Master’s Thesis Communication Department University of Amsterdam Corporate Communication
“Which interpersonal communication skills are important for managers to generate positive organizational outcomes?”
Theodora Baraliakou 10602127
Abstract
Acknowledging the lack of research on the specific communication styles of leaders, this study focused on investigating whether emotionality and expressivity can positively influence the task performance (TP) and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) of the employees of any organization. Furthermore, the study investigates whether leader-member exchange has any significant mediating role in the aforementioned relation. The results indicate that expressivity directly and positively influences leader-member exchange (LMX). Also, it is found that there is an indirect influence of expressivity to TP and OCB, while LMX has the mediating role. Emotionality was found to not influence LMX in any way.
1. Introduction
Communication is the core base of human relations which has led to civilizations being formed and developed. An important distinguishing element of human communication is that one person can say the same thing, in many different ways; each way can cause a different reaction depending on the communication skills acquired. Individuals that have to communicate about essential and crucial matters with other people should be able to master their communication skills. Those individuals can be found under the umbrella of leaders, managers, presidents and so forth. This study is going to be focused on the managerial and leadership
communication skills, mainly judged by the level of effectiveness of their subordinates.
Numerous are the aspects that show whether a leader/manager is being successful, yet a noticeable one lies in the relationship a manager has with his/her employees. According to Mayfield and Mayfield (2007) the willingness of employees to prolong their stay in any organization is affected by the leader’s communication style.
There are various leadership styles that result in an increased effectiveness of the overall climate of an organization (Avolio, 2009). For instance, a transformational leader is capable of increasing his/her employee’s ambitions and goals about their tasks (and their attitude toward those tasks) in the organization. At the same time, a transformational leader highlights important values, such as being an altruist and putting the overall good of the organization as a top priority. Another example of a
leadership style that results into an effective contribution to the overall outcomes of an organization, can be found in a charismatic leader. A charismatic leader can inspire his/her employees to improve themselves, to become better, perform better, and work beyond the base expectations of their work, using their initiative. (Avolio, 2009; House, Howell, 1992). In the shared leadership style the main belief is whether the leader is effective or not and is to be judged by the relationship with his/her
employees. Quoting O’Connor & Quinn (2004, p. 423) (as cited in Avolio, 2009) “shared leadership can be “viewed as a property of the whole system, as opposed to solely the property of individuals, effectiveness in leadership becomes more a product of those connections or relationships among the parts than the result of any one part of that system (such as the leader)”.
Similar characteristics of the aforementioned leadership styles are found in the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), where the leader-member relationship is the backbone of the style. As Uhl-Bien (2006) states, leadership can only happen when leaders and followers communicate effectively and conjointly influence one another. Supervisors with LMX style cultivate different relationships with each of the
employees and this improves the overall results of the organization. This
improvement exists mainly because this differentiation, among subordinates, helps to improve the social exchange between supervisor – subordinate, which is based on mutual understanding, trust and respect (Le Blank & Gonzales-Roma, 2012).
The focus of this research will be on the importance of the relationship among supervisors and employees instead of various leadership styles. This has been
influenced by Ilies et al. (2007) when he stated that at the finest levels of LMX, higher levels of task performance (TP) and organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCB) are some of the observed outcomes. Moreover, in a recent study of Bakker-Pieper and de Vries (2013) it was found that LMX was predicted by four specific communications styles, out of which this paper will concentrate on just two of them, expressivity and emotionality. Those two communication styles have been chosen to be the independent variables of this research; mainly because both had an
exceptionally high correlation with the LMX scale on Bakker-Pieper and de Vries (2013) research, and because expressivity has been found to have significant positive relations to leader behaviors in general (Riggio et al., 2003). Focusing on the
communication style per se instead of the leadership style of the leaders, can be proven very beneficial since a certain communication style (or aspect of style) can be absorbed by any leadership style and be of aid to the overall capability of the leader. Furthermore, it has been stated in the recent article of Bakker-Pieper and de Vries, little research has been done in the communication aspects and styles of leaders, hence is a field worth investigating.
Emotionality, or agreeableness on the Big Five scale, reflects to characteristics such as sentimentality, compassion, generousness, helpfulness but also anxiety and dependence (Bakker- Pieper & de Vries, 2013). Emotionality is an equally important aspect of a social human being as expressivity is; mostly because it reflects ones’ relations with his/her emotions, and the capability to understand and act upon them. In other words, emotionality is about being open with your emotions and feeling
comfortable expressing them.
Expressivity is approachability and informality while maintaining the status quo. An expressive manager, for instance, will be easy to talk to, humorous and above average at social interactions (Bakker-Pieper, de Vries, 2013). For every human,
being expressive is a very important and valuable asset, as it projects approachability and a sense that this person can be at ease during social interaction. Thus, the
significance of being expressive as a manager is something worth looking into.
As was mentioned above, communication is the most basic part of human relationships. However, it is also considered to be a difficult task; we all have encountered numerous cases of miscommunication that led from small hardships to massive catastrophes. Thus, as a manager, one should acquire the knowledge, the techniques and the elements that should be used in order to have higher changes to avoid miscommunication. Mastering the art of communication can be proven very beneficial in almost any case, because with good communication one can open limitless doors and opportunities. By achieving this skill, a manager will not only be able to use it in order to generate better and more effective (organizational) outcomes within the company, but also to strengthen the organizational climate and culture. Which, in turn can lead to better and more concrete outcomes.
However, even though there has been great research around leadership, little has be done to investigate which are the specific interpersonal communicational skills a manager should have, that make employees wanting to make an extra effort, to act pro-actively for a better future for the company, to be helpful, to be more efficient, and actually to derive to higher performance outcomes. This study aims to investigate which are the needed communication skills a manager should have in order to bring out the best of his employees. The following chapters will deal with some of the research done on whether emotionality and expressivity can promote high task performance (TP) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) by the mediation of leader-member exchange (LMX). The central research question is:
“Which interpersonal communication skills are important for managers to generate positive organizational outcomes?”
2. Theoretical Background
It is important to have knowledge of what has been researched on the grounds of this study. Past papers provide information and knowledge needed for this research to be built on strong theoretical foundations. Therefore, this section will focus on previous studies and what has been said about emotionality, expressivity, LMX but also TP and OCB, that will provide an overview of what has been researched in terms of those beneficial interpersonal characteristics and their effect on subordinate
outcomes.
Emotionality and Leader-Member Exchange
Although the term emotionality sounds quite self-explanatory, the definition is rather complex. Emotionality has been defined as a quality one possesses; the ability to be in line with the inner emotions (which are the showcase of emotionality) (Pahl, 2009). More specifically, positive emotionality has been linked to the externalization of various problems, to feeling secure in social situations, having high levels of felicity and being open to others (Stifter, Putnam & Jahromi, 2008), whereas negative emotionality has been proven to lead to feelings of social anxiety, fearfulness,
depression as well as some other similar observable feelings (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990).
Positive emotionality is an essential element of a leader as it has been shown that leaders can affect how their subordinates feel (George & Brief, 1992) and thus have a great impact on the organization. In more details, the authors state, that an excited and enthusiastic leader can positively affect his/her team members by spreading this energy. Of course the same can happen when a leader is experiencing negative feelings such as distress and anxiety, that will in turn be transmitted to the subordinates (George & Brief, 1992).
In extend to the previous statement, Rajah, Song and Arvey (2011) stressed the importance of emotions in the work environment by giving an example of a stressful situation that can potentially result in negativity among the group, and the significance of the “leaders’ emotional reactions”. The leader’s ability to control their emotions extends to the team’s ability to do the same, and deal with the situation in a calm and productive way. It has been empirically proven that calm reactions of a leading character during a-not-so-calm situation are essential to achieve success and maintain critical thinking for the team as a whole. Moreover, when a manager holds the ability to empower and motivate his/her employees, is a very clear beneficial element for an organization (Rajah, Song & Arvey, 2011). Also, emotionality was positively related to leader performance and satisfaction with leader (Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013). Such elements are connected with Leader Member Exchange
(Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013).
Leader-Member exchange, or LMX, is based on a dyadic relationship between the manager and each of his/her employees. The foundation of LMX lies in the
interrelationship between each other, in which the quality of it will determine various behaviors, actions and performances form both sides (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997). Furthermore, LMX is based on trust, interaction
and support (Liden et al., 1997), thus the importance of building and maintaining a
fruitful relationship is very high for both sides.
Taking all the aforementioned into account this study assumes that when a manager is open with his/her subordinates and is being seen as a person with high emotionality, this will affect positively the quality of the dyadic relationships that occur during LMX. This assumption is drawn from the feeling that if the manager has high emotionality he/she will come across as more companioned, instead of being seen as unapproachable supervisor that is there to merely impose rules and duties. Thus the first hypothesis is:
H1: When a manager shows more emotionality in communicating with employees, this will positively influence LMX.
Expressivity and LMX
Besides emotionality, being able to express oneself is an ability that helps to create bridges and build trust in every relationship. Being able to express oneself in an organizational setting, not only will bring up the abovementioned achievements, but will also create better relationships and climate within the organization (Ilies, Curseu, Dimotakis & Spitzmuller, 2013). More specifically expressivity within the working environment has been linked with coworkers sharing knowledge, encouraging
collaboration with a proactive attitude towards the organizational goals (George & Zhou, 2002, Barsade, 2002). Furthermore, when a leader is approachable, (among other characteristics that formulate an expressive persona), subordinates seem to have higher motivation to perform their best (Lewis, 2000). Also, due to their expressivity, those managers tend to have more cooperative subordinates (Ilies, et al., 2013). This can be explained by basic psychology. Take for instance the example of meeting a new person; the more expressive this person is the more likely it is for you to have a favorable first impression in your head. Now upgrade this example to the level of an expressive manager (Sabatelly & Rubin, 1986), and the importance of the dyadic relationship that occurs in the LMX. Hence, this study assumes that there is a direct relation between expressivity and leader-member exchange.
H2: When a manager shows more expressiveness in communicating with employees, this will positively influence LMX.
Leader-Member Exchange, Task Performance and OCB
Having talked about some of the special communication skills a competent manager should have, this section will explore the literature that supports theories that link high quality LMX to high task performance and high organizational citizenship behavior. As mentioned above, LMX is based on the interpersonal relations a manager has with each one of his/her subordinates (Avolio, 2000).
Task performance translates to the specific job routines and behaviors a employee should have, ranging from the basic responsibilities each job requires, to
more subtle activities that enhance the organizations’ outcomes (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Those behaviors mainly derive from the ability and experience the employee has and hence they are evaluated by their effectiveness (Borman &
Motowildo, 1997). The job routines and behaviors differ from job to job, (however in any case) they are probably the most essential part of any organization due to the importance of them (Borman & Motowildo, 1997).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) translates to the discrete actions and deeds an employee does, which, at the end of the day, have a positive effect on the overall organizational effectiveness. Organizational citizenship behavior is a personal choice, where the aim doesn’t lead to any kind of reward or
acknowledgement, and it’s not included into the job description (Organ, 1988). However, OCB results in a positive climate at any organization, which, as stated by Podsakoff, Ahearne & MacKenzie (1997), a statement that mostly arrives from a logical and empirical “intuitive plausibility”, that OCB is important for organizational effectiveness and success.
A notable beginning, in order to fully grasp what is the relation between LMX and employee outcomes is to look at what has been generally said about the
relationship of LMX with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and task
performance (TP). Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009) state that high quality LMX has been predicted to generate higher levels of employee performance and also higher levels of OCB. The explanation of this reaction comes from the very nature of the relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate. When this relationship is merely formal and moves within standard activities – thus lack of bonding, or low
LMX – the core of the relationship is only an “economic exchange” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). However, when this relationship is something more than what is being described above –thus existence of bonding, or high LMX- then the core basis of the relationship is transformed into values. Values like mutual trust, respect and
obligation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Hence, when these values are part of the equation between subordinate and supervisor, both ends do their best to keep these values up high, which in this case can be translated into high task performance as well as high organizational citizenship behavior.
Furthermore, Graen and Cushman (1975) (as cited in Dunegan, Uhl-Bien, & Duchon, 2002) stated that high quality LMX relationships have better chance leading to improved subordinate performance, due to the enhanced knowledge sharing and consideration for each other that exists in those kinds of relationships. On those grounds, organizational citizenship behavior has been found to positively correlate with the social exchanges that take place during high level LMX relationships (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).
Yet another study showed that positivity and energy within the LMX relationship has been proved to have higher task performance and OCBoutcomes (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009). When combining the aforementioned studies together, one can observe a very coherent path, that joints higher TP and OCB together with high LMX levels. Thus hypotheses 3 and 4 are formulated.
H3: When there is a positive LMX between a manager and his/her employees, this will positively influence TP.
H4: When there is a positive LMX between a manager and his/her employees, this will positively influence OCB.
Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned, this study assumes that if there is a positive direct relation between emotionality of a leader and LMX, and a positive direct relation between LMX and TP, and also between LMX and OCB, then there should be an indirect relation between emotionality and TP mediated by LMX, as well as an indirect relation between emotionality and OCB, again mediated by LMX. Hence, hypotheses 5 and 6 are derived.
H5: The relationship between emotionality and TP is mediated by LMX H6: The relationship between emotionality and OCB is mediated by LMX
In the same train of thought with the suggestions of the previous paragraph, the last two hypotheses of the study are formulated. If there is a direct relation between expressivity and LMX, and also a direct relation between LMX and TP/OCB, then the assumption that a relation would therefore exist between
expressivity and TP/OCB mediated by LMX is present. Thus, hypotheses 7 and 8 are created.
H7: The relationship between expressivity and TP is mediated by LMX H8: The relationship between expressivity and OCB is mediated by LMX
Having formulated the main question of this research, as well as the
hypotheses, a graphic design of the conceptual model is in line, so that the main idea of what is going to be researched further down, will be visualized.
4. Method
Data collection
The study was conducted using an online survey. The data were collected using a convenient sample and the snowball effect method. Respondents were personally contacted via social media and personal email, by the researcher. They were also asked to forward the survey to anyone they believed fitted the description needed. The duration of the survey lasted two weeks, starting on April 23rd until May 7th, 2015. Participants Expressivity Emotionality TP* OCB* LMX*
Respondents’ age ranged from 18 years to 65 years old, they all spoke English and where currently working in a company or an organization. The wide age range is justified by the aim of the study; age is insignificant as long as the respondents are legally able to be working. Furthermore, respondents were informed before taking part in the study, that the survey was anonymous and the results will not be used in any harmful way under any conditions. At the end of this statement, they were asked for their consent in order to proceeded with the survey. The initial number of
participants was 152, however a total of 102 successfully completed the survey, with mean age of 31,4 (SD = 11.1). Out of 102 respondents 53 (52%) were females and 49 were males (48%). In average, respondents had 8.6 years of employment (SD = 8.94), and approximately 2.9 years of working for the same supervisor (SD = 4.1).
Additionally, 43% of the respondents completed a masters’ degree and a 68.6% is working at the private sector.
Materials/ Measurement instrument/ Survey
All variables were measured in a seven point Likert scale. The questionnaire was divided into six blocks; the first five consisted of scales to measure the variables of the hypotheses and the last one was about the demographics of the participants. A more detailed view of the whole survey can be found in Appendix.
Emotionality. Emotionality was measured by 16 questions, in a scale created by deVries, Bakker-Pieper, Konings and Schouten (2013) – the same authors that created the scale for expressivity. Certain questions had to be recoded, in order to fit the rest of the scale. The questions were: “During a conversation, my supervisor is not easily overcome by emotions”, “My supervisor is able to address a large group of people
very calmly” and “Nasty remarks from other people do not bother my supervisor too much”. The emotionality scale treated answering option one as “completely disagree” and seven as “completely agree”. Exempli gratia: “My supervisor can be visibly tense during a conversation”. Next a reliability test was assessed. In order for a scale to be reliable, Cronbach’s alpha needs to have a value higher than .60. The reliability test was performed with the 16 items of the emotionality questionnaire, including the recoded ones. Results indicated that the new scale was reliable (α =.86).
Expressivity. The variable of expressivity was measured on the basis of 16 questions from de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Konings and Schouten (2013). Six questions form the expressivity scale had to be recoded to align the direction of the rest of the items. Those questions were: “My supervisor is never the one who breaks a silence by starting to talk”, “Most of the time, other people determine what the discussion is about, not my supervisor”, “My supervisor has a hard time being humorous in a group”, “My supervisor communicates with others in a distant manner”, “My supervisor behaves somewhat formally when he/she meets new people” and “My supervisor comes across as somewhat stiff when dealing with people”. In addition the expressivity scale treated answering option one as “completely disagree” and seven as “completely agree”. A sample question is “My supervisor often manages to make the others burst out laughing”. A second, reliability test was performed including the 16 items that measure expressivity. The results suggested that the expressivity scale was reliable (α =.90).
LMX. Leader-Member Exchange was measured by Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) scale, which consisted of eight questions. LMX answering options for one were: “never”, “badly”, “none”, completely disagree” and “extremely ineffective”, while the
answering options for seven were respectively: “always”, “completely”, “very high”, “completely agree” and “extremely effective”. Exempli gratia: “Regardless the amount of formal authority your direct supervisor has, what are the chances he or she will “bail you out” at his or her expense?”. A third reliability test was assessed for the LMX scale, and the results showed that the scale is reliable (α =.91).
Individual Work Performance. Individual work performance was measured by five questions, in a scale created by Koopmans, Bernaards, Hildebrandt, de Vet and van der Beek (2014). The answering options for task performance was one as “never” and seven as “always”. An example question is the following “I am able to separate main issues from side issues at work”. Measuring task performance scale’s reliability the results suggested that the scale is consistent (α = .86).
OCB. Organizational citizen behavior was measured by 13 questions, in a scale made by Podsakoff, Ahearne and MacKenzie (1997). The scale treated answering option one as “completely disagree” and seven as “completely agree”. A representative question is “I willingly give of my time to help colleagues who have work-related problems”. Some questions had to be recoded for a new variable to be able to be created. For the OCB scale the questions “I always focus on what is wrong with our situation, rather than the positive side”, “I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters” and “I always find fault with what other colleagues are doing” had to be recoded in order to fit the direction of the rest items. The results of the OCB reliability test indicated that the scale is reliable (α = .89).
Subsequently, new scales were created for emotionality, expressivity, leader-member exchange, organizational citizenship performance and task performance based on 102 respondents.
5. Results
In order to test the hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 single regressions were performed, to see whether emotionality and expressivity have any influence on TP and OCB. Also multiple regressions were performed to test weather LMX had any mediating role in between the relationship of the aforementioned (hypotheses 5, 6, 7 and 8)
To test the first hypothesis, “When a manager shows more emotionality in communicating with employees, this will positively influence LMX”, which assumes emotionality to be directly related to LMX, a regression model with emotionality as an independent variable and LMX as a dependent variable was performed and was not significant, F (1,101) = .451, p = .503. The regression model therefore showed that 0 per cent of the variation in LXM can be predicted from the emotionality of a leader (R2 = .00). Emotionality b* = .06 , t = .67, p = .503 has a non-significant association with LMX. Thus hypothesis 1 is rejected.
For the second hypothesis, “When a manager shows more expressivity in communicating with employees, this will positively influence LMX”, the regression model with expressivity as an independent variable and LMX as a dependent variable was significant, F (1,101) = 12.45, p < .001. The regression model therefore showed that 11 per cent of the variation in LXM can be predicted on the basis of the
expressivity of a leader (R2 = .11). Expressivity b* = .326, t = 3.52, p < .001 has a significant, strong association with LMX. Thus hypothesis 2 is accepted.
The regression model with the LMX as an independent variable and Task Performance as a dependent variable was significant, F (1,101) = 58.42, p < .000. The regression model therefore showed that 34 per cent of the variation in TP can be predicted on the basis of the amount of high LMX that exists in the relationship (R2 =
.34). LMX b* = .580, t = 7.64, p < .000 has a significant, strong association with TP. Thus hypothesis 3 is accepted.
Likewise, the regression model with LMX as an independent variable and OCB as a dependent variable was significant, F (1,101) = 33.64, p < .000. The regression model therefore showed that 22 per cent of the variation in OCB can be predicted on the basis of the amount of high quality LMX exists in the relationship (R2 = .22). LMX b* = .476, t = 5.80, p < .000 has a significant, strong association with OCB. Thus hypothesis 4 is accepted.
Moving on to hypothesis 5, it was assumed that emotionality will have an indirect relation with TP and OCB, mediated by LMX. However, results showed that emotionality is not related with LMX, thus it is unlikely for hypotheses 5 and 6 to be significant. Thus hypotheses 5 and 6 are rejected.
Due to the direct influence expressivity has on LMX, it is assumed that expressivity will have an indirect relation with TP and OCB, mediated by LMX. To prove that, first step was to test whether expressivity was related to TP. The
regression showed that there was no significance in the model, F (1,101) = .04, p = .824. Following, a multiple regression model was performed, with expressivity as an independent variable, Task Performance as a dependent variable, and LMX as a mediator and the results were significant, F (1,101) = 31.75, p < .000. The regression model therefore showed that 38 per cent of the variation in TP can be predicted on the basis of the amount of expressivity when controlling for high quality LMX in the relationship between supervisor and subordinate (R2 = .38). LMX b* = .580, t = 7.96, p < .000 has a significant, mediating, strong association with TP and expressivity, while expressivity b* = -.23, t = -2.85, p < .005 has now a significant association with
TP when LMX is a mediator. A Sobel’s test was conducted to check whether the mediation was statistically significant. The results showed that the mediation of LMX was statistically significant, z’ = 3.72, p <.001. Thus hypothesis 7 is accepted.
However, this is a case of inconsistent mediation, which occurs when in a model one or more mediated effects have a different sign than the rest of the mediated or direct effects. So in this case, the direct relation between expressivity and TP consists of a negative sign, since it is insignificant, however, when LMX as the mediating variable enters the model, then expressivity makes a difference to TP (MacKinnon, Fairchild & Fritz, 2007)
Subsequently, to test whether expressivity has a mediated relation with OCB through LMX, a simple regression analysis was performed with expressivity as the independent variable and OCB as the dependent. The regression model was not significant, F (1,101) = .40, p = .527, so that concludes that there is no direct relation between expressivity and OCB. Following, a multiple regression analysis, with expressivity as an independent variable, OCB as a dependent variable, and LMX as a mediator was significant F (1,101) = 17.04, p < .001. The regression model therefore showed that 25% of the variation in OCB can be predicted on the amount of
expressivity of the leader/manager when controlling for high quality LMX in the relationship between supervisor and subordinate (R2 = .25). LMX b* = .527, t = 5.82, p < .000 has a significant, mediating, strong association with OCB, while expressivity b* = -.13, t = -1.46, p < .146 still has an insignificant association with OCB.
Furthermore, results of the Sobel’s test suggest that the association between expressivity and OCB is significantly mediated by LMX (z’ = 3.06, p <.002). Together, these results suggest that the expressivity of a leader towards his/her
building quality relationships with his/her employees. Thus hypothesis 8 is accepted. Similar as hypothesis 7, this is again a case of inconsistent mediation (MacKinnon et al., 2007)
6. Conclusion & Discussion
The purpose of this thesis has been to have a better look into the interpersonal elements of the communication that occurs within an organization. More specifically, the research focused on the levels of emotionality and expressivity managers show when communicating with their subordinates. Besides these two communicational elements, the interpersonal relations of the manager and each of his/her employees also played a great role in the research. LMX, which in short is the dyadic relationship between a manager and an employee, was expected to be related to emotionality and expressivity. Two more variables were investigated under the present study, which were the task performance and the organizational citizenship behavior of the
employees. Those were expected to have a direct relationship with the leader-member exchange, and consequently an indirect one with emotionality and expressivity.
As it is usual for most of the studies, not all of the hypothesized assumptions were accepted, however there were some very interesting and potentially useful findings. To begin with, expressivity was indeed positively influencing LMX. This means that when the manager is more approachable and somewhat informal towards his/her employees, then this dyadic relationship, which is the core base of the LMX, tends to be higher. In return a high dyadic relationship is translated to higher trust, support and interaction with each other (Liden et al., 1997).
Furthermore, it was found that positive LMX does have a positive influence in both the task performance and the organizational citizenship behavior of the
employees. These findings are explained again by the very nature of the leader-member relationship, which is based on mutual trust and affection (Liden et al., 1997; Graen & Ulh-Bien, 1995). The higher the LMX levels, the more the employees tend to perform better at their tasks, and engage in OCB activities that are not part of their job description. In this way, this dyadic relationship is build and grown in a solid and dense base with mutual respect and offers form both sides.
As it can already be deduced, the findings supported the assumption that expressivity has an indirect relationship with TP and OCB, and both are mediated by LMX. However, here is a case of inconsistent mediation, which means that even though expressivity have does not directly affect task performance neither OCB, when LMX is taking a mediating role, then expressivity does have an impact on both outcome variables. So when a manager is expressive, and a good interrelationship exists between him/her and his/her employees then the task performance of the employees will be higher and they will be more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors as well.
On the other hand some hypotheses were not supported at all by the results. First was that emotionality will positively influence LMX. Here the results showed, a slightly surprising, insignificance. However, it can be explained by the fact that a manager could be considered too emotional and thus not very trustworthy
(Weinberger & Schartz, 1990). If a leader/manager comes across as too emotional it is only natural to have a reverse outcome from what is was hypothesized. As such the
following hypotheses that assumed an indirect relationship between emotionality, TP and OCB, mediated by LMX could not possibly be tested.
This study has been able to provide its outcomes for bettering organizational internal relations and also enhancing various organizational outcomes. The answer to the main question, which are the interpersonal communication skills a manager should have to generate positive organizational outcomes, is: expressivity. A manager should be expressive and approachable, as well as talkative and slightly informal. These elements have been proven to have a positive influence on LMX, and moreover and indirect positive effect on employees task performance and organizational
citizenship behavior. Furthermore, a manager should never be too emotional because this was established to produce the opposite effects from being expressive.
Limitations & Future research
One of the major limitations of this study is that it was conducted through a survey. The survey itself consisted of several reliable scales. However, the
respondents were recruited via a convenient sample and snowball effect, which reduces the validity of the research compared to the utilization of a more
representative sample. Moreover, the survey was based on self-report answers, which can also evoke biased results. The reason is because when people are asked to fill in what they would potentially do when facing a specific situation can potentially deviate from their actual in-situ behavior (due to social acceptance reasons, or not taking the survey as serious as it was intended to be. Therefore, the best way to test the research question and the hypotheses of this study is to conduct an experiment in one or several organizations. In that case, the behavior of the participants would be
tested based on their real life reactions instead of self-reports. However, due to limited time and resources, a survey was preferred.
Furthermore, out of the 152 respondents, only 102 successfully filled out the survey, which is an adequate number to conduct a survey, but yet it might limit the generalization of the findings. Thus future research should include more respondents. The study tested the basic ideas of OCB and TP. However, there are many more aspects and differentiations in each of them that could be measured. Therefore, future research could focus on specific elements of OCB and TP that can be affected by LMX, expressivity and/or emotionality.
Implications
Managers should have in mind to express themselves, share their knowledge and help their subordinates. Moreover, it is essential in the eyes of the employee that his/her manager is approachable and talkative, as well as transparent. Even though managers don’t want to lose their prestige and high reputation, being in touch with the rest of the organization, and specifically the subordinates, is a quality that will inspire more trust and employees will take pride to achieve more, and do more, because they have a manager that deserves going that extra mile.
References
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264-275.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.
Bakker-Pieper, A., & de Vries, R. E. (2013). The incremental validity of
communication styles over personality traits for leader outcomes. Human
Performance, 26(1), 1-19.
Barchard, K. A. (2001). Positive expressivity scale and negative expressivity scale: initial psychometric characteristics. In Poster presented at the May 2001 convention of the Western Psychological Association, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99-109.
de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., Konings, F. E., & Schouten, B. (2011). The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research, 0093650211413571.D
Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Duchon, D. (2002). LMX and subordinate performance: The moderating effects of task characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 275-285.
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. The leadership
quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological
bulletin, 112(2), 310.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: the role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 687.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1997). Revealing feelings: facets of emotional
expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(2), 435.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.
Ilies, R., Curşeu, P. L., Dimotakis, N., & Spitzmuller, M. (2013). Leaders' emotional expressiveness and their behavioural and relational authenticity: Effects on followers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 4-14.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 269.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Construct validity of the individual work performance
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(3), 331-337.
Le Blanc, P. M., & González-Romá, V. (2012). A team level investigation of the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 534-544.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), 221-234.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources management, 15, 47-120.
Lo, M. C., & Ramayah, T. (2009). Dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in a multicultural society: the case of Malaysia. International
Business Research, 2(1), p48.
MacKinnon, D., Fairchild, A., & Fritz, M. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual Rev. Psychol., 58(1), 593-614. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2007). The effects of leader communication on a worker's intent to stay: An investigation using structural equation modeling.
Human Performance, 20(2), 85-102.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 79(4), 475.
O’Connor, P. M., & Quinn, L. (2004). Organizational capacity for leadership. The
Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development, 2,
417-437.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier
syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Pahl, K. (2009). Emotionality: A brief introduction. MLN, 124(3), 547-554.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational
citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
management, 26(3), 513-563.
Rajah, R., Song, Z., & Arvey, R. D. (2011). Emotionality and leadership: Taking stock of the past decade of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1107-1119.
Riggio, R. E., Mayes, B. T., & Schleicher, D. J. (2003). Using assessment center methods for measuring undergraduate business student outcomes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(1), 68-78.
Sabatelli, R. M., & Rubin, M. (1986). Nonverbal expressiveness and physical
attractiveness as mediators of interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10(2), 120-133.
Stifter, C. A., Putnam, S., & Jahromi, L. (2008). Exuberant and inhibited toddlers: Stability of temperament and risk for problem behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 20(02), 401-421.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology, 13(1982), 290-312.
Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing trust and its effects on employee involvement. Journal of
Business Communication.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.
Weinberger, D. A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1990). Distress and restraint as superordinate dimensions of self‐reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of personality, 58(2), 381-417.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617
APPENDIX Statistics How many years of employment do you have? How many years have you worked for your current direct... What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed The organization you work for is in which of the following? What is your age in years? What is your gender? N Valid 102 102 102 102 102 102 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 8.6500 2.9598 6.42 2.14 31.41 1.52 Std. Error of Mean .89427 .40199 .103 .072 1.109 .050 Median 5.0000 1.0000 7.00 2.00 28.00 2.00 Mode 1.00a 1.00 7 2 24a 2 Std. Deviation 8.94272 4.05993 1.038 .732 11.088 .502 Variance 79.972 16.483 1.078 .535 122.951 .252 Sum 865.00 301.90 655 218 3141 155
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
What is your age in years?
N Valid 101 Missing 51 Mean 31.33 Median 28 Std. Deviation 11.064 Variance 122.422 Minimum 0 Maximum 58 Percentiles 25 25 50 28 75 35.5
Cronbach's Alpha: Emotionality Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
Cronbach's Alpha: Expressivity Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 0.902 16 Cronbach's Alpha: LMX Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 0.91 8 Cronbach's Alpha: TP Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 0.86 5
Cronbach's Alpha: OCB Cronbach's
Alpha
N of Items
0.89 13
Regression: OCB EXPRESS Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .063a 0.004 -0.006 9.76889
a Predictors: (Constant), EXPRnew b Dependent Variable: OCBnew
ANOVAa Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 38.365 1 38.365 0.402 .527b
Residual 9543.125 100 95.431
Total 9581.49 101
a Dependent Variable: OCBnew b Predictors: (Constant), EXPRnew
Coefficientsa
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 67.01 6.611 10.136 0
EXPRnew 0.059 0.093 0.063 0.634 0.527
a Dependent Variable: OCBnew
Regression: LMX EXPRESS Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .326a 0.106 0.097 7.91405
a Predictors: (Constant), EXPRnew b Dependent Variable: LMXnew
ANOVAa Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 779.863 1 779.863 12.451 .001b
Residual 6576.38 105 62.632
Total 7356.243 106
a Dependent Variable: LMXnew b Predictors: (Constant), EXPRnew
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 21.89 5.213 4.199 0
EXPRnew 0.257 0.073 0.326 3.529 0.001
a Dependent Variable: LMXnew
Regression: EXPRESS to LMX to OCB Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .497a 0.247 0.232 8.22594
a Predictors: (Constant), LMXnew, EXPRnew b Dependent Variable: OCBnew
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2306.316 2 1153.158 17.042 .000b
Residual 7037.272 104 67.666
Total 9343.589 106
a Dependent Variable: OCBnew
b Predictors: (Constant), LMXnew, EXPRnew
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 55.91 5.855 9.549 0 EXPRnew -0.117 0.08 -0.132 -1.463 0.146 LMXnew 0.59 0.101 0.524 5.82 0
a Dependent Variable: OCBnew
Regression: EXPRESS to TP Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .022a 0 -0.009 4.75038
a Predictors: (Constant), EXPRnew b Dependent Variable: TPnew
ANOVAa Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.117 1 1.117 0.049 .824b
Residual 2369.444 105 22.566
Total 2370.561 106
a Dependent Variable: TPnew b Predictors: (Constant), EXPRnew
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 28.23 3.129 9.023 0
EXPRnew -0.01 0.044 -0.022 -0.222 0.824
a Dependent Variable: TPnew
Regression: EXPRESS to LMX to TP Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .616a 0.379 0.367 3.76193
a Predictors: (Constant), LMXnew, EXPRnew b Dependent Variable: TPnew
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 898.738 2 449.369 31.753 .000
Residual 1471.823 104 14.152
Total 2370.561 106
a Dependent Variable: TPnew
b Predictors: (Constant), LMXnew, EXPRnew
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 20.143 2.678 7.522 0
EXPRnew -0.105 0.037 -0.234 -2.859 0.005
LMXnew 0.369 0.046 0.651 7.964 0
a Dependent Variable: TPnew
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .066a 0.004 -0.005 8.33291
a Predictors: (Constant), EMOTnew
ANOVAa Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 31.335 1 31.335 0.451 .503b
Residual 7152.055 103 69.437
Total 7183.39 104
a Dependent Variable: LMXnew b Predictors: (Constant), EMOTnew
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 42.381 3.333 12.716 0
EMOTnew -0.038 0.056 -0.066 -0.672 0.503
