Verbal Strategies for Seeking Help in Organizations

Verbal Strategies for Seeking Help in Organizations'

FIONA LEE^ Univerdy of Michigan

The verbal strategies used to frame requests for help are integral to the help-seeking process. Drawing on politeness theory. it was predicted that gender, power, and norms affect usage of verbal strategies in seeking help, and verbal strategies predict interpersonal outcomes. Two studies showed that: (a) individuals used more strategies under collectivistic than individualistic norms; (b) under individualistic norms, men used more strategies when seeking help upward, and women used more strategies when seeking help laterally; and (c) those who used more strategies provided higher quality information, and were perceived more favorably by others. These results suggest that verbal strategies not only reflect important relational and contextual factors, but also serve multiple social functions.

Seeking help from others when problems arise is a highly adaptive behavior. Clinical psychologists have shown that patients' reluctance to seek help from professionals is a major obstacle to improving mental health (Ames & Lau, 1982; Gross & McMullen, 1983). Developmental psychologists regard help seeking as an important developmental milestone involving complex cognitive functions, such as defining a problem, identifying appropriate helpers, and developing behavioral strategies to seek help (Nelson-LeGall, 198 I). Educational psychologists have shown that students' help-seeking behaviors are predictive of academic performance (Karanbenick & Knapp, 1988; Newman, 1990). Similarly, help-seeking behaviors have been shown to predict performance in organizations. Individuals who actively seek help to address problems tend to be more satisfied, cope better with stress, have longer tenure, be perceived as leaders, be more suc- cessful in problem solving, learn new skills faster, build more interpersonal alli- ances, and have better performance evaluations (Ashford & Tsui, 1991; Blau, 1955; Morrison, 1993).

'This study was partially funded by the Knox Bequest from the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. I am grateful to J. Richard Hackman, who generously offered help. I thank David Bates, Jonathan Teich. Cynthia Spurr, Jennifer Schmiz, and Debbie Boyle for help in data gathering at the field site. Robert Rosenthal. Marcie Tyre, Richard Walton, Nalini Ambady, Amy Edmondson, Mark Hallahan. and Nancy Katz offered valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

?Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Fiona Lee, Depanment of Psy- chology, University of Michigan, 525 E. University. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1 109. e-mail: fionalee@ umich.edu.

1472

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999, 29, 7 , pp. 1472-1496 Copyright 0 1999 by V. H. Winston 8 Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

VERBAL STRATEGIES 1473

Although help-seeking behaviors have been of interest to psychologists for many years, there are several gaps in the literature. First, past research predominantly focused on how characteristics of the individual help seeker affect help- seeking behaviors. For example, there is extensive research examining how help- seeking behaviors are affected by the help seeker’s demographic characteristics, personality, motivations, or attitudes (e.g., DePaulo, Dull, Greenberg, & Swaim, 1989; Nadler, 1980; Nadler, Maler, & Friedman, 1984; Nadler, Mayseless, Peri, & Chemerinski, 1985). Comparatively, there is less research on how relational factors and social contexts affect help-seeking behaviors. This is an important omission. Help seeking necessarily occurs within relationships. To seek help, the help seeker must involve a potential help giver.3 The relationship between the help seeker and help giver is an important component of the help-seeking process (DePaulo & Fisher, 1980). Help-seeking behaviors also occur within a social context. For example, clinical patients seek help within a mental health system, students within a classroom setting, and organizational members within an organizational setting. These social settings not only provide important cues about the appropriateness of help seeking, but also information about useful strategies for seeking help.

Second, while past research has focused on the factors predicting whether individuals request help when problems arise, little attention has been paid to how individuals request help (Lee, 1998). Deciding whether to seek help reflects only the first step in the help-seeking process; after that, the help seeker still needs to make a series of decisions about how the request for help can be most effectively conveyed to the potential helper (Lee, 1993). Indeed. help seekers often expend considerable effort to communicate the request, using elaborate verbal strategies to couch requests for help (Holtgraves & Yang, 1990, 1992). Overall, the verbal strategies we use to frame requests for help are an important but underexamined component of help seeking.4 Further, there is little research on the effect of help-seeking verbal strategies on outcomes. The verbal strategies individuals use to ask for help can affect whether they receive appropriate help (Langer & Abelson, 1972), as well as the future working relationships between the help seeker and the helper (Goffman, 1957). The present paper addresses these gaps by examining the antecedents and outcomes of the verbal strategies individuals use to seek help. This paper proposes that verbal strategies serve important face-saving functions. As such, relational and social-contextual factors

3This aspect of help seeking differentiates it from other proactive behaviors such as feedback or information seeking. Seeking help requires the help seeker to initiate an interaction with the helper. In contrast, individuals can attain feedback and information by indirectly monitoring the environment (Ashford & Tsui, 1991; Morrison, 1993).

J lkrhcrl .vfrufegie.s refer to how requests are communicated through words. Verbal strategies may be communicated face to face, via written form, or by telephone (Ambady, Koo, Lee. & Rosenthal. 1996).

1474 FIONA LEE

affect the verbal strategies individuals use to seek help, and verbal strategies in turn predict critical interpersonal outcomes.

The Face-saving Functions of Verbal Strategies

According to Brown-Levinson ( 1987), “face” refers to one’s need to be favorably acknowledged by and free of impositions from others. As such, requests for help fundamentally threaten the prospective helper’s face because they are potential impositions on the helper’s time, effort. and resources (Brown, 1990; Brown & Levinson, 1987).5 Politeness theory suggests that help seekers, in response to the potential face threat that accompanies the request for help, couch the request with verbal strategies to preserve the helper’s face (Goffman, 1967; Hallahan, Lee, & Herzog, 1997; Holtgraves & Yang, 1990, 1992). For example, one verbal strategy help seekers might use is minimizing the request so that the imposition on the helper appears to be smaller. Thus, a request for help phrased as “I need a second of your time” is more face saving than a request phrased as “I need your time.” By minimizing the request, the help seeker implicitly expresses her inten- tions to lessen the face threat that accompanies the request for help.

Verbal strategies, therefore, serve a specific social function. In situations where another’s face is being threatened, as in help seeking, verbal strategies are used to redress and attenuate the potential face threat directed to the helper. According to politeness theory, as the potential face threat to the helper increases, more verbal strategies are used to couch or frame the request (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Specifically, politeness theory states that the extent to which verbal strategies are used to redress the face threat is affected by (a) the power relationship between the help seeker and the help giver, and (b) the social context in which the interaction takes place.

Effect of Power on Verbal Strategies

Use of verbal strategies is affected by relational factors, such as the power difference between the potential help giver and the help seeker (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Past research shows that more verbal strategies are used when requesting help from a helper with higher power rather than lower power compared to the help seeker (Brown & Gilman, 1989; Holtgraves & Yang, 1990, 1992). This makes sense, given that verbal strategies are tools for saving another person’s face. Impositions crcated by requests for help are more threatening when the helper has higher power because their time and resources are considered more valuable than lower power counterparts. Also, help seekers are more

‘Requesting help also threatens the help seeker’s face; the help seeker may appear incompetent and dependent by asking another for help (DePaulo & Fisher. 1980).


motivated to save the face of high-power helpers because they are more likely to control valued resources such as information, monetary awards, and promotions (French & Raven, 1968; Lee & Tyre, 1995).

There is recent evidence that the effect of power relations on the use of verbal strategies is different for men and women. Ambady et al. ( 1 996), Lee ( 1 993). and Steckler and Rosenthal(1985) found that when communicating face threats, men used more strategies when communicating to individuals with more power, but women used more strategies when communicating to individuals with equal power. Two explanations have been offered to explain these effects (Hodgins, Liebeskind, & Schwartz, 1996). One explanation builds on the idea that women are socialized to value closeness, other-orientation, and building relationships with others, while men are socialized to value power, one-upness. and superiority over others (Gilligan, 1982; Maltz & Borker, 1987; Nieva & Gutek, 198 1 ; Tannen, 1993). Men, therefore, focus their face-saving efforts upward and use more verbal strategies with powerful others, while women focus their face- saving efforts laterally and use more verbal strategies with close others. An alter- nate theory suggests that women behave differently, not because of their social- ization, but because of their lower status in organizations and in society in general (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977; Ibarra, 1992; Ridgeway & Deikema, 1991; Snodgrass, 1985). This structural view argues that because women have little access to the predominantly male power base in most social systems, they focus their face-saving efforts elsewhere toward equal-power peers.

In summary, there is past evidence that power relations affect verbal strategy usage. Specifically, men and women interpret or weigh power cues differently, and these differences affect how men and women use verbal strategies in power relationships (Ambady et al., 1996; Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Lee, 1993; Steckler & Rosenthal, 1985). Based on these findings, this study predicts that:

Hypothesis 1. Men use more verbal strategies when seeking help from high-power others than from low- or equal-power others, and women use more verbal strategies when seeking help from equal- power others than from high- or low-power others.

Effect of Norms on Verbal Strategies

Politeness theory posits that the social context determines the extent to which verbal strategies are used to couch requests for help (Brown & Levinson, 1987). While a request might be perceived as highly imposing in one context, the same request could be perceived as not imposing at all in another context (Ambady et al., 1996; Holtgraves & Yang, 1992). For example, requesting data and

1476 FIONA LEE

instruments from other researchers might be an established norm and common practice in some academic fields but not in others-thus, the size of the imposition associated with requesting information from a fellow researcher might differ in different fields.

Norms, therefore, play an important role in determining the level of face threat inherent in the request for help and, in turn, the use of verbal strategies to redress the threat. The present paper focuses specifically on how norms of individualism versus collectivism affect strategy use. Past research has shown that use of verbal strategies differs between individualistic and collectivistic settings. For example, Ambady et al. (1996) and Holtgraves and Yang (1992) found that individuals in collective settings tend to place more weight on relational factors (such as power) to determine strategy use, while individuals in individualistic settings place more weight on contextual factors (such as the size of the face threat) to determine strategy use.

It makes sense that individualistic and collectivistic norms have a direct bear- ing on face-saving dynamics. Individualistic norms are characterized by an emphasis on independence. Individuals are seen as isolated from others, and individual identities are reinforced by differentiating the self from other people, standing out, and essentially “one-upping’’ others. Merit is based on individual effort, individual contribution to an outcome, and how an individual’s performance is compared to others. Under individualistic norms, individuals are less likely to be sensitive to another person’s face and wants, and less motivated to redress another person’s face. In contrast, collectivistic norms emphasize interdependence between people. Individuals are seen as inextricably tied to one another, and individual identities are defined by one’s relationship to others. Indi- viduals are motivated to minimize differences between themselves and others to “fit in.” Individual performance is less important than the performance of a team or a group. In other words, collectivistic norms encourage other-orientedness, consideration of another person’s face and wants, empathy, and concern for others (Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Markus & Kitayama, 199 1 ; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Triandis, 1989). Because of the increased emphasis on saving others’ face within collectivistic norms, it is predicted that:

Hypothesis 2 . More verbal strategies will be used to seek help under collectivistic norms than under individualistic norms.

Relationship Between Verbal Strategies and Interpersonal Outcomes

The verbal strategies used to couch requests affect relational outcomes and overall communication effectiveness (Langer & Abelson, 1972). Since verbal strategies are used to save another person’s face, they act as a signal that the help seeker is concerned about the help giver’s face and cares about the help giver.


This should lead the help giver to be more favorably disposed toward the help seeker. Thus, using verbal strategies to couch a request should relate to the help giver having more favorable impressions of the help seeker, leading to a more positive future relationship between the help giver and the help seeker (Goffman, 1967). It is therefore predicted that:

Hypothesis 3. Use of verbal strategies during help seeking will be positively related to favorable impressions of the help seeker.

Further, the amount of verbal strategies used could affect the quality of the message communicated to others. Besides saving face, verbal strategies carry useful information for interpreting the meaning of everyday interpersonal discourse. Verbal strategies provide important information about the request itself. For example, some verbal strategies (such as minimizing the imposition) are well-understood verbal conventions which can be used to signal to the helper that a request is being communicated. Or, if one asks for help by using an inap- propriately excessive number of verbal strategies, the potential help giver might use that information to deduce that the request must be highly imposing (Brown & Gilman, 1989). In other words, verbal strategies can be tools for exchanging useful information about the nature of the request. It is therefore predicted that:

Hypothesis 4. The use of verbal strategies during help seeking will be positively related to the quality of the information communicated in the request.

Study 1

Method

Participants

Participants include 53 undergraduate students (22 men, 3 1 women; A4 age =

20 years) from a large university on the East Coast. Study participants were recruited through a posted sign-up sheet describing an experiment in which the top 10 performers would each receive $1 00.

Procedure

Each participant was tested individually by an experimenter who was blind to the research hypotheses. Participants were told that they had to work together with another same-gender participant, who was actually a confederate.

1478 FIONA LEE

Participants and their partners had to work in different rooms, but could communicate with one another by writing notes. The experimental task involved jointly developing a downsizing plan for a fictitious company.

Participants were randomly assigned to either the individualistic or collectivistic norm conditions. Chatman and Barsade ( 1995) manipulated individualistic/ collectivistic norms by varying the degree to which outcomes were based on individual or team effort; for example, in the individualistic norm condition, a reward was given to an individual for outstanding performance, whereas in the collectivistic norm condition, the same reward was given to a work team. The present study also manipulated individualistic/collectivistic norms based on whether important outcomes were based on individual or collective effort. In the individualistic norm condition, participants were told that individuals with the best performance, regardless of their partners’ performance, would each receive $100. Participants were also told that the experimenters could isolate their individual work and evaluate it independently from their partners‘ work. In the collectivistic norm condition, participants were told that members of the participantipartner teams with the best performance would each receive $100. Participants were also told that the experimenters could not isolate individual performance and could only evaluate their work as a team.

Participants were then randomly assigned to three power conditions (participant in high power, equal power, or low power relative to the partner). Power was manipulated by changing various bases of power (French & Raven, 1968; Lee, 1993, 1998). First, participants and their partners were given different status labels (such as “supervisor,” “peer,” or “subordinate”), based on the power condition. Second. the experimenter told participants that power assignments were made based on prior working experience, creating the impression that power assignments were merit-based rather than random. Third, the experimenter divided up the information needed to complete the downsizing task between the participant and the partner, such that the high-power individual was always given more pieces of information, as well as the more important pieces of information.

In the first half of the experiment, the participants and their partners were left to work on the downsizing task. Halfway through the experimental task, participants were presented with a subtask containing a difficult problem related to the downsizing task. The problem entailed calculating the net present value of employee retirement packages-this task was considered extremely difficult and time consuming (Results of Study I ) . When the participant requested help from the partner, the note on which the request was written was collected.6 Then, the experiment was ended and the participant was debriefed.

O f t h e 153 participants who went through this procedure, 53 sought help from their partners. Only the 53 participants who sought help are included in this study.


Coding of Dependent Variables

The notes which the participants wrote to request help were coded. The fol- lowing dimensions were coded: strategies used, quality of message, and impressions of the help seeker.

Straregies used. Distinct verbal strategies used to couch requests for help were identified. First, a coder who was blind to the experimental hypotheses read through the help-seeking notes and developed a list of help-seeking strategies. This procedure resulted in 14 specific verbal strategies used for couching requests for h e l p b e humorous; admit own incompetence; be deferential; lower expectations that help will be given/be pessimistic; use endearing address; give reasons for seeking help/appeal to task; minimize the size of the request; compliment other; intensify other’s interedappeal to rewards; be considerate of other’s time and other constraints; incur a debt to other/promise to repay the favor; apologize to other; assert common ground/appeal to being on the same “team”; and hedgelinject uncertainty and indirectness.’

Second, three different coders rated, on a 9-point Likert-scale, the extent to which each of the 14 verbal strategies was used in each note (for all coding scales, higher numbers indicate higher levels of the variable). The intercoder reliability was .79.8 A principal components analysis of these ratings produced a satisfactory three-factor solution, illustrated in Table 1 .9 The three factors include: (a) other-enhancing strategies, or strategies which elevated the helper or abased the help seeker; (b) minimizing strategies, or strategies which reduced the imposition of the request; and (c) task-orienting strategies, or strategies which oriented the helper’s attention toward the task at hand. Based on these results, three composite strategy variables were formed.

Outcomes. Three different coders read the notes and rated them on the fol- lowing dimensions using a 9-point Likert scale: whether the request (a) contained

’Brown and Levinson ( 1987) arranged different verbal strategies hierarchically, such that the level of strategy use was measured by the type of strategy used. However, recent research has provided equivocal support for this hierarchy (Craig, Tracy, & Spisak, 1986; Lim & Bowers. 1991; Scollon & Scollon, 1983). Brown and Gilman (1989). Ambady et al. (1996), and Lee (1993) measured the extent to which different strategies were used, and found that this provided a valid and reli- able method of measuring strategy use.

glntercoder reliability was measured using the Spearman-Brown formula for effective reliability (Guilford, 1954; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1992; Walker & Lev, 1953). It is interpreted like Cronbach’s alpha and Kuder and Richardson’s K-R 20.

9Principal components analyses were first conducted on the strategy ratings for Study I and Study 2 separately; the solutions were highly similar. To facilitate comparison between the two studies, a single principal components analysis was conducted on the combined ratings from both studies. A step-up-by-one procedure with varimax rotation was used; this procedure begins by examining a one-factor solution, and increasing the number of factors one at a time until a theoretically interpret- able solution emerges.

1480 FIONA LEE

Table 1

Principal Components Analysis of Strategy Ratings: Factor Loadings for Three- Factor Solution

Verbal strategy Other-enhancing Minimizing Task-orienting

Considerate .88 .25 .08 Deferential .86 .24 .05 Incur debt .82 .2 1 .08 Apologize .60 .09 .07 Compliment .58 .07 -.08 Admit incompetence .54 .07 .06 Endearing .48 .05 .09 Humor .43 .03 .12 Minimize .34 .66 -.o 1 Hedge .04 .65 .06 Low expectations .I5 .44 -.04 Intensify interest .13 .09 .81 Give reasons .28 .I9 .62 Common ground .38 . I7 .42

Note. Italicized loadings indicate the factor structure assigned to each strategy.

useful background information, (b) contained specific information about the problem, (c) contained accurate information, (d) was informative, and (e) was clear. The intercoder reliability of these ratings was .92. A principal components analysis of these ratings produced a satisfactory two-factor solution. The factor loadings are illustrated in Table 2. The first factor was related to the informative value of the message, and the second factor was related to the clarity of the message. Two composite variables were created, based on these results.

These coders also rated their impressions of the help seeker. Coders were instructed to take the perspective of the recipient of the help-seeking note, and were asked about their impressions of the author of the note. Coders first rated each author on several traits (Table 2). The intercoder reliability for these trait ratings was 3 1 . A principal components analysis produced a satisfactory two- factor solution. The factor loadings are listed in Table 2. The first factor was related to impressions of competence, and the second factor was related to impressions of likability. Two composite variables were created. Coders also rated the help seeker’s desirability as a colleague by indicating whether they would like to work with the author on an important task.


Table 2

Principal Components Analysis of Message and Relationship Qualiw: Factor Loadings

Message quality Relationship quality

Informative Clarity of Variables value request Competence Likability

Background information .91 .18

Informative .86 .17 Accurate Clear

.58 .48

.40 .76 Specific .oo .62

Knowledgeable .PO .24 Confident Resourcefd Competent Submissive Stupid Dependent Warm

.90 -.13

.89 .19

.88 .26 -. 78 .35 -. 48 -.o 1 -.41 -.04 -.34 .77

Other-oriented -.oo .76 Introverted -.oo -. 68 Unlikable -.25 -. 53 Note. Italicized loadings indicate the factor structure assigned to each variable.

Results

Manipulation Checks

A questionnaire containing manipulation checks was presented to 12 participants, one for each experimental condition. These participants rated on a 9-point Likert scale: (a) perceived difficulty of the net present value task, (b) perceived power they had over their partners, and (c) perceived dependence on their partners for the reward. Participants rated the net present value task as highly difficult (M = 8.0 out of 9). Participants who were assigned the high-power role felt that they had more power over their partners (M = 7.2), than did those who were

1482 FIONA LEE

assigned low-power roles ( M = 2.3) or equal-power roles ( M = 5.2). Participants in the collectivistic norm condition felt more dependent on their partners ( M =

7.1) than did participants in the individualistic norm condition ( M = 3.9). Owing to the overall length of the experiment, these manipulation-check items were presented only to the first 12 participants and not to all participants.

Hypothesis Testing

A 2 x 3 x 2 (Gender x Power x Norm) ANOVA was performed, with the three strategy composites (other-enhancing, minimizing, task-orienting) as dependent variables.10 Hypothesis 1 predicted that men would use more strategies in low- power conditions (request is directed upward), and women would use more strategies in equal-power conditions (request is directed laterally). However, a contrast to test the hypothesized Gender x Power interaction was not significant for other-enhancing strategies, F( I , 36) = 1.53, p = .23, r = .20; minimizing strategies, F( I , 36) = 1.02, p = .32, r = .17; or task-orienting strategies. F( I , 36) =

1.15, p = .29, r = . I 8 (see Appendix for contrast weights). Examination of the means reveals that the Gender x Power interaction was

different in individualistic and collectivistic norm conditions. As Figure 1 shows, under individualistic norms, men used more strategies when seeking help in low power conditions, and women used more strategies when seehing help in equal power conditions. This is consistent with the trend predicted in Hypothesis 1. However, the same Gender x Power interaction was not apparent under collectivistic norms. A post-hoc contrast to test the trend that Hypothesis 1 was only supported under individualistic norms was significant for other- enhancing strategies, F( 1, 36) = 5.04, p = .03, I' = .35; minimizing strategies, F( I , 36) = 4.42, p = .04, r = .34; and task-orienting strategies, F( 1, 36) = 4.27, p = .05, r = .33 (see Appendix for contrast weights).

It was also hypothesized that more strategies would be used under collectivistic norms than under individualistic norms (Hypothesis 2 ) . The results support this hypothesis. Help seekers used more other-enhancing strategies, F( I , 36) =

1 2 . 9 8 , ~ = .OOl , r = .51; minimizing strategies, F(1, 36) = 5 . 8 3 , ~ = .02, r = .37; and task-orienting strategies, F( I , 36) = 11.23, p = .002, r = .49, under collectivistic norms than under individualistic norms.

It was predicted that strategy use would be positively related to impressions of the help seeker (Hypothesis 3) and the quality of the message (Hypothesis 4). Correlations between the three types of strategies and these outcome measures are shown in Table 3. Other-enhancing, minimizing, and task-orienting strategies were not significantly related to impressions of competence, but were positively related to likability and desirability as a colleague. None of the strategies were

'OAn unweighted means ANOVA was used because of unequal cell sizes.


Iiidividunlislic Nnrms Collectivistic Nnrnis

Strategy usage Other-enhancing strategies Other-enhancing strategies

4 0 0 + 4.00 +

Low Equal High Low Equal High

Minimizing strategies 400 t Minimizing strategies

4.00 t 3 0 0

2 50

Women I 50 Men 1 %


Task-orienting strategies Task-orienting strategies

400

3 50

300

2 50

2 0 0

I .SO

400

3 50

300

2 50

2 0 0

I 50

t t,


Power condition Power condition

Figure I . Mean strategy usage for men and women in low-, equal-, and high-power conditions-Study 1 . Power condition refers to the power of the participant; for example if the participant is in a low-power condition, the helper is in a relatively higher power.

1484 FlONA LEE

Table 3

Correlations Between Strategy Usage and Interpersonal Outcomes

Other-enhancing Minimizing Task-orienting

Study 1 ( n = 53)

Message quality Informative value .28* .2 1 .50*** Clarity .10 .17 -.06

Relationship quality Competence -.07 . I I . I2

Desirability .51*** .38** .59*** Likability .70*** .44*** .69***

Study 2 ( n = 165)

Message quality Informative value .39*** .42*** .73*** C I arity .09 .05 -.02

Competence -.09 .09 .43*** Likability .77*** .39*** .59***

Relationship quality

Desirability .53*** .58*** .42*** * p < .05. **p < .Ol. ***p < ,005.

significantly related to clarity of the message, but other-enhancing and task- orienting strategies were positively related to the informative value of the message. Overall, there was partial support for both Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Discussion

Several findings emerged from Study 1. First, the experimental evidence showed that power and norms affected strategy usage. Participants used more strategies to request help under collectivistic norms than under individualistic norms. Men used more strategies when seeking help in low-power conditions, and women used more strategies when seeking help in equal-power conditions, but only under individualistic norms. Second, the results show that strategies predicted interpersonal outcomes; other-enhancing and task-orienting strategies were positively correlated with the informative value of the message, and all


three strategies positively predicted impressions of likability and desirability as a colleague.

Overall, support for the hypotheses was mixed. Several problems in the design of Study 1 might have contributed to these results. There were questions about whether the power and norm manipulations really worked; because of time constraints, the manipulation-check items were only administered to 12 participants rather than all of the participants, and statistical tests could not be performed on the manipulation check data because of the small sample. Indeed, although the experimental procedures emphasized creating a “realistic” hierarchy within the laboratory, questions remained about whether the laboratory conditions mirrored realistic work settings. For example, although the participant and the partner worked on the downsizing task before the introduction of the “difficult’’ problem, this was still far from adequate in establishing a working relationship analogous to those found in organizational settings. Also, despite the fact that high-power individuals were given more legitimate and informational power, participants were well aware that they were in an experimental setting, and that the high-power individual did not have “real” power over meaningful and critical resources. Further, the downsizing task, though challenging and tied to rewards, was nevertheless an experimenter-concocted task which might not have been meaningful to the participants. Finally, although there was precedent for manipu- lating individualistic and collectivistic norms by changing reward interdependencies (Chatman & Barsade, 1995), norms differ on many other characteristics. In light of these weaknesses in Study 1, a field study was conducted. The field offers a setting where relationships, norms, and tasks are more sustained, rich, and meaningful to the participants.

Study 2

Method

Procedure

The site of the field study was a large urban hospital on the East Coast which recently introduced a new computer system into the workplace. This computer system was used for entering orders for medications, tests, and other patient-care instructions (Lee, Teich, Spun; & Bates, 1996). This system had an on-line help function where users could directly type in electronic messages to request help from system support personnel. These on-line help messages were collected over a 9-month period which followed the implementation of the system. A total of 365 notes was collected. Of the 365 notes, 56% (204) were written by men and 44% (161) were written by women; 57% (205) were generated by physicians, 35% ( I 27) by nurses, and 9% (33) by secretaries; and 59% (2 15) were generated

1486 FIONA LEE

by individuals in the medical department, and 41% ( 1 50) were generated by individuals in the surgical department.

Power

Power relations were inferred from the hierarchical position of the author of each note. The system was used mostly by physicians, nurses, and secretaries. Each user group had clearly differentiated levels of power within the organizational hierarchy; relatively, physicians had the most power, nurses had moderate power, and secretaries had the least power. System support personnel (prospective helpers) were in the same level of the organizational hierarchy as were nurses; thus, relative to the prospective helpers, physicians had higher power, nurses had equal power, and secretaries/clerks had lower power.

Norms

Differences existed between the work design and norms of the surgical and medical departments, which closely mirrored the difference between individualistic and collectivistic norms. Specifically, there was less interdependence between individuals for patient-care-related activities in surgical than medical departments. Previous ethnographic studies of hospitals have found that, although patient care in surgical departments still demanded considerable teamwork, work procedures were tightly controlled and roles were clearly differentiated, such that little informal interaction was needed between patient-care providers (Berwick, Godfrey, & Roessner, 1990; Mercadier, 1985). In contrast, individuals in medical departments tended to maintain closer working relations with each other, and relied more heavily on constant and informal interactions among themselves to exchange information and obtain advice from each other (Bosk, 1979; Edmond- son, 1996; Payer, 1988). In short, norms in medical departments were more collectivistic, and norms in surgical departments were more individualistic.

Coding

All identifying information was deleted from the notes that users wrote to system support personnel, and the notes were coded by raters who were blind to the research questions. The coding methodology was identical to that used in Study 1 . Three main variables were rated: (a) strategies used to ask for help (intercoder reliability = .72); (b) informative value of the message (intercoder reliability = 34); and (c) the rater’s impression of the help seeker (intercoder reliability = .79). To ensure independence of observations, ratings from the notes written by the same individuals were averaged to form a single sampling unit. Overall, there was a total of 165 sampling units.


Results

Based on the combined principal components analysis (Footnote 9), three strategy variables were generated-ther-enhancing strategies, minimizing strategies, and task-orienting strategies. A 2 x 3 x 2 (Gender x Power x Norms) ANOVA was performed, with the three strategy variables as dependent variables.

I t was hypothesized that men would use more verbal strategies in low-power conditions, and that women would use more verbal strategies in equal-power conditions (Hypothesis I). Similar to the results of Study 1, Study 2 found the predicted Gender x Power interaction only under individualistic norms. As Fig- ure 2 shows, in surgery departments (individualistic norms), men in low-power conditions (secretaries) used more strategies, while women in equal-power conditions (nurses) used more strategies. But in medical departments (collectivistic norms), this trend was not apparent. A contrast to test this trend (see Appendix for contrast weights) was significant for other-enhancing strategies, F( 1, 154) =

4 . 1 9 , ~ = .04, r = .16; minimizing strategies, F( 1, 154) = 4 . 9 3 , ~ = .03, r = .18; and task-orienting strategies, F( 1, 154) = 6.22, p = .01, r = .20.

The ANOVA further showed that individuals in medical departments used more strategies when requesting help than did those in surgical departments. This was true for other-enhancing strategies, F( 1, 154) = 4.55, p = .03, r = .17; minimizing strategies, F( 1, 154) = 6.21, p = .01, r = .20; and task-orienting strategies, F( I , 154) = 4.97, p = .03, r = .18. Similar to Study 1, these results support Hypothesis 2.

Table 3 shows the correlations between the three strategy variables and the outcome measures. Task-orienting strategies were positively predictive of impressions of competence, likability, and desirability as a colleague. Other- enhancing and minimizing strategies were positively predictive of impressions of likability and desirability as a colleague. These results generally support Hypoth- esis 3. Like Study 1, the three strategy variables were not significantly correlated with message clarity, but were positively correlated with informative value of the message. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.

General Discussion

Although the laboratory and field studies used very different methodologies, the results were strikingly similar. Supporting initial predictions, both studies revealed that more verbal strategies were used to seek help under collectivistic norms than under individualistic norms. Also as predicted, both studies found that use of verbal strategies was positively related to impressions of likability, desirability as a colleague, and informative value of the message. The two studies also revealed surprising findings. Both studies showed that the predicted Gender x Power interaction occurred only under individualistic norms. Both

1488 FIONA LEE

Surgical Departments (Individualistic Norms) Medical Deparfrnenfs (Collecfivistic Norms)

Strategy Othersnhancing strategies w g e

4.00 t 3 50

300

2 50

200

I50

1 Men

Women

Low Equal High

Other-enhancing strategies

4'00 3 50 1 Women Men

200

1.50 1 . Low Equal High

Minimizing strategies Minimizing strategies

4 w

300

2 50

200 200

Women Men

1.50 -+ Low Equal High Low Equal High

Task-orienting strategies Task-orienting strategies

Women

300

2 50 Women

200 200

150 Low Equal High Low Equal High

Power condition Power condition

Figure 2. Mean strategy usage for men and women in low-. moderate-, and high-power conditions-Study 2. Power condition refers to the power of the help seeker (user) relative to the helper (system support personnel). Thus. physicians are considered high power relative to system support personnel; nurses are equal power, relative to system support personnel; and secretaries and clerks are low power. relative to system support personnel.


studies also found that verbal strategies were not predictive of the clarity of the message.

Gender; Power; and Norms

Past research has shown that men used the most strategies when communicating upward, while women used the most strategies when communicating laterally (Ambady et al., 1996; Lee, 1993; Steckler & Rosenthal, 1985). The present study found that this trend was apparent only under individualistic norms. One possible explanation for this effect is that individualistic and collectivistic norms differen- tially emphasize power and status differences between individuals. Under individualistic norms, people want t o “stand out,” and differences between individuals are emphasized (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Conversely, under collectivistic norms, people want to maintain close relationships with others, and to that end, differences between people are minimized (Hallahan et al., 1997). Indeed, there is evidence supporting the idea that power is accentuated under individualistic norms and diminished under collectivistic norms. Holtgraves and Yang (1 992) found that, given the same objective relational differences, individuals from individualistic cultures tended to perceive greater relational differences than did those from collectivistic cultures.

Although the Gender x Power x Norm interaction was not hypothesized, this pattern of findings does not necessarily contradict past research. Previous studies which have shown the Gender x Power interaction were all done in the laboratory (Lee, 1993; Steckler & Rosenthal, 1985). Norms within laboratory settings are typically individualistic; participants usually have to perform tasks alone. Fur- ther, absent the explicit manipulation of norms, subjects tend to assume individualistic values because of the overwhelming emphasis on individualism in Western society (Lee, Hallahan, & Herzog, 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Thus, one might argue that past research has consistently shown the Gender x Power interaction because these studies only examined help-seeking behaviors under individualistic norms. By examining the Gender x Power interaction under different norms, the present results show that norms moderated this effect.

Functions of Verbal Strategies

Much of the literature on verbal strategies in interpersonal communication stresses the idea that strategies are tools to save another person’s face (Brown & Gilman, 1989; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1957; Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Lee, 1993). The current results suggest that strategies may have other functions beyond saving face. For example, verbal strategies might be useful for impression management purposes. The present results show that individuals who used more strategies to couch their requests were perceived as more likable and

1490 FlONA LEE

desirable as colleagues, though not necessarily more competent. This makes sense; when the help seeker expends obvious effort to redress the helper’s face through extensive and elaborate verbal strategies, i t reflects the help seeker’s consideration for the helper’s needs and wants. This makes the help seeker appear more likable and desirable as a colleague. The consistent and strong positive correlations between strategy use and impression outcomes show that verbal strategies can be used to actively and strategically construct a favorable public image for oneself (Morrison & Bies, 1991).

Verbal strategies might also be useful for providing relevant and important information. Some have argued that verbal strategies attenuate the quality of the message. For example, Brown and Levinson (1987) posit that high levels of strategy use are related to indirectness, ambiguity, and information omission. How- ever, the present results show that strategy use was positively correlated with informative value of the message, This makes sense, given a closer examination of the verbal strategies. Task-orienting verbal strategies may be valuable for providing the help giver with relevant information about the task or problem at hand. Minimizing strategies are commonly used in requests and, as such, signal to the help giver that a request is being made. Also, the extent to which strategies are used provides useful information to the helper about the potential imposition of the request.

Overall, it appears that verbal strategies have multiple functions besides saving face. Verbal strategies can be used as tools for impression management and for communicating relevant and useful information, To understand the way individuals use verbal strategies in everyday interactions, researchers must take into account these various functions. For example, one might predict that when it is particularly important to transmit information accurately-for example, when the speaker is being held publicly accountable by others (Tetlock, 1985) or when the speaker is highly motivated to achieve accuracy goals (Ford & Kruglanski, 1 9 9 5 k m o r e verbal strategies might be used to increase the quality and informative value of the message. Or, one might predict that under conditions where impression-management goals are salient-for example, when trying to gain acceptance by referent groups-more verbal strategies would be used to promote likability and other positive impressions of the speaker.

Implications for Future Research

Efects of Power and Norms: Underlying Mechanisms

There are important methodological differences in the operationalization of key variables between Studies 1 and 2 . In Study 1, the help seeker and helper was collaborators on the same task. In Study 2, the help seeker and helper did not have an ongoing working relationship. Indeed, the helpers in Study 2 (the system


support personnel) were "dedicated" helpers and had no role in the organization except to offer help to the users. The fact that helpers and help seekers in Study 2 did not have an ongoing working relationship might affect the dynamics of the power relationshipthe helper might be at a higher level in the organizational hierarchy than the help seeker, but might not control any relevant resources or information which could affect the help seeker's day-to-day work. Similarly, the operationalization of norms was different in the two studies: Study 1 manipulated interdependencies for rewards, while Study 2 examined interdependencies for information and advice in everyday work practices. These differences in the operationalization of key variables raise questions about whether Studies 1 and 2 were indeed examining the same underlying constructs.

However, the results of Studies 1 and 2 were highly consistent with one another. This suggests that, despite the differences, similarities in the operational- izations between the two studies might have powerfully influenced use of verbal strategies in help seeking. For example, different kinds of interdependence (for rewards, bonuses, information, advice) might have similar effects on verbal strategy use. Future research is needed to examine the underlying psychological mechanisms that affect how power and norms affect help-seeking strategies. Also in Study 2 , power was inferred from hierarchical level and norms inferred from departmental affiliation. Future research should examine whether relevant power and norm differences were indeed perceived and experienced by the help seekers.

Qpe of Verbal Strategy Used

The present studies found that help seekers used three main verbal strategies to seek helpother-enhancing, minimizing, and task-orienting strategies. Simi- lar typologies of strategies have been found in research investigating other face- threatening communicative behaviors. In a study on the communication of bad news, Lee ( 1 993) found that communicators couched bad news by enhancing the listener, minimizing the bad news, and orienting the listener toward the task. This typology of strategies provide a slightly different perspective from politeness theory, which outlines two types of strategies for couching face threats: positive strategies that enhance the other's face, and negative strategies that minimize the face threat (Brown & Levinson, 1987)." Positive and negative strategies are similar to other-enhancing and minimizing strategies, respectively; but the present studies also found a third type of strategy, task-orienting strategies. Task- orienting strategies are perhaps used in specific types of situations; in the present studies, participants were communicating to each other within a task or work setting. In contrast, Brown and Levinson's research focused almost exclusively on

"Politeness theory also describes a third type of verbal strategy-off-the-record strategies that indirectly communicate the face threat.

1492 FlONA LEE

social, nonwork-related interactions. Thus, it is reasonable that within task or work settings, task-orienting strategies would be used to couch face threats.

The present studies also found highly consistent trends between the three types of strategies. Gender, power, and norms affected the use of all three strategies in a similar fashion, and the three strategies had largely similar effects on outcomes. It appears that help seekers did not differentiate between other-enhancing, minimizing, or task-orienting strategies. This is surprising. At face value, the three strategies perform very different functions; other-enhancing strategies are directed at the helper, minimizing strategies are directed at the request, and task-orienting strategies are directed at the task. One might expect different strategies to be used at different times. For example, other-enhancing strategies might be used to generate impressions of likability, while task-orienting strategies might be used to generate impressions of task competence. Indeed, past research has shown that in certain conditions, communicators do differentiate between strategies (Ambady et al., 1996). Future research is needed to examine the conditions in which the use of different strategies diverges rather than converges.

References

Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R. ( 1996). More than words: Univer- sals of linguistic and nonlinguistic communication of politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,996-101 l .

Ames, R., & Lau, S. (1982). An attributional analysis of help-seeking in academic settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,4 14-423.

Ashford, S., & Tsui, A. (1991). Self regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 25 1 - 280.

Berger, J., Fisek, M., Norman, R., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York, NY Elsevier.

Berwick, D., Godfrey, A., & Roessner, J. (1990). Curing health care: New strategies for qualily improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Blau, P. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal relationships in two government agencies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bosk, C. (1 979). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago, 1L: University of Chicago Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York, N Y Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R. (1 990). Politeness theory: Exemplar and exemplary. In I. Rock (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. 23-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory in Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Sociely, 18, 159-2 12.


Chatman, J., & Barsade, S. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and coop- eration: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Qziar- terb, 40, 423-443.

Craig, R., Tracy, C., & Spisak, F. (1 986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12,437-468.

DePaulo, B., Dull, W., Greenberg, J., & Swaim, G. (1989). Are shy people reluc- tant to ask for help? Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog)., 56, 834- 844.

DePaulo, B., & Fisher, J . ( 1 980). The cost of asking for help. Basic and Applied SociaI Psychology, 1, 23-35.

Edmondson, A. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32,5-28.

Ford, T., & Kruglanski, A. (1995). Effects of epistemic motivation on the use of accessible constructs in social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,950-962.

French, J. , & Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259-269). New York, N Y Harper & Row.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a difSerent voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goffman, E. ( 1 957). The preseniation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1 967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, N Y Doubleday.

Gross, A., & McMullen, P. (1983). Models of help seeking process. In B. DePaulo, A. Nadler, & J. Fisher (Eds.), New directions in helping (Vol. 2, pp. 47-72). New York, N Y Academic.

Guilford, J. (1954). Psychometric measures. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Hallahan, M., Lee, F., & Herzog, T. (1997). It’s not just whether you win or

lose, it’s also where you play the game: A naturalistic, cross-cultural examination of the positivity bias. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 28,

Hodgins, H., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross cultural percep- tion of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal o f f e r - sonality and Social Psychologv, 59,7 19-729.

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J . (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,246-256.

768-778.

OQ, 71,300-315.

1494 FIONA LEE

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Qimr.terly,

Karanbenick, S., & Knapp, J. (1988). Help seeking and the need for academic assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 406-408.

Langer, E., & Abelson, R. (1972). The semantics of asking a favor: How to succeed without really dying. Jozrrnal of Personality and Social Psychologv, 24,16-32.

Lee, F. (1993). Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is communicated in organizational hierarchies. Joirrnal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,

Lee, F. (1998). When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 1-28.

Lee, F., Hallahan, M., & Herzog, T. (1996). Explaining real life events: How culture and domain shape attributions. Personalit)> and Social Psychology Birlle- tin. 22, 731-741.

Lee, F., Teich, J., Spurr, C., & Bates, D. (1996). Implementation of physician order entry: User satisfaction and usage patterns. Joirrnal of American Medi- cal informatics Association. 3,42-55.

Lee, F., & Tyre, M. (1995, August). Learning through proactive help seeking: When new technologies are introdtrced in the workplnce. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meetings, Vancouver, Canada.

Lim. T., & Bowers, J. (1991). Facework, solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 11.4 15-450.

Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1987). A cultural approach to male-female miscommu- nication. In J. J . Gumperz (Ed.), Language andsocial identit-v (pp. 195-216). New York, NY Cambridge University Press.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Mercadier, M. ( 1985). Surgery; an international discipline. Ainericun Joiir-nu1 of‘ Szrrgery, 150, 237-238.

Morrison, E. ( 1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types. modes, sources. and outcomes. Academy of Munugetnent Joirrnul. 36, 557-589.

Morrison, E., & Bies, R. ( 1 991). Impression management in the feedback seeking process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16, 522-541.

Nadler, A. (1980). “Good looks do not help”: Effects of helper’s physical attrac- tiveness and expectations for future interaction on help-seeking behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Btrlletin, 6, 378-383.

Nadler, A., Maler, S., & Friedman, A. (1984). Effects of helper’s sex, subjects’ androgyny, and self-evaluation on males’ and females’ willingness to seek and receive help. Sex Roles, 10. 327-339.

31,422-447.

1124-1 149.


Nadler, A., Mayseless, O., Peri, N., & Chemerinski, A. (1985). Effects of oppor- tunity to reciprocate and self-esteem on help-seeking behavior. Journal of Personality, 53,23-35.

Nelson-LeGall, S. (1 98 1). Help seeking: An understudied problem-solving skill in children. Developmental Review, 1,224-246.

Newman, R. (1990). Children’s help-seeking in the classroom: The role of motivational factors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 71-80.

Nieva, V., & Gutek, B. (1981). Women and work. New York, N Y Praeger. Payer, L. (1988). Medicine and culture. New York, N Y Henry Holt. Ridgeway, C., & Deikema, D. (1991). Are gender differences status differences?

In C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.), Gendec interaction, and inequality (pp. 157-180). New York, N Y Springer-Verlag.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1 992). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 156- 188). London, UK: Longman.

Snodgrass, S. (1 985). Women’s intuition: The effect of subordinate role on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 146- 155.

Steckler, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Sex differences in nonverbal and verbal communication with bosses, peers, and subordinates. Journal of Applied Psy-

Tannen, D. (1993). The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conver- sation interaction (pp. 165-1 88). New York, N Y Oxford University Press.

Tetlock, P. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48,227-236.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1 988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H. (1989). The self and social behavior in different cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

Walker, H., & Lev, J. (1953). Statistical inference. New York, N Y Holt, Rine- hart, and Winston.

chology, 70, 157- 163.

1496 FlONA LEE

Appendix

Contrast weights were constructed by subtracting standardized linear and quadratic weights from one another. The weights were:

Supervisor Peer Subordinate

Men Women

+ I .93 -1.41 -0.5 1 -1.93 +1.41 +0.5 1

The contrast weights were:

Individualistic norms Collectivistic norms

Super- Subordi- Super- Subordi- visor Peer nate visor Peer nate

Men + 1.93 -1.41 -0.5 1 -1.93 +1.41 +0.51 Women -1.93 +1.41 +0.51 +1.93 -1.41 -0.5 1

Verbal Strategies for Seeking Help in Organizations

Documents

Transcript of Verbal Strategies for Seeking Help in Organizations