Econstudentlog

Personal Relationships… (I)

“Across subdisciplines of psychology, research finds that positive, fulfilling, and satisfying relationships contribute to life satisfaction, psychological health, and physical well-being whereas negative, destructive, and unsatisfying relationships have a whole host of detrimental psychological and physical effects. This is because humans possess a fundamental “need to belong” […], characterized by the motivation to form and maintain lasting, positive, and significant relationships with others. The need to belong is fueled by frequent and pleasant relational exchanges with others and thwarted when one feels excluded, rejected, and hurt by others. […] This book uses research and theory on the need to belong as a foundation to explore how five different types of relationships influence employee attitudes, behaviors, and well-being. They include relationships with supervisors, coworkers, team members, customers, and individuals in one’s nonwork life. […] This book is written for a scientist–practitioner audience and targeted to both researchers and human resource management professionals. The contributors highlight both theoretical and practical implications in their respective chapters, with a common emphasis on how to create and sustain an organizational climate that values positive relationships and deters negative interpersonal experiences. Due to the breadth of topics covered in this edited volume, the book is also appropriate for advanced specialty undergraduate or graduate courses on I/O psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior.”

The kind of stuff covered in books like this one relates closely to social stuff I lack knowledge about and/or is just not very good at handling. I don’t think too highly of this book’s coverage so far, but that’s at least partly due to the kinds of topics covered – it is what it is.

Below I have added some quotes from the first few chapters of the book.

“Work relationships are important to study in that they can exert a strong influence on employees’ attitudes and behaviors […].The research evidence is robust and consistent; positive relational interactions at work are associated with more favorable work attitudes, less work-related strain, and greater well-being (for reviews see Dutton & Ragins, 2007; Grant & Parker, 2009). On the other side of the social ledger, negative relational interactions at work induce greater strain reactions, create negative affective reactions, and reduce well-being […]. The relationship science literature is clear, social connection has a causal effect on individual health and well-being”.

“[One] way to view relationships is to consider the different dimensions by which relationships vary. An array of dimensions that underlie relationships has been proposed […] Affective tone reflects the degree of positive and negative feelings and emotions within the relationship […] Relationships and groups marked by greater positive affective tone convey more enthusiasm, excitement, and elation for each other, while relationships consisting of more negative affective tone express more fear, distress, and scorn. […] Emotional carrying capacity refers to the extent that the relationship can handle the expression of a full range of negative and position emotions as well as the quantity of emotion expressed […]. High-quality relationships have the ability to withstand the expression of more emotion and a greater variety of emotion […] Interdependence involves ongoing chains of mutual influence between two people […]. Degree of relationship interdependency is reflected through frequency, strength, and span of influence. […] A high degree of interdependence is commonly thought to be one of the hallmarks of a close relationship […] Intimacy is composed of two fundamental components: self-disclosure and partner responsiveness […]. Responsiveness involves the extent that relationship partners understand, validate, and care for one another. Disclosure refers to verbal communications of personally relevant information, thoughts, and feelings. Divulging more emotionally charged information of a highly personal nature is associated with greater intimacy […]. Disclosure tends to proceed from the superficial to the more intimate and expands in breadth over time […] Power refers to the degree that dominance shapes the relationship […] relationships marked by a power differential are more likely to involve unidirectional interactions. Equivalent power tends to facilitate bidirectional exchanges […] Tensility is the extent that the relationship can bend and endure strain in the face of challenges and setbacks […]. Relationship tensility contributes to psychological safety within the relationship. […] Trust is the belief that relationship partners can be depended upon and care about their partner’s needs and interests […] Relationships that include a great deal of trust are stronger and more resilient. A breach of trust can be one of the most difficult relationships challenges to overcome (Pratt & dirks, 2007).”

“Relationships are separate entities from the individuals involved in the relationships. The relationship unit (typically a dyad) operates at a different level of analysis from the individual unit. […] For those who conduct research on groups or organizations, it is clear that operations at a group level […] operate at a different level than individual psychology, and it is not merely the aggregate of the individuals involved in the relationship. […] operations at one level (e.g., relationships) can influence behavior at the other level (e.g., individual). […] relationships are best thought of as existing at their own level of analysis, but one that interacts with other levels of analysis, such as individual and group or cultural levels. Relationships cannot be reduced to the actions of the individuals in them or the social structures where they reside but instead interact with the individual and group processes in interesting ways to produce behaviors. […] it is challenging to assess causality via experimental procedures when studying relationships. […] Experimental procedures are crucial for making inferences of causation but are particularly difficult in the case of relationships because it is tough to manipulate many important relationships (e.g., love, marriage, sibling relationships). […] relationships are difficult to observe at the very beginning and at the end, so methods have been developed to facilitate this.”

“[T]he organizational research could […] benefit from the use of theoretical models from the broader relationships literature. […] Interdependence theory is hardly ever seen in organizations. There was some fascinating work in this area a few decades ago, especially in interdependence theory with the investment model […]. This work focused on the precursors of commitment in the workplace and found that, like romantic relationships, the variables of satisfaction, investments, and alternatives played key roles in this process. The result is that when satisfaction and investments are high and alternative opportunities are low, commitment is high. However, it also means that if investments are sufficiently high and alternatives are sufficiently low, then satisfaction can by lowered and commitment will remain high — hence, the investment model is useful for understanding exploitation (Rusbult, Campbell, & Price, 1990).”

“Because they cross formal levels in the organizational hierarchy, supervisory relationships necessarily involve an imbalance in formal power. […] A review by Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003) suggests that power affects how people experience emotions, whether they attend more to rewards or threats, how they process information, and the extent to which they inhibit their behavior around others. The literature clearly suggests that power influences affect, cognition, and behavior in ways that might tend to constrain the formation of positive relationships between individuals with varying degrees of power. […] The power literature is clear in showing that more powerful individuals attend less to their social context, including the people in it, than do less powerful individuals, and the literature suggests that supervisors (compared with subordinates) might tend to place less value on the relationship and be less attuned to their partner’s needs. Yet the formal power accorded to supervisors by the organization — via the supervisory role — is accompanied by the role prescribed responsibility for the performance, motivation, and well-being of subordinates. Thus, the accountability for the formation of a positive supervisory relationship lies more heavily with the supervisor. […] As we examine the qualities of positive supervisory relationships, we make a clear distinction between effective supervisory behaviors and positive supervisory relationships. This is an important distinction […] a large body of leadership research has focused on traits or behaviors of supervisors […] and the affective, motivational, and behavioral responses of employees to those behaviors, with little attention paid to the interactions between the two. There are two practical implications of moving the focus from individuals to relationships: (1) supervisors who use “effective” leadership behaviors may or may not have positive relationships with employees; and (2) supervisors who have a positive relationship with one employee may not have equally positive relationships with other employees, even if they use the same “effective” behaviors.”

There is a large and well-developed stream of research that focuses explicitly on exchanges between supervisors and the employees who report directly to them. Leader–member exchange theory addresses the various types of functional relationships that can be formed between supervisors and subordinates. A core assumption of LMX theory is that supervisors do not have the time or resources to develop equally positive relationships with all subordinates. Thus, to minimize their investment and yield the greatest results for the organization, supervisors would develop close relationships with only a few subordinates […] These few high-quality relationships are marked by high levels of trust, loyalty, and support, whereas the balance of supervisory relationships are contractual in nature and depends on timely rewards allotted by supervisors in direct exchange for desirable behaviors […] There has been considerable confusion and debate in the literature about LMX theory and the construct validity of LMX measures […] Despite shortcomings in LMX research, it is [however] clear that supervisors form relationships of varying quality with subordinates […] Among factors associated with high LMX are the supervisor’s level of agreeableness […] and the employee’s level of extraversion […], feedback seeking […], and (negatively) negative affectivity […]. Those who perceived similarity in terms of family, money, career strategies, goals in life, education […], and gender […] also reported high LMX. […] Employee LMX is strongly related to attitudes, such as job satisfaction […] Supporting the notion that a positive supervisory relationship is good for employees, the LMX literature is replete with studies linking high LMX with thriving and autonomous motivation. […] The premise of the LMX research is that supervisory resources are limited and high-quality relationships are demanding. Thus, supervisor will be most effective when they allocate their resources efficiently and effectively, forming some high-quality and some instrumental relationships. But the empirical research from the lMX literature provides little (if any) evidence that supervisors who differentiate are more effective”.

The norm of negative reciprocity obligates targets of harm to reciprocate with actions that produce roughly equivalent levels of harm — if someone is unkind to me, I should be approximately as unkind to him or her. […] But the trajectory of negative reciprocity differs in important ways when there are power asymmetries between the parties involved in a negative exchange relationship. The workplace revenge literature suggests that low-power targets of hostility generally withhold retaliatory acts. […] In exchange relationships where one actor is more dependent on the other for valued resources, the dependent/less powerful actor’s ability to satisfy his or her self-interests will be constrained […]. Subordinate targets of supervisor hostility should therefore be less able (than supervisor targets of subordinate hostility) to return the injuries they sustain […] To the extent subordinate contributions to negative exchanges are likely to trigger disciplinary responses by the supervisor target (e.g., reprimands, demotion, transfer, or termination), we can expect that subordinates will withhold negative reciprocity.”

“In the last dozen years, much has been learned about the contributions that supervisors make to negative exchanges with subordinates. […] Several dozen studies have examined the consequences of supervisor contributions to negative exchanges. This work suggests that exposure to supervisor hostility is negatively related to subordinates’ satisfaction with the job […], affective commitment to the organization […], and both in-role and extra-role performance contributions […] and is positively related to subordinates’ psychological distress […], problem drinking […], and unit-level counterproductive work behavior […]. Exposure to supervisor hostility has also been linked with family undermining behavior — employees who are the targets of abusive supervision are more likely to be hostile toward their own family members […] Most studies of supervisor hostility have accounted for moderating factors — individual and situational factors that buffer or exacerbate the effects of exposure. For example, Tepper (2000) found that the injurious effects of supervisor hostility on employees’ attitudes and strain reactions were stronger when subordinates have less job mobility and therefore feel trapped in jobs that deplete their coping resources. […] Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, and Pagon (2006) found that the effects of supervisor hostility are more pronounced when subordinates are singled out rather than targeted along with multiple coworkers. […] work suggests that the effects of abusive supervision on subordinates’ strain reactions are weaker when subordinates employ impression management strategies […] and more confrontational (as opposed to avoidant) communication tactics […]. It is clear that not all subordinates react the same way to supervisor hostility and characteristics of subordinates and the context influence the trajectory of subordinates’ responses. […] In a meta-analytic examination of studies of the correlates of supervisor-directed hostility, Herschovis et al. (2007) found support for the idea that subordinates who believe that they have been the target of mistreatment are more likely to lash out at their supervisors. […] perhaps just as interesting as the associations that have been uncovered are several hypothesized associations that have not emerged. Greenberg and Barling (1999) found that supervisor-directed aggression was unrelated to subordinates’ alcohol consumption, history of aggression, and job security. Other work has revealed mixed results for the prediction that subordinate self-esteem will negatively predict supervisor-directed hostility (Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005). […] Negative exchanges between supervisors and subordinates do not play out in isolation — others observe them and are affected by them. Yet little is known about the affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses of third parties to negative exchanges with supervisors.”

Advertisements

August 8, 2018 - Posted by | Books, Psychology

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: