3. McGee (1996)

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-mcgee-1996 1/16

This essay broadly explores the relationship between workforce diversity andresulting perceptions o f inequity in the workplace presenting communicativeopenness as a solution to many organizational problems associated withincreasing diversity. More specifically it documents comm unication and inter-personal problems commonly experienced by organizational members who are

perceived a s being dissimilar

and it supports a two pronged approach tofostering a more equitable workplace. This approach suggests that organiza-tions use mentoring programs solely a s a long term strategy and that they usediscreet and consistent supervisory disclosures o f task relevant information as ashort-term strategy for achieving real equity and fairness in business communi-cation.

Diversity Perceptions of Equity andCommunicative Openness in the Woricpiace

Deloris McGee W ang uriUniversity of Houston-Downtown

Diversity is a buzzword in popular organizational liter atu re. Articlesabound on how to manage and/or value heterogeneity among employees.. . . Increased atten tion to diversity stems partially from a report (fundedby the U.S. Departmen t of Labor) which predicts tha t by the turn of the cen-tury, five sixths of new workers in the U nited States will be women, African-Americans, Hispanics, and immigrants In addition, population projectionsindicate that by the year 2000, almost one in every three persons in the U.S.will be African-American, Hispanic, Asian, or Native-American. Thesedram atic changes in the com position of society and th e workforce w ill intro-duce tensions because differences in cultural norms and values among eth-nic groups in the United States will manifest themselves in differentwork-related behaviors. . . . Increasing diversity in the workplace engen-ders p ractical as well as theoretical implications for persons who study orga-nizat ional communicat ion. Pract i t ioners need to determine howcomm unication con tributes to the effective integra tion of a diverse work-

force and to develop comm unication s trategies to promote both in tegra tionand equality in the workplace. (Allen, 1995, p. 143)

In her essay, 'Divers ity' and Organizational Comm unication,Brenda Allen (1995) addresses various topics related to the diver-

sification of American organizations, predicts impending s tra ins inthese institutions, and introduces a number of theoretical/conceptualimplications as well as methodological issues for scholars and prac-titioners. While she focuses on only one form of diversity (race-eth-

nicity), she and other scholars agree tha t diversity in today's societyencompasses a number of additional variables, including culture,

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


4 4 4 The Journal of usiness ommunicetion 33:4 Oc tober 996

tant area - the relationship between workforce diversity and theneed for comm unication behaviors that advance equity in the work-place. Tbis area applies to all dimensions of diversity.

Moving toward tbe 21st century and an ever increasing diversityin tbe workplace, managers cannot afford to continue to supervise andcommunicate witb workers using tecbniques tb at seemed to work intbe past. To become more effective and successful managers of tbisdiverse workforce, tbey must meet two goals. First, tbey must sensi-tize tbemselves to communication problems commonly experiencedby tbose wbo are different in organizations. Second, tbey mustbegin to examine and implement appropriate alternatives to oldstrategies for communicating witb employees, alternatives tbat willin time lead to perceptions of communicative equity by all employees.

As organizations in tbe United States become even more diverseworkplaces, it is essential tbat scbolars and practitioners alike dis-tinguisb vebicles for improving tbe quality and quantity of commu-nication as well as tecbniques for enbancing tbe perceived equity ofsucb communication for all organizational members. Hence tbe rela-tionsbip between increased diversity and perceived communicativeequity in tbe workplace is an especially critical one. Given tbe undis-

puted importance of effective communication in tbe workplace, tbisessay addresses communication problems commonly experienced byorganizational members wbo are perceived as being dissim ilar, offersstrategies for solving sucb problems, proposes an agenda for futureresearcb, and draws implications for managers and practitioners.

The DilemmaSimilarities and Dissimilarities in the Workplace

To fully understand tbe implications of similarities and dissimi-larities cbaracteristic of diversity witbin tbe workplace, one must firstexamine two social psycbological tbeories: tbe reinforcement-affectmodel of attraction and social comparison tbeory (West & Wicklund,1980). Tbe former tbeory analyzes bow bum ans become attractiveto eacb otber by virtue of being similar (p. 9), wbereas tbe latter tbe-ory begins witb tbe idea of a buman need to evaluate [our] opinionsand abilities against tbose of otbers (p. 145). In brief researcb derivedfrom tbe reinforcement-affect model of attraction bas focused mainly

on attitudinal similarity as a determinant of interpersonal attraction,and it bas led to tbe following conclusion: We tend to like people wbo

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


Diversity Equity and Communicative Openness / W angu rl 4 4 5

These two theories lay the foundation for much of the behavior thatoccurs within organizations. Indeed these theories can manifest them-selves in positive behaviors, for there is a tendency to attrac t, select,

retain , and reward organizational members who are sim ilar to thosewho are already in place (Herriot & Pemberton, 1995; Triandis, 1995).If the managers in place are strong leaders with exceptional inter-personal and task skills, then attracting those who are similar onlystrengthens the organization. On the other hand, these theories canalso display themselves in negative behaviors toward workers who areperceived as dissimilar and they can ultimately limit the potential ofthe organization. As the following excerpts reflect, these negative ten-dencies can include stereotyping, differential organizational social-

ization, subtle bias, microinequities, and declining organizationalcomm unication effectiveness, and they can lead to employee percep-tions of communicative and interpersonal inequity in the workplace:

Race-ethnicity-based stereotypes and expectations, as well as outright prej-udice, can influence formal and informal in terethnic in terac tions . For exam-ple, during formal performance evaluations, white rate rs tend to weigh socialbehavior skills (e.g., friendliness, acceptance by others, sensitivity) more heav-ily for black ratees than white ratees Because they often encounter stereo-types, blacks tend to be more consciously aware th an whites of how othersmay perceive and evaluate their behaviors This perception may inhibit

open comm unication within a variety of formal contexts (e.g., team meet-ings, job interviews, sales consultations, etc.). Racial dynamics also affectmentoring activities, often inhibiting authentic collaboration in cross-racialrela tionship s. (Allen, 1995, p. 147)

As more persons of color enter the workplace and strive to advance, intereth -nic interactions often will form the basis of socialization experiences.Regardless of employees' race-ethnicity, power distinction s inevitably per-vade socialization processes as newcomers and veteran s grapple with issuesof hierarchy, territoriality, tenure, etc. And, research has shown that per-sons of color tend to have limited access to social networks, to experience

blocked m obility, and often do not have mentors or sp onsors. (Allen, 1995,pp . 149-150)

Black managers seethe at overt racism, but subtle bias is no less damag-ing to their psyches. Author George Davis says, One of the main things blackscomplained about in our research was the withholding of information by whitesupervisors. Time and time again, they recounted how if they asked theirsupervisors a question, they'd get a basic answer, whereas their whiteco un terp arts w ere given the whole picture. Blacks, Davis ass erts , aregiven jobs to prove their competence ; whites are given learning experiences.(Campbell, 1983, p. 26)

Valuing diversity in organizations obviously requires changes in

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


6 he Journal of usiness Communication 33:4 October 996

Subtle discrimination is now the principal scaffolding for segregation in theUnited States. The au tho r sug ges ts th at thi s scaffolding is built of microinequities : apparently small events, which are ephemeral and hardto prove; events th at a re covert, often unin tentional, and frequently unrec -

ognized by the perp etrator. M icroinequities occur wherever people are pe r-ceived to be different : Cau casian s in a Japanese-owned company,African-Americans in a white firm, women in a traditionally male envi-ronment, Jews and Moslems in a traditionally P rotestan t environment. Thesemechanism s of prejudice a gains t pe rsons of difference are usually sm all inna ture, bu t not trivial in effect. They are especially powerful taken together.(As one drop of water has little effect, though continuous drops may bedestructive, one racist slight may be insignificant but many such slights causeserious damage.) Microinequities work both by excluding the person ofdifference and by making that person less self-confident and less produc-

tive (Rowe, 1990, p. 153).These subtle behaviors may or may not be intentional but have the effectof excluding and marginalizing women and m inority groups and ultima telyund ermining th eir self-confidence, performance, and development of power.These be ha vior s.. . include exclusion from informal peer support, networking,and mentoring; restricted information and a lack of feedback from super-visors and coworkers; inadeq uate or inaccurate performance appra isals bysupervisors or work groups; and inequitable delegation of task s. (Ragins1995, pp . 93-94)

Previous research has found tha t increases in work group diversity are asso-ciated with declines in comm unication effectiveness within organ izations.... The typology .. . suggests that greater diversity can have a monotonic,a disruptive, or a catastrophic impact on commun ication effectiveness.(Hopkins Hopkins, 1994, p. 336)

The preceding selections attest to the perceived inequity that dis-

similarities can create within organizations. The effects of such diver-

sity are not imagined; they are real. For organizational members who

are different, a dilemma does indeed exist. It is a dilemma - a source

of uncertainty - that disables many in the workplace and that forcesthem to attempt to make sense of their organizational lives Weick

1995).

Creating a workplace that all employees perceive as equitable is of

utmost importance. Creating a work environment in which all employ-

ees view communicative equality as an organizational priority is

essential in order to increase employee involvement, commitment, and

satisfaction. Although change must occur on many organizational lev-

els, this essay will examine communicative strategies for addressing

perceptions of inequity in the workplace.

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


Diversity. Equity and Communicative Openness / Wa nguri 4 4 7

theory), superior-subordinate communication openness appears to

have grown out ofthe hu m an relations m ovement. According to Nancy

Euske and Karlene Roberts:

Early hum an relations w riters focused on work groups and the imp ortanceof informal interaction in org an iza tion s.... Theory Y managem ent empha-sized the independence, responsibility, and growth of individuals in orga-nization s. Prom this work grew concern for improving superior-subordinatecommunication through openness, trus t, and mutual respect for establishingsupportive organizational climates; and for sharing power through partic-ipatory decision making. Theorists reasoned that improving relationalcomm unication would increase job satisfaction and worker involvement thu sleading to higher productivity. (1987, p. 45)

Although re sea rch h as reflected t ha t the link between effective com-munication and employee sat isfaction is s tronger than the l inkbetw een com mu nication and employee productivity (O'Reilly Ander-son, 1980; Pincus, 1986), the impo rtance of perceived op enness in supe-rior-subordinate communication is undeniable.

More specifically, such research indicates that subordinates' per-ceptions of comm unication open ness are positively re lated to their jobsatisfaction and in particular their satisfaction with supervision(Dansereau M arkha m , 1987); th at openness in su perior-subordinate

communication is two-dimensional, involving openness in message-sending and openness in message-receiving (D ansereau Markham,1987; Redding, 1972); th at o penness may be task-rele van t or no n-taskrele va nt in na tu re (Baird, 1974; StuU, 1975); th at sub ord inate s in th elowest levels of the ir orga nizational hiera rchie s perceive significantlyless openness in superior-subordinate communication than do thosesubord inates at th e highest levels of their hierarc hies, resulting in per-cep tual differences a mo ng employees (Falcione, Su ssm an , Herden,1987; Jablin, 1987; Krone, Jablin, Pu tna m , 1987); tha t spa ns of con-

trol do not differentially affect subordinates' perceptions of commu-nication open ness with the ir imm ediate sup ervisors (Jablin, 1987); andth a t a s agency size increases, the qu ality of com mun ication (for exam-ple, openness) between superiors and subo rdinates dec reases (Jablin,1987).

Still oth er scholars cha racte rize effective or good sup ervis orsas bein g (a) com mu nication minded, (b) app roac hab le, open, willing,and e mp athic listeners, (c) oriented tow ard asking or persuad ing in

contrast to demanding or telling, (d) sensitive to the needs and feel-ings of subordinates, and (e) open in communicating information to

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


8 The Journai of usiness ommunication 33:4 October 996

by corporations and practitioners, who maintain that: Managers

and supervisors should be encouraged to share with employees all infor-

mation that is useful for increasing employee understanding of, and

contributions to , the operation of the business (General Motors Cor-poration, 1983, p. 2).

Although openness in superior-subordinate communication is only

one ingredient in the recipe for effective business communication, it

is an essential element in the overall process. The tendency to disclose

more or less job-related information to workers based upon similar-

ity or dissimilarity to their supervisors creates feelings of discomfort,

discrimination, and alienation among those who perceive they are vic-

tims of an unfair and inequitable system. If indeed communicative open-

ness is a path to facilitating diversity and creating perceptions offairness and equity among employees in the workplace, then we must

examine long-term and short-term strategies for achieving these

goals.

A Long Term Strategy: MentoringContemporary organizations are increasingly turning to mentor-

ing programs as a vehicle for creating opportunities for open com-

munication between employees and for assimilating newcomers into

the institutional culture. These organizations range from profes-

sional associations to educational institutions, and their initiatives

range from the formation of ad hoc committees on mentoring (Webb,

1995) and the adoption of resolutions on mentoring programs (Gaudino,

1996) to the inclusion of mentoring as a strategy for achieving insti-

tutional objectives in a university's six-year plan (Six-Year Plan,

1995). According to the president of one professional association:

To retain our best talen t, . . . the academy and discipline must offer more.

. . . We must be willing and able to add ress the sensitive and difficult issuesof professional practice tha t a re rarely discussed in open meetings. ow canwe do so? Several solutions spring to mind: We could develop a code of pro-fessional conduct to provide guidelines for behavior in the most difficult cir-cum stances. Additionally, we could foster the development of relationshipstha t afford individual scholars the opportunity to talk over the ir un ique cir-cumstances and discuss potential solutions. I appo inted an Ad Hoc Com-mittee on Mentoring to explore the possibility of . . . developing such aprogram . Webb, 1995, p. 4)

Due in part to its current popularity as an organizational social-

ization technique, mentoring can initially appear as a panacea, aready solution for many organizational communication problems.

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


Diversity Equity and Communicative Openness / Wanguri 4 4 9

its environment; structural, involving cbanges in tbe grouping ofpositions and departments witbin tbe organization; and bebavioral,involving cbanges in bebaviors, attitudes, and perceptions among

individuals and work groups (Ragins, 1995). Wbile tbis multilevelapproacb can be applied as an antidote to numerous organizationalills, Ragins empbasizes tb at all tbree levels of organizational cbangemust occur before mentoring can be implemented effectively andoperated optimally.

enefits

Mentoring is a practice tbat serves a num ber of roles or functionsin tbe workplace: mentors provide career development roles (tbat is,

coacbing, sponsoring advancement, protecting proteges from adverseforces, providing cballenging assignments, fostering positive visibil-ity) and tbey provide psycbosocial roles (tbat is, personal support,friendsbip, acceptance, counseling, role modeling) (Kram, 1985;Ragins, 1995). Tbe preceding activities are all interpersonal in natu re,and tbey all build on and extend reciprocal and open communicationbetween tbe mentor and tbe protege.

Tbis relationsbip and tbe activities tba t occur witbin its boundariesideally allow tbe protege to enter and to adjust to tbe organization witbmucb more ease tban be/sbe would be able to do witbout tbe mentor.In essence, tbe properly mentored employee is able to make tbe tran -sition from outsider to insider more easily, to become initiated to bis/berjob more quickly, to establisb new interpersonal relationsbips moreeffortlessly, to discover bis/ber role in tbe organization more clearly,to find congruence between self-evaluation and organizational eval-uation of bis/ber work performance more accurately, and to resolveconfiicts more readily. Given tbe many benefits for botb tbe mentor

and tbe protege involved in tbe mentoring relationsb ip, tbis processis definitely one avenue for addressing tbe perceived inequities asso-ciated witb increased diversity in tbe workplace.

rriers

In spite of tbe benefits of sucb relationsbips, bowever, barriers some-times inbibit tbe initiation, formation, or continuation of mentoringrelationsbips. Tbey can include organizational cultures, structures,or bebaviors tba t impede diversified mentoring. xamples include orga-

nizational s tructures tba t promote segregation by rank, department,or specialization, tbereby limiting female and m inority access to men-

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


4 5 Tfie Journai of usiness ommunication 33:4 October 1996

of himself or herself; and the risk of negative exposure associated withmentoring a minority protege Ragins, 1995). When these t ren dsemerge, the negative effects of diversity - of perceived differences

among the workforce —

also emerge.While potential barr iers that can hinder the effectiveness of men-toring programs o exist, mentoring is a useful strategy. It is a stra t-egy, however, that requires adjustments and synchronization atcultural, structural, and behavioral levels in order to operate effectively.Consequently, it is most effective as a long-term stra tegy for improv-ing communication within a diverse workplace.

A Short Term Strategy:

Discreet and Consistent Communicative OpennessWell-structured mentoring programs represent an ideal long-termgoal for organizations tha t are attempting to provide a more positivemilieu and more equitable work conditions for all organizationalmembers. However, such well-structured programs do not happenquickly, they do not evolve naturally, they do not develop randomly,they do not occur fortuitously, and they do not take place selectively.Rather, they represent a conscious effort to involve all employeeswho wish to participate as proteges and they thrive on support from

all levels of the organization. If, in reality, these programs are sup-ported culturally, structurally, and behaviorally throughout the orga-nization, they can remedy many institutional ills. Nevertheless,organizing and maintaining this type of program organizationallyrequires considerable time and effort, and thus must be a long-termobjective for any organization that does not currently have such a pro-gram in place.

As a short-term goal, organizations should consider an alternativeapproach, an interim solution. Although effective organizational

change oes indeed require support a t cultural, structural, and behav-ioral levels, the proposed change is one that can a t leas t be in itiatedbehaviorally, a t the individual m anagerial or supervisory level. It isnot an approach that necessitates modifications within the organi-zational chart and it is not a method that automatically requires achange in organizational policy. It is an option that is inherentlyindividualistic and personal in nature.

This approach involves encouraging managers and supervisors todevelop an a ttitude o discreet and consistent communicative openness

in dealing with ll organizational members. Both discretion and con-sistency are vital. This alternative does not advocate the disclosure

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


Diversity Equity and ommunicative Openness / Wanguri 4 5 1

of sharing information one might be tempted to share with only oneemployee, with all workers under one s supervision. If the idea of shar-ing such information, whether it relates to possible personnel redis-tribution or a new position that has not yet been posted, with allemployees under one's supervision, is unattractive , then such infor-mation should be withheld from any one subordinate in order toguarantee fairriess and equity within the organization. In the short-term, this alternative can begin to attack the perceptions of prefer-entialism and inequity that characterize some organizational contexts.

ckground

Finding a medium in communicative openness th at satisfies both

organizational expectations and personal preferences is critical to cre-ating perceptions of equity in a diverse workplace. Deciding exactlywhat type and what amount of information to share w ith workers canbe problematic, however. According to G.L. Peterson:

[This] suhject... is an often neglected yet difficult part of the manager-ial/supervisory role. Because of encouragemen t for openness in communi-cation, for participa tive decision making at all levels, and for Quality WorkLife Groups in many organizations, supervisory personnel frequently feelinfluenced to share with their subordinates more of what they know and doas managers or supervisors. Because they are in linking pin positions, theyhave responsihilities to people and positions in hoth directions in the typ-ical hierarchical stru ctu re. Thus, the concerns for wha t can I share? and how much can I share? literally are dilemma-makers for many supervi-sors. In many situation s the existence of manage rial training and/or orga-nizational policies and guidelines will dictate how they handle the pressures.Most persons with supervisory responsibility say, however, th at guidelinesand rules can never cover completely the wide range of specific questionsor issues likely to a rise. (1993, p.34)

In a field study on communicative openness, Wanguri (1984) inves-

tigated managerial perceptions of downward task -relevant confiden-tial information disclosure in the workplace by surveying 145 first andmiddle level managers from 19 public sector agencies in a southwesternstate. Approaching confidential information disclosure as a frequentlydisowned form of communicative openness, the researcher defined con-fidential job-related information as information which a managermight tell some worker that he/she would not want everyone to know(Wanguri, 1984, p. 112).

This study investigated types of confidential job-related informa-tion; target persons, media, reasons, and settings for such informa-

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


4 5 2 The Journal of usiness ommunication 33:4 October 996

tion, this study involved the ordering of confidential informationaccording to which ty^es the m anagers reported they were most andleas t likely to share, and the ordering of reasons according to which

the m anagers reported were most and least common reasons for giv-ing such information.Analysis of the data indicated tha t managers are most likely to fore-

cast information regarding struc tural changes within the organi-zation. n the other hand they are least likely to discuss peer-relatedinformation. These findings are reflected in Table 1, which indicatesthat managers are most likely to forecast potential budget changesand/or cuts, potential personnel redistribution, and potential posi-tion/personnel cuts, while they are least likely to share information

about personal problems of a worker's peers, reprim ands and/or dis-ciplinary measures of a worker's peers, and performance appraisalsand/or evaluation reviews of a worker's peers.

Table 1Rank-Ordering of Likelihood of Giving Various Types of Confidential

Task-Relevant Information to Su bordinates*

Information Category

Potent ia l budget changes and/or cuts

Potent ia l personnel redis t r ibut ionPotent ia l pos i t ion/personnel cuts

Candidates for promot ion

Salaries and/or s teps on scale ofworker ' s peers

Meri t raises of worker 's peers

Personnel file/records

Performance appra i sa l s and/orevaluat ion reviews of worker 's peers

Repr imands and/or d i sc ipl inaryme asure s of worker ' s peers

Personal problems of worker 's peers

Median

1.83

2.542.84

4.19

5.31

6.29

7.50

7.83

8.13

8.42

Mean

2.37

2.733.19

4.11

5.40

6.49

7.33

7.06

7.75

7.54

Standard Deviation

1.99

1.811.98

1.80

1.83

1.81

2.59

2.75

1.76

2.45

*A rank of 1 was assigned to the information resp ond ents would most likely provide, while a rank of 10was assigned to the information type they would least likely provide.

Source: Wa ngu ri, D. M. (1984). A study o downw ard task-relevant confidential information disclosure betweensuperiors and subordinates. Unpu blished doctoral disserta tion. Unive rsity of Texas, Austin.

In addition, respondents indicated numerous reasons for disclos-

ing such information. The responses ranged from the most frequentlycited answer - providing information when there is a need-to-know

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


Diversity Equity and Communicative Openness / W angu ri 4 5 3

would most likely disclose this information in order to motivate thesuhordinate, to develop team spirit , to provide information whenth er e is a need-to-know, and to solicit suh ordin ate inp ut. A lthoughconsiderable varian ce was observed in the a ctua l reaso ns cited for suchdisclosures, these d isclosures seem to he prima rily designed to enh anc esuperior-suhordinate relationships and they seem to occur withinthe office setting in private dyadic interac tion s involving the m an ag erand suhordinate.

Recognition of such information disclosures as a form of commu-nicative openness in the workplace and acknow ledgment th a t thes e dis-closures do occur in organizations are the foundation of this call fordiscreet and consistent comm unicative openness in the workplace. Using

sound judgment and prudence in selecting information to share withemployees and sharing such information with all affected employeesincreases communication openness and enhances perceived equity inthe wo rkplace. For exam ple, if a mana ger, wa nting to pre pa re his/h ersub ordin ates for future ch anges, contem plates disclosing informationto subordinates about pending departm ental changes or about b udgetarycuts, prior to the formal announcement by the organization, he/sheshould m ake the final decision only after careful co nside ration and onlyif he/sh e is willing to sha re it w ith all affected emp loyees. W hile som e

types of confidential job-related information ar e clearly inapp ropri-ate for sharing w ith subordin ates (for exam ple, information from theperso nne l file/records of a subordinate's pee rs or performance rati ng sof a subordinate's peers), the appropriateness of other types of infor-m ation is in reality a function of situa tion al variables, orga nization alpolicies, and management style.

enefits

Provided tha t the information share d with employees is accura teand ap prop riate for the targ et subo rdinates, the benefits outweigh th erisks involved in sharing such information discreetly and consis-ten tly W hUe it is possible th at employees who receive bad news unex-pectedly may react negatively and embarrassingly or that distortedrum ors m ay emerge, such communicative openn ess can also resu lt inpositive dynamics, such as increased discussion and understandingof organ izational issues, anticipation of and enh ance d p rep ara tion forpending organization al changes, improved supe rior-subordinate com-

munication, higher job satisfaction among subordinates, and per-ceptions of com mu nicative equity in the workplace.

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


4 5 4 The Journal of usiness ommunication 33:4 Oc tober 996

the initiation, formation, or continuation of these communicativerelationships are also interpersonal in nature. If the participan ts inthese communication transactions do not trust and respect each

other, if the subordinates do not value the conditions under which theinformation is shared, or if the supervisor does not use discretion inchoosing information to disclose, then the resulting relationship willbe less than optimal.

An Agenda for Future Research

Although general communicative openness in the workplace has beenthe focus of considerable research, the parameters for acceptableversus unacceptable supervisory disclosures of job-related informa-

tion have not been very clearly defined. Hence, an area that beckonsscholars is the determination of what constitutes appropriate down-ward task-relevant information disclosure in superior-subordinateinteractions Wanguri, 1994). Clarifying this fundamental issue m ustbe prerequisite to addressing the topic of diversity in the workforce.

More specifically, researchers should attempt to clarify conditionsunder which managers should disclose certain types of informationto subordinates by answering the following research questions:

1. In displaying openness in superior-subordinate communication, are

managers able to clearly distinguish between information whosedisclosure is lawful versus that which is unlawful?

2. What are the motives that justify the disclosure of certa in types ofinformation to selected employees?

3. Is information sharing that creates more open communicationbetween managers and workers always acceptable?

4. What determ ines the acceptability of such disclosures? Is accept-ability based solely upon the natu re ofthe information shared? Isacceptability based upon the reason s) for sharing the information?Is acceptability based upon the person with whom it is shared? Oris acceptability based upon a combination of the preceding andother) factors?

5. What are the ethical implications when managers share certaininformation with selected workers and do not share such informa-tion with other workers?

6. How does sharing certain information with a worker or workerschange the relationship between manager and subordinate? re all

these changes positive? What are the risks to the relationship?By investigating these issues, researchers can begin to better

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


Diversity Equity and Communicative Openness / W angu ri 4 5 5

mplications for Managers

Managerial and supervisory positions bring with themselves aresponsibility an d comm itment to fairness in the workplace as well as

opportunity and authority. This equity should characterize organiza-tiona l behavior a t all levels and in all un its in order to facilitate a m oreproductive and satisfied workforce. For this reason, appropriate com-municative behaviors are extremely imp ortant within organ izations.

M ana gers who find them selves prone to sha ring special informa-tion w ith select employees they see as being younge r version s of them -selves or as being on the fast track are also prone to comm unicate lessopenly with those employees who are dissimilar. Whether a depart-me ntal chairperson or a dean is sharing information abou t an impend-ing vacancy in administration prior to formal announcement by theuniversity, a corporate supervisor is sharing information about the antic-ipa ted closing of a local office prio r to formal ann oun cem ent by th e com-pany, or a man age r is sharing information th at will give one employeean edge in obtaining a promotion within an organization, employeeswho o not receive such information will perceive the workplace as beingunfair a nd inequitable. Mana gers who have in the pas t practiced suchselective communicative disclosure, must begin to reevaluate their com-

mu nication behaviors and to develop short-term and long-term stra te-gies that create communicative openness for all employees. Sharinginformation with all employees discreetly and consistently and ulti-mately implementing institutional m entoring are two such strateg ies.

Increasing diversity in the workplace indeed demands that schol-ars and pra ctitio ner s alike focus on how com mun ication co ntribu testo the effective integration of a diverse workforce and [attempt] todevelop communication strategies [that] promote both integrationand e quality in the wo rkplace (Allen, 1995, p.l43). Th is task is not easy

but it also is not impossible. Certain premises are indisputable:1. More diversity in the workforce is imminent.2. Openness in superior-subordinate communication is essential for

effective organizational communication.3. Th ere ar e degrees of openn ess in supervisory job-related informa-

tion-sha ring with subord inates, ranging from minim al, cursory dis-closures (for exam ple, simply answering sub ord ina tes' questions) toin-depth disclosures (for example, forecast ing organizational

changes).4. Divers i ty among organizational members sometimes adversely

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


6 The Jaurnai of usiness ommunication 33:4 Oc tober 1996

6. Effectively adm iniste red o rganization al m entoring m us t be a long-term goal for most organizations.

7. Discreet and consistent communicative openness by supe rvisors and

m anagers can be a short-term strateg y for creating a more integ ratedand eq uitable workplace.

App roaching the year 2000, prac titione rs m ust not only recognizeand acknowledge the preceding axioms, but must begin to imple-ment appropriate changes in the workplace.

NOTE

Deloris McGee Wanguri is an Associate Professor in the Department of Artsand Humanities at the University of Houston-Downtown, One Main Stree t, Hous-ton, Texas 77002.

REFERENCES

AUen, B . J. (1995). I)iversity and organizational comm unication. Journal of Applied ommunication Research 23 143-155.

Baird, J. W (1974). An analytical field study of open communication as perceivedby supervisors, subordinates, and peers (Doctoral dissertation, Purdu e Uni-versity, 1973). Disser tation Abstracts International 35 562B.

Campbell, B. M. (1983). Corporate stress and the black executive. Best of Busi-ness 5 (1), 24-31.

Dansereau, E, Markham, S. E. (1987). Superior-subordinate communication:M ultiple levels of analysis. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putna m, K. H. Roberts, L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational com munication: An interdisci-plinary perspective (pp. 343-388). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Euske, N. A., Roberts, K. H. (1987). Evolving perspectives in organ ization the-ory: Com munication im plications. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam , K. H. Rob erts, L. W. Porter (Eds.), H andbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 41-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Falcione, R. L., Sussm an, L., Herden, R. P. (1987). Comm unication climate inorganizations. In E M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K H. Roberts, L. W Porter (Eds.),Handbook of organizational com munication: An interdisciplinary perspective(pp. 195-227). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ferdman, B . M. (1995). Cu ltural identity and diversity in organ izations: B ridgingthe gap between group differences and individual uniqueness. In M. M. Chemers,S. Oskamp, M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspec-tives for a changing workplace (pp. 37-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Gaudino, J. L. (1996). From the executive director: SCA Legislative Council actson busy ag enda. Spectra: Publication of the Speech ommunication Associa-tion 32(1), 3.

General M otors Corporation. (1983). Guidelines for m anagement/employee com-

munications. Presented at the annual meeting of the Speech CommunicationAssociation, W ashington, DC.

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


Diversity Equity and Com municative Openness / Wa nguri 4 5 7

Jablin, F. M. (1987). Formal organization s truc ture . In F. M. Jab lin, L. L. Putnam ,K. H. Roberts, L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational comm unica-tion: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 389-419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring a t work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Krone, K. J., Jablin, F M., Putnam, L. L. (1987). Com munication theory and orga-nizational comm unication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam,K. H. Roberts, L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational com munica-tion: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 18-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

O Reilly, C. A., Anderson, J. C. (1980). Trust and th e com munication of perfor-mance appraisal information: The effect of feedback on performance and jobsatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 6(4), 290-298.

Peterson , G. L. (1993). Instructor s manual - Communicating in organizations : Acasebook. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job per-formance. Human Communication Research, 12{3), 395-419.

Ragins, B. R. (1995). Diversity, power, and m entorship in organiza tions: A cu ltural,structural, and behavioral perspective. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, M.A. Costanzo (Eds.), D iversity in organizations: New perspectives for a chang-ing workplace (pp. 91-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Redding, W. C. (1972). Com munication within the organization: An interpretivereview of theory and research. New York: Industrial Communication Council.

Rowe, M. P. (1990). B arriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to main-tain unequal opportunity. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 3,153-

163.Six year plan goal summ ary. (1995). Houston, TX: University of Houston-Down-town.

Stull, J. B. (1975). Openness in superior-subord inate com munication: A quasi-experimental field study (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1974). Dis-sertation Abstracts International, 36 603A.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). A theoretical framework for the study of diversity. In M.M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations:New perspectives fora changing workplace (pp. 11-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

W anguri, D. M. (1984). A study of downward task relevant confidential informa-

tion disclosure between superiors and subordinates. U npublished doctoral dis-serta tion. University of Texas, Austin.

Wanguri, D. M. (1994). The m anager's dilemm a. In G. L. Peterson (Ed.), Commu-nicating in organ izations: A casebook (pp. 79-85). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scaris-brick.

Webb, L. M. (1995). A proactive s tance. Connections: The Southern States Com-munication Association Newsletter 15(1), 1, 4.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in o rganizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

West, S. G., Wicklund, R. A. (1980). ̂ p ri m e r of social psychological theories.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

8/12/2019 3. McGee (1996)


3. McGee (1996)

Documents

Transcript of 3. McGee (1996)