1

.

OUT OF THE HEART SPRINGS THE COMMUNICATION OF LEADERSHIP

__________________________________

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

__________________________________

Under the Supervision of Dr. Alexa Dare

Under the Mentorship of Dr. Heather Crandall

__________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

__________________________________

By

Jodi A. Kohut

May 2012

2

3

Abstract

This study is based on the philosophical and biblical notions that words are a sacred gift from

God and should be used with care. This study is concerned with how a leader uses these words

in the organizational context. Edification is presented as a performative speech act by connecting

its intention, “to build” to the rhetorical functions of the locutionary, illocutionary, and

perlocutionary acts. Using Sullivan’s (1988) foundation for extending these language functions

to the organizational context, the author proposes that edifying language has functions across

three dimensions: 1.) Perlocutionary, subordinate building properties 2.) Illocutionary,

relationship building properties and 3.) Locutionary, culture building properties. The researcher

used qualitative inquiry to capture the essence of edification from a sales representatives’

viewpoint. By presenting edification as an intention and a speech act, this study bridges theory

and practice and future research may inform both leadership and communication studies.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .................................................................... 6

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 6

Importance of the Study ................................................................................................................... 6

Definitions of Terms Used ............................................................................................................... 7

Organization of Remaining Chapters .......................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................ 9

Philosophical Assumptions and Theoretical Basis ................................................................ 9

Philosophical Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 9

Theoretical Basis ......................................................................................................................................... 10

The Literature ................................................................................................................................... 11

Edification ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

Speech Acts .................................................................................................................................................... 13

Team Climate ................................................................................................................................................ 20

Organizational Commitment .................................................................................................................. 21

Rationale ............................................................................................................................................. 24

Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 24

Chapter 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 25

The Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................... 25

Study Population ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Methodology of the Study ............................................................................................................. 26

Research Design ........................................................................................................................................... 27

Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................... 28

Chapter 4: THE STUDY .......................................................................................................... 30

5

Description of the Study ................................................................................................................ 30

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 30

Results of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 31

Definition ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 35

Speech Acts and the Study ....................................................................................................................... 35

Team Climate and the Study ................................................................................................................... 38

Organizational Commitment and the Study ..................................................................................... 40

Chapter 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 41

Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................................ 41

Further Study Recommendations .............................................................................................. 42

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 42

References .......................................................................................................................................... 44

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 50

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX C- SELECTIVE CODING RELATIONSHIP BUILDING THEME .......................... 52

APPENDIX D- SELECTIVE CODING CLIMATE BUILDING THEME ...................................... 54

APPENDIX E- CODING (OPPOSITE OF EDIFICATION) .......................................................... 55

APPENDIX F-INDIRECT NATURE OF SPEECH ACT ................................................................ 56

6

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Statement of the Problem

Leaders and managers spend most of their time communicating to subordinates

(Mintzberg, 1973). Companies and subordinates rely on leaders to provide structure and

meaning on a day-to-day basis. The primary means that a leader has to convey this structure and

meaning is through his or her words. In a sales environment, sales managers have direct

influence over decisions that can facilitate or impede the success of their salespeople. They often

have frequent interaction with their customer facing sales representatives in order to provide the

assistance needed to deliver the solution to the customer. These situations can be time sensitive

and fraught with stress. Too often, not enough care is put into the words that are conveyed to the

sales representatives, who are by nature, approval seeking. Leaders need practical ways to help

moderate their own emotions in stressful situations as the one presented. By holding an intention

to “build” a salesperson, it may help sales managers to more effectively produce communications

that are consistent and strategic for their sales forces.

Importance of the Study

Salespeople are boundary-spanning employees who must successfully navigate their

internal and external environments in order to produce revenue for the corporations they

represent (Singh, 1993). Most salespeople’s income is largely based on their ability to produce

this revenue. Perhaps due to this fact, much of the research literature is based on expectancy

theory. Exceptions in the literature acknowledge that money alone does not fully explain critical

sales force outcomes. Organizational perceptions and influences have an important role in a

salesperson’s attitudes and behaviors (Kraft, 1999). The research suggests that none of these

may be more influential than the salesperson-sales manager dyad (Chonko, 1986, Singh, 1993,

7

Tyagi, 1995, Walker, Churchill & Ford, 1977). This is no surprise to researchers into the

psychological climate of an organization who state that between 53-72% of how employees

perceive their organizational climate is based on the actions of the leader (Kelner, O’Rivers &

O’Connell, 1996). Individual perceptions of organizational climate are important in the sales

environment. Salespeople are more likely to positively represent an organization when they feel

good about being a member of the organization.

Definitions of Terms Used

There are a number of terms used throughout this study that are defined as follows:

Edification- The act of “uplifting” another or “to build” someone up.

Speech Act- This study uses Griffin’s (2009) base definition of, “any verbal or non verbal

message as part of an interaction; the basic building block of the social universe that people

create” (p.76). The following types of speech acts are identified and used throughout the study.

Performative speech act- Based on Austin’s (1962) notion, this is a speech act that does

something as well as says something.

Locutionary speech act- the act of stating something (Austin, 1962, Searle, 1970)

Illocutionary speech act- Illocutionary speech acts are thought to convey the intent of a

speaker (Austin, 1962, Campbell, 1973, Searle, 1969, Vendler, 1972).

Perlocutionary speech act- a perlocutionary speech act is one that has an effect upon the

feelings, thoughts, or actions of the hearer (Austin, 1962, Campbell, 1973).

Climate is used to describe the prevailing emotional conditions of an organization. The

organizational literature references psychological climate and the communication literature

references communication climate to describe this perceptual phenomenon.

8

Psychological Climate- Defined by Koys and Decotiis (1991, p. 266), as “an experiential

based, multidimensional, and enduring perceptual phenomenon, which is widely shared by

members of a given organizational unit.”

Communication climate- as a sub dimension of group climate, Rothwell (2009) described

this as the emotional atmospheres created by the way people communicate in groups.

Organizational Commitment is defined as, “a strong belief in and acceptance of an organization’s

goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a

strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979, p.

226).

Organization of Remaining Chapters

The remaining chapters in this study examine the construct, edification, and how it might

inform the organizational and communication literature. Chapter Two provides the framework

for the study by describing the theoretical and philosophical foundations upon which the study is

based and a review of the relevant research. This chapter concludes with the underpinning

rationale of the study and the research questions that the study addresses. Chapter Three

describes the scope, methodology, and design of the study. The results of the study are presented

in Chapter Four, and this chapter includes a discussion of the findings. Chapter Five concludes

the work by describing the limitations and conclusions of the study, along with future research

recommendations.

9

Chapter 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Philosophical Assumptions and Theoretical Basis

Philosophical Assumptions

Aristotle was in favor of finding and using all means of persuasion available to a

speaker in order to arrive at and articulate the truth to an audience. In additional to providing a

logical argument (logos), a speaker must also prove his or her credibility (ethos), and draw

feeling out of the audience (pathos), in order to convince an audience of truth. Aristotle was an

advocate of tailoring a message to the audience, but he would not champion the idea of

sacrificing truth in order to do so to make the message more acceptable. An ethical speaker in

Aristotle’s view naturally gravitates toward the cardinal virtues of courage, justice, and practical

wisdom, and his or her speech is moderated by temperance. Temperate speech is characterized

by careful deliberation. Aristotle believed this was important when speaking, and it was a display

of character. The Bible informs that, “Thou seest a man who is hasty in his words, there is more

hope of a fool than of him” (Proverbs 29:20, KJV).

Aristotle believed the condition of the soul governs whether a person’s thoughts,

words, and actions have an orientation toward virtue of vice. The practice of temperance would

mean that a speaker would reach the golden mean. Griffin (2009, p. 286) gives an apt example

of what this means to the practice of communication as follows:

Extreme Golden Mean Extreme

Lies Truthful Statements Brutal Honesty

Secrecy Self-disclosure Soul-baring

Cowardice Courage Recklessness

10

According to this philosophy, an ethical speaker gravitates toward truthful statements,

self-disclosure and courage when speaking. By practicing this temperance, a leader may be able

to positively impact his or her followers and organization.

An organizational leader with a title and the requisite authority that it represents stands

in formal relationship with his or her subordinates and the organization that he or she serves. It

could be said that the most important tool that the leader possesses is the influence that is both

bestowed upon him or her and maintained as part of the formal relationship with the organization

and its constituents (Frese, et al, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Riggio, et al), This formal

relationship is built and maintained largely via communication. Rhetoric involves the ethical and

intentional use of communication to persuade rather than coerce constituents to take action. This

study assumes that leadership is its communication.

Theoretical Basis

Research indicates that an organization’s environment, or communication climate,

significantly impacts the job attitudes and outcomes of salespeople (Singh, 1993, Rothwell,

2009). The speech acts of a leader might be thought of as contributing significantly to

psychological climate of the organization. Cognitive social learning theory informs us that an

organization’s psychological climate is based on employee perception, which remains stable over

time. Attempts to change these perceptions must be made with significant effort over time

(Campbell Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick, 1970). In a sales organization, the sales manager is the

one who would have to exert this continuous effort to shape and mold the group climate. This

is consistent with the idea that leadership is not an end state, and that its form must emerge rather

than to be imposed (Morgan, 2009). This study is built upon the supposition that a leader does

not only provide leadership, he or she enacts leadership through the speech act. The speech acts

11

that a leader produces can change the organizationally materially and psychologically because of

the formal authority granted to him or her.

This study introduces the concept of edification as an intention and as a performative

speech act. Edification has not previously been presented as a performative speech act, but truly

the origin of the word “to build” implies language that does something as well as says

something. Language that is used to “tear down” has been well documented in the literature

about toxic leaders and the debilitating effect that they have on individuals and organizations

(Frost, 2004). The aim of this exploration is to determine whether edification as a performative

speech act can be defined in order to contribute to current communication and leadership studies.

Edification conveys the idea of both constructing and strengthening, which is the real work of

communicating and leading.

The Literature

Edification

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online (2011), the earliest use of the term

edification was the Wycliffe Bible in 1382 from Romans 14:19, which proclaims, “Let us

therefore follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify

another” (King James Version, Bible Study Tools Online, n.d.). The etymology of this word

points to the Greek okiodome (Strong’s G3619), which is literally, “building up. The biblical

definition is, “one who promotes another’s growth in (Christian) wisdom, piety, happiness, or

holiness” (Blue Letter Bible Online, 2010). Thayer’s Lexicon describes those that, “by action,

instruction, exhortation or comfort, promote the (Christian) wisdom of others and help them live

a correspondent life”. Dictionary.com (n.d.) states it as to “uplift.” Ephesians 4:29 warns, “Let

no corrupting talk come out of your mouth, but only such is that is good for building up, as fits

12

the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Extended Standard Version, Bible Study

Tools Online, n.d.).

Kierkegaard (1847/1956, p. 144) believed that communication should edify, and in

order to do so that it must demand something of the listener. When Herman (2008) wrote about

Kierkegaard’s approach to communication he observed that, “Edification is not merely empathy,

but a profound respect for another’s privacy, otherness, and mystery” (p. 74). This term might

be consistent with what leadership research refers to as individualized consideration or in

communication terms, being person-centered.

Leadership research recognizes individualized consideration as an important construct

with positive outcomes, including improving employee’s self-efficacy and self-esteem (Bass,

1990). Professor Scholl of the University of Rhode Island (n.d.) describes self-esteem as the

function of the distance between the perceived self and the ideal self. One component of his

definition of self-esteem is that which is socially influenced self-esteem, a “function of the

expectations of others and results from communication or feedback from reference group

members or society as a whole, concerning the value of an identity and the individual's ability to

meet the expectations of the reference group and/or society as a whole” (University of Rhode

Island Website, n.d, paragraph 6).

Salespeople take their cues from the feedback they receive from the results of their efforts

(task feedback), and the words and behavior of others (social feedback). Scholl (n.d.) informs

that affirming behavior reinforces a person’s perceptions of his or her traits, values, and

competencies. The use of affirmations (verbal cues) is one way in which this reinforcement can

occur. Sales research informs that supervisory feedback is likely to affect a salesperson’s

learning and performance orientations (Bogiano and Barrett, 1985: Carver and Scheir, 1981).

13

Feedback is primarily communicated via the speech act. The speech act is what distinguishes

human communication from the ability to produce unintelligible sounds. For this reason, ancient

rhetorical theory held that speech is a sacred gift from God (Peters, 1999).

Speech Acts

Communication scholars define the speech act as “any verbal or nonverbal message as

part of an interaction; the basic building block of the social universe people create” (Griffin,

2009, p. 76). Speech act theory has its origins in the philosophy of language. Searle (1969)

stated that the performance of a speech act was more than just the production of sound. To speak

a language is to perform a speech act, because language—as opposed to sound--- delivers

meaning. While a speaker may not be able to control the receiver’s interpretation of meaning

completely, it is often thought to be the responsibility of a good communicator to ensure that the

hearer understands what the speaker is saying. According to Searle (1969) the reason to study

speech acts is that,

All linguistic communication is not, as has been generally supposed, the word, the

symbol, word or sentence, but rather the production and the issuance of the

symbol or word or sentence in the performance of the speech act… when I take a

noise or a mark on a piece of paper to be an instance of linguistic communication,

as a message, one of the things I must assume is that the noise or mark was

produced by a being or beings more or less like myself and produced with certain

kinds of intentions. (p. 16)

Proverbs 4:23 offers, “Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life”

(King James Version). ‘Issues’ in this verse, according to the etymology (Strong’s H8444) is

from the root yatsa, “to go out, flow out.” Matthew 15:18 (ESV) puts it this way, “what comes

out of the mouth proceeds from the heart and this defiles a person.” These two verses inform

that the only escape for what is in the heart is through the mouth. Bible expositor John Gill

14

purports, “…if the heart is right, so will the actions of men be; they are regulated and

denominated by it; they will then spring from right principles, and be directed to right ends, and

performed with right views; great care therefore should be taken of the heart, since so much

depends upon it, and it is so well known to God the searcher of it” (Bible Study Tools, 2011).

Bible scholar J. Vernon McGee (1998) puts it this way, “the well of the heart comes up through

the bucket of the mouth.” An extensive body of academic research also suggests that there are

strong reciprocal effects between expressed and felt emotions (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994).

For example, these researchers cite Ekman’s (1982) study on lying that demonstrated when

people try to show false emotions, their inner feelings leak out in unintended ways. This

suggests if feeling is not consistent with speech, the character of the speaker will be questioned,

as will what the speaker says.

Ancient rhetorical theory posited that in order for credible and persuasive, speech must

reflect not only what you say, but also what you do and who you are. Communication is more

than just words; it involves logos (words, concepts), ethos (behavior, character), and pathos

(passion, empathy). Rhetoric held that speech could reach the human being as a union of logos

and pathos only if it appeals to both of these aspects through the lips of an ethical speaker.

Speech act theory holds that we are speaking from the intention to do so.

Drought (n.d.) says that the real genius of speech act theory is that it’s not just about the

communication of ideas; it is about changing the world with words. Speech act theory bridges

the gap between theory and praxis from a communication studies standpoint. The concept of

using language to edify, or “uplift” helps provide an ethical intention and framework to influence

the common ground. The author believes this might be the real power of what was once known

as the performative speech act.

15

Performative speech acts. JL Austin is an Oxford language philosopher who introduced

the theory of a performative speech act through a series of 11 lectures at Harvard in 1955.

Austin’s lecture transcripts (1962) stated that “It was far too long the assumption of philosophers

that the business of a ‘statement’ can only be used to describe some state of affairs, or to ‘state

some fact,’ which it must do either truly or falsely” (p. 1). He asserted that breaking free from

the notion that utterances exist only to present a statement of fact provided the right

philosophical atmosphere for, “the greatest and most salutary (revolution) in philosophy’s

history” (p. 4). Austin started this revolution by isolating the performative speech act.

Austin stated that this word, performative, was derived from two words “perform”

and “action” because a performative does both, rather than just saying something. It also does

something. Austin presented performative speech acts as the first person singular indicative

actives that meet two conditions:

“A.) They do not ‘describe’ or ‘report’ or constate anything at all, are not

‘true or false’:

And

B.) the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action

which again would not normally be described as, or as ‘just’ saying something”

(p. 6).

Winterowd (1976, p. 66) provides a list of performatives that include: advise, answer,

appoint, ask, authorize, beg, bequeath, beseech, caution, code, claim, close, command, condemn,

counsel, dare, declare, demand, empower, enquire, entreat, excommunicate, grant, implore,

inform, instruct, offer, order, pledge, pronounce, request, require, say, sentence, vow, warn, and

write. He further states that if you put any of these in declarative, positive, and first person

16

sentence, you have performative sentence. Austin did state this, along with other “rules” for

using performatives, some of which confused his topic more than promoted it.

Performatives have caused a great deal of debate and confusion among scholars

Interestingly these scholars were not in favor of scrapping the idea of a performative in its

entirety, rather they seemed eager to help explain what Austin (1962) might have meant by the

notion of the performative. Arguments by Searle (1969, 1989) focused on the linguistic and

grammatical criticisms elements of what was wrong with the concept of a performative. Other

scholars such as Benjamin (1990), Sesonske (1965), and Beale (1978) recognized that the

important function of a performative might be related to how it conveys meaning between people

who stand in relationship to one another. For example, Sesonske (1965) suggested three ways in

which humans can be related:

Two persons are said to be psychologically related to each other when one has

knowledge of the other or when one has some feeling, emotion, or attitude toward

the other…two persons are generatively related to each other when the action of

one brings about some action or state in the other; two persons are formally

related when the range of appropriate or permissible interaction between them is

defined or determined by implicit or explicit conventions or rules accepted within

a group, community, or culture. (p. 462)

Based on these classifications of relationships, Sesonske (1965) states, “I propose then

this definition of a performative; a performative is an utterance whose point is to alter formal

relations” (p. 467).

A leader has the power to change the physical and logical world of an organization and

his or her colleagues through his or her words. Once certain words have been uttered in an

organizational setting such as “You’re fired,” certain things about the organization will never be

the same. This is an example of a speech act that “does” as well as “says” something.

17

Performatives as a Rhetorical Construct. Benjamin (1990) argued that performatives

met the definition of a rhetorical act using Bryant’s (1972) definition of a rhetorical act. He

stated that:

Because performatives describe communicative relationships among speaker,

audience, occasion, and message constructed for practical purposes involving the

full (humanity) of the persons involved, and because performatives are not aimed

at any specific subject, there are reasons for accepting performatives as rhetorical

acts. (p. 86)

Benjamin (1990) also established that performatives resemble other rhetorical acts by

framing them against the backdrop of Blitzer’s (1972) seminal work.

He (Blitzer) indicated that all rhetorical situations involve an exigence (i.e.

“an imperfection marked by urgency” which is “capable of positive modification

through discourse”), an audience (i.e. those persons are capable of being

mediators of change”), and constraints (i.e., “persons, events, objects and relations

which are parts of the situation because they have the power to modify the

exigence (p. 86).

There are three types of speech acts that have since been commonly accepted into the

Rhetorical Tradition within Communication Theory (Drought, n.d.). These are the locutionary,

illocutionary and perlocutionary act.

Locutionary acts. A locutionary act is simply the act of saying something, Austin

(1962) described a locutionary act as, “roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a

certain sense and reference, which again is roughly equivalent to ‘meaning’ in the traditional

sense” (p. 98).

Illocutionary acts. Campbell (1973) describes an illocutionary act as, “the performance

of an act in saying something” (p. 285). That is, the act has a certain, “force indicating the way

the utterance is meant to be taken or understood” (Austin, 1962, p. 101). This illocutionary force

18

is dependent upon the speaker’s intent (Vendler, 1972, Searle, 1969). The same words may have

different illocutionary forces in different contexts (Stiles, 1981). If the leader in the previous

example declared “You’re fired” in an environment where he or she did not have the proper

authority, the act would have no illocutionary force, so it would be rendered meaningless.

Austin did believe that the illocutionary act required uptake from the audience in order

have for it to be successful. Stiles (1981) asserted that every illocutionary act has an

intersubjective component, that it “connects two centers of experience in a particular way” (p.

227). The speaker is able to transmit emotion as well as words through the illocutionary act.

While there are some instances where it is important to transmit honest emotion through the

speech act, there may also be times a leader may want to understand the impact that unchecked

emotions such as anger or frustration can have on subordinates.

Perlocutionary Acts. A perlocution is saying something that “will often, or even

normally, produce certain consequential effects upon the feelings, thoughts or actions of the

audience or of the speaker, or of other persons” (Austin, 1962, p. 101). Campbell (1973) argues

that, “all speech acts produce some effect upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of those

involved in such acts, and, therefore, all speech acts are perlocutions” (p. 290). All speech acts

do produce some effect on others. In the organizational context, when spoken from a leaders

mouth, these effects may be understood to be greater than in other contexts because of the

influence that a leader wields.

Speech Acts in the Organizational Context (Motivating Language). Sullivan (1988)

proposed that all managerial communication could be categorized by three functions: a.)

Communication that is designed to reduce uncertainty or increase knowledge b.) Communication

that reaffirms self-worth and c.) Communication that informs an employee’s cognitive schema so

19

that he or she can make sense of organization reality. Sullivan was able to map these back to

Austin’s (1955) speech act theory. Sullivan (1988) suggested that in the organizational context,

locutionary acts are “meaning making” and explain the structure, rules, and values of the

organization’s culture. Inclusive of metaphorical stories, rumors, and narratives, this type of

communication helps an employee to incorporate cultural norms into their own meaning-making

schema. While this is a part of organizational socialization, when a leader communicates this

type of message it may convey more valence based on his or her authority.

The illocutionary act is empathetic, an expression of humanity (Sullivan 1988), which

reaffirms bonds and self-worth. This type of communication can be used to praise an employee

for a job well done or to commiserate with a subordinate about their personal frustrations as well.

(Mayfield & Mayfield, 2009).

In Sullivan’s (1988) application to the study of leader motivating language, he

suggested that the perlocutionary speech act gives direction and reduces uncertainty. This could

be by providing clarity around a particular issue. This type of language is also concerned with

goal setting, management by objectives (MBO), and performance feedback (Mayfield &

Mayfield, 2009).

Researchers built and tested a motivating language scale (MLT) based on Sullivan’s

conceptualization to determine the strategic role language plays in transmitting leader behavior

(Mayfield, Mayfield, and Kopf, 1998). Motivating Language has been positively correlated

with performance and job satisfaction (Mayfield, Mayfield, and Kopf, 1998), and employee

absenteeism (2009). Sharbrough et al. (2006) have also tested subordinate communication

satisfaction and perceived leader communication competence utilizing MLT. When examining

20

edification in the organizational context, it is proposed that edification can perform all three

functions- direction giving, meaning making, and empathetic.

Team Climate

Koys and Decotiis (1991, p. 266) defined psychological climate as, “an experiential

based, multidimensional, and enduring perceptual phenomenon, which is widely shared by

members of a given organizational unit. Its primary function is to cue and shape individual

behavior toward the modes of behavior dictated by the organizational demands.” Their further

research into this construct helped hone in on the dimensions of psychological climate and

develop scales to test the construct. The sub dimensions are: support, recognition, fairness,

innovation, autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, and pressure. Note that these dimensions of

psychological climate cannot be produced without the use of communication from someone in a

formal role of authority.

Research has demonstrated that an organization’s environment significantly impacts the

job attitudes and outcomes of salespeople (Singh, 1993). Krafft (1999) found that organizational

perceptions and influences figure prominently in the development of employee attitudes and

behaviors. Psychological climate is distinguished from organizational climate in that,

psychological climate is an individual’s perception of the organizational unit, and organizational

climate is the team’s collective perceptions about their organization as it relates to the

dimensions identified in the psychological climate literature (Koys and DeCotiis, 1991).

Joyce, Slocum, and Abelson (1977) found that psychological climate is directly related to

leadership styles. Climate is situational and subject to being manipulated by individuals in power

(Denison, 1996). This suggests that the leader of an organization or workgroup has the most

influence to shape the group climate. According to Rothwell (2009), the group climate is, “the

21

emotional atmosphere, the enveloping tone that is created by the way we communicate in

groups” (p. 118). He further states that a communication climate “permeates all groups and

affects every aspect of a groups social and task dimensions” (p.118). The connection points in

these areas of research demonstrate that the sales manager would be the biggest predictor of the

group climate in a sales department. If a sales manager states, “We are facing some challenges,

but I am proud to be working with the best sales team in the industry,” it will have a much

different impact on the climate then the sales manager who proclaims, “what is wrong with you

people? Our numbers are down and you all have to get them up.” The first statement builds

upon the positive core of the team, and focuses the team’s attention on continuing to be the best

sales team in the industry. The second puts pressure on the sales force, which has been

associated with negative affects on salespeople (Chonko, 1986, Martin & Bush, 2006).

This study suggests that the words of a sales manager have locutionary, illocutionary, and

perlocutionary force because of his formal relationship to the organization and the employee.

Research has already shown that the strategic use of these three types of speech acts have

positive effects on subordinate performance and satisfaction (Mayfield, Mayfield, and Kopf,

1998). Job performance and satisfaction are both consequences of high levels of organizational

commitment, a construct that is thought to be one of the strongest predictors of organizational

effectiveness.

Organizational Commitment

Expectancy theory has a long tradition of being utilized in the sales literature to

explain variations in the performance and behavior of sales representatives. Chonko (1986) was

the first to introduce the idea that Organizational commitment could provide some distinct

explanations about these differences in behavior. Organizational commitment (hereinafter OC

22

and referring to attitudinal OC) can be defined as “a strong belief in and acceptance of an

organization’s goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the

organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization” (Mowday, Steers,

& Porter, 1979, p. 226). This type of OC has been found to foster loyalty and involvement, and

an inclination of the employee to stay on with the organization (Mowday et al, 1982). Chonko

(1986) believed that supervisor behavior could enhance organizational commitment. In their

later work on Saleperson OC, Sager and Johnston (1989) found that the “performer maintains a

close relationship with the sales manager, entailing both feedback and guidance” (p. 36). Both

feedback and guidance would be consistent with the idea of edification, communication that

helps to build the performance of another by orienting them to the right course of action.

This is consistent with the findings of Mathieu and Zajac (1990), who performed a

literature review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlate and consequences of

organizational commitment. The two antecedents of OC that had the strongest correlation were

an employee’s perception of his or her personal competence and leader communication. This

suggests that the edification of an individual through verbal affirmation might have the potential

to boost an employee’s perceptions about his or her personal competence. Research by Jaworski

& Kohli (1991) found that positive feedback about a salesperson’s output or behavior can be one

of the best ways to enhance a salesperson’s performance. In addition to providing an

informational function about what behavior is valued by a superior, they found that positive

feedback also improved motivation.

Leader communication. Riggio et al. (2003) state that a difficulty in studying the

communication skills of emergent and established leaders has been the ability to operationalize

communication skills or competence. They designed a comprehensive approach to measuring

23

communication competence across situations by designing a social skills inventory (SSI) self-

report instrument that allowed them to measure six basic communication skills: emotional

expressivity, emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expressivity, social sensitivity, and

social control. They state, “total score on the SSI has been theoretically and empirically linked to

variables such as empathy, self-esteem, and social insight. These variables themselves have been

associated with leadership (Bass, 1990).

Leader consideration. Bass (1985) identified the construct, individualized consideration, as a

dimension of transformational leadership. This construct seems to come closest in the literature

to embodying many of the same aspects of what edification might do. Bass (1985) identified

several behaviors that a leader could display including: career counseling, careful observation of

staff, recording follower’s progress, and encouraging followers to attend courses that were

components of individualized consideration. Rafferty and Griffin (2006) proposed that

individualized attention allows leaders to become familiar with followers, enhances

communication and improves information exchange. While the latter has direct impact on the

edification as performative speech act might accomplish, the former speaks to the intention of

edification.

House (1981) defined a supportive leader as one who provides emotional, Informational,

instrumental and appraisal support to followers. Rafferty and Griffin (2006) stated that the most

intuitive meaning of social support is emotional support, which involves the provision of

sympathy, evidence of liking, caring and listening. Recent research found that Employees who

score the highest on providing social support in the workplace are 40% more likely to receive a

promotion in the following year (Achor, 2011). This suggests that those elevated to the

management seat may have been among the most supportive of their peers.

24

Rationale

Proverbs 18:21 cautions that “death and life are in the power of the tongue.”

Leadership is enacted through communication, presented in this work as a speech act. Speech

acts convey intention, whether it is purposeful or not. Speech acts have power, and when

wielded by a leader also convey authority. These aspects make many speech acts performative.

This work suggests that the ethical use of edification as a leadership intention and performative

speech act might have a positive impact upon employee’s perception of leadership and

organizational climate. The author also believes that it may have a positive impact upon

organizational commitment.

Research Questions

The research questions explored by this study are:

RQ1) What would the performative speech act, edification sound like in a sales

organization?

RQ2) Do salespeople believe that it would improve their organizational commitment to

have a leader who edifies them communicatively?

25

Chapter 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The Scope of the Study

The scope of this research study is narrow. The attention of this study is directed

toward the definition of edification in order to determine whether it is a construct that is useful to

the communication and leadership literature. Edification has been conceptualized as a

performative speech act, language that incites feelings within a hearer that might produce

feelings attitudes, and behaviors that lead to positive personal and organizational outcomes.

Specifically, the research attempts to determine whether language that edifies increases

commitment to an organization. This research focuses on understanding meaning and the rules

of meaning making; therefore qualitative research is an appropriate research methodology.

Study Population

The research design was based on the purposive sampling (Hoyle, Harris, & Judd

1991) of salespeople to uncover the nomonological net of variables that might comprise the

construct of edification. The population consisted of sales representatives that are currently

employed in the technology industry selling to commercial and government customers. The

criterion was that these representatives had at least three years of industry experience, with 10

years of sales experience. This population was selected based on the researcher’s familiarity with

the industry. The salespeople in this industry face significant challenges as the market shifts from

a commodity based marketplace to a services based marketplace. Customers historically

purchased commodity products to build, run, and maintain their internal IT Operations. This

resulted in high volume transactions throughout the year for products and services. Based on

recent technology advances and increasing pressure for customers to do more with less money,

these customers are looking towards having computing delivered entirely as a service at a

26

monthly fee. In addition to this significantly decreasing their annual revenue potential with the

same clients, it also means that they have to adapt to an entirely new way of selling solutions.

Many of their employers are reluctant to reduce their quotas or adapt on an organizational level.

Sales representatives are boundary-spanning employees who have responsibility to

stakeholders both inside and outside of the organization (Singh, 1993). The sales person can

often be caught in the conflict between the varying needs of the organization they represent and

their customers needs. Their incentives are often affected if this conflict cannot be resolved. In

addition, sales people are expected to progressively achieve greater revenues, while keeping pace

with rapidly changing products and markets. Their roles require a high degree of complexity,

collaboration and accountability (Ingram et al, 2002). As such, edification may provide a means

to keep sales representative focused on the things that he or she is doing that are contributing to

the achievement of their goals during this time of disruptive change.

Methodology of the Study

Baxter and Babbie (2003) note that qualitative research is particularly useful when a

researcher wants to, “understand in a richly detailed manner what an interviewee thinks and feels

about some phenomenon” (p. 326). This type of phenomenological research, “describes the

meaning of the lived experience for several individuals about a concept or the phenomenon”

(Creswell, 1998, p. 51). This approach is being selected because edification has not been

included into organizational or communication research to date, and it is important to define the

construct at the onset of this research. Affirmation might be one way to define the concept of

edification as a performative speech act—language that strengthens and builds someone up in

order to equip him or her to be effective. While the effects of self-affirmation have been well

27

studied, the effects of being verbally affirmed by others have only been loosely incorporated into

other leadership styles and are lacking altogether in the communication research.

The methodology of this study is informed by Sullivan’s (1988) conceptualizing of

the Motivating Language Model which suggests that there are three roles of language in the

organizational context- uncertainty reducing (perlocutionary), meaning-making (locutionary),

and human bonding acts (illocutionary). The design is based on semi-structured in person

interviews, allowing for structure and consistency but allowing for the flexibility to explore what

emerges in the discussion. Many of the structured questions will be based on the previously

developed and tested Motivating Language Scale, with emphasis on the dimensions of meaning

making and empathetic language.

Research Design

Qualitative research’s trustworthiness is judged by its dependability, confirmability,

credibility, and transferability (Baxter and Babbie, 2002, p. 325). Bearing this in mind, the

research was based on Kvale’s (1996) systematic framework for qualitative research.

While dependability cannot be fully ensured because no two-qualitative interviews are

exactly the same using these steps offers more consistency. The seven steps are: (1) Thematizing,

(2) Designing, (3) Interviewing, (4) Transcribing, (5) Analyzing, (6) Verifying, and (7)

Reporting. The research design was the use of pre-determined semi-structured questions and is

located in Appendix A. While this allowed the interviewer to probe more deeply into some

aspects, it assured that the same questions were asked across interviews. This method

contributes to future confirmation of the results. To further ensure confirmability, the interviews

have been recorded and transcribed to maximize repeatability.

28

To establish credibility, the design of the research questions was based on previous

studies conducted by Sullivan (1988) while confirming that the dimensions of motivating

language also serve to edify. The research has also been designed to determine whether

organizational commitment is an antecedent of verbally edifying someone. As such questions

about organizational commitment follow previously tested questions. To address transferability,

a purposive design was used where the sales representatives under study were not all from the

same organization, but were from the same industry.

Interviews

Five interviews were conducted. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. Each

interview was tape recorded and transcribed word for word. This approach made the

interviews suitable for narrative analysis in order to capture the richness of the data. The

approach was to use the content analysis to uncover patterns, or themes in the data in

order to begin to cast the nomonological net of variables that might define and

operationalize what edification might look or sound like within the organizational

context.

Following Kvale (1996), an emphasis was put on the thematizing and design of the semi-

structured interview questions that were asked to each of the participants. The first assumption

of the research design was that because edification is not well documented in the literature, and

not something that is commonly used in language, a preliminary definition must be provided at

the onset of the interview in order to provide some way for interviewees to think of the concept

for further discussion. The researcher chose the literal interpretation of the Greek word,

oikodome, “to build up.” From this baseline, the research questions were designed to find out

29

whether this “building up” could be done verbally vis’ a vis’ a performative, and if so, what that

performative might sound like in the organizational context.

Baxter and Babbie (2002) offer guidance on types of qualitative questions that are

particularly useful when trying to sharpen the definition of an abstract concept. The research

questions were designed along these lines, offering dyadic contrast questions, example questions,

included term and phenomenological questions. This format provided a way to touch on specific

issues while allowing flexibility to meander the territory to draw parallels among the research

constructs that the researcher suspects might have shared touch points with the concept of

edification. The interview guide is in Appendix A.

30

Chapter 4: THE STUDY

Description of the Study

This study was examined how edification might be conveyed within the organizational

context. The semi-structured interview design directed questions around three lines of inquiry:

a.) the definition of edification b.) The perceived importance of it as a speech act and an

intention and c.) The possible consequences of using strategic types of speech act in a sales

organization to improve organizational outcomes. Five individual interviews were conducted

with sales professionals in March 2010. This chapter reviews the results of this qualitative

inquiry and articulates the findings in order to draw parallels to research that might be informed

by this study.

Data Analysis

The interviews were transcribed word for word in order to produce 24 pages of

unstructured data for analysis. The scope of this study was narrow. The intent was to determine

how to identify spoken words that edify and to characterize and assess salespeople’s perceptions

of edification. This amount of unstructured data provided what Miles (1979) describes as an

“attractive nuisance” for the researcher, providing much rich content for analysis, but also a

difficult terrain for finding analytic paths that contribute to the social sciences in a meaningful

way. In order to fully explore the richness of this amount of unstructured data, the study was

limited to five interviews. This allowed analysis to be conducted utilizing an eclectic approach

(Kvale, 1996) that,

Allows the interviewer to read the interviews through and get an overall

impression, then go back to specific passages, perhaps make some quantifications

like counting statements indicating different attitudes to a phenomenon, make

deeper interpretations of specific statements, cast parts of the narrative into an

narrative, work out metaphors to capture the material, attempt a visualization of

the findings in flow diagrams, and so on (p. 204).

31

Results of the Study

The interviews produced data along three thematic domains: 1.) The definition of edification

2.) The perceived importance of edification and 3.) The perceived consequences of using

edification in a leader subordinate relationship.

Definition

To explore the definition of edification, open coding was used to identify the attributes of

edification. This initial analysis produced keywords and phrases that were used to describe

edification. The themes that emerged were compatible with the work of Sullivan (1988), who

posited different functions of illocutionary, perlocutionary, and locutionary acts. The data was

grouped into themes according to which type of act the interviewee spoke of when describing

what edification might sound like. The researcher was able to conceptualize three new themes:

subordinate building, relationship building, and team building. Table 1.1 represents the

mapping of Sullivan’s work to the themes identified by the researcher.

Type of Speech Act

(Searle, 1969)

Function

(Sullivan (1988)

Attributes (Chapter

Two)

Philosophy Theme

Perlocutionary-

saying something

produces effects on

the feelings,

thoughts or actions

of another.

Direction Giving Clarifies tasks,

roles and goals,

reduces uncertainty

Logos (words &

concepts)

Subordinate

Building

Illocutionary-the

performance of an

act in saying

something

(Campbell, 1973)

Empathic Consideration,

praising,

relationship

building, sharing

feelings

Pathos (Passion

& Humanity)

Relationship

Building

Locutionary-The act

of saying something

(Austin, 1962)

Meaning-Making The transmission of

structure, rules,

values

Ethos (Behavior

& Character)

Climate

Building

32

Subordinate Building. The perlocutionary act is based on what the speaker hopes to

accomplish. The findings of this study suggest that a leader who is speaking in an edifying

manner does so to build confidence in a worker’s ability to reach a desired end state. This could

be by providing guidance, encouragement, teaching, as well as constructive criticism or

performance feedback. Comments from the participants of the study confirmed that they

believed a good leader does concentrate on strengthening their subordinates as evidenced by the

coding in Appendix B. In addition to these selected comments, Interviewee #2, who now is a

very successful sales executive, brought this point home the best when he told a story about his

beginnings in the technology business. He stated that,

When I started with Company X, I sort of downgraded myself by applying for this

position, but I did it for the comfort of my family virtues and I took a job in the

mailroom. It was a huge, close to $30,000-$40,000 a year pay cut, but I just did

it. Something was telling me. My wife was telling me, “you can do better than

this,” So I started in the mailroom felt really degraded pushing mail carts around

1st and 3

rd floor. People were looking at me like ‘look at this big guy, he’s

probably just a dumb big jock…probably thrown out of college and can’t make it

anywhere else’. But I ran into the company president a couple of times. He had

seen something in me. He said, “I know you have better skills, I’ve seen the way

you handle yourself in front of people. He said give me some time let me see if I

can try to help you get a position.

Interviewee #2 continues the story by telling about his promotion to customer service,

then to inside sales, and finally to outside sales, where he still enjoys success many years later.

Relationship Building. Sullivan (1988) stated that this type of language, “states nothing

meaningful about the world, nor is it instrumental” (p. 109). This type of language builds

relationships by a manager acting on behalf of his or her humanity, authentic and empathetic.

The results were coded according to these relationship-building properties and a sample of

interview comments is in Appendix C. During the interviews, some of the relationship building

33

characteristics that were cited were respect, caring, empathy, listening and emotional

intelligence. Interviewee # 4 described it this way,

There have always been these people who just make you feel better being around

them. And I think at some very base level these guys are just … well, you love

being around them. You know, you meet them for the first time and they make

you feel like a million bucks. So what exactly are they doing? They are probably

a.) attentive listening to everything your saying and empathetic.

Climate Building. Sullivan (1988, p. 109) classified locutionary language as meaning

making. That is, it allows a worker to understand his or herself in the context of the organization

as a whole. This type of language states in an informal, non- purposeful way, the way the world

might be. A manager can, for example, state that the organization places tremendous value on the

success of a particular product. This may indirectly influence or build a salesperson’s desire to

reach a desired end state, but there is no direct building of the individual’s feelings, thoughts, or

behaviors. Items coded in this category were those like team building, a leader’s communicating

an example of desired behavior, and area(s) that represented a salesperson’s relationship with the

business as a whole.

Several of the interviewees brought up during different junctures of the interview that

they thought edification could be an indirect act. This data was separately coded in Appendix F.

Based on the comments from Interviewee #3, there seems to be a connection to the culture

building aspects of language. When my manager says,

Hey stop by my office, I want to run something by you because you’ve done this

and I value your opinion. When leaders do things like this for employees, it tends

to make employees feel more a part of the business relationship within the

company, and it makes them feel sort of as trusted advisors which for an

employee is a place they want to be. They like to see leadership lean on them in a

positive way.

34

Opposite of Edification. Baxter and Babbie (2002) highlight the importance of a dyadic

contrast question, especially when trying to initially define a construct. As part of the semi-

structured interviews, respondents were asked what the opposite of edification would sound like.

The nomonological net of variables that was identified by asking for the opposite of edification

was cast as the following concepts: indifference, lack of acknowledgement, discouragement,

ignoring, dictatorial, condescending, and belittling. As the comments in Appendix E indicate,

respondents felt that any type of language or behavior that showed indifference or disrespect was

in fact, equivalent to the opposite of edification. These results demonstrate how important it is

for a sales manager to convey acceptance and regard for sales representatives.

Team Climate. The findings confirm that the salespeople interviewed think that edification is an

important tool for leaders. After exploring the concept of edification with sales representatives,

they were asked to predict what the results of edification might be. Themes that emerged from

the data suggest that salespeople feel that their leaders would inspire more trust and motivation,

as well as create community and build more cohesive teams. These consequences are in line

with the variables that are associated with positive psychological climates as expressed in the

literature review. As evidenced by the literature review, the leader is the most important

moderator of whether a climate is perceived as positive. Cohesion, support, and fairness are all

dimensions of psychological climate. Many of the salespeople spoke of the indirect nature of

edification. These results indicate that a leader’s language become part of the common ground,

or communication climate, that influences the psychological climate of an organization.

Organizational Commitment. When asked the question, “If a leader was intentional about

edifying his or her team, what might the results be?” the following comments were noted: “I

think they would find that people would run through brick walls for you because they like you

35

and they trust you,” and “I think a highly motivated work force (who) goes above and beyond

your job title, says your going to work extra hours, do extra things, go the extra mile” Each and

every response indicated a highly motivated team that would do more than what was asked or

expected of them. These answers run very close to the academic definition of Organizational

commitment as presented in the literature review. This is significant to the findings because

intuitively a correlation was expected and the respondents, unaware, provided answers that

naturally expressed the elements associated with Organizational Commitment.

During the last question of the study, participants were given the definition of

Organizational Commitment as presented in the Literature review and asked if the use of

edification would foster OC. As Interview # 1 summed it up,

Absolutely 100%. Because let me see that definition, willingness to exert

considerable effort. You’ve just created a team. You’ve edified every person on

that team to the other members and when other members see and witness

commitment and effort from a single person it encourages the other members to

want to do the same thing so you create an absolutely solid team by edifying

individuals not directly but you can also edify the entire group and identify

individuals

Discussion

The research provided insight into the construct of edification as a speech act and its

perceived consequences for a sales organization. The implications of the study may have

important findings for the leadership and communication literature, particularly as they relate to

speech acts, team climate, and organizational commitment.

Speech Acts and the Study

The analysis of the data provided insight into the definition of edification as language that

either affirms or validates an individual in the sales context. The findings suggest that those

speech acts that are edifying have attributes that would suggest that they are subordinate

building, relationship building, or team climate building. A single speech act might provide more

36

than one type of building. The seminal work of Walker et al. (1977) demonstrated that a sales

manager’s behaviors and activities have a pivotal role in the way that sales people act and

perform. Sullivan (1988) thought that future MLT development should incorporate leader

behavior into research design. He believed that in order to be taken seriously over time, speech

must match the behavior of a leader. The speech of a leader who intends to build would convey

the dimensions brought forth in the interviews, such as trust, sincerity and respect in order to

build both the individual and the organization.

Another implication of this research is that it lends some belated clarity to Austin’s

(1975) original conception of a performative speech act, language that says as well as does

something. Austin’s initial notion was that in order to make a performative do something,

someone must have the requisite authority to invoke a speech act. By virtue of his or her formal

authority and title, sales managers words automatically have a formal function. The same

affirmation given by a sales manager could have more valence than if it was delivered by a co-

worker or peer. This research suggests that edification serves a formal function across three

dimensions: Subordinate building, relationship building, and Culture building.

Subordinate Building. Path Goal theory includes the notion that effective leaders must

play particular roles to enable group members to achieve desired goals (see House, 1971; House

& Mitchell, 1974). There are several styles of leadership including developmental, supportive

and transformative that include a component, individualized consideration. This construct

“encompasses a developmental orientation towards followers and may be an important way that

leaders can help followers succeed in today’s business environment” (Rafferty & Griffith, 2006,

p. 37). Bass (1985) noted that when leaders adopt this developmental orientation they counsel

staff about their careers, track a subordinates progress toward goals, and encourage them to

37

attend training or take action that will advance their careers. Rafferty & Griffin (2004) proposed

that leaders who practice individualized consideration are more familiar with their followers,

leading to enhanced communication and information exchange.

The interviews conducted during this study confirm that salespeople believe that managers

have a responsibility to mentor, train, and to provide direction to those they lead. Three of the

five interviewees mentioned that they believed the idea of mentoring was compatible with

edification. In fact, many of the interviewees indicated that they expected their sales manager to

provide constructive criticism to them in order to help improve their performance. If a manager

holds the intention to edify his or her team, they would likely become familiar with each of their

unique needs, enabling them to provide the level of support that individualized consideration

implies.

Relationship Building. Much of the sales research focuses on the quality of the

relationship between a sales manager and his or her subordinate. For example, Leader member

exchange theory examines the role of trust between a sales person and his or her manager

(Dansereau, Graen, and Haga 1975). The literature suggests “Being a role model, leading by

example, being fair in performance evaluations, making calls with salespeople, and empowering

salespeople have all been found to be effective ways to build trust.” (Ingram, et al, p. 139). The

findings in this study suggest that sincere edification, as a speech act would be a way to

communicate that trust both for and to a sales representative. In each of the interviews, trust

came through as something that would characterize a leader who used edification. This may be

particularly true when the need arises to give negative performance feedback. When questioned

whether negative performance feedback could be given in an edifying manner, respondents felt

that it could, particularly when a good leader says something like Interview # 4 gave the example

38

of When you say it the way you did, “ I know you can do better,” I think it conveys that you trust

this person that while they missed the mark of excellence.

Climate Building. Culture has been shown by prior studies to provide a socializing force

for the sales functions of an organization (Dubinsky, 1986). Providing interpretations of events

for sales personnel is an important management function in leading the sales organization.

(Barnes, et al., 1996). The findings from the interviews confirm that salespeople believe that

edification has important team building implications, and that the responsibility of creating the

climate was that of the manager. Interview #2 summed this up well with the following

comment,” (You would get a) much stronger team, much better performance where the members

of the group put forth a greater effort. The opposite is you discourage. And Salespeople will

abandon you abandon the company if they lose hope. And that is one of the worst things a

manager can do is allow their people to lose hope. Then they are finished. The subordinates are

finished and the manger is finished. You get into the revolving door.”

Team Climate and the Study

The research literature classifies salespeople as boundary spanning employees who need

to interact with several internal and external stakeholders to accomplish their goals. For these

employees, a professional and amicable work environment creates less stressful and more

enjoyable work places (Singh, Verbeke, and Rhoads 1996). In fact, several of the sub dimensions

of psychological climate (support, recognition, fairness, innovation, autonomy, trust,

cohesiveness, and pressure) are consistent with those characteristics that salespeople expected to

hear from a leader who edifies. Goleman (2002) contends that a leader’s actions and behaviors

are key drivers for psychological climate, and these actions are directly influenced by their

emotional states. As referenced in the literature review, parity in feeling and expression are

39

important to conveying sincerity in the speech act. Psychological climate is something that is

believed to be very durable and must be changed with considerable effort over time. Leaders can

instill a positive communication climate through the consistent use of words, symbols, and

language. This study has shown that edification has individual and team building properties that

if communicated could contribute to the continuous building of a positive climate.

The findings confirmed that sales managers who edify their salespersons would inspire a

strong sense of Organizational Commitment in their team members. Organization Commitment

research has already established positive relationships between supervisor relationships, sales

organization characteristics, and anticipatory socialization behavior are antecedents of

organizational commitment

This study also identified a distinct and strong connection to the idea that edification can

be communicated indirectly to the employee. This suggests an organization to individual

communication, which necessarily must be transmitted by the sales managers speech acts.

Consistent with exchange theory research, this suggests a personified organization (Whitener,

2001) that is able to transmit its commitment to the salesperson through speech acts like

edification. The OC literature demonstrates that when this commitment is perceived by the

salesperson, the salesperson becomes more committed to the organization. Similarly, when the

intention of edification is communicated, the perceived benefits include increased desire to build

the organization through extra effort.

Overall, this study confirms that a leader’s speech acts when edifying, can produce

positive outcomes for the individual and the organization. These positive outcomes include the

construction of a positive psychological climate, and enhanced organizational commitment.

40

Both of these constructs have been positively associated with improved salesperson performance

and organizational effectiveness.

Organizational Commitment and the Study

This study confirms that salespeople believe that if edified, both they and their colleagues

would have higher levels of organizational commitment. Chonko (1986) observed that loyalty

was an important characteristic of commitment for salespeople. Specifically that loyalty to the

organization was an important sustaining factor when expectancy rewards were not met. During

challenging economic times, it is important for sales managers to be able to find more than

economic rewards to retain sales talent. Salespeople are often personally financially impacted

when customer-buying trends are on a decline, until the organization adjusts expectations. The

sales manager does not want to lose talent to competitors who are vying for the limited dollars

available. By recognizing that edification can have these types of impacts, managers might be

more likely to pay more attention to the language that they use.

The two strongest predictors of organizational commitment as evidenced in the literature

review were 1.) A salesperson’s perception about his or her own competence and 2.) leader

communication. These antecedents of commitment could be tied specifically to edifying speech

act. The results also indicate that by affirming someone’s competence in front of others, the

speech act could possibly serve to “build” more of the behaviors that are validated within the

team. This also reinforces the idea that communication is under appreciated for its ability to

construct lasting and durable effects upon people and therefore the organization.

41

Chapter 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the Study

One of the more significant limitations of this study was the sample size of 5

participants. This sample size allowed the researcher to deeply explore the concepts related to

edification as a preliminary investigation. There is reason to believe that this research represents

the point of theoretical saturation where nothing new can be revealed about the data (Bryman,

2012). There was enough common data to begin to develop and categorize the dimensions of the

construct edification. The dimensions uncovered in this study might be used for further

quantitative analysis suited to operationalize the variables associated with edification.

Another limitation is the very specific demographic of the study. The purposive design

allowed for the research to understand the contextual elements within the industry of the sales

representatives. These sales representatives face some of the same challenges from the external

competitive environment and industry pressures, such as the rapidly changing pace of technology

that they must sell. While these salespeople might think of edification as a helpful behavior for

their managers to adopt, there might not be applicability to other sales representatives in different

industries or during different economic or business conditions.

Due to the limited resources of the researcher, the results of the interview coding could

not be triangulated or processed by another researcher. The researcher did produce verbatim

transcripts of the interviews, and also performed multiple coding of the transcripts to mitigate the

risk of researcher bias. The rich data produced allowed the researcher to approach the content in

a number of ways. In order to limit these risks further, the researcher coded the data according to

the function of language (perlocutionary, illocutionary, and locutionary) to give the concepts a

strong theoretical foundation for future research to be conducted upon.

42

Further Study Recommendations

This study presented some initial conceptions of what edification might sound like as a

performative speech act, and was able to connect it to three functions based upon the literature

review: subordinate building, relationship building, and climate (culture) building. As these

functions are aligned with Sullivan’s (1988) Motivating Language Theory, they are well suited

for future scale development and testing. Researchers might be able to confirm that the use of

edification as an intentional and strategic speech act has important individual and/or

organizational outcomes.

Edification has been conceptualized as an intention that produces speech acts that are

consistent with the intention of building someone else up. When thought of in this way, the

concept conveys individualized consideration and leader support; it may serve to inform the

leadership research, particularly those disciplines such as transformational, developmental or

charismatic leadership. As such, researchers might be able to find leaders who have the intent to

edify others to examine how their speech acts might differ from their counterparts who do not

lean toward edification.

Edification also promotes personal improvement. Research has shown that sales

representatives that have a learning orientation can be more effective (Sujan, et al., 1994). This

might have wider organizational implications for those organizations wishing to pursue overall

Organization Development initiatives. For example, managers might be trained or incentivized

to help develop their employees. By presenting edification as a organizational initiative,

companies might be able to align their incentive plans and organizational structures to edify.

Conclusions

43

The philosophical basis of this study assumed that deliberate, intentional speech by a

sales manager had the ability to physically and logically change an organization because

leadership is enacted through communication. Edification was presented as an intent, that when

present, would provide the ability for a leader to “build” a subordinate when he or she speaks.

This construct, edification, was examined through the interviews present here, as well as through

literature that appeared to have common touch points. This study has drawn some interesting

parallels that future researchers may do well to build on.

Through this research, it has been determined that salespeople believe that edification is

something that they would desire to receive from their manager, whether it be from verbal

affirmation, constructive criticism, instructing, or just asking questions. In fact, this study was

able to show that edification has locutionary, perlocutionary, and illocutionary forces when used

in a sales environment. This means that edification can be used to build the subordinate, the

leader-subordinate relationship and the climate of an organization. While the premise of the

research seems very intuitive, sales representatives were not able to report many examples of

experiencing it. The few instances that were reported were transformational in nature.

Through this research, it is clear how many missed opportunities there are to strengthen

another individual through the words we use. This “building” or strengthening can be likened to

water running over a stone. The initial impact is does not change the stones appearance, but over

time, a groove is worn into the rock because the rock has changed from the pressure. Edification

may provide the same type of force for those we are entrusted to lead. While we wish we could

change workplace behavior with the authority of one word, it is our influence over time that will,

in fact, change the individual.

44

References

Achor, S. (2012). Positive Intelligence. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 90(1/2), 100-

102.

Aristotle (350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. Retrieved from:

http://classsics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html.

Atkins, M. (2004). For gain, for curiosity or for edification: Why do we teach and learn? Studies

In Christian Ethics, 17(1), 104-117.

Austin, J.L. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Beale, W. H. (1978). Rhetorical Performative Discourse: A New Theory of Epideictic.

Philosophy & Rhetoric, 11(4), 221-246..

Beckhard, R. (2006). What is Organization Development? In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Organization

Development – a Jossey-Bass Reader (pp. 365-384). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Benjamin, J. (1976). Performatives as a rhetorical construct. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 9(2), 84-95.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Blitzer, L.F. (1976). The rhetorical situation. In D. Ehninger (Ed.) Contemporary rhetoric.

Glenville: Illinois. Scott, Foresman and Company

Bryant, D.C. (1972). Rhetoric: Its function and scope. In Eds. Douglas Ehninger’s

Contemporary Rhetoric. Glenville: Illinois. Scott, Foresman and Company.

Campbell, P. (1973). A rhetorical view of locutionary, illocutionary, AND perlocutionary acts.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59(3), 284.

Campbell, J., Dunette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. & Weick, K.E. (1970). Managerial behavior,

performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

45

Chonko, L. B. (1986). Organizational Commitment in the Sales Force. Journal of Personal

Selling & Sales Management, 6(3), 19.

Clark, R. (2009). Pendleton, Franklin, Sommer, and Ketcherside: Mutual edification in our roots

to build up the body. Restoration Quarterly, 51(3), 151-168.

Creswell, JW. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational

climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management

Review, 21, 619–654.

Drought, M.C. (n.d.). The modern scholar, way with words, writing rhetoric and the art of

persuasion. Available from: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Scholar-Writing-Rhetoric-

ersuasion/dp/B001EBHFDY

edify. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from Dictionary.com

website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/edify

exhort. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from Dictionary.com

website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exhort

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: tow

evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication

of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 671-698.

Frost, P. (2004, January). Handling the hurt: A critical skill for leaders. Ivey Business Journal,

68(3), 1. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from Regional Business News database.

Gill, J. (2011). Exposition on Proverbs 4:23. Retrieved February 20, 2012 from

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/proverbs-4-

23.html.

Goleman, D. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of

results. Great Britain: Little, Brown.

Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hermann, A.F. (2008). Kierkegaard and Dialogue: The communication of capability.

Communication Theory, 18(1), 71-92.

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of

organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(4), 555-573.

46

Hunt, S.D., Chonko, L.B., and Wood, V.R. (1985). Organizational commitment and marketing.

Journal of Marketing (Winter), 112-126.

Ingram, T.N., Laforge, R.W., and Leigh, T.W. (2002). Selling in the new millennium; A joint

agenda, Industrial Marketing Management, 31(7). pp 1-9.

Ingram, T.N., Laforge, R.W., Locander, W.B., MacKenzie, S.B., and Podsakoff, P.M. (2005).

New directions in sales leadership research. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales

Management, (25)2, 137-154.

Jaworski, B.J. & Kohli, A.K. (1991). Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their impact

on salespeople’s performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (2).

190-201.

Joyce, W.F. Slocum, J.W. Jr., & Abelson (1977). A casual analysis of psychological climate and

leader behavior relationships. Journal of Business Research, 5, 261-273.

Kierkegaard, S.A. (1956). Purity of heart is to will one thing. (D. Steere, Trans.). New York,

NY: Harper. (Original Work published in 1847).

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic

leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal Of Applied Psychology,

81(1), 36-51.

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it.

San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge 4th

edition. San Francisco: John

Wiley & Sons.

Koys, D.J. & DeCotiis, T.A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human

Relations, 44 (3), 265-285.

Krafft, Manfred. 1999. An empirical investigation of the antecedents of sales force control

Systems. Journal of Marketing, 63 (3), 120-134.

Kvale, S. (1996) The social construction of validity. In Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Larkin, W. (2000). The recovery of Luke-Acts as "grand narrative" for the church's evangelistic

and edification tasks in a postmodern age. Journal of The Evangelical Theological

Society, 43(3), 405-415.

Martin, C.A. & Bush, A.J. (2006). Psychological climate, empowerment, leadership style, and

customer-oriented selling: An analysis of the sales manager-salesperson dyad. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Sciences. 34(3), 419-438.

47

Mathieu, J.E. & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A Review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,

and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 104 (2), 171-

194.

Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M., & Kopf, J. (1998). The effects of leader motivating language on

subordinate performance and satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 37(3/4), 235.

McGee, J. Vernon (1998). Thru the Bible: Commentary Volumes 1-5: Genesis through

Revelation. (Kindle Edition). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

Montegue, G. T. (2003). Edification (in the Bible). In New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed., Vol.

5, pp. 84-85). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved January 19, 2012 from,

http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.foley.gonzaga.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|CX3407703552&v

=2.1&u=gonzagaufoley&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w

Moore, W. (Ed.), & Feldman, A. (Ed.). (1960). Labor commitment and social change in

developing areas. Oxford, England: Social Science Research Council.

Morgan, G. (1996). Images of Organization. New International Edition. San Francisco: Sage

Publications.

Morrow, P.C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work

commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 486-500.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages. New

York: Academic Press.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Neufield, D. (2000). Acts of admonition and rebuke: A speech act approach to 1 Corinthians 6:

1-11. Biblical Interpretation, 8(4), 375-399.

Oliver, R.L., & Anderson, E. (1994). An empirical test of the consequences of behavior and

outcome-based sales control systems. Journal of Marketing 58(4), 53-67.

Oxford English Dictionary Online (2011). edification, n. Second edition, 1989; online version

September 2011. <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/59532>; accessed 25 November

2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1891.

Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

48

Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing

developmental and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 79, 37-61.

Reisinger, D. (1981). Edification lost-edification regained. Impact, 7(01), 26-39.

Riggio, R.E., Riggio, H.R., Salinas, C. & Cole, E.J. (2003). The role of social and emotional

communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory,

Research, and Practice, 7(2), 83-103.

Romans 14:19 (n.d.) in Blue Letter Bible’s online Bible King James Version. Retrieved 25

November 2011 from:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3619

Rothwell, J.D. (2013). In mixed company: Communicating in small groups. Boston, MA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge

University.

Sesonske, A. (1963). Performatives. The Journal of Philosophy, 62 (17), 459-468.

Sharbrough, W. (2006). Motivating Language in Industry. Journal of Business Communication,

43(4), 322-343. doi: 10.1177/0021943606291712.

Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: Facets, determinants, and impacts. Journal of

Marketing, 57(April), 11-31.

Singh, J., Verbekek, W., and Rhoads, G.K. (1996). Do organization practices matter in role stress

processes? A study of direct and moderating effects for marketing oriented boundary

spanners. Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 69-86.

Staw, B.M., Sutton, R.I., & Pelled, L.H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable

outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science 5(1), 51-71.

Stiles, W. B. (1981). Classification of intersubjective illocutionary acts. Language In Society,

10(2), 227-249. doi:10.23074167215

Sullivan, J. (1988). Three Roles of Language in Motivation Theory. Academy of Management

Review Vol. 12 (1). P. 104-115.

Vendler, Z. (1976). Illocutionary Suicide. In A. F. MacKay, D. D. Merrill (Eds.), Issues in the

philosophy of language: Proceedings of the 1972 Oberlin colloquium in philosophy (pp.

135-145). New Haven: Yale UP.

49

Voroniuc, A. A. (1977). CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS. Folia

Linguistica, 11(3/4), 361-375.

Walker, O.C., Jr., Churchill, G.A. Jr., and Ford, N.M. (1977). Motivation and performance in

industrial selling, present knowledge and needed research. Journal of Marketing

Research, 14(2), 156-168.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: a normative view. Academy of Management

Review, (7), 418-428.

Winterowd, W. (1976). The Rhetoric of Beneficence, Authority, Ethical Commitment, and the

Negative. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 9(2), 65-83.

Zoltners, Andris A., Prabhakant Sinha and Sally E. Lorimer (2008), “Sales Force Effectiveness:

A Framework for Researchers and Practitioners,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales

Management, 115-131.

50

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE

Edification – Definition and Context Have you heard of the term edification?

What does it mean?

Do you think you can communicate

edification?

What would it sound like?

Included term questions Is encouraging a component of edification?

Is affirming a part of edification?

Is empathizing with someone a component of

edification?

What are other components of edification?

Dyadic Contrast Can you tell me the difference between talking

to someone in an edifying way vs. some other

way?

Probing Do you think that it is important for someone

in a leadership position to edify those that they

lead?

Why or why not?

Should leaders be more intentional (careful)

about their communication?

If a leader was intentional about edifying his or

her team, what might the results be?

Is it possible to give someone negative

performance feedback in a way that edifies?

Example Can you give me an example of a conversation

that you had that was edifying?

51

What about in the Organizational Context?

Phenomenological How did the conversation make you feel?

Organizational Commitment Do you believe that language that edifies can

enhance organizational commitment?

Why or why Not?

52

APPENDIX B- SELECTIVE CODING SUBORDINATE BUILDING THEME

Interview 1 “An awareness, verbal compliment, or

acceptance of their abilities”

Interview 1 “Educating them on lessons learned,

sharing wisdom, and different levels of

trust from a management perspective”

Interview 1 “I edify you because of what I’ve witnessed

or experienced and guide you or help

encourage you to change in different ways

if it’s not in line with the business or the

ethics of the business or society you are

working in”

Interview 2 “Out of curiosity just to see where you can

find their happiness, their wisdom…”

Interview 2 “(Talking about) their work ethics, to get

them to reach their goals, not to stop there

to take it to another level that they were not

comfortable with.”

Interview 2 “Strengthen them in their weaknesses and

to show them the skill s and capabilities of

your leadership that they can take their

career path to the next level.”

Interview 2 “…in my mind’s eye I am seeing it almost

as validation. People like to be validated

and if they are validated as people by

authority figures it makes them feel

better…”

Interview 3 “Well, like they have confidence in you to

do whatever it is you’re going to do. They

brim it and it’s like not even a question.”

Interview 4 “my suspicion is that there are important

outcomes if you help salespeople by

building them up”

Interview 4 “Well before we talked about it I thought it

was more about gaining knowledge. ‘for

your edification,’ so I would have assumed

that it was kind of different”

Interview 5 “I work for you and edification is both

saying positive things and also challenging

them by bringing to their attention things

they could change within themselves before

a problem can manifest itself.”

APPENDIX C- SELECTIVE CODING RELATIONSHIP BUILDING THEME

53

Interview

1

“I think edification and respect go hand in hand”

Interview

1

“Yeah, you have to (edify) if you care. If you want to be a good leader, you have to

be trusted you have to be sincere. Because the first time someone sees you lied to

them, Guess what? You only get one chance…”

Interview

2

“Yes, it’s all about respect”

Interview

2`

“Yes, I saw this (edification) before and it is why I went back to work for the same

person more than once”

Interview

3

“I notice our manager when reps he really likes when they come into the office there

are different responses. His greeting and tone are different with the ones he really

likes. The way that you acknowledge people can promote positive edification.”

Interview

3

“…most good leaders have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of the people

that they lead. Really good leaders have emotional intelligence and it allows them to

pick up very quickly on what they are dealing with. It allows them to communicate

more effectively as they have more vision”

Interview

3

“I think you would find that people would run through brick walls for you because

they like you and they trust you…sometimes its not about giving a person a 20%

raise , often it’s those small things like edification that make them want to work for

you and run through brick walls”

Interview

4

“When you say, ‘I know you can do better,’ I think it conveys that you trust this

person that while they missed the mark of excellence you don’t make them feel

guilty… if they did how would you get them to want to run through a wall for you?

Interview

4

“There have always been these people who just make you feel better being around

them. And I think at some very base level these guys are just… you love being

around them.”

Interview

5

“(Edification) is selfless. To edify you help to build up that person and you don’t

want anything in return.”

54

APPENDIX D- SELECTIVE CODING CLIMATE BUILDING THEME

Interviewee 1 “You build up the person by proving

the successes of someone else”

(Interview 1)

Interview 2 “So, when my manager says, hey stop

by my office, I want to run something

by you because you’ve done this and I

value your opinion. When leaders do

things like this for employees it tends to

make employees feel more of a part of

the business relationship within a

company…”(Interview 2)

Interview 3 “it’s almost what do you call… it’s not

overt, it’s subliminal, because you are

doing it without anyone knowing about

it” (Interview 3).

Interview 4 “Yes, I think you’re doing it in a way

where they don’t really realize it’s

being done. I don’t know how you

could… you can’t just say I’m going to

build you up. You’ve got to coach…

Ra ra ra, next thing you know the guy

is running through walls.

Interview 5 “You don’t want that person to know

what you’re up to because it might turn

them off. You want to support that

person, encourage them and be positive

but you don’t want to make it obvious

because the person you’re edifying

might think, ‘I know what she is up to’”

55

APPENDIX E- CODING (OPPOSITE OF EDIFICATION)

Interview 1 By definition, face-to-face

discouragement, but intentional. If its

unintentional it’s ignorance.

Interview 2 Again I see it as validation. The

opposite would be no acknowledgement at

all.

Interview 3 I think it would be ignoring them or

being dictatorial and not acknowledging

what the person brought to the table.

Interview 4 Yeah, you are condescending,

belittling

Interview 4 Yeah absolutely so it would be the

opposite of attentive. Indifference is worse

than hate. Love and hate is close together

but once you get to indifference your done.

Interview 5 Damn , this (sales) pipeline is

terrible. I mean CMON fix it and walk

away vs. Marty look a there are some

things we need to fix. It’s a start but its not

where it needs to be.

56

APPENDIX F-INDIRECT NATURE OF SPEECH ACT

I think you can be edifying to someone

without them being aware of it. Treating

them with mutual respect, assuming that they

are delivering on what they committed to do.

I think you can edify them by giving them

more responsibility. Educating them on

lessons learned sharing wisdom and different

levels of trust from a management

standpoint.

Well there are different forms of

communication. It could be just an

acknowledgement of someone. I notice our

manager when reps he really likes when they

come into the office there are different

responses. His greeting and tone are different

with the ones he really likes. The way that

you acknowledge people can promote

positive edification

Yes. I think your doing it in a way where

they don’t really realize that it is being done.

I don’t know how you could…you can’t just

say I’m going to build you up…Ready set go.

You got a coach, Ra Ra Ra, next thing you

know the guy is running through walls.

That’s a classic example, locker room

speeches, Like, “win one for the Gipper…”

Not directly, no. Indirectly. I work for you and edification is both saying

positive things and also challenging a person

its both supporting them and also challenging

them bringing to their attention things they

could change in themselves before a problem

can manifest themselves. And its

multifaceted. You might edify your son in a

much different way than someone who

reports to you. You may edify your son

because you want him to be a good person. In

a work environment you don’t drill down that

deep because you are not related to that

57

person.