Are communicative competent employees empowered employees?
A study on Communication Competence and Psychological Empowerment incorporating New Ways of Working and Supervisor-subordinate communication
Romy van Kessel University of Amsterdam
Student ID: 10013946
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science: Corporate Communication Master Thesis
Supervisor: Dr. L. A. van Oortmerssen Date of completion: January 29th, 2016
Abstract
To cope with new management paradigms, organizational structures and rapid digitalization, employees need to be psychologically empowered. On top of this, employers have put greater emphasis on employees’ communication skills. A possible relation between communication competence of employees and empowerment outcomes (meaning,
competence, self-determination and impact) has not been addressed in existing literature, hence the main objective of current study was to examine if employees’ communication competence is effecting their psychological empowerment. Additionally New Ways of Working and supervisor-subordinate communication were considered as possible
moderators on this effect. Cross-sectional data was collected from 125 Dutch assistants of various companies. Results indicated that communication competence was a significant predictor of the dimensions of psychological empowerment. The more communicative competent employees were, the higher their meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. Also, New Ways of Working had a strengthening effect on the relation between communication competence and psychological empowerment. On the contrary, no moderating effect was found of supervisor-subordinate communication on this relation. Although some caution is needed, current data suggested that communication competence and New Ways of Working enhanced empowerment. Being communicative competent is beneficial for psychological empowerment of employees.
Keywords: communication competence, psychological empowerment, New Ways of Working, supervisor-subordinate communication
Introduction
New management paradigms, flattening organizations and rapid digitalization all increase the pressure for employees to adapt to their environment. To cope with and adapt to these changes, employees need to be psychologically empowered. Employees feel
psychologically empowered when they get to participate in decision-making, feel like their job has meaning, feel confident about their job and perceive a sense of responsibility (Spreitzer, 1995). Empowerment is linked to important business outcomes (Maynard, Gilson & Mathieu, 2012), hence empowered employees are sought after by organizations. While these recent changes stress higher levels of empowerment amongst employees, they also put greater emphasis on employees “interpersonal skill and the ability to collaborate” (Barley & Kunda, 2001, p. 77) which is grounded in their communication competences. Communication competence at work encompasses individual communicative behaviours necessary for reaching conversational goals and can thus be labelled as individual characteristics. Individual characteristics, amongst others, have been identified as factors effecting empowerment outcomes (Seibert, Wang & Courtright, 2011), however, to the authors knowledge, no study has identified communication competence as an antecedent of empowerment yet. Hence current study aims to fill up this research gap by exploring the possibilities of a relationship between those two.
Current study expects New Ways of Working (NWW) to play a role in the relationship between communication competence and empowerment outcomes. NWW is an
organizational arrangement that incorporates flexible working conditions, open work culture and use of new communication technologies, which can contribute to higher levels of autonomy and a positive work life-balance (Blok, Groenesteijn, Schelvis & Vink, 2012). It is implemented by organizations as it can help realizing favorable work outcomes amongst which empowerment (Seibert et al., 2011), however drawbacks of NWW have been argued too (Rennecker & Godwin, 2005). Given the importance NWW can play in work
environments, it is plausible to expect a strengthening effect of NWW on empowerment outcomes of communication competence. Hence current study intends to find out if
competent communicators in NWW settings experience higher levels of psychological
empowerment, compared to employees in settings that implemented NWW to a lower extent. Moreover social exchange is very important in order to make employees feel
empowered (Seibert, 2011). The relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate is one of the most important relations employees have (Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 2000) and research has demonstrated that supervisors can influence subordinates experienced empowerment (Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003; Gomez & Rosen, 2001). Communication is at the heart of forming relationships, suggesting supervisor-subordinate communication could be a changing factor in the relationship between communication competence and
psycholological empowerment. Previous studies have predominantly looked at the leader-member exchange (LMX) and not specifically at the quality of the communicative
relationship, which implies that current study add to current research on this topic. Findings of this study have several practical implications. Knowing to what extent verbal communication behaviours are used by employees in order to feel empowered, would allow organizational training (e.g. Brown et al., 2010) and job performance evaluations to be more specific which in turn might improve organizational effectiveness (Riedlinger, Gallois, McKay & Pittam, 2004). More importantly, these results will allow organizations to better support and deploy employees to the maximum benefit of their organization.
The purpose of this study is to test a model of communication competence on psychological empowerment of employees with the integration of organizational context as well as social exchange relationships. This study focuses on the relationship between communication competence and psychological empowerment while taking into account NWW and supervisor-subordinate communication as possible moderators. Consequently, the main question answered in this study is: To what extent do communicative competences increase the psychological empowerment amongst employees, and to what degree can this relationship be strengthened by New Ways of Working or the communication between supervisors and employees?
Theoretical Framework Empowerment
Empowerment of employees is considered important in various jobs to achieve business goals (Maynard et al., 2012; Spreitzer, 1997). Academics have found empowerment to be positively associated with important work outcomes such as job satisfaction (Greasley et al., 2005; Seibert et al., 2011), job commitment (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian & Wilk, 2004), organisational performance (Maynard et al., 2012) and perceived meaning in life (Krishnan, 2012).
Existing literature distinguishes two conceptualisations of empowerment: structural and psychological empowerment. Structural empowerment encompasses the organisational structures and processes that facilitate optimal employee performance (Kanter, 1977). This is strongly intertwined with job design and organisational climate (Tuuli, Rowlinson, Fellows & Liu, 2012). Psychological empowerment on the other hand relates to cognitions about one’s work focussing on individual’s responses to working within an empowerment context
(Spreitzer, 1995) and employee’s qualities rather than organizational structures. Current study looks into the individualistic level of empowerment, as no organisational beneficial effects will occur unless employees feel empowered themselves (Laschinger et al., 2004)
Although scholars slightly adjusted constructs over time (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Conger & Kanungo, 1988) the dimensions meaning, competence, self-determination and impact are used and when combined make up the core construct of what has been termed ‘psychological empowerment’ (Spreitzer, 1995). Psychological empowerment is a form of intrinsic motivation to perform tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000), that is characterized by: (1)
individuals perceiving their jobs as having value (meaning) or importance (Zhang and Bartol, 2010); (2) individuals feeling of self-efficacy or confidence that they have the skills and knowledge (competence) to complete the task (Bandura, 1986); (3) individuals feeling that they have the autonomy (self-determination) to make decisions about how they perform their work (Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia, 2004); (4) individuals feeling that their work has an
Previous research appointed leadership, social-political support and work-design characteristics as contextual antecedents of psychological empowerment (Seibert et al., 2011). Another group of antecedents is labelled individual characteristics, including one’s level of education, age and job tenure (Seibert et al., 2011). Individual characteristics in terms of communication competence haven’t been researched in this context yet. A person’s competence to communicate is seen inseparable from relationship formation (Spitzberg, 1993) and organizations (Putman, Philips & Chapman, 1996), hence current study suggests communication competence as a possible antecedent of psychological empowerment. Communication competence
A lot of managerial studies indicate the importance of communication skills in
organisational context (Hynes, 2012; Conrad & Newberry, 2012) as conversations amongst employees are meant to achieve business improvements. Although several studies address the importance, only few address the impact of communication competence resulting in a gap in research. This gap presumably has to do with the lack of an adequate measurement of the construct (Payne, 2005).
Communication literature undertook a shift of focus in studies regarding competence: from a trait-based perspective to a more behavioural perspective. Meaning the ability to perform and knowledge how to perform are combined (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1981). Consequently competence is conceptualized as “an evaluative judgement of the quality of skill” (Spitzberg, 2003, p. 97) and is determined by looking at communicative behaviours (e.g. by Keyton et al., 2013). Scholars often cite two communication competence
measurements, namely the Communicator Competence Questionnaire (CCQ, Monge, Bachman, Dillard & Eisenberg, 1982) and the Relational Competence Scale, (RCS, Cupach & Spitzberg, 1981). The CCQ argues that communication involves a “performance based perspective” expressing competence in terms efficiency (accomplishing work goals) with a focus on the organizational context. The RCS measures the communicative competence in
interpersonal conversations (incorporating on e.g. empathy and communication anxiety) and stresses the role of contextual factors, which are overlooked by the CCQ.
Up to now, most studies work-related communication studies addressed
communication competence from a goal-based perspective (Monge et al. 1982). However, recently scholars argued that both intention and efficacy are central in communication at work (Keyton et al. (2013). To fill up this gap the Workplace Communication Behaviour Inventory (WCBI by Keyton et al., 2013) was designed. This inventory includes goal-oriented competences as well as relational competence in the work place and defines communication at work by dimensions of: 1) information sharing, 2) relational maintenance, 3) expressing negative emotions and 4) organizing. Current study looks into the possibility to extend WCBI’s practical applicability by examining the relationship between communication competence and psychological empowerment amongst employees.
Communication competence and psychological empowerment
Possessing communicative competences can be beneficial for relational and
employee outcomes (Hynes, 2012; Spitzberg, 1993). Psychological empowerment, defined as a motivational construct, is associated with favourable employee outcomes too (Spreitzer, 1997, Greasley et al. 2005; Spreitzer, 1995; Maynard et al., 2012). It is expected that an employee’s communicative competence is positively linked to this motivational concept and that it can predict the level of impact, meaning, competence and self-determination of employees that together make up their psychological empowerment.
Communication competence can be linked to empowerment in terms of impact, as an employee’s ability to communicate well has been positively associated with job performance (Scudder & Guinan, 1989), suggesting being communicative competent can make a
difference in work. Certain communication competences (e.g. giving feedback and sharing information) are likely to give employees the feeling that they enable others to succeed, creating a perceived impact on their immediate work environment.
Moreover, communication skills can be linked to empowerment in terms of meaning. Baumeister and Vohs (2002) state that the essence of meaningful work is ‘connection’ and that this is linked to organizational commitment and employee engagement (Holbeche & Springett, 2004). Close connections between co-workers satisfy the basic need for
belongingness among employees (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and this is likely to be caused by certain communication behaviour (i.e. initiating small talk and giving feedback).
Similarly it is expected that being a competent communicator is likely to enhance empowerment via competence, because (communicative) competencies provide evidence of the degree to which an individual experience mastery in their given (communicative) tasks (Bandura, 1986). Communication competencies are related to higher self-esteems
(McCroskey, Richmond, Daly & Falcione, 1977) as possession of competences is likely to make employees feel confident about their own abilities to complete tasks and reach goals. This in turn empowers employees as well as increases their chances of promotion (Reinisch & Gardner, 2014).
Additionally there is evidence for assumptions of an effect of communication competence on self-determination. Hynes (2005) states that effective business
communication is key to planning leading, organizing and controlling the resources of the organisation to achieve objectives, and it is likely that communicative skills such as planning and scheduling contribute to these organizing demands. Hence, the level of
self-determination is expected to be higher when employees have the right communicative skills. Based on the literature review, it is expected that communicative competences of employees contribute to the perceived empowerment of employees as well as each single empowerment dimension. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Communication competence has a positive effect on psychological empowerment of employees, such that communication competence has a positive effect on the empowerment’s dimensions a) impact, b) meaning, c) competence and d) self-determination.
New Ways of Working, communication competence and psychological empowerment The New Way of Working (NWW) is seen as a relatively new organizational
arrangement that is increasingly implemented by organizations in order to make work more efficient and enjoyable for employees (Bijl, 2009). The integration of NWW is linked to positive work outcomes such as improved job satisfaction, increased productivity,
commitment and communication amongst employees (Baarne, Houtkamp & Knotter, 2010). Mainly, NWW is characterized by four main elements. A flexible workplace creates the opportunity to work at any given place. Flexible working times allow employees to determine their own schedule, indicating communication on a distance. NWW makes use of technical means to interact, such as chat, e-mail and videoconference (Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland & Keulemans 2012) and lastly organizations with NWW facets often encompass open work cultures (Blok et al, 2012). An open culture intends to minimalize physical and mental distance by stimulating encounters enhancing information sharing and collaboration. Given the importance NWW can play in work environments, it is plausible to expect a moderation of NWW on empowerment outcomes of communication competence.
According to existing literature, NWW’s aspects flexible working conditions, open culture and new communication technologies can positively contribute to employee’s communication and empowerment levels. First of all, flexible working conditions require competent communicators to overcome its communication on a distance. Secondly, choosing where and when to work empowers employees as this implies they have more autonomy and freedom (Ten Brummelhuis et al. 2011, Baarne et al. 2010). Moreover, new communication technologies could enhance efficiency and quality of communication (Warketin, Sayeed & Hightower, 1997). New technology is likely to increase the frequency and ease of communication amongst employees (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), facilitating communication competences such as organizing and sharing knowledge while fostering co-working relations (Blok et al., 2012), which in turn might favor empowerment levels.
Additionally research demonstrated that the use of e-mail, chat, smartphone and videoconference could enhance empowerment as it can stimulate the use of efficient
coordination of work tasks (Hurme, 2005). Similar positive effects are expected for NWW’s open culture aspect. Implementation can stimulate co-working and information sharing (Blok et al. 2012), making room for higher levels employees’ empowerment in terms of
self-determination and impact. Besides, the opposite of an open culture - a impersonal
bureaucratic culture- has been identified as a contextual factor to lower empowerment levels (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).
In contrast, NWW’s aspects have demonstrated negative contributions as well. The line between work and private life can become blurry when implementing NWW, which threatens instead of favors the flexibility and autonomy of employees (Fonner & Roloff, 2011).
Moreover the diverse communication means of NWW could enhance interruptions during work (Rennecker & Godwin, 2005), which most likely effects empowerment negatively. At the same time e-communication threatens the quality of communication due to the limited
options for verbal and non-verbal cues (Coyne et al., 2011).
Based on existing literature, current study finds the positive impact of NWW on the relationship between communication competence and empowerment to be most salient and outweighing the negative impacts it may have. This is why a strengthening effect of NWW on the relation between communication competence and empowerment is expected. Based on this, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2: The presence of NWW elements in organisations moderates the relation between communication competence and psychological empowerment, such that NWW strengthens the positive established relationship
Supervisor-subordinate communication, communication competence and psychological empowerment
Supervisor-subordinate communication relations are determined by supervisory communication. This has been broadly defined by Abu Bakar et al. (2010) as “an exchange of information and influence among organizational members where one of those members has the authority to direct and evaluate other members of organizational activities” (p. 639)
and is manifested in positive, negative, open and job-relevant communication (Miles et al. 1996). Effective supervisory communication is considered important as it can help
organizational members to achieve job satisfaction, -commitment (Miles et al. 1996) and empowerment (Ayupp & Chung, 2010).
Theories such as leader-member exchange (LMX), with its roots in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), provide a logical connection between communication competence and empowerment. LMX is a concept that expresses the quality of exchange relations between a supervisor and subordinate (Sherony & Green, 2002) and this relationship is potentially one of the drivers of desirable workplace outcomes (Manzoni & Barsoux, 2002). It is associated with as task completion and problem solving (Gerstner & Day, 1997), career progression (Wakabayashi & Graen, 1984), motivation (Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999) and
empowerment (Harris et al., 2009). The associations between LMX and work outcomes are likely to be driven by the communicative messages in supervisor-subordinate relationships (Fix & Sias, 2006), indicating the need to investigate supervisor-subordinate communication.
Similar to individual and organisational factors its expected that interpersonal factors at work, such as the supervisor-subordinate relationship influence empowerment. The LMX theory suggests that in high-quality relationships, a supervisor is more likely to give high quality communication (more positive, upward and job-relevant communication; Miles et al. 1996). This encourages supervisors to delegate decision-making and power to their
subordinates, which in turn makes employees feel engaging in meaningful work (Ellemers, Gilder & Haslam, 2004). Other benefits of high quality relationships are increased
performance related feedback, ample access to supervisors, increased job-related communication, employee efficiency and commitment (Dienesh & Linden, 1986; Elicker, Levy & Hall, 2006; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) all of which can be linked to empowerment. Similarly, Keller and Danserau (1995) found that when managers provide support for an employee’s self-worth and appoint more responsibility, employees experience empowerment in terms of self-determination. Subordinates in low quality relationships however often
subordinates receive fewer attention outside the work environment (Gerstner & Day, 1997), which is likely to decrease empowerment levels of employees.
The communication-empowerment relation is expected to vary in strength depending on how well employees communicate with their supervisor. Based on reviewed literature and LMX theory it is suggested that high quality communication between supervisor and
subordinate (i.e. perceived use of positive, open and job-relevant communication) and being able to communicate well allows employees to feel even more empowered, and that most negative outcomes are suggested to be found when both competencies and supervisor-subordinate communication are low. Based on these arguments the following moderation is suggested:
H3: The quality of communication between a supervisor and a subordinate moderates the relationship between communication competence and psychological empowerment, such that high quality supervisor-subordinate communication strengthens the positive established relationship.
Conceptual model
To illustrate the foundation of this research, the three formulated hypotheses are graphically shown in a conceptual model in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship between communicative competence and psychological empowerment, including NWW and supervisor-subordinate communication as moderators.
Methods Procedure of data collection
To analyse the possible establishment of the relationships in the conceptual model a quantitative style of research was chosen making use of a cross-sectional design. Data was collected via an online self-completion questionnaire, as this is a fast and convenient way to reach people (Bryman, 2008). Respondents were gathered by means of convenience sampling with assistants as its population. Assistants generally occupy a more ‘supportive’ role and possibly show lower levels of autonomy (Harmon et al. 2003), making them an interesting group to look at. They were approached by email through the database of a Dutch recruitment firm specialized in the deployment of assistants and the survey was sent in the name of this firm. Additionally the link to the survey was shared on the firm’s social media channels. The survey was designed and launched on the online survey tool Qualtrics and data was gathered between December 4th and December 24th 2015. Current survey was part of a bigger survey, including questions on the role of assistants and personal development too. These items were not taken into account in this study.
Respondents were informed on the content on the first page of the survey by means of a short introduction including the purpose of the survey and its duration. The follow-up of the questionnaire contained five parts. First communicative skills of assistants were questioned. In the second part employees’ communication with their supervisor was questioned followed by questions on NWW. The fourth part contained questions regarding the perceived
psychological empowerment and the survey finished with demographic questions. An overview of the survey items and their measurements is shown in Appendix A.
The survey was administered in Dutch, similar to the nationality of the respondents. Answering all questions was mandatory. It took respondents about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire and a chance on a small incentive was included. Before the online survey was sent out a pilot study was conducted amongst small group of people (N=10) to test whether the questions were clear and consistent. After the pilot study the questionnaire was revised and sent out to all contacts in the assistant database.
Sample
This research was directed at all employees who work as assistants. All respondents in the sample work via one recruitment firm for various organisations, so the sample included a broad range of assistants, favouring the external validity. A total of 2,011 questionnaires were distributed. Hereof 193 respondents started the questionnaire and 125 useful
responses were returned. This caused a response rate of 6% and completion rate of 65 %. The sample existed out of 122 females and 3 males. Most respondents (n = 72) were aged between 35 and 54 years (58%), followed by the group aged between 25-34 years old (24%), younger than 24 year (14%) and only 4 respondents were aged over 55 years. Furthermore, 23% of the respondents had a low degree of education (low education, VMBO, MBO), 69% had a medium education level (HAVO/VWO/HBO) and only 9 respondents had a university degree (WO). 24% of the sample worked in the occupation of assistant for less than a year (n = 30) and most respondents had at least one year of experience (n = 95). Looking at organizational factors, the majority of the respondents (n = 106) worked in an existing organisation (85%), while only 19 respondents worked at a start-up venture. Less than half of the respondents (40%) had been working with their current supervisor for less than 1 year (n = 50) and the others (60%, n = 75) had been working together for over a year. Instruments
The variables in the conceptual model were measured by means of scales based on existing literature. All measurement scales were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1= poor to 5 = excellent or 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). The amount of items, components and component loadings for each measurement are shown in Appendix B. The variables were measured as followed:
Communication competence. The independent variable communication competence was based on the Workplace Communication Behaviour Inventory (WCBI) by Keyton et al. (2013). The scale originally compromised of 43 communicative behaviours divided into four subscales. Nine items of the Inventory were not included in current study due to double
loading (as the original scale suggested, WBCI, 2013). Additionally the pilot study judged three items redundant with other items, possibly because of translation difficulties (e.g. ‘scheduling’ and ‘planning’). Accordingly, these items were dropped from further analysis. A Principle Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax Rotation allowed all 31 items to form four scales, which was in line with the original scale. The information sharing scale contained 19 communication behaviours related to sharing information within the workplace. Examples of items respondents had to rate were ‘asking questions’ and ‘offering help’. The second scale relationship maintenance consisted out of five items on relationship building behaviours. An example of one item was ‘small talk’. The third scale expressing negative emotions
compromised of two items, namely ‘expressing frustrations’ and ‘complaining’. Lastly, the organizing scale consisted out of five items on organizational communication behaviour such as ‘planning’. Current study chose to look at 31 items, all aggregated into one variable, forming a very reliable scale (α = .88, M = 3.87, SD = .11). The higher the score on this scale, the more communicative competent respondents were.
Psychological empowerment. The dependent variable psychological empowerment was measured by 12 items based on Spreitzers’ (1995) Psychological Empowerment
Instrument (PEI). A PCA with Varimax rotation allowed all items to form four scales on which all items correlated positively, which is in line with the existing scale. There were four
components with an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue component 1 = 4.79, eigenvalue component 2 = 2.13, eigenvalue component 3 = 1.54, eigenvalue component 4 = 1.12). The first scale, compromised of three items, was considered very reliable (α = .92, M = 3.74, SD = .02). This scale measured the feeling of autonomy including items such as ‘I can decide on my own how to go about a doing my work’, and was named self-determination accordingly. The second scale measured three impact related items and was found to be reliable (α = .87, M = 2.84, SD = .03). An example of one item was ‘I have influence over what happens at work’. The third scale consisted out of three items and was considered reliable too (α = .82, M = 4.03, SD = .01). The scale measured the value of the job and was named meaning accordingly. An item respondents were asked to rate was: ‘The work I do is important to me’.
The remaining three items formed the competence scale as it contained items such as ‘I’m confident about my ability to do my job’. This scale was also found reliable (α = .80, M = 4.17, SD = .03). The higher the scores on these scales, the more empowered respondents were.
New Ways of Working. The moderating variable NWW was measured by twelve items based on the New Ways of Working measurement of Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2011) and Blok et al., (2012). This validated scale measured employees’ level of control over several facets of their job and a PCA with rotation showed the scale was compromised of three subscales. Flexible work conditions contained six items regarding the work place (e.g. ‘My workplace is flexible’) and work schedules (e.g. ‘I can decide my own working times’). Open work culture questioned the culture within the organisation via three items (e.g. ‘There’s an open culture within my organisation’). Finally the communication subscale compromised of three items regarding new communication technology (e.g. ‘I make use of video conference at work’). The overall scale was reasonably reliable (α = .78, M = 3.08, SD = .04). The higher the scale score, the more NWW was present in the organizations employees worked at.
Supervisor-subordinate communication. The second moderating variable supervisor-subordinate communication was measured by using 24 items of supervisory communication scale by Miles et al. (1996). Nine items were deleted after the pilot-study because respondents rated them as confusing. This is partly in line with previous research in which items showed very low factor loadings (Abu Bakar et al., 2010). The reliability analysis suggested a more reliable scale without the item ‘admitting to mistakes’, hence this item was omitted. The validated original scale consisted out of four dimensions: positive -,
upward/open -, negative - and job relevant communication and a PCA with rotation showed four subscales matching these dimensions. Four items equal the positive communication items in the existing scale such as ‘I think my supervisor has casual conversations with me’. Upward communication compromised of three items, of which ‘I tell me supervisor when I think things are being done wrong’ was one. The scale job communication was measured by four items (e.g. ‘My supervisor gives clear instructions’) and referred to job specific
communication. Lastly two items of which one was ‘I think my supervisor makes fun of me’ compromised the negative communication scale. The overall scale showed a high reliability (α = .80, M = 3.43, SD = .14). The higher the score on this scale, the higher the
communicative relation between supervisor and subordinate was.
Control variables. Besides the variables in the conceptual model, current study
controlled for additional variables. Type of organisation (start-up vs. established organisation) was incorporated, as start-up ventures were marked as one of the contextual factors likely to lower employees’ empowerment (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Moreover, the supervisor-subordinate work relationship length was questioned. This item was included, as it’s known to affect the supervisor-subordinate relationships (Dienesch & Liden, 1986), given that communication competence is expected to grow further along in the socialization process of employees. Lastly, the demographic variables age, education and job tenure – all
established antecedents of empowerment (Seibert et al., 2011) - were added as control variables.
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations of the main variables in this study. It is interesting to note that almost all variables correlate significantly with the dependent variable empowerment (and it’s dimensions) as well as with each other. The independent variable communication competence is moderately strong correlated to empowerment (r = .55, p < .001), competence (r = .57, p < .01), self-determination (r = .36, p < .01), meaning (r = 43, p < .01) and moderately weak correlated to impact (r = .27, p < .01) and the two moderating variables NWW (r = .29, p < .01) and supervisor-subordinate
communication (r = .26, p < .01). Employees that are more communicative competent, score higher on all above mentioned variables. Moreover the moderating variable NWW is positive and moderately strong related to empowerment (r = .48, p < .01) and all its dimensions: employees in NWW settings are more empowered. The same correlation is found for the moderating variable supervisor-subordinate communication (r = .48, p < .01). One control
variable was included for further analyses, namely job tenure. This variable had to be
operationalized into a dummy variable (0 = less than a year of experience, 1 = over a year of experience). Job tenure is moderately weak correlated with communication competence (r = .34, p < .01), supervisor-subordinate communication (r = .21, p < .05) and empowerment (r = .24, p < .01): employees with over a year of experience are more competent, empowered and communicate better with their supervisor.
Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables (N = 125).
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Communication Competence 3.87 .33 - NWW 3.08 .62 .29** - Sscomm 3.43 .56 .26** .28** - Psychological Empowerment 3.69 .54 .55** .48** .48** - PE: Competence 4.17 .59 .57** .26** .24** .63** - PE: Self-determination 3.74 .97 .36** .48** .45** .84** .43** - PE: Impact 2.84 .82 .27** .20* .39** .68** .13 .42** - PE: Meaning 4.03 .62 .43** .40** .21* .65** .37** .36** .25** - Job tenure 0.57 .50 .34** .08 .21* .24** .32** ,20* .00 .21* Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01,
Communication competence and psychological empowerment
Hypotheses 1 suggested communication competence of employees to positively effect their perceived psychological empowerment. To test if communication competence can predict empowerment, a linear regression analysis is conducted. The model with
psychological empowerment as dependent variable and communicative competences and job tenure as independent variables is significant, F (2,123) = 30.35, p <.001. The model is suitable to predict the level of empowerment and the prediction is moderately strong: 30% of the variation in empowerment can be predicted on the basis of communication competence and job tenure (R2 = .30). Communication competence, b* = .53, t = 7.22, p < .001, 95% CI [.62, 1.09] had a significant strong association with empowerment. The control variable job tenure, b* = .05, t = .67, ns, 95% CI [-.13, .27], did not show a significant association. When
communication competence increased by one point (on a scale from 1 to 5), the predicted level of empowerment increased by .31 on a 5-point scale. Given this, hypothesis 1 was supported, indicating a higher degree of communicative competence resulted in a higher level of empowerment.
Additionally the four sub hypotheses were tested by four separate hierarchical
regression analyses. The first regression model was significant, F (2,123) = 16.95, p < .001. Communication competence and job tenure explained only 20% of the variance in the three items of meaning (R2 = .20). The analysis showed a significant strong association between communication competence, b* = .41, t = 5.17, p < .001, 95% CI [.47, 1.06] and
psychological empowerment: meaning and a non-significant association for job tenure, b* = .08, t = 1.06, ns. When communication competence increased by one point, the level of meaning increased by .77 points. The second regression model was significant too, F (2, 123) = 8.11, p < .001. The prediction of this model was very weak, only 10% of the variation in the three items of impact was predicted by the variables (R2 = .10). Communication competence, b* = .32 t = 3,87, p < .001, 95% CI [.38, 1.20] had a significant moderate association with psychological empowerment: impact and job tenure, b* = -.19, t = -2.21, ns, did not show a significant association. When communication competence increased by one point on the scale, the level of impact increased by .80 points. The third regression also turned out to be significant, F (2,123) = 11.03 p < .001, however the prediction was weak (R2= .13). Communication competence, b* = .32 t = 4,04, p < .001, 95% CI [.49, 1.44] was significant and moderately related to empowerment: self-determination. Again job tenure, b* = .09, t = 1.11, ns., did not show a significant relation. When communication competence increased by 1 point on the scale, the level of self-determination of respondents increased by .18 point. The last linear regression model proved to be significant too, F (2,123) = 39.20 p < 0.001. The prediction of this model was moderate: 35 % of the variation in empowerment: competence was predicted by communication competence and job tenure (R2 = .35). Communication competence, b* = .51 t = 7.21, p < .001, 95% CI [.66, 1.15] was significant strongly associated to empowerment: competence and job tenure, b* = .20, t = 2.80, p =
.006, 95% CI [0.08, 0.51] is weakly but significant associated to empowerment: competence. For each additional point on the communication competence scale (from 1 to 5), the level of empowerment: competence increased by .90 point and respondents working as an assistant for longer than 1 year showed score .30 points higher on the 5 point scale of empowerment: competence, compared to respondents executing their occupation for less than a year. Based on the results, all four sub hypotheses were supported.
Next to this, extra analyses were conducted in order to look at the communication competence dimensions. A multiple regression model with communication competence dimensions: information sharing, organizing, expressing negative emotions and relational maintenance as independent variables and empowerment as the dependent variable was proven to be significant,F (5, 120) = 18,97, p <.001. The dimensions of communication competence were suitable to predict the level of empowerment and the prediction was strong as all competences together, controlled for job tenure, predict 41 per cent of the variance in empowerment (R2 = .41). Accordingly communication competences: organizing, b* = .39, t = 4.69, p = <.001, 95% CI [.23, .57], as well as communication competences: information sharing, b* = .36, t = 4.25, p < .001, 95% CI [.28, .77], had a moderately strong significant effect on psychological empowerment. No significant effects were found for the other two communication competence dimensions (emotion expressing and relationship maintenance). When the score of the organizing competence increased by one point (ranging from 1 to 5), the perceived psychological empowerment increased by .57 points on a 5-point scale. Secondly, one point extra on the information sharing scale correlated with a .01 rise of psychological empowerment.
Moderating effect of NWW
Hypothesis 2 suggested the relationship between communication competence and empowerment was moderated by NWW, such that a higher level of NWW would strengthen the relationship. To test the hypothesis, a multiple linear regression analysis was used, with communication competence, job tenure, NWW and the interaction term between
empowerment as dependent variable. In order to proceed with this analysis, standardized versions were made of the predicting variables communication competence (ZCC), job tenure (ZWT), NWW (ZNWW) and the interaction term retrieved by multiplying and
computing the two predictors into a new variable (ZCC * ZNWW). The regression analysis indicated a significant model, F (3,122) = 27.43, p < .001. The model could thus be used to predict the level of empowerment and the prediction was moderately strong: 44 % of the variation in empowerment was predicted on the basis of communication competence, job tenure, NWW and the interaction term (R2 = .44).
According to regression model there appeared to be a significant and moderate direct effect between NWW and empowerment, b* = .48 t = 6.53, p < .001, 95% CI [.18, .33]. Employees working at organizations that implemented NWW showed higher levels of empowerment. Moreover a significant interaction-effect was found between communication competence and NWW on empowerment, b* = -.17, t = -2.45, p < .05, 95% CI [-.16, -.02]. After plotting the regression coefficients it seemed that NWW strengthened the relationship between communication competence and psychological empowerment. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported, though the strengthening effect was larger for less competent
communicators compared to more competent communicators (see Figure 2).
Figure 1. Relation between communication competence and psychological empowerment for low and high NWW organisations.
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 Low Communication competence High Communication competence P sy cho log ica l E mp o w er men t Low NWW High NWW
Moderating effect of supervisor-subordinate communication
Hypothesis 3 suggested that the communication between supervisors and subordinates, strengthened the relation between communicative competencies and
empowerment. To test this hypothesis, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted, with communication competence, job tenure, supervisor-subordinate communication and the interaction term between communication competence and supervisor-subordinate
communication as independent variables and psychological empowerment as dependent variable. Again, in order to proceed the moderation analysis, standardized versions had to be made of the predicting variables communication competence (ZCC), job tenure (ZJT),
supervisor-subordinate communication (ZSScomm) and the interaction term retrieved by multiplying and computing the two predictors into a new variable (ZCC * ZSScomm). The regression analysis showed a significant model, F (3, 122) = 34.47, p <.001. The model could thus be used to predict the level of empowerment and the prediction is moderately strong: 42 % of the variation in empowerment can be predicted on the basis of
communication competence, job tenure, NWW and its interaction term (R2 = .42).
In the regression model there appeared to be a significant and moderate association between supervisor-subordinate communication and psychological empowerment, b* = .48 t = 6,544, p < .001, 95% CI [.18, .33]. Employees with a high-perceived level of supervisor-subordinate communication showed higher levels of psychological empowerment. The model showed no significant interaction effect between communication competence and supervisor-subordinate communication, b* = .06, t = .94, ns, 95% CI [-.04, .12]. Testing the same
variables, in a model for the four sub dimensions of empowerment, did not show a significant model for any of these dimensions either. Hence, H3 was not supported:
supervisor-subordinate communication did not moderate the relationship between communication competencies and psychological empowerment.
Conclusion
The main aim of this study was to examine to what extent communicative competencies of employees increased the perceived psychological empowerment of employees. In current study three hypotheses were formulated, including NWW and supervisor-subordinate communication as moderators. Results administered via a Dutch online survey (N = 125) demonstrated that communication competence was a significant predictor of the level of psychological empowerment of employees. The more communicative competent employees were, the higher their meaning, competence, self-determination and impact, of which the effect on empowerment’s competence was the strongest.
A moderation effect was found of NWW on the relationship between communication competence and psychological empowerment. The level of NWW in organisations influenced the relationship in such a way that the relationship between communication competence and empowerment was stronger when employees work at organisations that implemented higher levels of NWW. This strengthening effect was stronger for employees with lower
communication competence compared to highly competent communicators. The second expected moderation was not supported by the results in this study. Supervisor-subordinate communication did not moderate the relationship between communication competence and psychological empowerment, meaning that that the quality of communication between supervisors and employees did not effect the established relationship between
communication competence and psychological empowerment.
Although current study doesn’t support all hypotheses formulated, it can be concluded that being communicative competent is beneficial for the psychological empowerment of employees, with possible favourable business outcomes.
Discussion
Several findings however warrant further discussion. The first hypothesis suggested that communication competence positively effected empowerment. In spite of the lack of academic studies demonstrating a direct effect hereof, the results of current study have
proven an effect of individual communication competence on empowerment. This is in line with previous studies that identified individual factors as antecedents of empowerment (Seibert, 2011). When specifying the variable of communication competence into four the dimensions: (1) information sharing, (2) organizing, (3) relational maintenance and (4) expressing negative emotions, similar to Keyton et al.’s WCBI Scale (2013), interesting results came up. Two communication competence dimensions – organizing and information sharing – explained a significant amount of variation in psychological empowerment,
indicating that the more an individual is competent at organizing and information sharing, the higher their psychological empowerment will be. These communicative behaviours can be labelled task-oriented communication aspects and were expected to emerge, as goal-oriented communication is a big part of communication direct to the work environment (Monge et al., 1982). Remarkably, the other two dimensions - negative emotion expressing and relationship maintenance – did not predict empowerment or any of its dimensions in current study. While this result is partly in accordance with Keyton et al. (2013)’s study, current study still formed a general expectation that a relational factor would emerge as communication scholars have addressed and acknowledged the importance of the role of social communication for a long time (e.g. Cupach & Spitzberg, 1981; Payne, 2005). A possible explanation for this is given by the designer of the WCBI (Keyton et al,. 2013) as “communicative expression of relational maintenance is a departure from existing
competence measures” (p. 13). Hence, existing literature expressed a general tendency of task related communication ruling over relational oriented communication (Keyton et al., 20123) and current findings continue to address their importance.
Moreover, results have proven that communication competence can affect all four dimensions of empowerment. Based on the findings, communication competence seemed to have the strongest predicting power for empowerment: competence and the least predictive power for empowerment: impact. The predictive power for competence is in line with the expectations, as being competent makes people feel confident about their own abilities (Bandura, 1986). The low predicting power for impact was a little surprising, as leader
communication theory argued certain communication skills were expected to be necessary for enabling others to perform (Dienesch & Liden 1986). A possible explanation for the weak relationship could be grounded in the sample’s occupation. As assistants generally occupy a more supportive role, it makes sense their believe that they can influence organizational activities (impact) is lower than the nature of a different occupation.
Interestingly, out of the person (sex, age and education) as well as workplace (start-up, length of relationship with supervisor) demographics only job tenure accounted for significant differences in current model. This suggests that the sample of assistants might have been homogenous; hence further exploration comparing samples of professionals is desirable.
Based on the results, NWW played a moderating role in the relationship between communication competence and empowerment. It is not remarkable that both main effect and interaction effects of NWW on communication competence and empowerment were found, as earlier studies linked NWW to higher levels of relational maintenance (Blok et al., 2012) as well as autonomy (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2011). Current results demonstrated that employees were more empowered when working at organisations that incorporated NWW, though less competent communicators seemed to benefit from a NWW setting more than competent communicators did. An explanation for this might be that some NWW principles made certain communicative behaviours easier (e.g. small talk via chat in stead of face-to-face), which enabled them to feel more empowered.
Additionally it was suggested that the strength of the supervisor-subordinate relationship moderated the relationship between communication competence and empowerment. Current findings indicated a direct main effect of supervisor-subordinate communication on empowerment, which was similar to effects that Ayupp and Chang (2010) found in the hotel sector and in line with effects of LMX that Ellemers et al. (2004) found on delegating decision-making and meaningful work. Unfortunately no interaction-effect was found, meaning supervisor-subordinate communication did not moderate the relationship between communication competence and empowerment. An explanation for the rejected hypothesis might be associated with the measurement of the construct. Current study was
forced to leave out 10, of the original 24, items (Miles et al., 1996) as respondents rated them confusing. Future research might look into different ways of operationalizing the construct in order to find possible interaction-effects.
Practical implications
Given current study’s results, it is clear that focussing on communication competence, NWW and supervisor-subordinate relation is beneficial to employee’s psychological
empowerment. To ensure employees feeling empowered, these factors should be given due attention by the management and organizations. Since communication competence is
contributing to empowerment – which is an antecedent for several work outcomes (Seibert et al, 2011) – companies should look for ways to develop communication competence through employee’s life span. Current study appointed communication (especially organizing and information sharing) as important skill sets, which could be targeted as areas of improvement through specified training programs, in order to enhance empowerment.
Also, results demonstrated that employee’s empowerment increased when employees worked in NWW’ settings. So it’s advisable for managers and organisations to look into the possibility of implementing NWW in their organisations. Implementing NWW especially leads to higher levels of empowerment for less competent communicators. Moreover, managers that communicate in a positive and upward communication manner will strengthen the relationship between communication competence and empowerment. Managers might consider outcomes of current study in order to reach business objectives.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Limitations of current research have to do with the composition of the sample and data collection. While respondents worked for different companies in various branches, the sample existed of assistants tied to one specific recruitment firm. The results can therefore be generalized to other populations to a lesser extent. Ideally, communication competence should not differ between samples, but they may be based on organizations cultural values and norms. A test with a sample including multiple firms would add to the generalizability of
the study and would thus be recommendable. Next, more significant results may arise from a questionnaire containing fewer items. The high drop-out rate (35%) suggests this future adjustment. These small adjustments to the study in terms of sample and composition are necessary for current study to be replicated. In addition, the chosen data collection method implied respondents to rate themselves on communicative skills as well as their level of empowerment. Respondents however might lack the introspective ability to provide an accurate response to a question and the gained self-report information might result in biased information which in turn decreases the reliability of the results in current study. A
recommendation for future research is thus to include the supervisors’ perceptions. Hence results of this sample can be compared to the scores employees gave themselves, giving an overall view of communication competence and empowerment.
Next to limitations and improvement on method design, future studies could dig deeper into the variable communication competence itself. Current study only found significant effects of task-oriented aspects (information sharing and organizing) and did not find effects of relational oriented aspects. It’s therefore suggested that future research should use the WCBI more often to validate the Inventory, and verify the results found in this study.
Moreover, the lack of a significant effect between supervisor-subordinate
communication on the relationship between communicative competencies and empowerment hints at additional research. A future recommendation would be to specify the variable into dimensions and to include type of leadership as a variable, as this has proven to be an important determinant for employee empowerment (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Yet another interesting angle for future research would be adding variables of
information and communication facilities. Current study only looked at communicative skills often used at work, however frequency (Jolke & Dunhan, 2000) and use of information- and communication facilities might contribute to the level of empowerment as well. This angle is especially interesting in relation to current target group (assistants) as their nature of work and workload changes drastically due to new information-and communication facilities (e.g.
virtual assistants) (Golden & Veiga, 2008). In conclusion, future research can extent the conceptual model by adding those or other variables.
References
Abu Bakar, H. Dilbeck, K. E., & McCroskey, J. C (2010). Mediating role of Supervisory communication practices on relationships between leader-member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 637-656.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968.
Ayupp, K., & Chung, T. H. (2010). Empowerment: Hotel employees´ perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 3, 561-575.
Baarne, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld. Assen, Nederland: Koninklijke Van Gorcum/Stichting Management Studies
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barley, S. R. & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 76-95. Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press
Blok, M. M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012), Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work, 41, 2605-2610.
Brown, R F., Bylund, C L., Gueguen, J. A., Diamond, C., Eddington, J., & Kissane D. (2010). Developing patient-centered communication skills training for oncologists: describing the content and efficacy of training. Communication Education, 59, 235-248.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford University Press, New York.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Conrad, D., & Newberry, R. (2012) Identification and Instruction of Important Business Communication Skills for Graduate Business Education, Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 112-120.
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). ‘I luv u:)!’: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60(2), 150–162.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1981). Relational competence: Measurement and vali-dation. Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association conference, San Jose, CA.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618−634. Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader–member exchange in the
performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32, 531−551.
Ellemers, N., Gilder, D. D., & Haslam, A. S. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups as work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 459-478.
Fix, B., & Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication: leader-member exchange and employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 35-44.
communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 79(2), 205 – 231. Gajendran, R.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82, 827-844. Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the
commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 77-88.
Gómez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26, 53-69 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Soetanto, R., & King, N. (2005). Employee perceptions of empowerment. Employee relations, 27, 354-368.
Harmon, J., Scotti, D. J., Behson, S. & Farias, G. (2003). Effects of high-involvement work systems on employee sasifaction and service. Journal of healthcare management, 48(6), 393- 407.
Harris, K.J, Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, M. K (2009). Leader member exchange and empowerment: direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 371-382.
Holbeche, L. & Springett, N. (2004). In search of meaning in the workplace. UK: Roffey Park Institute
Hurme, P. (2005). Mobile communication and work practices in knowledge- based
organizations. An interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments,1(1), 101-108.
Hynes, G. E. (2012). Improving employees’ interpersonal communication competencies: A qualitative study. Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 466–475.
Johlke, M., & Duhan, D. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service employee job outcomes. Journal of Services Research, 3(2),154–165.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. Journal of applied psychology, 88, 246-255. Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange
perspective. Human Relations, 48, 127-146.
Keyton, J., Caputo, J. M., Ford, E. A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T, Polasik, S. S., Ghosh, P., & Wu, C. (2013). Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviours. Journal of Business Communication, 1-18
Krishnan, V. R. (2012). Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: empowerment as mediator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33, 550-563.
Laschinger H.K.S., Finegan J., Shamian J., & Wilk P. (2004), A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 527–545.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2009). Context matters: The impact of unit leadership and empowerment on nurses' organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Administration, 39, 228-235.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal
relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 85, 407-416. Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A
multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38, 1231-1281.
Manzoni, J., & Barsoux, J. (2002). The set-up-to-fail syndrome. How good managers cause great people to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Daly, J. A., & Falcione, R. L. (1977). Studies of the Realtionship Between Communication Apprehension and Self-Esteem. Human Communication Research , 3(3), 269-277
Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 505-527). New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.
Payne, H. J. (2005). Reconceptualizing social skills in organizations: Exploring the
relationship between communication competence, job performance, and supervisory roles. Journal of Leadership & Organization Studies, 11, 63-77.
Putnam, L. K., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and organization. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. R (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational studies (pp. 375-408). London: Sage Ltd.
Reinsch N. J., & Gardner J. A. (2014). Do communication abilities affect promotion decisions? Some data from the C-suite. Journal of business and technical communication, 28(1), 31-57.
Rennecker, J., & Godwin, L. (2005). Delays and interruptions: a selfperpetuating paradox of communication technology use. Information and organization, 15, 247-266.
Riedlinger, M E., Gallois, C. McKay, S., & Pittam, J. (2004). Impact of social group processes and functional diversity on communication in networked organizations. Journal of applied communication research, 32, 55-79.
Scrudder, J. N., & Guinan, P. J. (1989). Communication competencies as discriminators of superior’s ratings of employee performance. Journal of business communication, 26(3), 217-229.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981-1003.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Communication Education, 32, 323-329.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal, 38, 1442- 1465. Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the
relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain. Journal of Management, 23, 679- 704.
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24(1), 113-120.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An
“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management review, 15, 666-681.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S., & Graen, G. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591−620.
Tuuli, M. M., Rowlinson, S., Fellows, R., & Liu, A. M. (2012). Empowering the project team: impact of leadership style and team context. Team Performance Management, 18, 149-175.
Warkentin, M.E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: an exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28, 975-996.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107- 128.
Appendix A: Questionnaire Table A 1.
Overview table of scales and measures for all variables
Variable Items Scale Reliability
Communication competence
Please rate yourself on the following communication competences at work 1 = poor (incompetent) 5 = excellent .88 Info-sharing Explaining Listening Addressing others Giving feedback Problem solving Getting feedback Asking questions Cooperating Giving examples Asking for opinions Seeking information Suggesting Discussing Offering help Answering questions Following directions Showing respect Sharing information Seeking feedback Evaluating Information (competent) Relational maintenance Creating relationships Small talk Joking Using humour Telling stories
Table A 1. Continued
Variable Items Scale Reliability
Expressing neg. emotion
Expressing frustration Complaining
Organizing Seeking approval
Managing others Making decisions Resolving problems Planning
Start-up Is the organisation you work at a start-up?
1 = yes 2 = no NWW Please indicate to what extend
your organisation makes use of New Ways of Working
1 = totally disagree (low NWW) 5 = totally agree Flexible working conditions
I decide from which place I work My work is flexible
I have de freedom to set my own working hours
I work from a different place than my office
I plan my work flexibly I work from 9-17h
(high NWW)
Open workplace
I work together with others I share knowledge with my colleagues
There is an open culture in our organisation
Communication I make use of videoconference for work
I make use of intranet for work I make use of chat for work Length of
relationship supervisor
How long have you been working with your current supervisor?
1 = 0-12 months 2 = 1– 5 year 3 = 5 –10 years 4 = over 10 years
Table A 1. Continued
Variable Items Scale Reliability
Supervisor-subordinate communication
Please rate the following statements
1 = totally disagree (low quality
relationship)
Positive I think that my supervisor ..
.. asks for my suggestions about how work tasks could be done …. Asks me about my interests outside of work
… strikes up causal conversations with me
…. Asks me for suggestions for improvements 5 = totally agree (high quality relationship) Upward/open I … … question my supervisors’ instructions when I don’t understand them
… tell me supervisor when I think things are being done wrong … question my supervisor’s instructions when I think they are wrong
Negative I think my supervisor …
… ridicules or makes fun of me … criticizes me in front of others … admits to his/her mistakes
Job related I think my supervisor …
… gives me recognition for work … lets me know why changes are made in work assignments
… keeps me informed about rules and policies
