactar - andnimarnente Si desea- a Peter Vaselinko, Ph.D., Chairman of University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) Michigan State
University, teléfono (517-355-2180), fax (517-432-4503), email (ucrihs@msu.edu), o
correo normal (202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA).

 

En el momento que usted empiece a contestar la encuesta, el grupo de
investigadores entiende que usted ha aceptado las condiciones antes descritas. Gracias

por su participacién.

45

APPENDIX B

CODING INSTRUCTIONS

46

Instructions for Coding Mock E-mails - English

General Instructions

This coding system is designed to code mock e-mails. These e-mails are directed to
supervisors to request a change in the work schedule and time off for vacation. Coders
will determine the extent to which each e-mail reﬂects a degree of politeness.

Before you start the coding process please determine the amount of words used in each e-
mail, and enter this number in the coding Sheet as Shown below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the ofﬁce in the evenings.

 

 

Survey E-mail 1 E-mail 2 W1 TW2
1 I have had some important My family and I have 44 36
personal matters come up and ﬁnalized our annual
need to look at the possibility vacation plans. I have
for changing my work submitted the appropriate
schedule for a month. If we request to you in our
could sit down and have a talk Outlook email calendars.
about this when you have time Can you please approve the
that would be great. Thanks. request or notify me if
there are conﬂicts.
2 I need to meet with you to [Name] I wanted to write 33 45
discuss changing my work to let you know I am
schedule for the next month intending to put in for
due to an important personal vacation time in the
matter. Let me know when we coming month. I'll be by
can discuss this matter. Thank your ofﬁce with the forms
you and times I just wanted to
let you know about it for
your management
purposes.
3 Hey (name) I’ve had My family is coming to 37 48
(whatever) just happen at visit and I will need to
home. I need to adjust my Spend time with them.
hours here at work for the next They will be here for one
month to be able to take care week and I will need to
of the situation - if that's ok take off a Tues- Thursday.
with you? But I will be available on
my cell and will stop by

 

Note: TW stands for total words, and the number that follows indicates the e-mail

(whether it is E1 or E2).

To count the number of words please view the e-mails in a word document, select

highlight each e-mail and, under the tools menu, choose word count.

47

 

1.

2.
3.

Coding for Degree of Politeness
To determine the degree of politeness of each e-mail, you need to ﬁrst divide each e-mail
in three parts:

Address.(ADD) This is the part of the e-mail that indicates to whom the message is
directed to, and it is frequently found at the beginning of the e-mail.

Request. This is the part of the e-mail where the employee asks for what he or she needs.

Adjunct. This is any additional part of the e-mail used to gain compliance from the

supervisor. Please divide the e—mail as indicated below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

you and discuss changing
my work schedule for the
next month due to a
personal matter. Let me
know when we can I
discuss this matter. Thank
you

 

 

you and discuss
changing my work
schedule for the
next month due to a
personal matter.

 

Survey E-mail Add Request Adjunct

1 I have had some important None I have had some If we could sit
personal matter and need to important personal down and have
look at the possibility for matter and need to a talk about this
changing my work schedule look at the when you have
for a month. If we could sit possibility for a time that
down and have a talk about changing my work would be great.
this when you have a time schedule for a
that would be great. month.

2 Name, I wanted to write to Name I wanted to write to I'll be by your
let you know I am intending let you know I am ofﬁce with the
to put in for my vacation intending to put in forms and times
time in the coming month for my vacation I just wanted to
I'll be by your ofﬁce with time in the coming let you know
the forms and times I just month about it for your
wanted to let you know management
about it for your purposes
management purposes.

3 Mr. X, I need to meet with Mr. X I need to meet with Let me know

when we can I
discuss this
matter. Thank
you

 

48

 

Coding the Address Term
Once you have identiﬁed the address term for each e—mail, use the following information
to code each term:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code Address Term Example
0 No address NOOname. that represents to whom the e-
mail 1s directed.
1 Informal 1F il’St names like Jim, Tom, or Chuck.
2 Formal Tltlea MI» Dr., Boss, Supervrsor or
jmfessor

 

 

 

Codes Should be assigned in the coding sheet the following way:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Survey ADD Request Adjunct ATCl
1 None I have had some If we could Sit down 0
important personal and have a talk about
matter and need to this when you have a
look at the time that would be
possibility for great.
changing my work
schedule for a
month.
2 Name I wanted to write I'll be by your ofﬁce 1
to let you know I with the forms and
am intending to times I just wanted to
put in for my let you know about it
vacation time in for your management
the coming month purposes
3 Mr. X I need to meet with Let me know when we 2
you and discuss can I discuss this
changing my work matter. Thank you
schedule for the
next month due to
a personal matter.

 

49

Coding the Request

Once you have the request part of each e-mail identiﬁed, please use the following

information to determine which strategy it best represents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code Strategy Deﬁnition Example

1 Bald Sentences that are This is what I need.
direct and use
imperatives

2 Positive Sentences that indicate This is what I need,

Politeness the reasons for why the and this is why I need
supervisor should it
comply
3 Negative Sentences that try to I am sorry, but please
Politeness lessen the imposition of I need this, and this is
the request on the how I can make it up
supervisor to you.

4 Off the record Sentences that use a Hints, clues,
non-direct form of ambiguous questions
request

5 No Request When a person
indicates that they
would not ask for this
request

 

50

 

Codes should be assigned in the coding sheet the following way:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Survey ADD Request Adjunct ATCl RTCl

1 None I have had some If we could Sit down 0 2
important personal and have a talk about
matter and need to this when you have a
look at the possibility time that would be
for changing my great.
work schedule for a
month.

2 Name I wanted to write to I'll be by your ofﬁce 1 4
let you know I am with the forms and
intending to put in times I just wanted to
for my vacation time let you know about it
in the coming month for your management

purposes

3 Mr. X I need to meet with Let me know when 2 2
you and discuss we can I discuss this
changing my work matter. Thank you
schedule for the next
month due to a
personal matter.

Coding the Adjunct

Once you have the adjunct part of each e—mail identiﬁed, please use the following
information to determine which strategy it best represents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code Stra_teg Deﬁnition Example
0 No Strategy No additional information for
why the supervisor should
comply with the request is
provided.
1 Positive Information that reﬂects that the I need this favor because
Politeness employee is aware of the I will be going on
imposition of the request, or vacation with my
where the employee attempts to family.
minimize the imposition of the
request. These include asking
for forgiveness, and giving
reasons for the request.
2 Negative Information that reﬂects an This is what I can offer
Politeness attempt to Show closeness you so you can help me
between employee and with my request xxx.
supervisor. It also includes
providing alternatives or
exchanges for the favor.

 

51

Codes should be assigned in the coding sheet the following way:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

personal matter.

 

 

 

 

Survey ADD Request Adjunct ATCl RTCl ADC]
1 None I have had some If we could sit 0 2 2
important personal down and have
matter and need to a talk about this
look at the possibility when you have
for changing my a time that
work schedule for a would be great.
month.
2 Name I wanted to write to I'll be by your 1 4 2
let you know I am office with the
intending to put in for forms and times
my vacation time in I just wanted to
the coming month let you know
about it for your
management
purposes
3 Mr. X Ineed to meet with Letme know 2 2 2
you and discuss when we can I
changing my work discuss this
schedule for the next matter. Thank
month due to a you

 

52

 

Instrucciones para Codiﬁcar E-mails

Instrucciones Generales

Estas instrucciones estan diseﬁadas para codiﬁcar e—mails escritos para este trabajo de
grado. Estos dos e—mails estan dirigidos a los supervisores para solicitar un carnbio en el
horario de trabajo, y la autorizacién para las vacaciones. Los codiﬁcadores determinarén
el grado de cortesia que reﬂeja cada e-mail.

Pero, antes de que usted comience e1 proceso de codiﬁcacién por favor determine la
cantidad de palabras usadas en cada E-mail, e incorpore este m’rmero a la pagina de
Excel, como es demostrado a continuacién:

 

 

 

Encuesta E-mail 1 TWl E-mail 2 TW2
1 Buenos dias Nombre: por 22 Dr. X. solicito a usted en 29
favor tu colaboracién para la forma respetuosa autorizar
programacién e1 préximo mes mis vacaciones a partir del
del horario de 7:00 a 4:00, 20 de diciembre del presente
segr’rn conversacién pasada ar'io, para compartirlas con
mi familia. Por su atencién
gracias
2 Jefe: tengo la oportunidad de 36 J efe: hace 3 aﬁos no saco 22
hacer un trabajo extra por vacaciones, le solicito a
espacio de 2 meses, en usted me autorice un periodo
capacitacién de personal, pero de vacaciones, para pasarlo
requiero de su autorizacién con mi farnilia

para el carnbio de horario
durante este tiernpo. Le
agradeceria que me lo

 

 

autorizara

3 Dr. X como es de su 32 Buenos dias: segt'm 39
conocirniento e1 préximo mes programacién de vacaciones
requiero hacer la capacitacién para el mes de noviernbre,
en administracién de exactamente e1 15 hasta el
servicios, por lo tanto solicito dia 8 de diciembre estan
a usted autorizar e1 carnbio de prograrnadas mis vacaciones,
horario de mi jomada laboral por favor tu colaboracién

con la autorizacién para la
entrega del formato a gestién
hurnana

 

 

 

 

 

Nota: TW signiﬁca numero de palabras (Total words) y el numero que siga denota el
numero del e-mail.

Para deterrninar el m’rmero de palabras por e-mail por favor observe cada e-mail en un
documento de word. Seleccione e1 contenido de cada e-mail, y bajo e1 menu de
herrarnientas elija la opcién para contar palabras.

53

 

Codiﬁcacio'n Para el Grado de Cortesia de Cada Mensaje

Para determinar e1 grado de cortesia de cada E-mail, usted necesita primero dividir cada
E-mail en tres porciones:

l. Direccidn. (DIR) Esta es la parte del E-mail que indica a quién va dirigido e1 mensaje se
dirige, y se encuentra con frecuencia al principio del E-mail.

2. Peticion. Esta es la parte del E-mail donde e1 empleado pide lo que 61 o ella necesita.

3. Adjunto. Esta es cualquier parte adicional del E-mail usado para persuadir al supervisor.

Divida por favor e1 E-mail segr'rn lo indicado a continuacién

 

 

ENC E-mail 1 DIR Peticién Adjunto
1 Dr. xxx: elﬁnesconel Dr. Elﬁnesconel Ud.Mediraa
objetivo de pedirle mis objetivo de pedirle mis partir de
vacaciones las cuales vacaciones las cuales cuando.
tengo ya vencidas. Ud. tengo ya vencidas. Agradeciéndol
Me dira a partir de e la atenciOn a
cuando. Agradeciéndole la presente

la atencién a la presente

 

2 Juan: tengo 1a Juan pero requiero de su tengo la
oportunidad de hacer un autorizaciOn para el oportunidad de
trabajo extra por espacio carnbio de horario hacer un
de 2 meses, en durante este tiempo. trabajo extra
capacitacién de Le agradeceria que me por espacio de
personal, pero requiero lo autorizara 2 meses, en
de su autorizacién para capacitacién
e1 carnbio de horario de personal,

durante este tiempo. Le
agradeceria que me lo

 

autorizara

3 Solicito se me autorice Solicito se me autorice
vacaciones a partir del vacaciones a partir del
31-12-04. Gracias 31-12-04. Gracias

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

Cédigos para Direccio'n del Mensaje

Una vez haya identiﬁcado la direccién de cada e-mail, use uno de los siguientes cOdigos

para determinar que tipo de direccién es.

Estos cOdigos deben ser asignados en la pagina Excel de la siguiente manera:

no esta

Esta
serian:
En esta

nombre del supervisor.

esta
Profesor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENC DIR AC Peticidn Adjunto

1 Dr. 2 e1 ﬁn es con el Ud. Me diré a partir
objetivo de pedirle de cuando.
mis vacaciones las Agradeciéndole la
cuales tengo ya atencién a la presente
vencidas.

2 Juan 1 pero requiero de su tengo la oportunidad
autorizacién para el de hacer un trabajo
carnbio de horario extra por espacio de 2
durante este tiempo. meses, en capacitacién
Le agradeceria que de personal,
me lo autorizara

3 0 solicito se me
autorice vacaciones a
partir del 31-12-04.
Gracias

 

55

a ninguna persona en

 

Cédigos para la Peticién del Mensaje

Una vez se haya identiﬁcado la parte que indica la peticién en el mensaje, utilice uno de
los siguientes cédigos para determinar cual estrategia esta mejor representada en este e-

marl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COdigo Estrateg'a Deﬁnicién Ejemplo
1 Bald Oraciones que son directas Esto es lo que yo
y usan imperatives. necesito.
2 Positive Oraciones que indican las Esto es lo que necesito y
Politeness razones por las cuales e1 esta es la razdn por la
supervisor debe decir si a la cual lo necesito.
peticién.
3 Negative Oraciones que tratan de Perdone la molestia, pero
Politeness disminuir la imposicién de yo necesito este favor.
la solicitud del empleado. Yo 1e puedo pagar de la
siguiente manera.
4 Off the Oraciones que utilizan Sera que de pronto puedo
record formas indirectas para faltar a esa reunién (en
hacer 1a solicitud. vez de pedir el dia libre .
5 No request Cuando la persona indica
que ellos no haria ese tipo
de solicitud.
Los cedigos deben ser asignados de la siguiente manera:
Encuesta DIR AC peticién RC Adjunto
1 Dr. 2 elﬁnescon el 2 Ud.Mediraapartir
objetivo de de cuando.
pedirle mis Agradeciéndole la
vacaciones las atencién a la
cuales tengo ya presente
vencidas.
2 Juan 1 pero requiero de 3 tengo la
su autorizacién oportunidad de
para el carnbio de hacer un trabajo
horario durante extra por espacio de
este tiempo. Le 2 meses, en
agradeceria que capacitacién de
me lo autorizara personal,
3 0 solicito se me 1
autorice
vacaciones a partir
del 31-12-04.
Gracias

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

 

Cédigos para Adjuntos

Una vez haya identiﬁcado e1 adjunto en el mensaj e, por favor clasiﬁquelo en una de las
siguientes categorias:

 

 

 

C6digo Estrate 'a Definicién Ejemplo
0 Sin estrategia Ninguna inforrnacién
adicional es incluida en el
mensaje
1 Positive informacién que indica que Yo se que este es un
Politeness e1 empleado sabe e1 nivel de momento diﬁcil para
imposicién de la nuestro

imposicién. Esta estrategia departarnento, pero
incluye pedir perdén y dar necesito su ayuda.
razones por la cual debe

 

 

 

 

 

hacer 1a peticién.

2 Negative Informacién que indica el YO puedo llegar una

Politeness deseo de demostrar que el hora mas temprano

empleado y el supervisor para curnplir con las
son amigos. Esta estrategia ocho horas de trabajo
también incluye ofrecer diarias.
alternativas para obtener
una respuesta positiva a la
peticién del empleado

 

 

Los cédigos deben ser asignados de la siguiente manera:

 

 

 

 

 

Encuesta DIR AC Peticién RC Adjunto ADC

1 Dr. 2 el ﬁn es con el 2 Ud. Me dira a 1
objetivo de pedirle partir de cuando.
mis vacaciones las Agradeciéndole
cuales tengo ya la atencién a la
vencidas. presente

2 Juan 1 pero requiero de su 3 tengo la 1
autorizacién para el oportunidad de
carnbio de horario hacer un trabajo
durante este tiempo. extra por espacio
Le agradeceria que de 2 meses, en
me lo autorizara capacitacién dc

personal,

3 0 solicito se me 1 0
autorice vacaciones a
partir del 31-12-04.
Gracias

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONAIRES

58

Communicating with your supervisor — Survey (English Version)

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The purpose of this survey
is to understand how employees communicate with their supervisors at work. This survey
will take approximately 20 minutes to complete and it is divided into 5 parts:

1. Describing your relationship with your supervisor.
2. Communicating with your supervisor (Part 1)
3. Communicating with your supervisor (Part 2).
4. Perceptions about yourself at work
5. Demographic Information
We are very interested in your candid impressions, so please provide honest answers to
the following questions.
PART I. Describing Your Relationship with Your Supervisor.
For the following questions, please choose a number ﬁ'om the scale below that indicates

your degree of agreement with each statement.

 

 

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Slightly nor Disagree Slightly Somewhat Agree

 

Please Indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements

m (Borchgrevink & Boster, 1994)
1. I know how satisﬁed my supervisor is with what I do.

2. My supervisor understands my job needs.

03

Regardless of how much authority my supervisor has, my supervisor would use
his/her power to help me solve problems at work.

My working relationship with my supervisor is better than average.

My supervisor recognizes my potential.

I often share my good ideas with my supervisor.

SP‘S"?

If my supervisor had to divide workers into two groups, with one being the most
preferred, and the other being the least preferred, 1 would be a member of the most
preferred group.

8. My supervisor and I have a strong working relationship.

59

 

10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.

My supervisor thinks that I am performing well beyond my job duties.

My supervisor does not trust me.

My supervisor thinks I help my work unit achieve its goals.

My supervisor likes me.

I feel close to my supervisor.

My supervisor thinks I do a better than average job.

If I had to make a decision for my supervisor, S/he could count on me to make the

same decision he/she would make.

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements
Speak with Supervisor (Borchgrevink & Boster, 1994)

l6.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.

23.
24.
25.
26.

I speak often with my supervisor about job related issues.

I speak often with my supervisor about issues not related to work.
My supervisor and I speak about job operations.

My supervisor and I speak to each other about management issues.
Supervisor Social Support (Borchgrevink & Boster, 1994)

It is easy to talk to my supervisor.

My supervisor can be relied on when things get tough at work.

My supervisor is willing to listen to my personal problems.
Supervisor Satisfaction (Blau 1999)

My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.

My supervisor is unfair to me. (R)

My supervisor Shows little interest in the feelings‘of subordinates. (R)
I like my supervisor.

PART II. Communicating with your supervisor.

Please read the following scenarios and imagine yourself in a situation like the one

described below. After reading, please answer the questions that follow.

Situation 1:

T 0 deal with an important personal matter it has become very important that
you change your work schedule for the next month. You need to ask your
supervisor to help you by changing your work schedule for the next month.

In the following space please write an e-mail indicating what you would say to your

current supervisor to obtain this change of work schedule.

60

Situation 2:

You and your family are ready to take your annual vacation, and you need to
ask your supervisor to authorize your vacation time.

In the following space please write an e-mail indicating what you would say to your
current supervisor to authorize your vacation time.

PART III. Communicating with your supervisor.
For the following questions, please choose a number ﬁ'om the scale below that indicates

your degree of agreement with each statement.

 

 

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Slightly nor Disagree Slightly Somewhat Agree

 

When asking your supervisor to do something for you, how likely are you to

Upward Inﬂuence Tactics

27. Act very humble while making the request to your supervisor.

28. Act in a ﬁiendly manner prior to asking for what you want.

29. Make your supervisor feel good about you before making your request.

30. Remind your supervisor about previous favors you did for him or her

31. Offer an exchange (if you do this for me I will do this for you) before making your
request.

32. Offer that you make a personal sacriﬁce (e.g., work late, work harder, do more
work) if he or she would say yes to your request.

33. Use a logical explanation to convince him or her.

34. Explain the reasons for your request.

35. Present him or her with information that supports why your supervisor should say
yes to your request.

36. Confront your supervisor face to face so he or she would say yes to your request.

37. Express with anger why your supervisor Should say yes to your request.

38. Use a forceful manner to ask your supervisor to say yes to your request.

39. Obtain the informal support of other higher up in the organization to convince your

supervisor to say yes to your request

61

 

40.

41.
42.
43.

45.

47.
48.
49.
50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.
57.
58.

Make a formal appeal to higher ups in the organization to get your supervisor to say
yes to your request.

Obtain support ﬁ'om co-workers to back up your request.

Obtain the support from your subordinates to back up your request

Ask other people in the organization to help you inﬂuence your supervisor to say

yes to your request.

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements
Concern for getting your way

When I ask for a favor from my supervisor it is very important for me to get what I
want.

I have speciﬁc goals in my job that I need to achieve.

Achieving my goals at work is very important for me.

My work goals are important to get where I want in this company.

It is important for me to achieve my personal goals.

I will do anything that I can to achieve my goals in this organization.

It is important that I get what I ask for, when I ask a favor from my supervisor.
Concern for maintaining the relationship

My relationship with my supervisor is important to me.

I have a good relationship to maintain with my supervisor.

When I ask for a favor from my supervisor it is very important for me to maintain a
good relationship with him or her.

It is important for me to maintain a good relationship with my supervisor especially
when I ask for a favor ﬁ'om him or her.

I will do anything I can to maintain a good relationship with my supervisor.

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements
Adaptation of Hershey and Blanchard Scale

Relationship

1 often act ﬁiendly with my supervisor.
I respond favorably to all suggestions made by my supervisor.

I communicate often with my supervisor.

62

59.
60.
61.

62.
63.

65.
66.

67.

68.
69.

70.
71.

72.
73.

74.
75.

76.

I show concern for the personal well being of my supervisor.

I often disclose my thoughts and feelings about work to my supervisor.

I try to get along well with my supervisor.

Task

I set the standards of performance in my work group.

I often develop a plan of action that I follow to achieve my goals.

I have a clear plan for how the work needs to be done to achieve my goals.
I always follow a plan of action to achieve what I want

I strive to do the best job that I can in everything I do.

Power Distance Scale Maznevski Et A1. (1990, A=. 90

People in higher positions in the organization Should make signiﬁcant decisions for
people below them.

People at higher positions in an organization must look after those below them.
People at lower levels in a group or organization Should carry out the decisions of
people at higher levels.

The hierarchy of groups in a society should remain consistent over time.

People in higher positions in the organization should expect to have more privileges
than those at lower levels.

People at lower levels in an organization should not expect to have much power.
Organizations work best with clear and formal hierarchies.

Items from Dorﬁnan and Howell (1988)

It is better not to disagree with management decisions.
When my supervisor makes a decision with which I disagree I prefer to accept the
decision rather than question it

I believe that it is not right to disagree with my boss.

63

PART IV. Perceptions of your-self at work.

For the following questions, please choose a number ﬁom the scale below that indicates

your degree of agreement with each statement.

 

1

 

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Slightly nor Disagree Slightly Somewhat Agree

2 : 3 ' 4 : 5 : 6 : 7

 

 

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements

Pay Satisfaction

77.
78.
79.

80.
81.
82.
83.

84.

85.
86.

87.
88.
89.
90.

s /_

I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.

In my job raises are too few, and far between (R)

I feel satisﬁed with my chances for salary increases in this organization.
Promotion Satisfaction

There are few chances for promotion on my job. (R)

Those who do well on their job stand a fair chance of getting promoted.
People get ahead as fast in this organization as they do in other organizations.
I am satisﬁed with my chances of promotion.

Other items

Possibilities of getting promoted in this organization, depend on my relationship
with my supervisor.

My supervisor has a lot to say in my promotion possibilities.

The relationship with my supervisor does not affect my opportunities of being
promoted in this organization (R)

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements
Rewards Satisfaction

When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.
I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. (R)
There are few rewards for those who work hard in this organization. (R)

I do not feel that my efforts are rewarded the way they should be (R)

 

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.
96.

97.
98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

Operating Procedures Satisfaction

Many of the rules and procedures in the organization that I work make doing my
job difﬁcult. (R)

My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by others in the organization.

I have too much to do at work.

I have too much paperwork.

Co-worker Satisfaction

I like the people I work with.

I ﬁnd that I have to worker harder than I should at my job because of the
incompetence of people I work with. (R)

I enjoy working with my co-workers.

There is too much ﬁghting between my colleagues at work. (R)

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements
Work Satisfaction

I feel my job is meaningless (R)

I like doing the things I do at work.

I feel a sense of pride in doing my work.

My job is enjoyable.

Communication Satisfaction

Communication seems good within this organization.

The goals of this organization are not clear to me. (R)

I often feel that I do not know what is going on in this organization. (R)

Work assignments are often not ﬁrlly explained. (R)

Voice Behavior

I develop and make recommendations to my supervisor concerning issues that
affect my work.

I speak up and encourage others in my work unit to get involved in issues that affect
our work.

I communicate my opinions about work issues to others in my work unit, even if
their opinions are different and they disagree with me.

I keep well informed about issues at work where my opinion can be useful.

65

ll 1. I get involved in issues that affect the quality of life in my work unit.

112. I speak up to my supervisor with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures at
work.

PART V. Demographic information.

Please answer the following questions about yourself

113. Sex (circle one): Female Male

114. Indicate your age in years?

115. What is your ethnic background?

0 Caucasian 0 American Indian
0 Black/ Aﬁican American 0 Paciﬁc Islander
0 Hispanic 0 Mixed

- Asian 0 Other

 

116. What country were you born in?
l 17. What is your native language?

118. Please indicate your level of education?

0 Primary School 0 Finished University
0 High school 0 Master
0 Some college 0 Ph. D.

119. How long have you been employed in your current organization (in years)?
120. How long have you worked in your current position?

121. Please choose the option that best describes your job:

 

o Ofﬁcials or Manager 0 Administrative support
0 Professional 0 Sales
0 Technician 0 Craft worker
a Science, engineer and 0 Production
computer professional 0 Other
0 Healthcare practitioner or
professional

122. Do you belong to a union? Yes No

123. How many different supervisors have you had in the past?
124. How many supervisors do you currently have?

125. Have you been a supervisor?

126. Are you currently a supervisor?

127. For how long have you been one?

66

128. How many employees do you supervise?
129. How long have you worked with your current supervisor?
Please answer the following questions about your supervisor
130. Sex of supervisor: Female Male
131. What is the ethnic background of your supervisor?

 

- Caucasian 0 American Indian
0 Black/ Aﬁican American 0 Paciﬁc Islander
0 Hispanic 0 Mixed
0 Asian 0 Other
132. Please indicate the level of education of your supervisor?
0 Primary School 0 Finished University
0 High school 0 Master
0 Some college 0 Ph. D.

133. How many employees is your supervisor responsible for?
Please answer the following questions about the organization for which you currently

work.

134. Please indicate the sector that best describes your organization:

0 Public
0 Private
0 Non for proﬁt

135. Please choose the option that best describes the type of organization you work for:

0 Education 0 Real State & Construction
0 Manufacturing 0 Agriculture
0 Banking & Insurance 0 Communications
a Service c Other
136. How many people currently work in your organization?
0 0-50 0 600-1000
0 50-100 0 1000-2000
0 100-300 0 2000 or more
0 300-600

67

Encuesta - Comunicdndose con sus superiores

Gracias por su participacién en esta encuesta. El propésito de esta investigacién
es entender como ernpleados y jefes inmediatos se comurrican en el ambiente de trabajo.
Su participacién no debe tomar mas de 20 minutos. Esta encuesta esta dividida en 5
partes:

l DescripciOn de su relacién con su jefe inmediato

2 Comunicadote con su jefe. Parte 1.

3. Comunicandose con su jefe. Parte 2.

4 Percepciones de su ambiente de trabajo.

5 Caracteristicas suyas y de su empresa.

Nosotros estarnos interesados en sus opiniones, por lo cual le pedirnos e1 favor
que responda honestarnente alas siguientes preguntas.

PARTE I. Descripcién de la relacion con su jefe.

A continuacién encontrara una serie de aﬁrrnaciones, seleccione un numero del 1

a1 7 que este mas de acuerdo con su percepcién. Por favor tenga en cuenta el 1

indica e1 mayor grado de desacuerdo, el 4 indica que usted no esta ni de acuerdo

ni en desacuerdo, y el 7 indica estar totalmente de acuerdo.

 

 

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
Totalmente Ni de acuerdo Totalmente
En desacuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo

 

Por favor indique su grado de acuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones.

W (Borchgrevink & Boster, 1994)

Yo se cuan satisfecho esta mi supervisor inmediato con mi trabajo.

Nr—t

Mi jefe entiende cuales son mis necesidades en el trabajo.

E”

Independiente de cuanta autoridad tiene mi j efe, él o ella usaria su poder para
ayudarme a resolver cualquier problerna en mi trabajo.

4. Mi relacién de trabajo con mi jefe es mejor que la del promedio de mis compaﬁeros
de trabajo.

Mi jefe reconoce mi potencial en el trabajo

6. A menudo yo comparto rrris buenas ideas con mi jefe.

68

 

10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.

Si mi jefe tuviera que dividir a todos sus trabajadores en dos grupos: un grupo para
los trabajadores preferidos y otro con sus trabaj adores menos preferidos, yo seria
parte del grupo de los preferidos.

Mi jefe y yo tenernos una buena relacién de trabajo.

Mi jefe cree que yo trabajo mas de lo que esta especiﬁcado en el contrato de trabajo
Mi jefe no conﬁa en mi.

Mi jefe cree que yo 1e ayudo a mi grupo de trabajo a alcanzar sus objetivos.

A mi jefe 1e gusta mi forma de ser.

A mi jefe 1e gusta mi forma de trabajar.

Mi jefe y yo somos amigos.

Mi jefe cree que la calidad de mi trabajo es mejor que la del promedio de otros
empleados.

Si yo tuviera que tomar una decisiOn por mi jefe, 61 o ella podria estar segura de que
mi decisién seria la misma que la que él o ella tomaria.

Speak with Supervisor

17.

18.

19.

20.

Yo hablo frecuentemente con mi jefe acerca de los distintos aspectos del trabajo que
realizo.

Yo hablo frecuentemente con mi j efe acerca de aspectos que no estan relacionada
con mi trabajo.

Mi jefe y yo hablamos frecuentemente acerca de los distintos aspectos de
ﬁrncionamiento necesarios para completar mi trabajo.

Mi jefe y yo hablamos frecuenternente a cerca de asuntos adrninistrativos.

Supervisor Social Support

21 .
22.
23.

Para mi es facil hablar con mi jefe.
Yo puedo contar con mi jefe cuando las cosas se ponen diﬁciles en el trabajo.

Mi jefe esta dispuesto a escuchar cuando tengo problemas personales.

Supervisor Satisfaction

24. Mi jefe es habil en el trabajo que realiza.

69

25. Mi jefe es injusto conmigo.
26. Mi jefe no esta interesado en los sentimientos de sus ernpleados.
27. Mi jefe me cae bien.

28. Mi jefe es un buen jefe.
PARTE II. Com unicdndose con su jefe.
Por favor lea la situaciOn descrita a continuacién e irnaginese en una situaciOn
similar.
Situacidn 1:
Para resolver un asunto personal e importante usted necesita cambiar su horario
de trabajo para el mes entrante. Usted necesita solicitarle a sujefe que lo/la
ayude con el carnbio de horario que usted esta solicitando.
En el espacio a continuacién por favor escriba un e-mail que indique usted como
1e solicitaria a su jefe inmediato que le otorgue e1 carnbio de horario para el mes
entrante.
Situaclén 2:
Usted y sufamilia estan listos para irse de vacaciones, y usted necesita pedirle a
sujefe que autorice sus vacaciones.
En el espacio a continuacién por favor escriba un e-mail que indique usted como
le solicitaria a su jefe inmediato que le otorgue sus vacaciones.
Parte III. Comunicdndose con sujefe.
A continuacién encontrara una serie de aﬁrmaciones, seleccione un nirmero del 1 al 7 que
este mas de acuerdo con su percepcién. Por favor tenga en cuenta el 1 indica e1 mayor
grado de desacuerdo, e1 4 indica que usted no esta ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo, y el 7

indica estar totalmente de acuerdo.

 

 

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
Totalmente Ni de acuerdo Totalmente
En desacuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo

 

Upward Inﬂuence Tactics

Por favor indique su grado de acuerdo con las siguientes aﬁrmaciones terriendo en cuenta
lo que usted estaria dispuesto a hacer a1 solicitarle a su jefe que lo ayudara en algo que
usted necesita.

70

 

29.
30.
31.

32.
33.

34.

35.

36.
37.

38.
39.

40.
41.

42.

43.

44.
45.

Actuar en forma humilde mientras le hace la solicitud a su jefe.
Actuar de manera amigable antes de hacerle la solicitud a su jefe.

Haria que mi jefe se sintiera a gusto conmigo y mi trabajo, antes de hacerle 1a
solicitud.

Le recordaria a mi jefe algunos favores que le he hecho antes de hacer mi solicitud.

Le oﬁeceria devolver e1 favor después (si usted hace esto por mi, yo maﬁana puedo
hacer a1 go por usted), antes de pedirle el favor que necesito.

Le oﬁ'eceria a mi jefe compensar en tiernpo 0 en trabajo (por ejemplo: trabajar hasta
mas tarde otros dias, asumir mas responsabilidades en el trabajo, trabajar en el

horario que mas 1e convenga a la empresa) si él o ella responde positivamente a su
solicitud.

Utilizaria una explicacién lOgica para convencer a mi jefe de que me ayude con mi
solicitud.

Le explicarfa a mi jefe las razones por las cuales estoy haciendo mi solicitud.

Le presentaria 1a informacién y los documentos a mi j efe que acreditan 1a necesidad
para mi solicitud.

Confrontaria a mi jefe cara a cara para que me ayude con mi solicitud.

Expresaria con rabia las razones por las cuales mi jefe de responder aﬁrmativamente
a mi solicitud.

Utilizaria amenazas al solicitarle a mi jefe que responda positivamente a mi solicitud.

Obtendria el apoyo informal de otros miembros irnportantes de la organizaciOn para
convencer a mi j efe que apoye mi solicitud.

Obtendria apoyo formal de otras personas irnportantes en la organizacién para poder
comprometer la respuesta aﬁrrnativa de mi jefe para mi solicitud.

Obtendria e1 apoyo de mis compaﬁeros de trabajo para respaldar la solicitud ante mi
jefe.

Obtendria e1 apoyo de mis ernpleados para respaldar la solicitud ante mi jefe.

Le pediria ayuda a otras personas en la organizacién para convencer a mi jefe que me
ayude en mi solicitud.

Concern for getting your way

46.

Cuando le pido un favor a mi jefe, es importante obtener lo que quiero.

71

47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

Yo tengo unos obj etivos especiﬁcos en mi trabajo que deseo alcanzar.

Obtener mis objetivos de trabajo es muy importante para mi.

Mis objetivos de trabajo son irnportantes para obtener lo que deseo en esta empresa.
Para mi es importante obtener mis objetivos personales.

Yo haria cualquier cosa para obtener mis objetivos en esta empresa.

Para mi es importante obtener lo que necesito cuando 1e pido favores a mi jefe.

Concern for Maintaining the Relationship

53.
54.

55.

56.

57.

Mi relacién con mi jefe es importante para mi.
Yo tengo una buena relacién que debo mantener con mi jefe.

Cuando 1e pido un favor a mi jefe, para mi es importante mantener una buena
relacién interpersonal con 61 o ella.

Para mi es primordial e1 tipo de relacidn que tengo con mi jefe, en especial cuando le
pido un favor.

Yo haria cualquier cosa necesaria para mantener una buena relaciOn con mi jefe.

Relationship Scale

58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

63.

A menudo yo actr’ro de manera amigable con mi jefe.

Yo respondo positivamente a todas las sugerencias hechas por mi jefe.
Yo me comunico a menudo con mi jefe para discutir asuntos de trabajo.
A mi me preocupa e1 bienestar personal de mi j efe.

A menudo 1e comunico a mi jefe mis pensarnientos y sentimientos acerca de mi
trabajo.

Yo intento tener una buena relacidn con mi jefe.

Task Scale

64.
65.
66.

Yo establezco las reglas en mi grupo de trabajo.
A menudo, yo tengo un plan de acciOn para obtener mis objetivos de trabajo.

Yo tengo un plan claro de trabajo claro para alcanzar mis objetivos.

72

67. Yo siempre tengo un plan de aceién para obtener lo que yo quiero.
68. Yo intento hacer lo mejor posible en todo lo que hago.
Power Distance

69. Las personas con posiciones mas irnportantes en la organizacion deben tomar las
decisiones irnportantes por los ernpleados por debajo de su posicion.

70. Las personas en posiciones mas irnportantes en la organizacién deben cuidar a los
trabajadores de niveles mas bajos dentro de la organizacién.

71. Las personas en los niveles mas bajos de un grupo o una organizacién deben llevar a
cabo lo necesario para realizar las decisiones de las personas en niveles mas altos.

72. La j erarquia de los grupos en la sociedad debe permanecer constante a través del
tiempo.

73. Los ernpleados con posiciones mas irnportantes en una organizacion deben tener mas
privilegios que esos en niveles mas bajos en la organizacion.

74. Las personas con posiciones de menos nivel en una organizacién no deben esperar
tener mucho poder dentro de la organizacién.

75. Las organizaciones trabajan mejor cuando hay jerarquias claras y formales.

76. Es mejor no expresar desacuerdo con las decisiones administrativas dentro de mi
organizacién.

77. Cuando mi jefe toma una decision con la cual no estoy de acuerdo yo preﬁero
aceptar esa decision antes de cuestionarla.

78. Yo pienso que no es correcto estar en desacuerdo con mi jefe.

PARTE IV. Percepciones personales en el trabajo.
A continuacion encontrara una serie de aﬁrmaciones, seleccione un m’tmero del 1
al 7 que este mas de acuerdo con su percepcién. Por favor tenga en cuenta e1 1
indica e1 mayor grado de desacuerdo, el 4 indica que usted no esta ni de acuerdo

ni en desacuerdo, y el 7 indica estar totalmente de acuerdo.

 

 

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
Totalmente Ni de acuerdo Totalmente
En desacuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo

 

Por favor indique su grado de acuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones.

Pay Satisfaction
73

 

79. Yo creo que mi salario es adecuado para el tipo de trabajo que hago.
80. En mi trabajo los aumentos salariales son muy pocos y demorados.

81. Estoy satisfecho/a con las oportunidades de aumento salarial en la organizacion en
que trabajo.

Promotion Saa'sfaction
82. En mi trabajo hay pocas oportunidades para ascensos laborales.

83. Las personas que hacen su trabajo bien en esta empresa tienen muchas posibilidades
de ser ascendidas a cargos mas irnportantes.

84. En la empresa en que yo trabajo, las personas obtienen ascensos laborales tan rapido
como lo hubieran obtenido en otras empresas.

85. Estoy satisfecho con mis oportunidades de ascenso en esta organizacién.
Other Items

86. Mis posibilidades de ascensos laborales dependen de la relacion que yo tengo con mi
jefe.

87. La opinion de mi jefe es muy importante para mis posibilidades de ascenso laboral.

88. Mi relacion con mi jefe no afecta mis oportunidades de ascenso laboral en la
organizacion en la que trabajo.

Reward Satisfaction

89. Cuando yo realizo un buen trabajo recibo e1 reconocimiento que me merezco.

90. Yo no creo que el trabajo que hago en esta empresa es apreciado.

91 . En esta empresa hay poco reconocimiento para las personas que trabajan duro.

92. Yo no creo que mis esfuerzos en esta empresa son reconocidos como deberlan.
Operating Procedures

93. Muchas de las reglas y procedimientos de esta empresa hacen mi trabajo mas diﬁcil.

94. Mis esfuerzos por hacer cosas buenas para esta empresa no son bloqueados por otros
en esta empresa.

9S. Generalmente tengo mucho trabajo que hacer en mi empresa.
96. En mi trabajo hay mucho papeleo.
Coworker Satisfaction

74

 

97. Me caen bien las personas con las que trabajo.

98. En varias ocasiones me toca trabajar mas de lo necesario por la inoompetencia de
otras personas con las que trabajo.

99. Yo disfruto trabajar con mis compaﬁeros de trabajo.

100.Hay muchos conﬂictos entre mis compaﬁeros de trabajo.

Work Satisfaction

101 .Yo creo que mi trabajo no tiene sentido.

102.Yo disfruto lo que hago en mi trabajo.

103.Yo me siento orgulloso(a) de lo que hago en mi trabajo.

104.Mi trabajo es agradable.

Communication Satisfaction

105.La comunicacién entre los empleados de esta empresa es buena.
106.Para mi 108 objetivos que tiene esta empresa no son claros.
107.A menudo siento que no estoy enterado de lo que esta sucediendo en esta empresa.
108.Las asignaciones de trabajo en esta empresa no son muy claras.
Voice Behavior

109.Generalmente yo 1e hago reeomendaciones a mi jefe acerca de asuntos que afecten
mi trabajo.

110.Estimulo a mis compaﬁeros de trabajo para que expresen sus ideas de mejoramiento
y cambio a nuestIo jefe.

111.Comunieo mis opiniones y recomendaeiones sobre aspectos de trabajo a mis
compaﬁeros de trabajo aim cuando ellos tienen opiniones diferentes a la mia

112.Me mantengo bien informado sobre los asuntos de trabajo en donde mi opinién
puede ser valiosa.

113.Participo en todos los asuntos que mejoren la calidad de vida de mi grupo de trabajo.

114.Comparto con mi jefe ideas que puedan ser ﬁtiles para cambiar algunos
procedimientos en mi empresa de trabajo.

Parte V. Informacion Personal y de su organizacién

Por favor conteste las siguientes preguntas sabre usted.

75

 

115. Sexo: Mujer Hombre
116.Cua1 es su edad en aﬁos?
117.Por favor indique su nivel de educacion (Cual fue el ultimo grado que obtuvo?)

o Primaria o Grado universitario

o Bachillerato o Especializacion

0 Tecnologia o Maestria

o Algunos semestres de 0 Doctorado
universidad

118.Cuanto tiernpo (en aﬁos) ha trabajado usted en esta empresa?
119.Cuantos aﬁos ha trabaj ado en el puesto que ocupa actualmente?
120. Elija 1a opcion que mejor describe e1 trabajo que usted desempeﬁa:

D Administrador CI Profesional en salud
Cl Profesional Cl Servicios administrativos
Cl Técnico CI Ventas
L'J Profesional en las ciencias de El Artesano
ingenieria o computacion CI Otro

121 .Usted Pertenece a1 sindicato? Si NO
122.Cuantos jefes ha tenido usted?
123.Cuantos jefes inmediatos tiene usted?

 

124.Ha sido usted supervisor en el pasado?
125.En su trabajo actual es usted un supervisor?

a. Por cuanto tiempo ha sido supervisor?

b. Cuantos ernpleados supervisa?
126.Cuantos aﬁos ha trabajado con su jefe actual?

 

Por favor responda las siguientes preguntas a cerca de sujefe inmediato.
127 .Cual es el sexo de su jefe? Mujer Hombre
128.Por favor indique cual es el nivel de educacién de su jefe (Cual fue el ultimo grado

que obtuvo?)

CI Primaria CI Grado universitario

CI Bachillerato D Especializacion

CI Tecnologia CI Maestria

Cl Algunos semestres de El Doctorado
miiversidad

129.Cuantas personas tiene su jefe a cargo?

76

Por favor responda las siguientes preguntas a cerca de la empresa para la que usted
trabaja.

130.Por favor indique el sector que mejor describe a su empresa:
CI Publioo
CI Privado
Cl Sin animo de lucro.

131.Entre las siguientes opciones escoja la que mejor describe e1 tipo de actividad que
realiza su organizacién:

Administracion Pﬁblica

Educaeién

Industria

Bancos y Empresas Aseguradoras

Servicio publico (transporte, acueducto, energia, Alcantarillado)
Construccion

Agricultura

Comunicacion

Otro:

132.Aproximadamente cuantas personas trabajan en su empresa:

0-50
50-100
100-300
300-600
600-1000
1000-2000
2000 o mas

OOOOOOOOO

 

0000000

77

Table 1

Deﬁnitions and Examples of Politeness Strategies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name of Strategy Deﬁnition Example
Bald —on record Presenting the message Go get the mail.
in the most clear, . .
concise, direct and Bring the marl
unambiguous way
possible.
Positive Politeness Message that states the Why don’t you bring the
request by indicating mail?
18.01:de wrth the You’ll go get the mail, won’t
rs ener. you?
Negative Politeness Message that states the I would like you to bring the
request by indicating that mail.
you respect the targets . .
freedom of action Would you bring the marl?
Could you bring the mail?
Would you mind bringing
the mail?
Off-record Presenting the message Don’t you think the mail has
in an ambiguous way by come by now?
provrdmg hints, The mail should be here by
metaphors, irony or now
understatements. °
No Communication No message is presented

 

to the listener.

 

 

78

 

Table 2

Politeness Coding Frequencies

 

 

Code High Imposition Low hnposition
Condition Condition
Address 0 31.60 % 33.90 %
1 36.15 % 38.25 %
2 32.25 % 30.85 %
Request 1 9.90 % 24.60 %
2 46.90 % 51.45 %
3 39.35 % 22.55 %
4 3.85 % 1.40 %
5 0 % O %
Adjunct 0 37.75 % 66. 15 %
1 37.25 % 20.45 %
2 25.25 % 13.4 %

 

79

2.35m u_ .288 u o saw an» n _ was .8 u o aim-.3808 8:5 338200 no.“ _ £88m “82:5 05 Ba o @250 an? 3550
.3836 on“ E 3382a Ba $86530 33¢.

8.3: . nova. Nunez

 

83 :3. .2; .2. 8.- :2. :8. S. :3. S. 8. .2. SN 82 N8 838232
a: 8:88.53.

How 80800.2

EC 2. no. 8. :8. :2. ::.- S. :3; :. .2. 88 $8 8.8 8388358»
com Eooaoo.:

3.- :8. :2. :8. E.- 8.- :8.- :.- 3.- 33 8.2 8.2 38.2

3.- 8.- 3. 8. 3. 3. S. :3. 83 $8 3.8 x38

3. :2. S.- 3. 8.- 8. 3. 33 82 2.8 888808 88:.”

$3 :3. :3; :8. 3.- 3. :. 33 a: 9% 8325 88>.8

83 :8; :8. :8. :. 2. 33 2 8.8 8835 .83

$5 3.- 3. 3. .2: 8a .1 a: 83:5 5386

8.3 :8. 3.- a. EN 82 m2 3:95 53.8

8.- 8.- 88 m8 2: 958 .m

:3. 33 m2 and 88.-.83

33 mmoauﬁom .N

mmm :2 :8 8:895

33: $0888 .3

 

.2 S 3 a m N. o n v m N ﬂ 2 Om 502

 

£35“. 33.5280 EeuSmtoU $3.5 ome

m 3an

8O

oﬁﬁom n_ .228 n o uxom an» n 2 Ba .0: u o @229;an 8:5

.383? 06 3 62:80.5 0.8 386508 SE?

8.8: 8.8. H32

 

 

at :8. 2.- 2. 8.- .2. :8. 8. :8. S.- 2. N: 82 28 82882208
wESSEQE 8m E380; _
85 8.- 8.- 3. :. :8. 2.- :. 8. 8. N: 8.8 2.8 838%
wage» ..om 58qu .2
8.- :8. 8. 2. 8. 8. 8.- 3.- 32 8.8 8.8 08.8
2.- 8.- 8. 3. 8. :. .2. 82 $8 8.8 x38
3. 2. 8.- 8. 8.- 3.- 82 8.8 2.8 888888 883.8
$3 :8. :8.- ..80 8. 8. 82 8.2 88 888% 88>.»
833 .2.- :8. 8. 8. 82 3.2 28 88823 82m
$3 8.- 3.- .8..- 82 8.2 8.8 8825 888.8
63 8.- 8. 2: 2.2 2.8 $808938
:8. m2 22 83. 8888
33 8888 .8
m: 8.2 2.8 88.-.88
8: 8858.2
: S 8 w 8 8 m V m N 2 2 am 80:

 

£356. .BEESoD .ESBEEQQ L395 PEN

v 035.

81

285m NH .088 u c 38m 80» u ~ 28 .8 n o aﬂﬁonaoa 8:5

.Enowamu 05 3 @2535 8a 356508 «an?

 

 

8.8: 3v? 582
£8 :8. 8.- .8. 8. .8. .8. :2. :2. :. 2. m: w: 83 8888222:
magma-88 88 80800; ~
83 S. 2. 8.- :3. :8. 8a.- .8. a. :8. w: 8.8 83 .33
.59» mate» .5.“ E380 .2
8.- :8. :R. :8. :8: 2. LVN.- 8.- o: 8.8 8.8 8:
2. 8. S. S. 8. 8. 2. o: 3.8 2.8 8m.”
:. :8. 8.- 2. 8. 2. 2: 8.8 3.8 838888 883.8
83 :8. :3- :8. 8. e. 2: 82 8.8 838% 88>.e
:3 .8..- :$. 2. S. a: :1 88 8888mm 8;
Ea 8.- 8. 8. N: NE 88 888a 8.88.8.
83 8. .8. MS 83 88 83028
:8. 8: 8; 8.8 8:888 33 38888 .N
m: 8; 8.8. 8:885 85 $0888 ._
: 2 a w 8 c m w m N 8 2 am :82

 

mNQEum. 888m. 38.25 30.839260 .530 EmN

m 033-

82

Table 6

Results ﬁ'om Mixed Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (N =229)

 

 

Source SS df MS F p

Between Subjects
Country .301 1 .301 .116 .733
LMX Quality 1.317 2 .659 .255 .775
Power Distance .475 1 .475 .184 .669
Job Satisfaction 5.682 1 5.682 2.19 .140
Sex 14.109 1 14.109 5.46 .020
Country x LMX quality .912 2 .456 .177 .838
Error between groups 560.72 217 2.584

Within Subjects

Imposition 9.223 1 9.223 14.309 .0001
Imp x Country 3.097 1 3.097 4.805 .029
Imp x LMX Quality 4.954 2 2.477 3.843 .023
Imp x Power Distance 7.025 1 7.025 10.899 .001
Imp x Job Satisfaction 1.433 1 1.433 2.223 .137
Imp x Sex .632 1 .632 .981 .323
Imp x Country x LMX quality 2.430 2 1.215 1.885 .154
Error within groups 139.871 217 .645

 

83

Table 7

Politeness Means by Dzﬂ'erent Levels of LMX Quality and Power Distance for the Two

 

 

Samples Combined
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Variable M SD M SD M SD
High Imposition
LMX Quality 3.73 1.34 4.15 1.30 4.41 1.05
Power Distance 4.48 1.23 4.04 1.25 3.91 1.46
Low Imposition
LMX Quality 3.38 1.19 3.37 1.33 3.48 1.04
Power Distance 3.38 1.08 3.36 1.35 3.68 1.33

 

84

Table 8

Politeness Means by diﬁ'erent levels of LMX Quality and Power Distance for the

 

 

Colombian Sample
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Variable M SD M SD M SD
High Imposition
LMX Quality ' 3.92 1.33 4.17 1.41 4.40 1.46
Power Distance 4.51 1.37 4.13 1.34 3.57 1.53
Low Imposition
LMX Quality 3.40 1.25 3.38 1.40 3.05 1.21
Power Distance 3.42 1.10 3.44 1.49 3.26 1.58

 

85

Table 9

Politeness Means by dzﬂerent levels of LMX Quality and Power Distance for the United

 

 

States Sample
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Variable M SD M SD M SD
High Imposition
LMX Quality 3.44 1.30 4.11 1.14 4.41 0.77
Power Distance 4.40 0.55 3.94 1.15 4.29 1.32
Low Imposition
LMX Quality 3.35 1.12 3.35 1.22 3.72 0.95
Power Distance 3.25 1.06 3.28 1.18 4.14 0.80

 

86

Table 10

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern for

Maintaining the Relationship for Combined Sample (N =246)

 

 

Variable B SE B ﬂ
LMX Quality .55 .062 .55“
Power Distance .11 .048 .14“
Job Satisfaction .08 .058 .09
Voice Behavior -.04 .069 -.04
Country -.04 .134 -.02

 

Note: R2= .328, R = .573.
**p<.001"‘p<.01

87

Table 11
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern for

Getting One ’s Way for Combined Sample (N =246)

 

 

Variable B SE B ,6
LMX Quality -.01 .05 -.01
Power Distance -.03 .03 -.05
Job Satisfaction .14 .04 .228"
Voice Behavior .10 .05 .15*
Country -.32 .10 -.19**

 

Note:R2= .181,R= .425.
**p<.01*p<.05

88

Table 12
Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern for

Maintaining the Relationship for the United States Sample (N =1 05 )

 

 

Variable B SE B B
LMX Quality .527 .08 .55M
Power Distance .238 .07 .27*
Job Satisfaction .019 .07 .02
Voice Behavior .051 .10 .05

 

Note: R2= .395, R = .628.
"p<.001*p <.01

Table 13

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern for

Getting One ’s Way for the United States Sample (N =1 08)

 

 

Variable B SE B B
LMX Quality -.027 .07 -.04
Power Distance .012 .06 .02
Job Satisfaction .117 .06 .19*
Voice Behavior .262 .09 .36"

 

Note: R2= .216,R= .465.
**p<.01*p=.06

89

Table 14

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern for

Maintaining the Relationship for the Colombian Sample (IV =1 3 7)

 

 

Variable B SE B B
LMX Quality .560 .08 .52“
Power Distance .053 .06 .06
Job Satisfaction .160 .08 .15*
Voice Behavior -.O79 .09 -.O7

 

Note: R2 = .300, R = .547.
I""‘p<.001"'p = .07

Table 15

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Concern for

Getting One ’s Way for the United States Sample (N =1 3 7)

 

 

Variable B SE B ,6
LMX Quality -.006 .06 -.008
Power Distance -.041 .04 -.078
Job Satisfaction .163 .06 .239*
Voice Behavior .014 .07 .021

 

Note: R2 = .075, R = .273.
* p < .05

9O

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1987). Organizational context and upward inﬂuence
tactics. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 40(1), 39-49.

Ansari, M. A., Tandon, K., & Lakhtakia, U. (1989). Organizational context and leaders'
use of inﬂuence strategies. Psychological Studies, 34(1), 29—38.

Barry, B., & Shapiro, D. L. (1992). Inﬂuence tactics in combination: The interactive
effects of soft versus hard tactics and rational exchange. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22(18), 1429-1441.

Barry, B., & Watson, M. R. (1996). Communication aspects of dyadic social inﬂuence in
organizations: A review and integration of conceptual and empirical
developments. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (Vol. 19, pp.
269-317). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Borchgrevink, C. P., & Boster, F. J. (1994). Leader-member exchange: A test of the
measurement model. The Hospitality Research Journal, 1 7(3), 75-100.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1988). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., Doran, N. E., & Miller, M. D. (1982). Cultural and situation
inﬂuences on the process of persuasive strategy selection. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 6(1), 85 - 100.

Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., Doran, N. E., & Miller, M. D. (1982). Cultural and situational
inﬂuences on the process of persuasive strategy selection. International Journal
of Intercultural relations, 6(1), 85-100.

Cranny, C. J ., Smith, C. P., & Stone, E. F . (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel
about their jobs and how it aﬂects their performance. New York, NY: Lexington
Books.

Dansereau, P., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role
making process. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 13(1),
467 8.

Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The
role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group &
Organization Management, 23(2), 189-216.

91

Deluga, R. J ., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward inﬂuencing
behaviour, satisfaction and perceived superior effectiveness with leader-member
exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(3), 239-252.

Dorﬁnan, P. W., & Howell. (1988). Advances in International Comparative
Management, 3, 127.

Ebel, R. L. (1951). Estimation of reliability ratings. Psychometrika, 16, 407—424.

Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single inﬂuence
tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 63 8-
652.

Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward
inﬂuence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 17-42.

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.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 143-
165). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model in formal organizations: A
developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership
ﬁontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State Press.

Graen, G. B., & Ginsburgh, S. (1977). Job resignation as a function of role orientation
and leader acceptance: A longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 19(1), 1-17.

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

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (lmx) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly
Special Issue: Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part 1), 6(2), 219-247.

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Inﬂuence tactics and work
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 89-106.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate
perceptions of supervisor inﬂuence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory
power. Human Relations, 43(3), 221 -237.

92

Hirokawa, R. Y., & Miyahara, A. (1986). A comparison of inﬂuence strategies utilized
by managers in american and japanese organizations. Communication Quarterly,
34(3), 250-265.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural consequences: International dzﬂ'erences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological
Review 65, 117-127.

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J .-n. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions
of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 59(4), 719-729.

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J .-n. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies:
General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 62(2), 246-256.

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidirnensional measurement, second order
factor analysis and causal models. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (V 01. 4, pp. 267-320). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Ilgen, D. R. (1994). Jobs and roles: Accepting and coping with the changing structure of
organizations. In M. G. Rumsey & C. B. Walker (Eds.), Personnel selection and
classiﬁcation (pp. 13-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

J ablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. L.
Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary
perspective (pp. 679-740; Thousand Oaks, CA).

Kipnis, D. (1984). The use of power in organizations and in interpersonal settings.
Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 179-210.

Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-inﬂuence styles: Relationship with
performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly,
33(4), 528-542.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Braxton-Brown, G. (1989). The hidden costs of
persistence. In M. J. Cody & M. L. Mclaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical
communication. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swafﬁn-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, 1. (1984). Patterns of
managerial inﬂuence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and bystanders.
Organizational Dynamics, 12(3), 58-67.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, 1. (1980). Intraorganizational inﬂuence tactics:
Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452.

93

Krone, K. J. (1991). Eﬂ‘ects of leader member exchange on subordinates' upward
inﬂuence attempts. Communication Research Reports, 8, 9-18.

Krone, K. J. (1992). Achieving communication goals in superior subordinate
relationships: Upward inﬂuence maintenance tactics. Communication Quarterly,
40(1), 1 - 15.

Lee, J., & J ablin, F. M. (1995). Maintenance communication in superior-subordinate
work relationships. Human Communication Research, 22(2), 220-257.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853-868.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidirnensionality of leader-member exchange:
An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management,
24(1), 43-72.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory:
The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel
and human resources management (V 01. 15, pp. 47-119; Stamford, CT, US JAI
Press, Inc, 1997 ix, 1383).

Lora, E. A. (2003). Changing patterns in the supply of labor. Washington DC: Inter-
american Development Bank.

Maslyn, J. M., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1996). Failed upward inﬂuence attempts:
Predicting the nature of subordinate persistence in pursuit of organizational goals.
Group & Organization Management, 21(4), 461-480.

Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions:
Effects of self-effort and other's effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(4), 697-708.

Pfeffer, J. (2003). Developing and exercising power and inﬂuence. In L. W. Porter, H. 1.
Angle & R. W. Allen (Eds.), Organizational inﬂuence processes (2nd ed.).
Armonk, NY: ME. Sharpe.

Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. l. (1980). The politics of upward inﬂuence in
the organization. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (V 01. 3, pp. 109-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Porter, L. W., Angle, H. 1., & Allen, R. W. (2003). Organizational inﬂuence processes
(2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: ME. Sharpe.

Ralston, D. A., Giacalone, R. A., 8: Terpstra, R. H. (1994). Ethical perceptions of

organizational politics: A comparative evaluation of american and hong kong
managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12), 989-999.

94

Ralston, D. A., Vollmer, G. R., Srinvasan, N., Nicholson, J. D., Tang, M., & Wan, P.
(2001). Strategies of upward inﬂuence: A study of six cultures from europe, asia,
and america. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(6), 728-735.

Ralston, D. A., Vollmer, G. R., Srivasan, N., Nicholson, J. D., Tang, M., & Wan, P.
(2001). Strategies of upward inﬂuence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
32(6), 728-735.

Schermerhom, J. R., & Bond, M. H. (1991). Upward and downward inﬂuence tactics in
managerial networks: A comparative study of hong kong chinese and american.
Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Management, 8(2), 147-158.

Schmidt, S. M., & Yeh, R.-s. (1992). The structure of leader inﬂuence: A cross-national
comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(2), 251-264.

Schmidt, S. M., & Yeh, R.-s. (1992). The structure of leader inﬂuence: A cross-national
comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(2), 251-264.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (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(3), 246-257.

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of
the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6),
693 -713.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence
of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1),
108-119.

Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate
relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics.
Communication Monographs, 58(3), 289-306.

Waldron, V. R. (1999). Communication practices of followers, members, and proteges:
The cause of upward inﬂuence tactics. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication
yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 251 - 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Waldron, V. R., Hunt, M. D., & Dsilva, M. (1993). Towards a threat management model
of upward communication: A study of inﬂuence and maintenance tactics in
leader-member dyad. Communication Studies, 44, 254-272.

Wayne, S. J ., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Inﬂuence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and ﬁeld study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487-499.

95

Xin, K. R., & Tsui, A. S. (1996). Different strokes for different folks? Inﬂuence tactics
by asian-american and caucasian-american managers. Leadership Quarterly
Leadership and diversity: 1., 7(1), 109-132.

Xin, K. R., & Tsui, A. S. (1996). Different strokes for different folks? Inﬂuence tactics
by asian-american and caucasian-arnerican managers. Leadership Quarterly
Special Issue: Leadership and diversity, 7(1), 109-132.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (Fourth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Inﬂuence tactics and objectives in upward, downward,
and lateral inﬂuence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132-140.

Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J ., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Inﬂuence tactics used for different
objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organization
Management, 20(3), 272-296.

Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of inﬂuence outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(3), 309-317.

96