Face to face communication and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour
A case study about how mangers and top managers can
influence Organizational citizenship behavior through face to
face communication
Index
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Literature review ... 5
2.1 Communication ... 5
2.2 Face to face communication ... 6
2.3 Social exchange ... 8
2.4 Communication and trust ... 9
2.5 Leadership ... 10
2.6 Trust in leader ... 11
2.7 Benefits of trust is leader ... 13
2.8 Organizational Citizenship behavior ... 14
2.9 Conceptual framework ... 15
3. Method... 17
3.1 Reason for qualitative research and case study ... 17
3.2 Reliability and validity ... 18
3.3 Data collection ... 18
4. Results ... 20
4.1 General information ... 20
4.2 Face to face communication ... 20
4.2.1 Importance of face to face communication ... 21
4.2.2 Face to face communication with manager ... 22
4.2.3 Face to face communication top manager ... 23
4.2.4 Face to face communication with employees managers perspective... 24
4.2.5 Face to face communication with employees top managers perspective ... 25
4.2.6 Results face to face communication ... 26
4.3 Trust ... 27
4.3.1 Results trust ... 29
4.4 Relationship and social exchange ... 30
4.4.1 Results relationship and social exchange ... 32
4.5 Organizational citizenship behaviour ... 33
4.5.1 Results organizational citizenship behaviour ... 35
5. Conclusion ... 36
5.1 Managerial implication ... 37
5.2 Limitations and future research ... 38
Refrences... 39
Apendix 1 ... 43
Apendix 2 ... 44
1. Introduction
Within every organization there are unmentioned roles that are important for the productivity of the organization. Writing everything in a job description is an impossible task (Organ 1988), and since these roles are unwritten, controlling this is a tough task. Furthermore, employees are not mandatory to perform these roles, but they voluntary perform them, which benefits the company. Performing these roles can be seen as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). This behavior can be described as desirable, but is not prescribed behavior needed within organizations. In this thesis the focus will be on how this OCB can be influenced.
In this thesis the emphasis will be on what effect face to face communication has on trust in management and top management, and in which ways trust is linked with OCB.
To begin with trust, there are many definitions of trust. Most common definitions of trust are within terms of honesty, reliability, integrity, fairness, faith (Zaheer et al.1998; Coote, Forrest, & Tam 2003; Young-Ybarra& Wiersema 1999). Within this thesis the focus will be on interpersonal trust between management and employees. A distinguish will be made between cognitive and affective trust in leader. “Trust is cognition-based in that we choose whom we will trust in which respects and under what circumstances, and we base the choice on what we take to be 'good reasons', constituting evidence of worthiness” (McAllister 1995 p. 25). “For instance, if an individual is truly impressed with a trustee’s professional and educational training, experience, and role performance, the individual tends to develop cognition-based trust” (Kim 2005 p.744). Affective trust reflects a relationship based on emotional bonds, whereby care and concern is expressed and understood. This dimension of trust goes beyond formal role descriptions. (Kim 2005; McAllister 1995). Individuals “believe in the intrinsic virtue of such relationships, and believe that these sentiments are reciprocated” (McAllister 1995 p.26). Trust in leaders is seen as important because it is related to many positive outcomes like organizational commitment, job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour (Dirks and Ferrin 2002)
environment that is open, and makes it possible for employees to feel connected with the company. It makes that employees can know what their role is in achieving organizational roles (Smidts, Pruyn & Riel 2001). In their study, Mahajan et al. (2012), mention that little attention is given to the role of top management communication on the development of trust. They found that top management communication is essential in the development of a high level of trust. However, they only investigated the effect of communication in general and not the different types of communication, and so it is recommended to do future research on this part. Hence, the impact of face to face communication with top manager is yet to be discovered.
The linkage of face to face communication with OCB makes this study unique, which is according to my knowledge not investigated yet. Getting this knowledge is important because OCB is important for success of every organization. It includes voluntary acts, but organizations cannot force employees to perform in this way. Therefore, face to face communication could be an important instrument to stimulate OCB. Hence, the aim of this study is to understand the relationship between face to face communication and Organizational citizenship behavior. This leads to the following research question: How does face to face communication between management and employees influences organizational citizenship behavior?
Relevant sub questions are:
How does face to face communication influence the level of trust between employees and management?
2. Literature review
In this section relevant literature will be discussed. First existing literature about communication and face to face communication will be presented and analyzed. Next, social exchange theory will be explained. After that the relationship between communication and trust will be described. Subsequently, literature about trust in leader and OCB will be presented. At the end a conceptual framework will be presented which is derived from the literature analysis
2.1 Communication
Good communication is essential within every organization. “There is little doubt that effective management requires good communication. Communicating well is known to be a critical success factor in such things as increasing productivity, improving employee satisfaction, and being recognized as an outstanding leader” (Graham, Unruh, Jennings 1991 p.46). Communication is one of the core management processes at every level of the organization and leads to the following improvements; First, employees need to be provided with information which is important to do their work. Secondly, good communication can encourage innovation. The aim of communication is not only to provide information but also to influence the attitude and behaviour of employees (Wood 1999). Previous literature suggests that open communication with employees is likely to increase interpersonal trust. And last but not least, communicating decisions in open and understandable language increases cognitive
The process of communication can be divided into communication process and information process (Stappers 1988). Within the communication process a sender presents a source of information to the receiver and hopes that the receiver will be informed. This process is only about what the sender tries to tell and not about how the receiver gives meaning to this.
but rather in terms of how it helped them. They find it useful because they can put it to use. Only when it does not help do they focus on credibility and expertise of a source or message as explanations of why what was offered did not help” (Dervin 1989 p.80).
The assumptions behind this theory is that reality is not complete and filled with gaps, because not everything is connected and constantly changing. Information cannot be seen independent from individuals, as it is a product of the observing of human beings. It is also assumed that al information is subjective, information can be seen as “simply the sense made by individuals at specific moments in time-space. Some ‘information’ becomes agreed upon and is termed ‘fact’ for a given time-frame at least. Others are controversial and are called ‘opinion’ or ‘delusion’ depending on the socio-political context and/or the charity of the observer.” (Dervin 1983 p. 5)
2.2 Face to face communication
Face to face communication is the most effective communication media. The impact of face to face communication is higher than any other communication medium. This might be explained since people are literally close to each other, but the impact of face to face communication is especially great, because of the possibility to interact intensively which encourages involvement of individuals. Face to face communication clears up ambiguity and makes a more proper connection between sender and receiver. Because of the possibility to respond directly, misunderstanding can be clarified directly (Klein 1996). Face to face communication is also effective, because it shows that effort and time have been invested in personal contact. This creates an environment which allows that communication can take place more easily and be more effective (Wood 1999).
Figure 1 Daft and Lengel 1984
Face to face communication makes use of natural language of high variety. It allows that feedback can be given immediately, it makes use of visual and audio channels, it is personal, and includes body language, which make this type of communication the most extensive. Face to face communication allows that individuals can observe cues like body language, expressions of face, and voice tone. These cues can give a lot more information than the spoken message alone (Daft & Lengel 1984). The advantage of rich media is that they “facilitate equivocate reduction by enabling managers to overcome different frames of reference and by providing the capacity to process complex, subjective messages” (Daft & Lengel 1986 p.560). Also Santoro & Saparito (2003) argue that sharing of rich and complex information should be done face-to-face. According to the theory of Mehrabian (1972) face to face communication is build out of three components; words, voice and facial expressions. Assumed is that individuals cannot totally hide their emotions. When the communicator is talking about feeling and attitude in face-to-face communication 7% is communicated through words, 38% through voice and 55% through facial expressions or body language. His studies show that a lot is communicated though non-verbal communication up to 93% about the attitudinal message.
revealed by their voice. When facial and vocal cues don’t match and there is a lot of discrepancy the receiver will suspect that sender is dishonest and gives more meaning to the voice. Nevertheless in other cases facial cues give more information (Graham et al. 1991).
In his framework Nonaka explains the process of knowledge creation. In this model the distinction is made between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. “Tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context” and Explicit knowledge “refers to knowledge that is transmittable in formal, systematic language” (Nonaka 1994 p. 16). According to this model tacit and explicit knowledge interact with each other, which eventually leads to new knowledge creation. This happens through 4 processes: socialization, externalization, combination and internalization. The idea behind there model is that through the process of social interaction individuals share their knowledge. Individuals know more than they are able to communicate in words or numbers. The knowledge we are able to communicate in words “only represents the tip of the iceberg of the entire body of possible knowledge” (Nonaka 1994 p. 16). In the process of socialization tacit knowledge is transferred into tactic knowledge. This happens through face-to-face communication and sharing experiences. Important in this process is that individuals can develop tacit knowledge without language. In de process of externalization tacit knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge, which makes it possible that it can be used by others. This happens for example by developing frameworks. In the process of combination explicit knowledge it is acquired to combine this knowledge with other explicit knowledge. The organization of knowledge takes place in this process. Internalization refers to transformation of explicit knowledge in to tacit, which has similarities with traditional learning. The cycle continues when this tacit knowledge is again converted in tacit knowledge trough interpersonal interaction (Nonaka 1994).
2.3 Social exchange
An example of social exchange behaviour is given in the paper of Homans (1958): two groups of people were made to discuss a business case, members of one group were told that the other members liked them and members of the other group were told that their group members did not liked them. More member of the high-attraction group changed their opinion in accordance to the view of the group then less-attraction group. What the members received was affection, in exchange they changed their opinion.
Individuals, who are not willing to exchange when people need them to, will not receive anything from those who needed them but were disappointed. When individuals give a lot they try to receive much. Accordingly individuals that receive a lot feel pressure to give much back. This process makes that social exchanges between individuals tend to find balance. What an individual gives is often in some way equal to what he receives (Homans 1958). However, these exchange relations are not always in balance. In group tasks some individuals often do more than others while some have more resources than others. When the value of contribution exceeds the value of reward it creates inequities. These can be seen as a debt of group members toward the member who contributes more. When the group is dependent on the resources of this member, it gives this member social power (Overstreet 1972; Cook 1977)
The exchanges between an employee and manager can also be explained though social exchanges theory. These exchanges are called leader-member exchanges. How a manager treats his employees can result in high quality exchange and low quality exchange. The quality of exchange is based on the personal relationship between employee and manager. Low quality exchange is “characterized by the exercise of formal organizational authority” (Deluga 1994 p. 216). And high quality exchange is characterized by “friendly working relationships typified by mutual trust and support” (Deluga 1994 p. 216). A low quality exchange means that both leader and member do not engage much more than what is required according to their job. In this type of relationship managers get standard performance and employees get standard benefits. Within high quality exchange both managers and employees benefit more. Employees, for example, can get positive performance evaluation, promotion or satisfying positions. Managers, on the other hand, can get commitment from and hard-working employees (Deluga 1994).
2.4 Communication and trust
can be developed, because this form of communication makes it possible that rich social data can be processed (Santoro & Saparito 2003).
In their research Mahajan et al. (2012) make use of social exchange theory to explain the relationship between trust in top management, top management communication and organizational commitment. According to social exchange theory people want to do something in return when others voluntarily take actions that benefits them. It is about the norms of reciprocity. The researchers argue that top management communication provides benefits for the employees, for example, the information given by top management. In exchange the organization receives commitment of employees. However, giving this information makes management vulnerable, since employees may not agree with decisions presented to them. This shows that top management is open to receive feedback from employees, which creates an environment of trust. In this way top management communication increases organizational commitment and trust in top management.
The effect of communication is that it makes it possible that more information can be given. It allows that attitudes, behaviours, intentions are observable (Abrams et al.2003). This is consistent with the research done by Mahajan et al. (2012). Furthermore, shared values, language and visions can be developed by means of communication and accordingly increased levels of trust can be developed (Abrams et al. 2003).
In conclusion it can be said that communication can increase the levels of trust between people, because they get accesses to information and personal characteristics like attitude. Communication allows that exchange relation can be developed, which eventually increases the level of trust.
2.5 Leadership
Distinction can be made between transformational and transactional leadership style. Transformational leader can be described as “one who articulates a vision of the future that can be shared with peers and subordinates, intellectually stimulates subordinates, and pays high attention to individual differences among people” (Lowe et al. 1996. P 385). In contrast a transactional leader focuses on reward in exchange for desirable behaviour.
There are three dimensions of transactional leaders: contingent reward, management by exception active, and management by exception passive. The first dimension refers to the degree a manager compensates employees according to their behaviour. Expectations are made clear and rewards are established, which can be achieved by reaching these expectations. The second dimension, management by exception active, refers to taking correct actions on basis of outcomes, before serious problems are created by employees. Management by exception passive refers to taking correct action after problems are created by behavior of employees (Judge and Piccolo 2004).
2.6 Trust in leader
The concept of trust is investigated most frequently in the organizational research and numerous definitions of the concept have been developed (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, Salas 2007). The basic concept of these definitions is in general the same however; researchers have made use of different operational definitions, and as a result measured different definitions of trust. This is recognized by academicians therefore it has been suggested that trust consist of multiple dimensions (Dirks and Ferrin 2002). A distinguish can be made between cognitive and affective dimension of trust.
Cognitive trust is developed through our cognitive reasoning. We judge trustworthiness of individuals through cognitive cues, for example, performance or accomplishment (Kim 2005; McAllister 1995). Cognitive trust is based on an instrumental evaluation of the referent and often refers to characteristics of the trustee. It includes information about the character and abilities of a person which are associated with trustworthiness. When we are impressed by the achievements or competence of someone we are tended to develop cognition based trust. (Kim 2005). The idea behind this dimension of trust is that individuals make a choice to trust someone under certain circumstances; this choice is based on reasons of evidence that have shown that someone is trustworthy. Knowledge about someone, along with good reasons, are the basics of trust relationships (McAllister 1995). Reputation, which predict abilities of the trustee, and first impression are important to develop cognitive trust. Knowledge about trustworthiness of an individual is gathered through observing behaviour and reputation of the trustee in other relationships. In situations where the effect of reputation is strong a first interaction could just prove or disprove predicted perception. And cognitive trust can be definitive through first or second interaction (Johnson and Grayson 2005). Cognitive based trust in management employee relations means that employees are confident about the qualifications and abilities of the manager to lead them (Zhu et al. 2013).
on emotional ties. Individuals make emotional investments and truly wish for welfare of each other, and express this to each other (McAllister 1995; Lewis and Weigert 1985). Individuals believe that these concerns and this emotional bond are real. This type of trust is explained by an exchange relationship which is based on social exchange theory. Since affect based trust measures the degree to which individuals are involved in reciprocated care and concern (McAllister 1995).
Affective trust in a manager means that employees are confident about their relationship with their manager and believe that he or she cares about them and is concerned about them. In response the employee cares about the manager. This reciprocity strengthened the trust relationship between manager and employee. The result of this reciprocity is that over time individuals are willing to accept vulnerability (Zhu et al. 2013). Therefore the following definition fits affective trust, “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another” (Rousseau et al. 1998 p. 395).
Basis for the development of affect base trust is knowledge about the motives of someone’s behaviour. In this case not the role prescribed behavior, but personally chosen actions that show the willingness to serve the needs instead of seeking self-interest, which are needed for the development of affective trust. McAllister argues that this type of behaviour corresponds with organizational citizenship behaviour. Accordingly he suggest that “the level of a manager's affect-based trust in a peer will be positively associated with the level of that peer's citizenship behaviour directed toward the manager” (1995 p. 26). He also argues that when “a manager expressing a high level of affect- based trust in a peer will direct a great amount of interpersonal citizenship behaviour toward that peer” (1995 p. 32). Hence, according to him OCB can lead to affective trust and individuals who have a trust relationship based on affective dimension will perform OCB towards the person they trust. To determine what the motives are of individuals within a relationship interaction between trust partners is needed. Therefore McAllister (1995) also argues that the level of affective trust between individuals is positively linked with frequency of interaction between individuals.
step in the development of trust and encourage reciprocal trust behaviour. And this initiative form the side of management should not be manipulative, but should be real.
Cognitive trust is “more superficial and less special” (McAllister 1995 p. 30) compared to affective trust because of the emotions involved. However, McAllister also argues that a bit cognitive trust is necessary to build affective trust in work relationships. “people’s baseline expectations for peer reliability and dependability must be met before they will invest further in relationships” (McAllister 1995 p. 30)
2.7 Benefits of trust is leader
A lot of concepts related with trust are examined by researchers. Trust seems to have a large impact on different aspects which are relevant in an organization. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) have developed a framework which summarizes the most important relationships. There framework explains theoretical linkages between trust and other concepts which have been investigated in existing literature. Main outcomes of trust in leaders are positive behavior, higher performance, positive attitude, positive intentions and satisfaction.
Figure 2 Dirk and Ferrin 2002
performance. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) also have made a distinction between trust in direct leader and organizational leader. This is similar to management and top management within this thesis. According to the results of Dirks and Ferrin, trust in a direct leader has a higher impact on workplace outcomes than trust in an organizational leader. Therefore, to influence workplace outcomes more focus should be on trust in direct leaders. However, trust in an organizational leader seems to have an greater impact on organizational outcomes like organizational commitment. Accordingly to influence organizational outcomes trust in top management should get more attention.
2.8 Organizational Citizenship behavior
OCB can be defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization”(Organ 1988 p. 4). Performing OBC is more than performing according to job descriptions. Here employees are willing to do extra work and put in extra effort without expecting extra compensation or recognition. OCB can be characterized as choosing for an extra-role activity. Every action which is needed to achieve organizational goals cannot be written down, therefore it is essential that employees are willing to perform more than what is required by job description (Deluga 1994).
How a leader treats the employees seems to have an impact on extra role behaviour of employees. Smith et al. found that leader supportiveness indirectly influenced altruism, which is a form of OCB. They found that job satisfaction strongly influenced altruism. And job satisfaction was positively influenced by leader supportiveness. Also, Humphrey (2012) found that leaders could influence OCB, their research shows that there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. This could be because “transformational leaders, through role modeling, trust building, motivating, and exhibiting genuine concern for followers ‘needs are able to transform employees’ work mentalities in such a way that they are willing to perform above and beyond their traditional formal job roles” (p. 260).
all suggest the intrinsic quality of courtesy” (Organ, 1988:10). Individuals performing this role try to prevent chaos and maintain social order. Conscientiousness refers to when employees do more that what is minimal required. This behaviour is not directed towards one person but is indirectly helpful for others. For example “keeping one’s work area clean, punctuality, and adherence to other formal and informal rules designed to preserve order in the work place” (Wang 2013 p.119).
Sportsmanship refers to amiably toleration of annoyances, not complaining about minor matters. Carry on with working in uncomfortable work condition without complaining and maintaining a positive attitude even when the circumstances are difficult. This behaviour results in the amount of complains being reduced, which saves time en energy. Civic virtue includes that employees involve in the politics of the organization, meaning that employees are interested in the organizational, support policy and want to participate actively. Examples are attending not required meetings, giving votes when possible, and reading internal news. (Deluga 1994; Wang 2013).
Zhu et al (2013) examined the relationship between affective trust, transactional leadership style and work outcomes including OCB. They found that transformational leadership leaded to higher level of affective and cognitive trust. Their research shows that affective trust highly mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. However, according to their research cognitive trust does not have any effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB.
Deluga (1994) also made use of social exchange theory and LMX to explain OCB. It is suggested that a high quality exchange relationship, whereby aspects like loyalty, trust and support play an important role, is positively related to OCB. Because employees feel an obligation to do something back and return the benefits gained by high quality exchange through engaging in OCB. Deluga (1994) also found that fairness was highly associated with OCB. He therefore suggested to make clear fairness criteria in order to increase trust, which could allow OCB to follow.
2.9 Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework presents the expected relationship between face to face communication, trust and organizational citizenship behavior. It shows how organizational citizenship can be an outcome of face to face communication.
3. Method
In this section it will be explained which methods are used to do this research and why these methods are chosen. Furthermore, the process of data collection and how the data is analyzed is presented in this chapter.
3.1 Reason for qualitative research and case study
This research can be typified as a qualitative investigation; this type of research makes it possible that in depth understanding can be derived. “Quality refers to the what, how, when, and where of a thing its essence and ambience” (Berg 2001 p.3). Accordingly, this type of research refers to “concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and descriptions of things (Berg 2001 p.3). The choice for qualitative research is made to understand the relationship between face to face communication and OCB. The aim of this study is to understand how this type of communication can influence OCB. The subjective nature of qualitative research allows that the how and why elements can be investigated. Case study is one of the methods that can be used to conduct qualitative research. For this research this method will be used. Case study is beneficial because it opens ways to discover new knowledge. It can “easily serve as the breeding ground for insight”(Berg 2001 p.231)
3.2 Reliability and validity
According to Lawrence Neuman “reliability means dependability of consistency”. Recording the interviews can be seen as a reliable method (Lawrence Neumen, 2003, p.184). The data is recoded for this research, so that it can be listened to by another observer, this strengthens the reliability of this study. Validity in qualitative research can be defined as “integrity of the conclusions that are generated from a piece of research” (Bryman 2008, p.31). Hence, validity means that conclusions are emerged through data. In this research the data is separately presented in the results section which makes that the reader can judge whether the conclusion are derived from the data.
3.3 Data collection
To gain more understanding about how face to face communication can influence OCB interviews were conducted at Rabobank Centraal Twente in Hengelo. The employees of the marketing and communication department and the manager of the department and top manager of the private sector were interviewed. The department of marketing and communication is an ideal department to investigate the relationship between (top) management, face to face communication and OCB. The reason is that the employees of this department have face to face conversations with management and top management on a regular basis, which makes it possible to understand the relationship.
All the interviews took place at the bank and were conducted face to face. During these interviews questions about four topics were asked, being ‘face to face communication’, ‘relationship’, ‘trust’ and ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviour’. All these topics were linked to each other in terms of the effect of face to face communication on mutual trust and relationship between manager and employees, and which effect those topics have on OCB. The first three topics were linked to the manager and top manager. Employees were asked to keep one of the four top managers in mind when answering the questions, preferably the one they dealt with the most on working place. Managers were asked to generalize their mutual relationship and face to face communication with employees.
4. Results
In this chapter data from conducted interviews will be presented. The conceptual framework will serve as guidance when presenting the data. First research findings will be presented, subsequently we will look at to which extent the results match with the presented conceptual model, and which additional elements are important.
4.1 General information
Almost all employees have face to face contact with the manager every working day, because the manager works together with employees in the same room. It is not a separate room where the manager and employees of the department work. It is more like a big space without walls between different departments. The departments are separated, but only with small walls and closets, so the employees of the different departments can see each other. It is comparable to the university library in Groningen, with the difference that the employees are allowed to talk. This construction makes frequent face to face contact between employees and manager easier. Also, almost all of the employees have in common that they have face to face contact with one of the top managers several times a week, once in a week or once every two weeks. This varies with on-going projects. The information shows that much face to face communication takes place, which makes it possible that a lot of aspects can be understood. However, an employee also mentioned that too little face to face communication took place at the bank. This was about the bank in general and not the department.
4.2 Face to face communication
4.2.1 Importance of face to face communication
All respondents mentioned that face to face communication gives more insights through which better understanding of a message is possible, an example given by a respondent is “you get the whole package, body, voice etc.”, “all your senses can be utilized optimally during face to face conversations” and “also your intuition can be used optimally”. Most of the respondents are also of opinion that face to face communication is important, because it makes things easier and more pleasant. Face to face communication makes a conversation easier, since individuals can look each other in the eye and easily express themselves. It makes things more clear and makes it possible that feedback can be given directly and questions for clarification can be asked directly. It also makes it possible to see whether someone has time for you or not. In addition the manager mentioned that through face to face communication shared language and vision can be created. When individuals come together and share vision, they create a language which makes that they understand each other well.
All respondents consider non-verbal communication as an important element of face to face communication, because it gives a lot more information. As one of the respondents said: “you basically have the whole context. You see movements, mimicry, emotions and facial expressions. The whole picture describes the best what someone means or wants to say.” Non-verbal communication also makes it possible that individuals see when someone is feeling comfortable or not. It shows someone’s motivation, enthusiasm and openness. Respondents mentioned that face to face communication is efficient, because when you do not understand something you can ask for clarification directly and put things in context. It enables interpretations to be adjusted right away when these are not correct.
What almost all respondents mentioned is that face to face communication eliminates a lot of misunderstandings and miscommunications. Email can be misunderstood a lot easier. As a respondent said “sometimes you can exchange mail ten times, while within five minutes of face to face contact you could have fixed it”. Face to face communication makes it possible that you ask things like “what do you mean by this” or “I see that it frustrates you”.
communication shows how someone smiles along with other facial expressions which can create an open attitude, and added “this is impossible for a computer”. Additionally, the top manager mentioned that individuals can show their emotions and feelings during face to face communication, make use of intonation allowing that important elements get more attention.
4.2.2 Face to face communication with manager
For this section eight interviews with employees are used. Employees get insights in the personality of a manager due to face-to-face communication and it also shows openness and the willingness of a manger to take time for individuals as mentioned by most of the respondents. Employees mentioned that face-to-face communication makes it possible that individuals can get to know a person and get greater understanding. As one of the individuals said “she is a kind of idealist”. It also shows how open and sympathetic a manager is. As told by one of the respondents; “she really gives you a warm feeling”. Also through face to face communication it is easier to demonstrate care and concern, for example one of the respondents said “it is really noticeable that she takes time and puts effort into explaining and clarifying things”. Another example mentioned by one of the respondent was that “when there is something going on and I want to talk to her, straight away she drops her pen en asks what is the matter”. Such examples are only visible when there is face to face communication. An employee mentioned that seeing a picture of someone can give an idea of how someone is. This was also the case when the respondent saw the picture of the manager before knowing her. However, when the respondent met the manager, she was not the person the respondent thought she would be. The respondent added that the manager was rather more generous than she seemed on the picture. When I asked the same respondent about how she thought the top manager would be before knowing him she said, that she thought that he would be an enthusiastic person and that is also who he seemed to be in person.
Information about leadership style is also accessible through face to face communication. Most of the respondents mentioned that they saw that their manager is someone who has a vision and shares this. Also, that the manager coaches employees was mentioned by respondents. Through face to face communication individuals can get inspired by their manager, a respondent, for example, mentioned “she is inspiring because she has experience and she shares her experience”. Employees can see how much a manager is concerned about employees on the individual level, for example, one of the respondents said that their manager is really people-oriented. Face to face communication gives information about how much control a manager wants. What role the manager fills in, for example, as mentioned in one of the interviews “she coaches and encourages you where you need that”.
However, how the employees experience leadership and face to face communication is often not exactly the same. For example, where some employees experience that the manager is very result-oriented, others experience this less. All employees saw vision sharing by their manager, although some experience this element a lot more than others. In addition some respondents think that their manager is very clear in communication, while others do not experience it this strong. Finally, one of the aspects of leadership was that there was no incongruence at all. Although not discussed in all of the interviews, it became clear that employees saw their manager as someone who supports her team.
4.2.3 Face to face communication top manager
tips and tools that I can use”. The respondent who mentioned this also had more frequent face to face contact with top management and knows the manager seemingly longer.
There are similarities in how individuals experience face to face contact with managers and top-mangers. However, in this situation hierarchal differences between employees and top managers plays a more important role. Also, employees have less often face to face contact with top managers compared to their manager. This can makes employees feel uncomfortable. However, the way top managers approaches employees can make them feel comfortable, which makes the conversation easier. A respondent for example explained: “when you go to the office of a top manager you might feel uncomfortable at first, but he reacts in a real open and enthusiastic way by for example saying ‘come inside!’. He smiles directly, stops working and turns towards you, which makes that you feel more comfortable and you can do your work more easily.” As mentioned by a respondent, that when top managers are open towards employees it creates employees becoming more open as well. Also frequency of face to face communication can create a more comfortable environment. A respondent for example said that “at the beginning I felt distance and felt the need to be more formal. I don’t have that feeling anymore because you get to know each other through face to face communication. It is not that I can get this type of contact by sending a mail, of course not”. Almost all respondents mentioned that face to face communication with top managers makes it eventually easier to communicate with them. In this manner employee and top manager get to know each other, this makes that a more informal conversation takes place. A respondent also mentioned that because of face to face communication top managers can see what the capabilities are of employees, because top management sees which tasks are performed well.
4.2.4 Face to face communication with employees managers perspective
To get a complete view also the manager and top manger were questioned about face to face communication with employees. This section is about face to face communication between employees and managers. Vision-sharing is important according to the manager as she said that “this is your anchor point. It is the path through which you achieve your goal.” The manager also told me that she wants to act as a coach.
The manager prefers face to face communication when something functional should be communicated like implementation of a new policy, or if there is something about running projects she want to know about. Face to face communication is also preferred when there are personal matters going on which should be discussed. By means of face to face communication with the manager it becomes visible when employees are having a hard time. Their non-verbal communication tells when something is not going well. The manager told this sometimes happens, although most of the time is it visible that employees have a relaxed, motivated, enthusiastic, and open attitude.
4.2.5 Face to face communication with employees top managers perspective
According to the top manager vision-sharing is important, as was the case with the manager of the department. However, according to him this is not the most important reason to talk to employees directly. The main importance of this is to ask the employee about how he is doing. In group meetings vision-sharing is always an important element. This is also important to employees, because they want to know “which direction we are going and what this means for me”. Besides that the top manager is someone who likes to coach his management team, he does this with pleasure. The management team on their part is responsible for coaching employees. The top managers think that it is important to communicate clear goals to employees as well. Also expectations about results should be clear according to him. The top manager believes that to achieve a goal it is important to know what the goal is, how this can be achieved and though which path.
The top manager, in general, prefers face to face communication. However, if there is an important deadline which should be communicated he prefers email. If the timing of a message is important and everybody should hear it at the same time and receive exactly the same message mail is preferred as well. Otherwise face to face communication is preferred.
my office or make an appointment as some of them prefer. In practice most of them take the first option”.
When I asked the top manager about the way he thought employees experience face to face communication, he replied that employees miss face to face contact with top management. Half a year ago an employee satisfaction survey took place. The results of this survey revealed that employees wondered whether members of top management knew what was going on the work floor, because they were barely present there. When this changed for the employees of private sector, at first employees were not used to having their top manager work at their department. He told me that at the beginning when he first went to a department to work and drink coffee he kind of shocked the employees. Their first reaction was: “what is going on here?!” But nowadays this is no problem at all, employees approach him without any hesitation.
4.2.6 Results face to face communication
In this section the results presented above will be linked to the literature and the conceptual framework. As was proposed in the conceptual framework information about managers attitude, leadership style, openness, character and language is visible because of face to face communication. Also, that shared vision and language can be created corresponds with the conceptual model and literature (Abrams et al. 2003). Moreover, the results show that feedback can be given easier and misunderstandings minimized. This can be explained by means of the theory of Daft and Lengel (1984), because face to face communication is the richest medium to process information. Face to face is most convenient when there is a need for in-depth information and explanation, this could be linked to the process to knowledge creation of Nonaka (1994). In this case tacit knowledge is converted into tacit knowledge.
When looking at the sense making process, when there is a need for information individuals reach out to the people who are closest to them or to people who are connected to them on their habit and paths. They also give value to a source according to the usefulness of the source (Dervin 1983). In this case all employees and managers work together at the same place, this makes it is highly likely that in case of need of information employees reach out to the manager. Accordingly, when they experience that their manager can help them, they will more often ask for help. When frequent communication takes place between employees and top management, employees will also more easily ask questions to management when they feel the need for clarification. And again, when they perceive it as useful they will more often ask top manager for help. The results showed that employees often get useful information from their manager.
4.3 Trust
In this section it is presented how trust can be developed between individuals. All interviews are used to explain this element. When the question was asked when someone is trustworthy, three kinds of clarifications were given. First, both manager and top manager and almost half of the employees mentioned that they presumed that human beings are trustable. Second, before being able to say something about trustworthiness of an individual it is important to know the person. In this way information about trustworthiness can be gathered. Third, almost all respondents mentioned that non-verbal communication is important in the development of trust, because elements of trustworthiness are visible through non-verbal communication. Respondents mentioned that through eyes, body language and voice a lot of information about trustworthiness is accessible. In this way individuals can verify whether the verbal message corresponds with non-verbal communication. The top manager also mentioned that more than ninety percent of a message can be given through non-verbal communication. This is important when it comes to trust, because it shows how someone talks, what the person wants to tell, and also what a person does not want to show. The latter can be visible through gaze aversion, sweating and related symptoms. The top manager, among others, mentioned that by means of non-verbal signals face to face communication is seen as crucial for the development of trust.
trustworthiness, because you hear the voice. Although face to face communication is the fundament of trust development, after this has taken place other communication media can also have an effect on trustworthiness. Frequency of communication is also important according to the top manager, because more experiences can be added in the foundation which strengthens trust. Accordingly, he said that in this way “you put more steel in the concrete”. He added that it is not because of a single face to face conversation that people have blind faith in each other. This can only develop if you have frequently seen the person and have positive experiences. Therefore trust strengthens over time.
Besides the element of time, actions taken by individuals can also develop the level of trust. For example, an employee mentioned that actions of a manager, that show that the manager has faith in you increases the level of trust experienced by the employee. Another employee mentioned that when you see that a manager is willing to help another employee and supports employees it can increase trust as well.
A couple of respondents mentioned that through working together you get to know each other. When you conclude that nothing happened, which can be seen as untrustworthy, this shows that someone is trustworthy. Also, consistency is seen as an element which shows that someone is trustworthy. As has been often mentioned by respondents, reputation is seen as an important factor when it comes to trust development, especially when individuals do not know someone personally, but this is also when they do know each other. An employee gave the example that when someone has the reputation of telling confidential things to others, individuals become careful and share less with this person.
When I asked an employee what shows that your manager is trustable she said: “she gives you space to do things your own way”. Furthermore, I asked the same respondent how trustworthiness of top management was visible. According to this respondent it was visible through clear communication of the top manager and his voluntary willingness to help you. This shows that employees gain trust in management and top management by the amount of freedom they experience given by them, clear communication and management willingness to help.
Employees were also asked whether their trust in management and top management was based on cognitive or affective elements. Trust in top management appeared to be slightly more cognitive based compared to the nature of trust in the manager. An employee mentioned that her trust in top managers is shifting towards affect based as the respondent said that “it is becoming more affective because we talk more to each other”. She also added that when there would not be any face to face communication “then maybe there would not be trust, or yes only cognitive”. The differences in results were not major, cognitive trust was mentioned two more times in top management than department management. Still, it can be said that the manner in which management engages communication with employees is of great importance in how employees experience trust with managers.
4.3.1Results trust
The results have shown that most of the respondents have high propensity to trust. According to Whitner et al. (1998) this could mean that these individuals also expect from others to reciprocate and engage in trustworthy behaviour. This could initiate affective trust between individuals (Whitner et al. 1998).
According to the principles of reciprocity we are tended to trust someone who shows that he trusts us (Whitner et al. 1998). This was also visible in the results. An employee mentioned that the manager is trustworthy, because she gives her space and in this way shows confidence in her capacities.
Reputation gives information about how someone positioned himself and is rather cognition based. The results show that reputation also can have great influence on the development of trust, this is especially the case when individuals do not personally know each other. This corresponds with Johnson and Grayson (2005).
4.4 Relationship and social exchange
This section explains how and why a relationship can be developed through face to face contact. All ten interviews are used for this section. To begin with, all employees said that their manager is socially interested in the sense that care and concern is showed. Employees also experience concern from top management, although this is, in general, more work related. From their part manager and top manager also experience that employees show concern. This shows, for example, by questions asked like, “how are you?”, “how is your project going?”, “Do you already have answers about on-going matters you are dealing with?” The manager said that when she was appointed every week face to face team meeting of an hour or one and an half hour was organized. The department got together and had a dialogue. This leads to a shared vision about the department, which was consequently developed together and also resulted in knowing each other better by development of relationships with reciprocal care and concern.
When I asked the manager what kind of influence face to face communication has on individuals, she told me that the aspect of attention plays a role, because employees experience someone taking time for them and willing to put effort into them. This element of time and effort is also mentioned by employees. When I asked employees how they notice concern of the manager towards them, one of the answers often given was that she puts time and effort into them. Also, it was mentioned that the manager shows sympathy, gives compliments, freedom and responsibility, and that “she asks you about how things are going”.
A second employee mentioned that “in the beginning I saw her as someone who was positioned above me. But now it is shifted towards mutual trust”. Another employee mentioned that she showed more concern in a top manager as a response to his consideration. She told me that “when you see that he shows interest, automatically you do that to”. Besides that she added that the management should take the first step.
Several employees mentioned that because of face to face communication you really get to know each other. For example one of them said; “I notice that I am more concerned about people who I work with. This is because you get to know each other better”. What also was mentioned a couple of times was that because of face to face communication employees gain more understanding towards each other. This results in that the hierarchy differences decreases, besides that a different kind of bond establishes between management and employees. When mentioned, all respondent except one agreed, about the consideration for someone increases when you see that the other is concerned, or when a relationship or trust is developed. The one exceptional employee, who disagreed with this proposition, explained this with the following answer: “I am like this and I show interest in people”. What this respondent meant was that she concerns about people by nature and concerns of others toward herself do not influence her level of concern towards them.
Through frequent face to face contact people can come closer to each other. When I asked an employee to what extent her relationship with the manager changed over time, she answered that “in the beginning you try to be formal towards your manager because of her position, but she is more like a friend now”. A respondent mentioned that sometimes when individuals have similarities this generates a certain connection, or “click”, for example between manager and employee born in the same village.
Another important element that came out of an interview is personal in-depth conversation. When individuals have a personal conversation with openness and people experience this as positive, it changes the atmosphere of the conversation and it becomes easier to share (personal) things.
willing to do more for this person”. On the other hand, another employee mentioned that in general you are willing to do more for someone when you feel the person is also willing to do the same for you, as opposed to someone you asked something several times without getting any response. The respondent added about this that “it is a reciprocity”.
4.4.1 Results relationship and social exchange
The results show that, in general, employees experience that the manager and top manager both shows care and concern towards employees. In return, the manager and top manager experience care and concern showed by employees. According to literature, affect based trust means that employees believe their manager is concerned about them and cares about them. In response employees show care towards their manager (Zhu et al. 2013). This could mean that in general employees and management have developed affect based trust. The results also show that when it comes to showing care and concern the first step should be taken by management. This is also corresponds with (Whitner et al. 1998).
According to the results, face to face communication allows employees to experience time and effort is put into personal contact. This corresponds with wood (1999). And, when this is the case, employees in general experience this within the manager showing concern. The results show that, in general, individuals care more about a person who cares about them, or when there is trust, or when individuals know each other. This is in accordance with the conceptual framework.
The results also show that an exchange based relationship with mutual care and concern develops over time. In general, individuals need time to get to know each other and understand each other. This process can be accelerated when there is some kind of connection between individuals, mostly found in commonalities between people.
4.5 Organizational citizenship behaviour
In this section it is presented why employees perform extra role behaviour. For this part all ten interviews are used. All employees mentioned they were willing to put voluntary extra effort for the company. When I asked why, most of the employees said this was a result of feeling part of a team, or because they feel connected with the organization. Most of the respondents also mentioned that they, by nature, are willing to put in extra effort. This extra role behaviour shows in helping colleagues, preventing problems, willing to be involved in the policy, or doing extra things like working more hours or work in the weekend. In general, employees were also very positive about the organization. There was, however, incongruence about dealing with irritations. Some employees admitted to report irritating situations, others indicated that they would not mention minor irritations. This can be seen as a character aspect where some like to mention things, while others try to ignore things if they form no major problem.
Some respondents agreed that their relationship and trust in their manager has influenced their willingness to put in extra effort for the organization. Still, one employee mentioned that the relationship with the manager does not influences organizational citizenship towards others. Nevertheless, this respondent mentioned that relationship with others does have an influence on willingness to put in extra effort. That relationships with colleagues have an influence on OCB towards them, is mentioned by more than half of the respondents. Yet, there was also incongruence about this, as a respondent mentioned that her relationship with someone does not have an influence on the willingness to help the person at work, since she felt able to make a distinction between personal and work related matters. Employees agreed that more face to face contact with top managers can lead to involvement with policy or support of policy, and in some cases face to face contact with top management can lead to less complaining as well.
There was some difference in opinion about what is more directly related to OCB. A couple of employees put more emphasis to relationship, a good relationship leaded to OCB because you know each other. On the other hand, most employees also gave lot of importance to trust, and are of opinion that this leads to OCB. An employee for example mentioned “informal rules arise because of trust. That you are willing to put more effort in for each other. That it becomes common to do things for each other”.
step back. This also applies to a manager who shows understanding or is willing to think along. You as an employee are willing to do more. However, the manager did not see this link between her relation with an employee and extra-role behaviour of the employee. According to her the whole team is willing to put extra-effort in because of team connection.
There are several reasons why employees want to be involved with the policy of the organization and are interested in the organization. First, because employees want their voice to be heard, they do not want to be forgotten. It was mentioned that input from employees is not always desired, but the willingness on the part of employees is in general strong. When there is possibility for involvement it can give a feeling of appreciation. Second, as mentioned by most employees, they feel connected with the organization and therefore want to be involved.
Face-to-face contact with top management can lead to increase in involvement, understanding and support. An employee explained that face to face conversations with top management leads employees to better understand the reasons behind the policy. Another employee mentioned that due to face to face conversations with top manager they felt more involved, because you get the feeling that your opinion is heard. Again, other respondents mentioned that as an employee you witness that top management put a great deal of effort behind the scenes. Also, since employees get to know top management it becomes easier to approach them. I also asked the top manager whether he thinks that frequent communication has influence on the involvement of employees with the organization. He answered:
“yes, I definitely think so, the reason is simple. When you see each other on a frequent basis, and there is openness and trust to tell things and ask questions. At those times the subjects of policy will be discussed.”
In this way employees can ask question straightaway to the top management and top management gets direct input.
Face to face contact with top management can also lead to less complains. A respondent gave an example of a problem with which a lot of employees, who have face to face contact with the clients, have to deal with. The respondent said: “the fact that the top manager mentioned that I know the problem and showed that he understood, resulted in less complains”. The respondent added, “showing understanding, compliments, mentioning when things go well. That does a lot with employees”.
4.5.1 Results organizational citizenship behaviour
According to the results, individuals are tended to perform OCB by nature, it seems performing extra role behaviour depends on character. However, various factors can influence the level of OCB. Results show that when employees feel connected to a team or organization they are tended to perform OCB. Also, the relationship with managers and top managers can have a positive influence, which corresponds with the conceptual framework.
To begin with types of OCB, it seems that all employees tend to perform extra-role behaviour including; altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and civic virtue. The only incongruence found was within the category of sportsmanship. Some respondents tended to complain more than others.
In general, results show that a positive relationship based on trust can lead to OCB, which corresponds with the framework and literature (Deluga 1994). This can be concluded from the employees getting the feeling that they are being understood and see concern shown by management. In some cases a trust based relation with a manager can lead to OCB towards colleagues. However, the results also show that direct extra-role behaviour towards colleagues, like helping them, is more related to personal relationship with the individual colleagues.
According to the results, trust based relation with top managers has an influence on organizational outcomes, such as involvement in policy. This corresponds with the conceptual framework and literature (Dirks and Ferrin 2002). The results explain when, there is trust and openness in a relationship, between employee and top manager, the employees feel free to ask questions and are able to tell what is bothering them. They also experience what kind of effort is put in by the top manager, and form a better understanding. They can see that the top manager also understands them. Employees feel appreciated, because the top manager is willing to listen to them.
5. Conclusion
This research began with the following question: How does face to face communication between management and employees influences organizational citizenship behavior? In order to find a clear answer to this main question the following sub questions were posed: How does face to face communication influence the level of trust between employees and managers, and how does trust in supervisors and top management influence organizational citizenship behaviour?
The results of this thesis have shown that during face to face conversations multiple senses come into play that are of influence in the judgment about trustworthiness. This type of communication gives information in a most effective way, which is not limited to personal conversations, but is also effective among the openness between managers, top managers and employees. During face to face conversation elements such as attitude, emotions and intentions become clearly visible. When the employee perceives these aspects within a positive manner, the communication initiates affect based trust. Interestingly, this research has shown that affect based trust can only come forth out of face to face communication, since other forms of communication miss allot of cues to which a person is able to judge elements, such as attitude and intention. Affect based trust differs from cognitive based trust, in that the latter will only be formed through reasoning. This lead to the conclusion that cognitive based trust can be formed in face to face communication, but also by means of other forms of communication. On the other hand, affect based trust is depended on face to face communication to arise. This leads to the conclusion that face to face communication enables employees to get a deeper understanding in the attitude and intentions of a manager, but also form trust on ‘good reasoning’. Due to face to face communication, and the affect based trust that has emerged from this form of communication, employees feel free to ask management and top management for information when this is needed. When they perceive this information as useful, they will again ask the manager or top manager for help. This need for information along with openness, increases trust relationships and the frequency of face to face communication and accordingly, when these former experiences have been perceived as positive, it results in employees feeling more comfortable. Employees will have greater confidents about the good intentions of the manager or top manager. Linking the literature with the interviews it can be said that, when employees feel more comfortable and believe that the manager or top manager has good intentions they can be open and more easily express themselves, which strengthens the trust and relationship between individuals.
