Responsiveness leads to positive supervisor-subordinate relations; assertiveness is a positive quality in supervisors

Theories relevant to interpersonal communication may sometimes be applicable to organizational communication, but the added factors present in the workplace may change what would generally be the dynamics of communication between people.

Two theories that are well-established in interpersonal communication have not been applied to the workplace.  Reciprocity theory predicts that individuals will reciprocate behavior engaged in by the other person.  Accommodation theory takes this prediction a step further by indicating that reciprocal behavior is contingent on power relations in the relationship.  Thus, persons with lower status or power are more likely to accommodate than are persons with higher status or power.

To test how these theories play out in organizational settings, James C. McCroskey and Virginia Richmond, both professors of communication studies at West Virginia University, designed a study that was administered to workers employed at  a variety of organizations.  The report of their research appears in the August 2000 issue of the Journal of Applied Communication Research.

McCroskey and Richmond break communication style into two dimensions: assertiveness and responsiveness.  They predicted that supervisors and subordinates would adopt complementary styles, and that effective supervisors would be more assertive, while effective subordinates would be more responsive.  They measured the degrees to which supervisors were perceived as being credible and attractive to their subordinates, as well as subordinates’ general attitude toward their supervisors and that person's communication. 

In general, the results conformed with the researchers’ expectations, though they noted that the results “provide both a bright and a dark side.”  Responsive subordinates were likely to generate positive relationships with their superiors, but the results also indicated that nonresponsive subordinates were likely to develop negative relationships with their supervisors.  Assertive communication was not nearly so well connected to positive relationships, however.  Supervisors who were assertive were likely to be perceived as more credible, but subordinates who were assertive found that behavior to be trickier.  McCroskey and Richmond argued that perhaps assertiveness has a limit in organizational settings: a certain amount is seen as positive, but once one crosses into excess negative consequences can quickly develop.

Additional analyses were able to define two dimensions of the supervisor-subordinate relationship, an affective dimension and an evaluative dimension.  The affective dimension is most likely a measure of personal attraction, and it is defined by mutual responsiveness between supervisor and subordinate.  The evaluation dimension is defined by the supervisor’s assertiveness, and it was related to the supervisor’s credibility and the subordinate’s attitude toward the job.

McCroskey and Richmond cautioned that their study was limited by the fact that they collected data only from subordinates; supervisors might view the relational situation through a different lens.  Even so, the researchers anticipated that the relationship dynamics between supervisors and subordinates would be perceived similarly in the long run, no matter which partner in the relationship was surveyed.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2000).  Applying reciprocity and accommodation theories to supervisor/subordinate communication.  Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28 (3), page numbers not available at press time.

By Bill Eadie, NCA Associate Director.