This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]

On: 06 January 2015, At: 11:18

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Monographs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
[Link]

Social structure in leader‐member interaction

a b
Gail T. Fairhurst & Teresa A. Chandler
a
Associate Professor, Department of Communication , University of Cincinnati ,
b
Assistant Professor, Department of Communication , University of Cincinnati ,
Published online: 02 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Gail T. Fairhurst & Teresa A. Chandler (1989) Social structure in leader‐member interaction,
Communication Monographs, 56:3, 215-239, DOI: 10.1080/03637758909390261

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
[Link]/page/terms-and-conditions
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN LEADER-MEMBER INTERACTION
GAIL T. FAIRHURST AND TERESA A. CHANDLER

The investigation reported here was designed to examine how one leader and three
members display social structure through their use of power and social distance
language forms. Specifically, this work extends initial research into the simultaneous
operation of Leader-Member Exchange and Average Leadership Style models, by
showing how some conversational resources distinguish "in," from "middle," from
"out-group" relationships, whereas others neutralize group membership.

T RADITIONALLY, leadership researchers focused on the leader's "typical" or

"average" behavior towards subordinates because it was assumed that a leader
acts uniformly towards them. Individual differences among members were also not
seriously considered; deviations in the average subordinate perception of the leader
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

were often treated as error variance (Katerberg & Hohm, 1981). Graen and his
colleagues disputed this practice which they termed the "Average Leadership Style"
(ALS) approach (Graen, 1976; Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975; Graen &
Cashman, 1975). In their Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model, they argued
that leaders discriminate in their treatment of subordinates, significantly impacting
role definitions. These role definitions emerge from a process of negotiation in which
both the personal and positional resources of the manager are exchanged for the
organizationally valued contributions of the members (Graen & Scandura, 1987).
"Leader-member exchanges" will vary in quality because members differ in their
needs and contributions and because a leader's time and resources are limited
(Graen, 1976).
Based upon Jacobs' (1971) crucial distinction between leadership and authority,
the quality of leader-member exchanges has been divided into two basic categories,
"in-group" and "out-group."1 An "in-group" relationship is characterized by high
trust, mutual influence, support, and formal/informal rewards. In contrast, an
"out-group" relationship is characterized by the use of formal authority, low trust,
support and rewards. In-group exchanges have been associated with greater leader
attention, support and sensitivity (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Schiemann,
1978; Liden & Graen, 1980), greater member satisfaction and lower turnover
(Graen & Ginsburgh, 1977; Graen, Liden & Hoel, 1982), better member perfor-
mance (Graen, Novak & Sommerkamp, 1982; Liden & Graen, 1980), and greater
agreement over the severity of job problems (Graen & Schiemann, 1978) than
out-group exchanges.
Two issues are outstanding, however, in the LMX literature. First, with the
exception of a recent study by Fairhurst, Rogers and Sarr ( 1987), the communication
actualities of different quality leader-member exchanges remain no more clearly
defined than the presence of mutual influence in in-group exchanges and uni-

Gail T. Fairhurst is Associate Professor, and Teresa A. Chandler Assistant Professor, Department of
Communication, University of Cincinnati. The authors wish to thank the organization where this
research was conducted and the University Research Council of the University of Cincinnati for their
financial support. We wish also to thank Beth Haslett, Teresa Thompson, George Graen, and the
anonymous reviewers for reading earlier versions of this manuscript, and Bob Sarr for his help in the
conduct of this research.

COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, Volume 56, September 1989

 216 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

directional downward influence in out-group exchanges. For example, Dansereau et

al. (1975) tested a concept termed "negotiating latitude," or the level of role
negotiation by the subordinate. Although this was assumed to be an informal,
unstructured process occuring in in-group exchanges, neither perceived nor actual
role negotiation in any formal or informal sense was actually measured. Two studies
assessed communication in terms of global relationship descriptions garnered
exclusively through self-reports. Schiemann and Graen (1984) linked the frequency
of communication to LMX by asking respondents to estimate the amount of
communication in general content areas like "technical," "administrative," "plan-
ning," etc. In addition, Scandura, Graen and Novak (1986) linked LMX to
perceptions of decisional involvement by assessing perceived influence for particular
kinds of decisions.
The lack of a conversational focus also impacts upon the second issue which is the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

on-going debate about the relative contribution of the ALS approach and LMX.
Initial findings suggest a simultaneous, complementary relationship between the
two, i.e., managers act both differently and consistently towards their subordinates
(Dansereau, Alutto, Markham, & Dumas, 1982; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Kater-
berg & Horn, 1981; Schriescheim, 1980; Vechio, 1982). In terms of managerial
behavior, both models possess merit. The limited resources of the manager and the
needs and contributions of members would seem to warrant differential treatment.
At the same time, one's personal style, judgments of fairness, or environmental
constraints (e.g., union rules and the threat of grievances for inconsistent adherence
to rules) may prompt more consistency in treatment.
However, it is still unclear what is consistent and/or different across dealings with
subordinates. As indicated above, previous research has glossed over the communica-
tive character of the exchanges to focus chiefly upon outcomes (e.g., better member
performance). In doing so, researchers have reified the power and influence processes
in leader-member relationships according to whether or not one believes managers
give preferential treatment to some and not others or do not discriminate at all, thus
discounting the fluidity of interactional processes. Moreover, extant research has
taken a cross-situational versus in situ perspective which decontextualizes leader-
member exchanges and obscures knowledge of how social structure is displayed in
conversation.
The debate over the treatment of subordinates could be more fruitfully addressed
with greater attention to the micro-processes of power and social distance operating
in leader-member relationships as evidenced in talk. Recent interpretive views of
power, communication and structure have linked the structure of talk to social
structure (Collins, 1983; Giddens, 1979, 1984; Molotch & Boden, 1985). In the
exercise of influence, for example, the social roles, power and social distance of the
interactants must be accomodated to guarantee the effectiveness of the influence
attempt (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Ervin-Tripp, 1980; Lakoff, 1972). Power and
social distance are two dimensions used to calibrate influence attempts (Goody,
1978), thus producing linguistic choices which mark the relationship along these
dimensions. Power is defined in terms of relative dominance, and social distance is
seen as familiarity or closeness. Although the focus of this investigation is on how
language choices or "conversational resources" reflect power and social distance in
relationships, new power and distancing dynamics can be created or determined by
resource use as well (Bradac, 1983; Giles & Wiemann, 1987).
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 217

Social structure is defined vís-a-vís the conversational resources employed by

interactants to define power and social distance in the relationship. But the critical
unit of analysis when discussing structure is actually the matching of resources by
interactants, which Collins (1983) argues is more significant than the subjective
meaning of talk for them. Resource matching entails asking how people commu-
nicate in relation to one another, thus employing a relational (versus individual) unit
of analysis.
Conversational resources entail both interpretive and conversational procedures
(Molotch & Boden, 1985). As such, a vast array of conversational forms can be used
to communicatively display the power and social distance dimensions of leader-
member relationships. Extant LMX research tells us little about which conversa-
tional resources we should expect, except that members' resources are broadly cast as
"performance" while managerial resources such as decision making influence, inside
information, tasks, autonomy, support, and attention are calibrated to that perfor-
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

mance (Graen & Scandura, 1987).

To the extent that these managerial resources are manifest in speech, and to a
large extent we would expect them to be, we at least have some indication of the
resources managers might select. However, most of the aforementioned resources can
be accomplished in multiple ways via language. Even a cursory review of the
communication and socio-linguistic literatures, much of it stemming from intergroup
comparisons,2 reveals a variety of resources that may be used to produce "powerful"
versus "powerless" speech and "social distance" versus "closeness" (see Table 1).
Influence in decision-making, for example, could be accomplished through the
questions by the manager and answers by subordinates, "frames" put forth by the
manager which are challenged by the subordinate, or giving the subordinate the
option not to do "X," etc. Thus, Graen and Scandura's (1987) typology may serve
only as a general guide, making the search at the level of conversation somewhat
exploratory. The literatures on power and social distance language forms are
certainly suggestive of what we may find but their relevance and co-occurences in the
leader-member context remain largely unknown.
Because of the exploratory nature of this study, the purpose of this investigation is
to examine how one leader and three members use power and social distance
conversational resources to display social structure. Our goal is to extend initial
research into the simultaneous operation of LMX and ALS models by discovering
how some conversational resources can distinguish "in" from "middle" from
"out-group" relationships, whereas others may neutralize group membership.

METHOD
The Data
In order to understand how conversational resources display social structure,
micro-encounters of negotiated power and social distance were sampled. Conflict
episodes were selected because as Molotch and Boden (1985; p. 274) state, "settings
which are adversarial by their very nature provide fertile grounds to begin an
exploration of the conversational procedures of power." Moreover, they are usually
made up of influence attempts which are socially calibrated to the level of power and
social distance in the relationship.
The warehouse division of a large manufacturing plant provided an opportunity to
 218 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

TABLE 1
SPEECH FORMS REFLECTING POWER AND SOCIAL DISTANCE

I. Power
A. Powerful Speech Forms Source
• Brackets Schiffrin, 1980
• Certainty Berger & Bradac, 1982
• Challenges Rogers & Farace, 1975
• Directness Berger & Bradac, 1982
• Disconfirmation Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967
Dismissals Wagner, 1980
Formal Address Ervin-Tripp, 1971; Fishman, 1971
• Formulations Heritage & Watson, 1979
• Frames/Associative Language Tannen, 1979; Goffman, 1974; Husband, 1977
• Intense language Bradac, Bowers, & Courtright, 1979
• Interruptions Mishler& Waxier, 1968
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

Leading Questions S wann, Giuliano, & Wegner, 1982

• Lexical Diversity Berger & Bradac, 1982
Lower Pitched Voices Brown, Strong, & Rencher, 1975
• Metaphors Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Deetz & Mumby, 1985
• Orders Drake & Moberg, 1986; Rogers & Farace, 1975
Speech Rate Brown, 1980
Standard Accent Powesland & Giles, 1975
Tonal Range Scherer, 1979
• Topic Change Schank, 1977; Clark & Haviland, 1977
• Verbal Aggression (e.g., circumvention, Miller, 1983; Wiseman & Schenck-Hamlin, 1981
punishment appeal, deceit, warnings)
• Verbal Immediacy Bradac et al., 1979
B. Powerless Speech Forms Source
Apologies Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Compliance Watzlawick et al., 1967
• Disassociations of Self from Request Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Disclaimers Hewitt & Stokes, 1975
• Disqualifications Bavelas, 1983; Bavelas & Chovil, 1986
Empty Adjectives Lakoff, 1975; O'Barr, 1982
• Expressing Minimal Assumptions About Brown & Levinson, 1978
L/nc s Wallis
• Give Target Option Not to do X Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Hedges Lind & O'Barr, 1979; O'Barr, 1979; Lakoff, 1972
• Hesitations Bradac & Mulac, 1984
Hypercorrect Grammer Lakoff, 1975; O'Barr, 1982
• Indirect Questions Brown & Levinson, 1978
Ingratiation Liden & Mitchell, In press
• Intensifies Lind & O'Barr, 1979; O'Barr, 1979
• Minimize Threat or Imposition Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Nonfluencies Miller &HcwgiIl, 1964
• Politeness Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Brown & Levinson, 1978
Question Intonation Lakoff, 1975; O'Barr, 1982
• Stating One's Debt to Target Brown & Levinson, 1978
Tag Questions Bradac & Mulac, 1984; Fishman, 1980
Ungrammaticalities Edwards, 1979

II. Social Similarity and Distance

A. Social Similarity Source
• Casual, Vernacular Style Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Claiming Commonalities in Group Mem- Brown & Levinson, 1978
bership
• Claiming Common Views & Seeking Brown & Levinson, 1978
Agreement
• Displaying Knowledge & Concern for Brown & Levinson, 1978
Other's Wants
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 219

TABLE 1 (continued)

• Elaborated or Embedded Language Applegate & Delia, 1980

• Empathy Schatzman & Strauss, 1955
• Expressions of Liking or Admiration Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Expressions of Reciprocity or Coopera- Brown & Levinson, 1978
tion
Familiar Address/Nicknames Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Fulfilling Other's Wants Through Re- Brown & Levinson, 1978
sources, Sympathy or Understanding
• Humor, Parodies Brown & Ford, 1961; Fishman, 1971
• Verbal Immediacy Berger & Bradac, 1982
• Metaphorical vs. Technical Ervin-Tripp, 1971
• Presumptive Requests/Statements Brown & Levinson, 1978
Private Codes, Neologisms Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981
• Self-Disclosure Brown & Ford, 1961; Fishman, 1971
• Similar Uses of Language Drake & Moberg, 1986
Taken-for-granteds Hopper, 1981
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

B. Social Distance Sources

Accounts Using Consultative or Formal Scott &Lyman, 1968
Language vs. Intimate & Casual
• Disagreement Brown & Levinson, 1978
• Disconfirmations Watzlawick et al., 1967
• Exaggerations of Between-Group Difler- Tajfel, 1981; Gudykunst, 1986

*Signifies a category used in testing the validity of the analysis.

study leader-member conflict. The entire plant, including the warehouse, was about
to make a transition from an autocratically run operation to one based on team
self-management (see Manz & Sims, 1987 for a review). "Norm," the manager of
the warehouse and person responsible for implementing the teams, was experiencing
a greatly deal of uncertainty about the expected shift towards participative manage-
ment. There were several reasons this occurred: 1) He was described by others as
tough, verbally skilled, opinionated and talkative. These qualities were clearly at
odds with the mandated change; 2) the warehouse was considered to be a very
combative culture populated by "ruffians" at the lower ranks. There were numerous
discipline problems, and many individuals were suspected of thefts and using drugs.
Warehouse employees were mostly men, mostly loners—not the best suited to team
self-management; 3) there was mixed support for the change among Norm's
subordinate managers, who directly interfaced with the warehouse employees. As the
company representative for these individuals, Norm's responsibility was to inform
and sell the proposed change regardless of his privately held views.
The situation, therefore, set up a number of conflicts and multiple opportunities to
study how relationships were conducted during this time. While all of the conflicts
reported here occurred during the time the proposed change was in the discussion
stage (it was going to happen but few people understood exactly what would occur),
not all of them deal with the proposed change. However, given that the change
mandated participative decision making, this change became a contextual feature of
all conflicts in which the manager's style played a significant role in resolving the
issue.
Norm and three of his subordinates, "Larry," "June" and "Rick," were selected
for this study for two reasons. First, they were an intact unit whose scores on the
LMX scale placed Larry in the in-group, June in the middle-group, and Rick in the
 220 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

out-group following guidelines set up by Graen and Scandura (1985). Thus, the
question of consistency versus differentiation among subordinates could be
addressed. Following Scandura et al. (1986), the subordinates' LMX scores are the
most reliable means for assessing the quality of the exchange. The managers' scores
are heavily influenced by a tendency to offer socially desirable answers which leads to
a restricted range of scores. In Fairhurst et al. (1987), both leaders (alpha = .63) and
members (alpha = .87) were asked to complete an LMX scale. Not only did the
leaders' scale have lower reliability, but they showed a restricted range of scores near
the high end of the continuum (reflecting better quality relationships as expected).
Following Graen et al. (1982), a seven-item version of the LMX scale was used.3
Graen and Cashman (1975) furnish evidence of validity and reliability.
A second reason Norm and his unit were selected was because multiple sources of
data were available. The senior author: a) observed this unit for over 20 hours, in
large group meetings in which the author was also a participant in discussions on the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

plant's transition, in "one-on-ones" concerning matters of work unit functioning,

and informal gatherings in the break room; b) collected recordings of an on-site 30
minute routine work-related conversation; c) conducted interviews with participants
about their individual styles and their boss-subordinate relationship; d) collected
archival records of manager performance ratings of the subordinates; e) supervised
the completion of a written questionnaire containing an LMX scale by all
participants; and f) conducted over eight hours of interviews with the internal
consultant assigned to the warehouse on its work relationships and the anticipated
change. The consultant's close relationship to the warehouse for 2 years, and his
independent role (he was outside of the plant's hierarchy) as "observer and resource"
to the work unit provided a relatively objective historical perspective on the work
relationships.
The data analyzed focuses heavily on the conflict episodes from the taped
conversations, although the interview, observational and archival data contextualize
the use of conversational resources. Since participants were told only to record the
next conversation they were to have with their boss (or subordinate) without the
presence of the investigators, the conflict episodes provided the best records available
in which to analyze systematically how this manager and his subordinates naturalis-
tically employ conversational resources. Excerpts from their interaction are given in
the Appendix.

Analysis
Our procedure was to scrutize the audiotapes and written transcripts for displays
of power and distancing vis-a-vis both the form and content of the messages. We first
try to identify how power is asserted, resisted, and/or accepted, and how distance or
closeness is negotiated through whatever conversational means (termed "resource").
This might include something as small as the use of nonfluencies (uh, uh) or
something as complex as an entire persuasive argument with embedded power and
social distance language forms.
As stated earlier, we are particularly concerned with how resources appear in the
text side-by-side because it is only what people do in conjunction with or in
relationship to the other, which gives form or structure to the relationship
(Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, in press). We also wanted to capture a sense of the
flow of conversational resources within episodes and across conversations. To make
the greatest use of the cultural and other data available, a narrative form was
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 221

selected. Although our work derives from the literatures on power and social distance
(particularly to label resources and consider ways they could possibly function), our
method is essentially interpretive and ethnographic. The data and its emergent
properties guided the analysis.
Validity
Because of a potential bias in knowing the "in" or "out" group character of the
relationship when identifying and interpreting the resources, a validation of our
analysis is critical. Accordingly, a set of categories for each unique power and social
distance language form was generated from the narrative analysis. The categories
reflect the asterisked terms in Table 1. They are not a mutually exclusive and
exhaustive set because of the embeddedness of certain power and social distance
forms within others (e.g., intense language within an order). They also exclude the
labeling of particular persuasive arguments (e.g., Burke's notion of "expanding the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

circumference") because these interpretations rely heavily on contextual informa-

tion, access to which a blind coder would not have. However, the embedded aspects of
the general argument could be coded (e.g., nonfluencies, intense language, hedges,
etc.).
The category list, along with accompanying definitions and examples, were given
to a blind coder. The coder was unaware of the LMX scores of the subordinate as
well as all other cultural data surrounding the work unit and its conflicts, thus
allowing an unbiased interpretation. From the category scheme, the coder identified
examples of power and social distance used by both manager and subordinates in the
complete set of conversational excerpts.
The interpretations made in the original analysis were compared to the coder's
interpretation. Cohen's (1960) Kappa, a conservative reliability estimate for nominal
data, was used to determine the level of agreement between the original and the blind
coder's interpretation. Cohen's Kappa establishes point-by-point agreement and also
corrects for chance agreement. The resulting reliabilities were .80 for the power
dimension and .72 for the social distance dimension. These results appear to support
the viability of the original interpretations of the resources employed.
Transcript Notation
The transcript presentation in this analysis closely resembles the simple notation
system of Clegg (1975). Following discussions in the conversation analysis literature
about how much detail to provide in transcripts (e.g., see Ochs, 1979; Sacks,
Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974; Sigman, Sullivan & Wendell, 1988), the number of
symbols in the manuscript has deliberately been held to a minimum, as detailed
evidence of stress, intonation, speech rate, etc. would not add substantially to this
analysis. The symbols used are as follows:
// Overlapping talk; interrupted talk.
...A pause of one second or less within an utterance.
(2.2) A pause of more than one second within an utterance or between
turns; numerals indicate length of pause.
***** A deletion.
[ ] An explanatory insertion,
italics An emphasized word or phrase.
? A question marked by a rise in pitch.
 222 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

RESULTS
Background Data on the Dyads
Prior to the collection of interview, conversation and questionnaire data from
participants, there was initial evidence of both consistency and differentiation in
Norm's relationships with his three subordinates. There were, for example, surface
differences between the subordinates which were significant in this organizational
culture. For example, Larry (In) had more managerial responsibility than June
(Middle) or Rick (Out). June's job was more technically oriented and suited to her
recent engineering degree (of 3 years) and short tenure in the warehouse (6 months).
Rick's long tenure in the warehouse (5 years) resulted in more direct interfacing with
low-level warehouse employees. Larry and June's pedigrees (education, back-
ground) suggested that they were potentially promotable in this company while Rick
was not likely to leave the warehouse. Larry also had a previous job experience in the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

manufacturing division where he successfully managed a pilot project for the plant
on team self-management. Due to this experience, Larry had the greatest amount of
hands-on knowledge about the change and also the most enthusiasm for it. Thus,
when the subordinates' LMX scores indicated Larry was "In-group," June was
"Middle" and Rick was "Out," it was consistent with outward signs of what
appeared to be valued in this organization's culture.
Initial evidence also suggested that Norm's consistency in his treatment of
subordinates may derive from his personal style. According to the consultant, Norm
was not always as open as he tried to appear: "People don't seem to trust Norm
because he frequently has his mind made up before discussing an issue. Yet, he tries
to show that he is open when he isn't."
Thus, prior to examining dialogue there was initial evidence of both consistency
and differentiation in the relationships, although there were still few clues as to how
this was accomplished conversationally.
Norm and Larry (In)
By both Norm and Larry's account, Larry was an in-group subordinate. He
received extremely high performance ratings from Norm (the highest company
ranking). Having worked for Norm for six months, Norm said Larry's only
drawback was a tendency to talk a lot. Larry's concern for the relationship was not
his personal style, but rather an increasing array of issues about which they
disagreed. Larry found himself an advocate for more changes in the warehouse than
Norm wanted. The conflict episode below is a case in point.
Much of Norm and Larry's entire conversation is devoted to a conflict over job
consolidation. Norm opposes the consolidation of three jobs, while Larry favors it.
The distinguishing feature of this dialogue is a sustained challenge, with Norm
employing a wide array of sophisticated persuasive strategies which Larry success-
fully resists. Larry is also unsuccessful at persuading Norm, although in the early
part of the episode Norm takes pains to indicate he is persuadable on this issue as
Excerpt 1 reveals (numbers indicate the ordering of the messages):
In the beginning of the excerpt (3) Larry uses a "reward" metaphor to frame job
consolidation. Norm counters and frames job consolidation with another monetary
metaphor (4) with more negative connotations ("buy your way in"). Invoking this
metaphor, Norm displays an ability to argue coherently and use disclaimers to mark
his identity (Giles, Scherer, & Taylor, 1979; Hewitt & Stokes, 1975). Specifically,
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 223

his first statement (4) brackets (Schriffin, 1980) his discourse to indicate an
explanation is coming ("But there's another way to look at it"). A disclaimer then
follows (4) ("Not necessarily sayin' that I look at it that way") which enables him to
object yet not be held responsible for his objection, and indeed, even appear objective
(Hewitt & Stokes, 1975). This is then followed by his argument (4), the content of
which contains the monetary metaphor ("buy your way in"). He repeats a similar
pattern again at the end of the excerpt (10) with a bracket ("Let me tell you where I
stand"), a disclaimer ("ah first I could be convinced that we oughta do that"),
followed by another bracket (12) ("I have some concerns") and the argument (14)
("One . . . that the shipper job"). Interestingly, although Norm voices his opinions,
twice he has taken pains to distance himself from those opinions while explicitly
marking himself as open (10) in the last disclaimer.
The offering of competing metaphors and several forced interruptions by both
parties is suggestive of minimized power and status differences; however, Larry also
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

defers to Norm's authority in his challenges. For example, Larry pairs intense
language with a hedge (7) ("Jesus you know") and employs a positive politeness
strategy (7) (Brown & Levinson, 1978) as he acknowledges understanding Norm's
point of view in response to an objection by Norm ("Yeah I understand that fear").
In contrast, in the continuation of the conflict in Excerpt 2 Norm marks his
challenges with powerful language, strong opinions, and a persuasive strategy that
Burke (1945) calls "expanding the circumference." In this maneuver, one magnifies
the importance of a small event, making it appear more critical than it is. Norm
reasons that when jobs were segmented, a pay increase followed. From that one
event, he claims (without basis in contract) that consolidation and henceforth every
subsequent change would result in a pay increase which in turn would lead to a
"bastardization" of the job evaluation system (19). The circumference of one
reclassification event has been magnified to the point that it now yields a total
denigration of the job evaluation system as implied by the "bastardization" metaphor
(19). The use of this metaphor and parallel form (17) ("people gonna get more pay")
reflect intense, powerful language (Bradac, Bowers & Courtright, 1979). Norm
subsequently assumes a kind of moral high ground by asserting, "I want to hold that
(current job evaluation system) in some kind of high regard" (21). The argument, the
intense language, and a pronounced preference would seem to indicate a strongly
held opinion. Later dialogue will confirm this despite the impression Norm tried to
create previously with his use of an identity marker (10) ("I could be convinced") in
Excerpt 1.
In a continuation of this argument (23), Norm associates his position with
objectivity by bracketing his perspective with the statement, "I'd like to try to look at
it as objectively as possible." He then offers a formulation (23), which is an
interpretation of the sense of the conversation thus far (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970;
Heritage & Watson, 1979), when he indicates, "all we're really doing here," and
invokes an arithmetic metaphor to suggest the addition of three jobs should not equal
more than their sum.
Up until this point, Larry does a lot of interactional support work (16, 18, 20, 22)
("Uh hums"), often a condition of desired participation (Molotch & Boden, 1985; see
also Fishman, 1978). Yet, in a departure from his previous challenges which were
socially calibrated to show deference to Norm, Larry's response (24) to Norm's
"arithmetic" ("I really see it differently than that") is free of the hedges and
repetition of his earlier dialogue (7). He ties back into the "reward" metaphor
 224 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

invoked earlier with a discussion of "benefits" (26), and further frames job
reclassification in terms of "proficiency" and a variety of tasks that must dealt with
"skillfully."
The pattern which is beginning to emerge is one of competing frames. Even
though Norm displays greater lexical diversity which marks more powerful language
(Berger & Bradac, 1982), and a richer vocabulary of persuasive maneuvers, it is
apparent that Larry shows little hesitancy in expressing his disagreement. This
pattern continues when Norm tries to close out their discussion in Excerpt 3.
In this excerpt, Norm first states his intention to close out the discussion (27) and
affirms Larry's choice to do what he wants ("I'll support you with whatever you
want to do"). According choice to subordinates is one of the resources that managers
purportedly use with in-group subordinates (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Before
reframing the issue again, Norm creates a hypothetical outside expert by asking
Larry to reverse roles with the plant manager (27). Outside experts are typically
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

used to legitimate decisions and provide an aura of rationality (Pfeffer, 1981) which
Norm tries to associate with his position.
Norm proceeds and invokes two more metaphors to frame the issue: bracket
"creep" (29) (suggesting an unplanned, below-awareness shift) and a team meta-
phor (37) implied by "fostering competition." The team metaphor is embedded in a
formulation (37) ("what we're doing is fostering") and appears to be a skillful
attempt at an unobtrusive exercise of power (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1987; Pfeffer, 1981).
Acceptance of the metaphor "fostering competition" by Larry begs the question of
any real choice associated with this issue, as the operational goals of Norm's unit are
to get departments working cooperatively, not competitively.
Norm's closing bracket in this turn (37), "recognize it and see whether that's what
you want to do," directly charges Larry to see the situation as Norm would have him
see it. In doing this, Norm reinforces his attempt to control Larry indirectly through
the power of framing without addressing Larry's behavior directly, although Norm's
reaffirmation of Larry's choice (39) ("I'll support you with whatever you want")
suggests he is wishing to appear non-controlling.
Interestingly, in an equally sophisticated response (40), Larry accepts a surface or
literal interpretation of Norm's remarks with his acknowledgement of Norm's
support. Yet, he brackets and frames his ensuing argument (40) by referencing
Norm's earlier "objectivity" bracket ("the thing that I try to look objectively at is")
and then rejects Norm's frame (40) ("not to bastardize the job evaluation system")
and proceeds to supply his own (40) ("what we are asking our people wise," "not
blatantly but officially"). Although Larry does not bridge the introduction of new
topics (40) (e.g., discussion around the job title and the job name) particularly well,
thus making the argument appear less coherent (Clark & Haviland, 1977), he has
effectively rejected Norm's control attempt in a polite fashion. In fact, both Norm and
Larry's semantically indirect strategies, in this case, appear to be used to manage
their conflict over this issue (Eisenberg, 1984; Pascale & Athos, 1981).
However, in the next several lines, the gloves come off as Norm and Larry get
more direct. Norm interrupts Larry (45) with what Schiffrin (1980) calls an
evaluative bracket, a statement that begins an argument by evaluating another's
position ("Don't try to snow me Larry"). The use of the "snow" metaphor is
particularly interesting because it implies that Larry's position vis-a-vis Norm has
changed from "convincer" or "persuader" to "deceiver." This is followed by the use
of profanity (45) in stating his opinion ("I know damn well that the job consolidation
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 225

of these three jobs is not going to materially change anything out there")- The use of
the "snow" metaphor by Norm, charging deception, and the intensity of his language
is curious, to say the least, coming from a manager who previously took pains to
indicate to Larry in his earlier identity marker (10) in Excerpt 1 that "I could be
convinced." It is quite plausible to suggest that Norm had his mind made up before
he told Larry, "I could be convinced," thus instantiating the observation of the
internal consultant regarding why people distrust Norm.
Norm's directness continues when he raises the seniority issue (49). His argument
that the seniority system interferes with job consolidation is akin to "crying anarchy"
(King, 1987). He offers dire warnings about the number of grievances (51) ("all
kinds of grievances") which are certain to occur ("it's gonna be supported among all
those people"), and asserts management's unwillingness to fight, presumably, such a
losing battle ("I don't think there's any reason for us to fight something like that").
Interestingly, this argument contains the parallel form and the intense language of
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

his previous arguments, without, however, the disclaimers of those early arguments
in which he marked himself as open and objective (4, 10).
Arguing that job reclassification and the seniority system will conflict evokes an
equally strong response from Larry (56) ("Well hell we are the system we come up
with"). From this and other responses by Larry, he continues to show little hesitancy
towards disagreeing with Norm. At this point, however, Norm asks Larry whether
the tape recorder bothers him. Larry answers an emphatic "No" to the question of
taping (60), gives a brief explanation ("I'm just I'm just you know lookin around the
room") (62, 64), and then quickly resumes his argument.
In yet another bid to close out the discussion (69), Norm resorts to some good
natured ridicule when he kids Larry about his desire to be plant manager one day,
saying, "Goddamm back when I was in the warehouse I really messed things up."
Duncan (1962) observes that ridicule strikes at a person's identity, undermining
self-confidence. To an individual who has strong upward mobility aspirations, this
might be a particularly powerful persuasive maneuver. Significantly, Larry doesn't
reciprocate Norm's laughter, which signifies differently held definitions of the
situation (Coser, 1960), but continues stating his position (70).
When it appears that Larry is prepared to match Norm, argument for argument,
Norm closes out the discussion (71) more directly when he says, "I don't think it's
any better debating it any further I think you you know where I stand and I'll I'm
with you if you feel it's necessary." In this final statement of the episode, Norm stops
the discussion of this topic, indirectly reinforces the fact that his stand on the issues is
different from Larry's, and then reaffirms Larry's option to choose again. Interest-
ingly, the closure of this discussion by Norm is the closest he comes to a direct
assertion of his authority with Larry. All of the influence attempts chronicled thus
far involved influence based upon persuasion or indirect control strategies, none of
which successfully persuaded Larry. The lack of direct control and explicit use of
authority is noteworthy because as will be apparent in the remaining dyads, Norm's
lack of success at persuasion does bring about a stronger authority-based response.
Norm and June (Middle)
Although Norm also regarded June as a good performer (although not as good as
Larry), he described his relationship with June as "about average." June was young
and still learning the ropes, but her expected future performance was excellent. The
two had always gotten along, and there was nothing exceptionally good or bad about
 226 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

their relationship from his point of view. For her part, June felt that Norm usually
communicated his expectations of her clearly and let her know how well she was
doing. While she felt that she could go to Norm with job problems and ideas, she
didn't trust him, stating that Norm was neither as honest nor as fair as he could be in
his treatment of her. She wanted more say in work assignments and how she did her
job. The conflict episodes below concern the latter.
Unlike the previous extended conflict episode, Norm and June are involved in two
conflicts which are resolved fairly quickly. Like Larry, June readily disagrees with
Norm, but unlike Larry, she cannot sustain a challenge. In both conflict episodes
reported below, June is very persistent in expressing her views, and thus attempts to
define the relationship with reduced social distance and power. However, the
manner in which she is cut off by Norm in Excerpt 4 thwarts her power-equalizing
efforts.
In this episode, June uses direct, certain and immediate language (72) in arguing
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

for what operators need to know beyond unit costs. As with Larry, Norm
demonstrates an ability to position himself strategically in his argument with June.
For example, he frames the issue (73) in terms of risks by saying, "there's the risk, on
the other side, of knowing way too much." The language he uses (73) to express
disagreement is neither immediate ("on the other side") nor direct. He also marks
himself as fair-minded with the disclaimer ("I'm tryin to follow all kinds of things").
Recall Norm's use of disclaimers to mark himself as open with Larry.
When June follows Norm's move with challenge (74) ("Well I don't think ya need
to follow a bunch of things"), he doesn't confront her or the issue of unit cost directly.
Instead, he manipulates the context in which unit cost is viewed, subscribing to
King's (1987, p. 28) maxim "every event is measured against its background."
Specifically, he changes the subject (77) to goal setting, which is much more general
in scope than the unit cost issue. In relaying his own experience (77) of having fallen
in the "trap" several times of setting too many goals and the problems it causes,
Norm indirectly cautions June to avoid the mistakes he made. Yet, by invoking the
"cover" and "focus" metaphors (81), Norm frames the subject of goal setting in such
negative terms ("We basically cover the business with goals"), with obviously
negative consequences for a productivity-minded organization ("It gets hard to focus
on any one thing"), that the only logical conclusion and response for a rational
member of that culture is to agree with that statement. Indeed, without qualification
or hesitation, June readily agrees (82) that far too many goals are set.
The issues of goal-setting and unit-cost, seemingly separate, are now linked when
Norm redirects the issue (85) back to the operators' knowledge of unit costs. He then
states that the goals the operators could handle must be limited to two (83), one of
which would be a cost goal, suggesting perhaps unit cost. Although he hedges (85) in
making the statement by saying "maybe it's just a unit cost or something" and then
follows that up with a disclaimer (85), "I don't know," he has effectively worked the
former issue to a point of resolution, given June's agreement (82) that too many goals
are set.
Thus, Norm's strategy of changing topics turns out to be a manipulation of the
context in which unit cost is viewed. Reframing the issue to "cost goals" imposes a
different measurement of the unit cost issue. Norm achieves further closure by
abruptly changing the subject (85), giving June very little chance to respond. June
then accepts this closure.
In another conflict episode that follows a slightly different pattern, Norm covertly
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 227

expresses disagreement with June's views by framing his feelings as "concerns."

When she appears to address all of the concerns, he reframes the issue again and then
is very directive about what he wants, as Excerpt 5 reveals.
After Norm raises his concerns (91, 97) in this excerpt, June acknowledges at first
that she can't address one of them (98). But midway through her next sentence (98),
she addresses the issue and meets every objection that Norm has raised. At that point,
there is an extended silence (7.0) (98). McLaughlin (1984) notes that conversational
lapses of more than three seconds may be perceived as awkward. In this case, June
has made it difficult for Norm to respond by addressing all of his concerns, even ones
she initially believed she couldn't.
The silence produces a reframing of the issues by Norm as "two problems" (99).
However, because Norm essentially dismisses June's primary concern, the supervi-
sory issue, without a resolution, "two problems" seem more like a "finite problem"
(King, 1987). Norm reduces the scope of the problem to focus on what he needs. This
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

reductionism is reinforced by the use of a formulation (99) ("I guess I am most

concerned with my need, is for me to get satisfied") (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970), which
often accompanies conversational lapses (McLaughlin, 1984) and which can be used
to terminate a topic entirely (Heritage & Watson, 1979). The termination of the
supervisor's knowledge topic seems especially likely, given that Norm's statement
draws meaning by virtue of the authority he has to make statements of his needs and
expect that they be carried out. That the signal is very clear to June is evident in her
response (100); she tries to clarify exactly what it is that Norm wants. She acquiesces
to dropping the subject and dismissal of her major concern. A similar outcome to an
episode occurs in the remaining dyad.
Norm and Rick (Out)
Norm gave Rick the lowest performance rating of the three subordinates.
Although he said Rick had lots of know-how, he wasn't as dependable as he could be
and couldn't plan ahead as well as he should. As with June, trust was a major issue
for Rick, but so was Norm's approachability. To Rick, Norm was a control-based
manager who kept decisions in his own hands, became annoyed when Rick exceeded
his authority, and wanted to hear few of Rick's problems or ideas. This may explain
the brevity of the conflict episode reported below.
The conflict between Rick and Norm concerns Rick's self-described autocratic
style of management. Before examining the conflict, however, there were events in
prior episodes which index the meaning of events in the conflict episode. First, Norm
made several "suggestions" to Rick which took on an instructive quality which were
not apparent in the other dyads.
Norm always began these statements with a negative politeness strategy (Brown &
Levinson, 1978) (101, 103). For example, Norm initially appears to give Rick the
option not to take his suggestion ("Ya might wanna try" (101) and (103) "But I'd I'd
suggest to ya"), but then he always increased the certainty of the requested action in
closing ("but don't turn a deaf ear to it" (101) and (103) "do that real clearly").
Suggestions made by control-based managers are often interpreted as instruction-
giving. Interestingly, Rick's responses (102, 104) reflect "compliance" with the
suggestion (e.g., "Yes ok alright.") more than "consideration."
Second, Rick establishes for Norm multiple examples of his own autocratic
managerial style. In a very clear statement on eye protection in Excerpt 7, Rick
frames (105) his management style as " 9 / 1 . " (A " 9 / 1 " management decision refers
 228 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

to Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid, " 9 " indicating high concern for task and
" 1 " indicating low concern for people). In addition, he reports verbatim conversation
(105) to Norm and uses powerful language purportedly to relay the message to his
subordinates on eye protection. It is intense, certain and immediate (Berger &
Bradac, 1982).
In the conflict episode in Excerpt 8, Norm objects to the dominant management
style used by Rick in his display of multiple examples of autocratic behavior. In this
excerpt, Rick's use of the term "lay-on" is tantamount to an order.
In a structure not unlike the " 9 / 1 " excerpt earlier, Rick announces (107) what has
to be done, frames his behavior as autocratic ("lay on"), and offers to Norm a
verbatim reporting of what he'll say. The offering of verbatim conversation seen here
and several places in the conversation would seem to be an overly precise attention to
detail, as if he must "clear" with Norm exactly what he has done. Rick then indicates
(107) that the implementation of a lay-on would be relatively simple, at which point
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

Norm disagrees (108). Although Norm begins his statement with some tentativeness
("I gotta feeling"), he follows with more powerful language. For example, he gives
verbal emphasis to "other than a lay-on" and uses stronger language when he says
"so darn many Iay-ons here lately."
Rick then responds by making a statement (111) presumably about Norm's
feelings ("Yeah 11 think you're a little bit"). He aborts this effort before committing
himself and making what may be considered a presumptive statement indicative of a
closer relationship than Rick feels exists. In order to preserve the social distance, he
owns (111) only his feelings. He completes his statement (111) with a positive
politeness strategy, an acknowledgement that Norm may have a point when Iay-ons
are "absurd." Yet, he supports his own position with the statement (111) that neither
he nor his men have problems with "certain" Iay-ons. In doing this, Rick frames
Iay-ons as a differentiated lot, some of which are "absurd," leading to their being a
"tough pill" to swallow, and by implication, others which are reasonable and
presumably easier to accept.
After Norm counters and metaphorically frames Iay-ons as (112) "a way of life,"
and (114) "not the direction we wanna go," he argues, again using another metaphor
(114), for employee "ownership" of the business, giving verbal emphasis to "more
and more and more" orders. Rick departs from his previous style of communicating
(which to this point is intense and certain) and responds (115) with hedging,
repetition, and uncertainty in a semantically indirect reply ("I don't know . . . I just
. . . ah that's ah we could have a long conversation on this") to which Norm agrees
(116). Rick decides, however, to move forward (117) and express his views about
minimum standards in disagreement with Norm. Interestingly, Rick's use of
powerful language here returns (117), partially mirroring Norm's style. Like Norm,
Rick presents coherent arguments and uses intense language and parallel form for
emphasis (117) ("it's gonna take"). In addition, both show an ability to use
metaphors to frame events.
Significantly, Norm then responds with a disconfirmation (118, 120) by ignoring
Rick's statement and responding to a previous one ("Yeah you're right we can spend
an awful lot of time talkin that I don't think we have that time"), effectively blocking
a willingness to discuss and be counterpersuaded. This, taken with the high number
of "suggestions" advanced, suggests that Norm's espoused management style
(participation) differs paradoxically from his actual style, which is quite directive.
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 229

Rick's interpretive dillemma is the contradiction between Norm's words and his
behavior.
DISCUSSION
Consistency and differentiation in these manager-subordinate relationships were
displayed in a wide array of conversational resources. The differentiation surfaced
in: 1) whether the subordinate was able and willing to sustain a challenge in the face
of indirect control attempts by the manager; 2) whether the manager let the
subordinate choose how an issue should be resolved; and 3) how the subordinate and
the manager calibrated social distance.
In Norm and Larry's in-group relationship, for instance, there was more influence
based on mutual persuasion than in the other dyads. Both parties challenged and
disagreed with each other numerous times in semantically direct and indirect ways.
The ability of Larry to counter Norm's subtle attempts to control (e.g., through the
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

power of framing job consolidation as "fostering competition") with an equally

sophisticated strategy of his own (i.e., when he accepted Norm's "support" and then
supplied his own frame of events) distinguished Larry from the other subordinates.
Although Larry frequently used a combination of powerful/powerless language
forms in deference to Norm's authority and Norm displayed a wider array of
persuasive strategies, Larry forced Norm to absorb more challenges to his own
authority than did any of the others.
Norm also verbally recognized Larry's choice in matters. This freedom of choice
on Larry's behalf was not apparent in the other conversations. Norm also responded
to Larry's arguments by trying to persuade. Failing that, he used several indirect
control strategies, but Norm did not directly impose his authority. Thus, the
recognition of Larry's choice, the presence of challenge without either side acquiesc-
ing, and the absence of a direct imposition of Norm's authority to resolve the issue
suggest that less social distance and fewer power differences exist between Norm and
Larry as compared to the other dyads. This is consistent with conceptualizations of
in-group relationships (Graen, 1976; Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
In his middle-group relationship with June, Norm also responded to persistent
challenges to his authority with semantic indirectness and persuasion. The manner
in which issues were resolved, however, was significantly different from the previous
relationship. In the "cost goals" episode, for instance, June was outmaneuvered by
Norm and, unlike Larry, acquiesced very quickly when Norm's efforts to resolve the
situation intensified. In a later episode, when June countered all of Norm's
"concerns" on sharing loader errors, Norm very clearly invoked his authority with
June in prescribing what he wanted from her. June was not particularly strong at
resorting to semantically indirect strategies to voice her disagreement, nor at framing
events, conversational resources she might draw upon to help sustain her challenges
to Norm's authority. As evidenced by her challenges, she sought to reduce social
distance and power differentials which Norm fought successfully to preserve.4
The direct imposition of Norm's authority was even more apparent with Rick and
their out-group relationship. For example, the "lay ons" episode exemplified a high
level of control. Norm created a "participation paradox"5 (Kanter, 1983; Putnam,
1987) for Rick to solve by telling Rick to be participative at the same time that he was
ignoring Rick's challenges to his opinion. Norm also delivered to Rick several
suggestions which took on an instructive quality.
 230 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

Through his conversational resources, Rick also sought to preserve a measure of

social distance between himself and Norm. In fact, neither Larry nor June went to
the lengths that Rick did to create social distance in the relationship. Specifically,
Rick used a "report style" (reflected in a verbatim reporting of events) and he backed
away from statements presumptive of Norm's feelings. In another, unreported
episode, he refused to acknowledge obvious commonalities with Norm—even when
Norm persisted in trying to point out their common Navy backgrounds. Rick
manifests a "chain-of-command" style, i.e., a subordinate who takes orders from
above and issues orders with authority to those below him. All of this functions to
preserve the power and social distance differences between himself and Norm,
reinforcing their out-group relationship (Graen, 1976; Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
The strongest consistency in Norm's treatment of his subordinates was his
inclination to control but to let it surface unobtrusively. With Rick, Norm issued
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

several instructions which looked like suggestions. Even the disconfirmation, a strong
display of control, was semantically indirect. With June, Norm controlled by
reframing the issues; he reframed the context and redefined the original problem.
While he reaffirmed Larry's choice in matters several times, the "fostering competi-
tion" frame was deceptively coercive in the sense that it begged the question of any
real choice in a course of action.
The sequencing of Norm's persuasive maneuvering also showed some similarities
across dyads. Initially, he would use disclaimers to mark himself as open, objective or
fair-minded, only to follow up subsequent challenges to him with paradoxically
strong opinions and an attempt to block further discussion. Norm's style in this sense
is closely akin to Fairhurst and Sarr's (1987) description of an "illusory partici-
pator," a control-based manager who tries to appear non-controlling and participa-
tive. In terms of future research, it would be interesting to repeat this analysis with
managers who have less directive tendencies than Norm to examine how they display
consistency and differentiation in their use of resources.
Future research is also necessary to know more about how conversational
resources aggregate to form social structure. The manager and all three subordinates
frequently combined powerless and powerful language forms in the same episode,
sometimes in the same sentence (e.g., Larry's "Jesus you know"). While each
language feature within the context of the entire conversation can be seen to shade
and color the particulars of the relationship, with some features standing out more
than others (e.g., verbal recognition of other's choice), we do not yet understand fully
how powerful and powerless language forms interact with one another. A whole host
of mediating variables including speaker status, similarity, expectation violation, and
message type are likely to impact evaluations and the resulting structure (Hosman,
1989).
Finally, the focus of this investigation is on how resource use displays social
structure. As discussed in the introduction, conversational resource use can create
new structural forms, thereby altering the trajectory of the relationship. It will be
necessary to study the flow of resources across many encounters to understand more
about stability and change in the ongoing structuring of relationships. Collins (1983)
argues, in this regard, that short speech samples (i.e., a few seconds) across many
situations may be sufficient.
This study also has some limitations. First, by ethnographic standards, the level of
immersion in the organization studied was relatively modest. To compensate for this,
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 231

we relied on multiple sources of data and the judgments of the internal consultant,
whose time as a participant and observer was substantial.
Second, generalizability is, of course, greatly restricted with the sampling of one
intact unit, three leader-member relationships, and the conflict episodes from one
30-minute conversation. At the same time, we believed the broad strokes necessary to
analyze a larger sample wouldn't provide the kind of detail necessary to commu-
nicate a sense of the flow of resources within and between conversations. Clearly,
however, the next step is to garner a larger sample of encounters and eventually a
larger sample of intact work units. This will enable us to discover what other
conversational resources will likely distinguish in from out-group relationships. It
may also reveal more about how social and organizational resources such as loyalty,
development, task assignment, and promoting the subordinate with higher-ups
surface conversationally.
Limitations notwithstanding, the employment of language tools in this analysis
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

has been useful in understanding the display of structure in leader-member

relationships. Finding both consistency and differentiation in Norm's treatment of
his subordinates confirms research which suggests LMX and ALS models operate
simultaneously. This research extends this literature, however, by identifying the
conversational devices through which consistency and differentiation is achieved.
What we know about influence in leader-member exchanges is also developed
further in this study. While variable amounts of mutual influence were found in all
three exchanges, consistent with LMX theory, it was the manner in which the
conflict episodes were resolved that seemed most significant in terms of social
structure. As organizations continue to implement participative work systems (Manz
& Sims, 1987), subordinates at all organizational levels will increasingly participate
in decisions about their tasks and roles. Consequently, influence in decision making
may not discriminate "in" from "out-group" exchanges as it has in the past. Instead,
focusing upon the resolution of issues or more subtle aspects of the influence process
may become more significant. Only future research will tell.

EPILOGUE
Since the data for this study was collected, the management changed in the
warehouse. Norm, the manager, was demoted to a non-management position, and
Larry, the in-group subordinate, was promoted into Norm's job.

NOTES
1
LMX has been treated as a dichotomous construct (in/out groups), a trichotomous construct (in/middle/out
groups), as well as a continuous variable (high to low quality of exchange) (Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984).
2
The literature on intergroup communication spans many different social categories including gender, social class,
ethnicity, occupation, religion, etc. Much of this research views language use as a function of the power relationships
prevailing between specific groups rather than membership in the group itself (Berger, 1985; Bourhis, 1984; Brown
& Levinson, 1979; Leet-Pettigrini, 1980). As such, common processes should underlie situations where people
choose to emphasize (or neutralize) membership in a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
3
The scale items included are as follows. To what extent: 1) do you know how satisfied or dissatisfied your
superior is with what you do? 2) does your superior understand your work problems and needs? 3) do you feel your
superior recognizes your potential? 4) would your superior be personally inclined to use his or her available power to
help solve problems in your work? 5) can you count on him or her to "bail you out" at his or her expense when you
really need it? 6) do you have confidence in your superior's decisions such that you would defend and justify them
even if he or she were not present to do so? 7) how you would characterize your working relationship with your
superior?
 232 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

Responses were made on a five point scale (1 — to a very little extent, 5 — to a very great extent). The higher the
score, the better the quality of the exchange.
4
We should note here that given recent work on the similarity of male and female managerial communication
styles (see Fairhurst, 1985) and June's tenure in the organization, the fact that June was a female does not lead us to
expect significantly different conclusions for a male middle-group member.
Kanter (1983) describes the "participation paradox" as "something the top order the middle to do for the
bottom." The contradiction, of course, is that managers are commanded to stop commanding.

REFERENCES
Applegate, J.L., & Delia, J.G. (1980). Person centered speech, psychological development, and the contexts of
language usage. In R.N. St. Clair & H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language (pp.
245-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bavelas J. (1983). Situations that lead to disqualification. Human Communication Research, 9, 130-145.
Bavelas, J.B., & Chovil, N. (1986). How people disqualify: Experimental studies of spontaneous written
disqualification. Communication Monographs, 53, 70-74.
Bazerman, M.H. (1984). The relevance of Kahneman and Tversky's concept of framing to organizational behavior.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

Journal of Management, 10, 333-343.

Berger, C.R. (1985). Social power and interpersonal communication. In M.L. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds.)
Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 439-499). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J.J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations.
London: Edward Arnold.
Bourhis, R.Y. (1984). Cross-cultural communication in Montreal: Two field studies since Bill 101. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 33-47.
Bradac, J.J. (1983). The language of lovers, flowers, and friends: Communicating in personal and social
relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 141-162.
Bradac, J.J., Bowers, J.W., & Courtright, J.A. (1979). Three language variables in communication research:
intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5, 257-269.
Bradac, J.J., & Mulac, A. (1984). A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional
consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions. Communication Monographs, 51,
307-319.
Brown, B.L. (1980). Effects of speech rate on personality attribution and competency evaluations. In H. Giles, W.P.
Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.) Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 293-306). Oxford: Pergamon.
Brown, B.L., Strong, W.J., & Rencher, A.C. (1975). Acoustic determinants of perceptions of personality from
speech. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 6, 11-32.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (Ed.),
Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1979). Social structure, groups and interaction. In K.R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.). Social
markers in speech (pp. 291-342). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R., &. Ford, M. (1961). Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62,
375-385.
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. New York: Prentice Hall.
Clark, H.H., & Haviland, S.E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.),
Discourse production and comprehension. (pp. 1-40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Clegg, S. (1975). Power, rule and domination. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20,
37-46.
Collins, R. (1983). Micromethods as a basis for macrosociology. Urban Life, 12, 184-202.
Coser, R.L. (1960). Laughter among colleagues: A study of the social functions of humor among the staff of a mental
hospital. Psychiatry, 23, 81-95.
Courtright, J.A., Fairhurst, G.T., & Rogers, L.E. (in press). Interaction patterns in organic and mechanistic
systems. Academy of Management Journal.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J.A., Markham, S.E., & Dumas, M. (1982). Multiplexed supervision and leadership: An
application of within and between analysis. In J.G. Hunt, U. Sekaram, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.) Leadership,
beyond establishment views (pp. 81-103). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dansereau, F. Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations—a longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13, 46-78.
Deetz, S., & Mumby, D. (1985). Metaphors, information and power. Information and behavior. 1, 369-386.
Dienesch, R.M., & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
Drake, B.H., & Moberg, D.J. (1986). Communicating influence attempts in dyads: Linguistic sedatives and
palliatives. Academy of Management Review, 11, 567-584.
Duncan, H.D. (1962). Communication and social order. New York: Bedminster Press.
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 233

Eden, D., & Leviaton, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying
supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 736-741.
Edwards, J.R. (1979). Language and disadvantage. London: Edward Arnold.
Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as a strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51,
227-242.
Ervin-Tripp, S.M. (1971). Sociolinguistics. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.) Contributions to the sociology of language. (Vol.
1, pp. 15-91) The Hague: Mouton.
Ervin-Tripp, S.M. (1980). Speech acts, social meaning and social learning. In H . Giles, W.P. Robinson, & P.M.
Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 389-396). Oxford: Pergamon.
Fairhurst, G.T. (1986). Male-female communication on the job: Literature review and commentary. In M.
McMaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 83-116). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Fairhurst, G.T., Rogers, L.E., & Sarr, R.A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgments about the
relationship. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.) Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 395-415) Beverly Hills: Sage.
Fairhurst, G.T., & Sarr, R.A. (1987). Illusory participation: Confronting an illusion. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Cincinnati.
Fishman, J. A. (1971). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society.
In J.A. Fishman (Ed.) Contributions to the sociology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 217-380). The Hague: Mouton.
Fishman, P. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

Fishman, P. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In H. Giles, W.P. Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.) Language: Social
psychological perspectives (pp. 127-132). Oxford: Pergamon.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J.C. McKinney & E.A. Tirayakian
(Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 15-91). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1979) Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan/Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Giles, H., & Wiemann, J.M. (1987). Language, social comparison and power. In C.R. Berger & S.H. Chaffee
(Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 350-384). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Giles, H., Scherer, K.R., & Taylor, D.M. (1979). Speech markers in social interaction. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair
(Eds.) Language and social psychology (pp. 343-382). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Goody, E.N. (1978). Questions and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development
approach. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.) Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State
University Press.
Graen, G., & Ginsburgh, S. (1977). Job resignation as a function of role orientation and leader acceptance: A
longitudinal investigation of organizational assimilation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19,
1-17.
Graen, G., Liden, R.C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.
Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on
productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L.L. Cummings
(Eds.) Research in organizational behavior, 9 (pp. 175-208) Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. (1985). When your boss invests in your career. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Cincinnati.
Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63, 206-212.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1987). Cross-cultural comparisons. In C.R. Berger & S.H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of
communication science (pp. 847-889). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1986). Intergroup communication. London: Edward Arnold.
Heritage, J.C., & Watson, D.R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objectives. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday
language: Studies in ethnomethology. (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington.
Hewitt, J.P., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review, 40, 1-11.
Hopper, R. (1981). The taken-for-granted. Human Communication Research, 7, 195-211.
Hopper, R., Knapp, M., & Scott, L. (1981). Couples' personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of
Communication, 31, 23-33.
Hosman, L.A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifies: Powerful and powerless
speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15, 383-406.
Husband, C. (1977). News media, language and race relations: A case study in identity maintenance. In H. Giles
(Ed.) Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 211-240). London: Academic Press.
Jacobs, T. (1971). Leadership and exchange in formal organizations. Alexandria, VA.: Human Resources Research
Organization.
 234 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Katerberg, R., & Hom, P. (1981). Effects of within-group and between-group variation in leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 66, 218-223.
King, A. (1987). Power and communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Proceedings of the Chicago
Linguistic Society, 8, 183-228.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leet-Pelligrini, H. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, W.P.
Robinson, & P.M. Smith (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 66-87). Baltimore: University Park
Press.
Liden, R.C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of
Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Liden, R.C., & Mitchell, T.R. (in press). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review.
Lind, E.A., & O'Barr, W.M. (1979). The social significance of speech in the courtroom. In H. Giles & R.N. St.
Clair (Eds.) Language and social psychology (pp. 66-87). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. Jr., (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.

Maynard, D.W., & Wilson, T.P. (1980). On the reification of social structure. In S.G. McNall & G.N. Howe
(Eds.), Current perspectives in social theory: A research annual (pp. 287-322). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McPhee, R.D. (1985). Formal structure and organizational communication. In R.D. McPhee & P.K. Tompkins
(Eds.) Organizational communication (pp. 149-178). Beverly Hills: Sage.
McLaughlin, M.L. (1984). How talk is organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, G.R. (1983). On various ways of skinning symbolic cats: Recent research on persuasive message strategies.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 123-140.
Miller, G.R., & Hewgill, M.A. (1964). The effect of variations in nonfluency on audience ratings of source
credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50, 36-44.
Mishler, E.G., & Waxier, N.E. (1968). Interaction in families: An experimental study of family process and
schizophrenia. New York: John Wiley.
Molotch, H.L., & Boden, D. (1985). Talking social structure: Discourse, domination and the Watergate hearings.
American Sociological Review, 50, 273-288.
Molotch, H.L., & Lester, M. (1974). News as purposive behavior; on the strategic use of routine events, accidents
and scandals. American Sociological Review, 39, 101-112.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and problem solving in organization theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 20, 605-622.
O'Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic
Press.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B.B. Schieffelin (Eds.) Developmental pragmatics (pp.
43-72). New York: Academic Press.
Pascale, R.T., & Athos, A.G. (1981). The art of Japanese management. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pondy, L.R. (1978). Leadership is a language game. In M. Lombardo & M. McMcall (Eds.) Leadership: Where
else can we go? (pp. 87-99). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Powesland, P.F., & Giles, H.G. (1975). Persuasiveness and accent-message incompatibility. Human Relations, 28,
85-93.
Putnam, L. (1987). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In X.K. Smith & D. Berg (Eds.) Paradoxes of
group life (pp. 151-167). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Rogers, L.E., & Farace, R.V. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measures and procedures. Human
Communication Research, 7, 222-239.
Rosenstein, N.E., & McLaughlin, M.L. (1983, November). Characterization of interruption as a function of
temporal placement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington.
Rush, M.C., Thomas, J.C., & Lord, R.G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal
validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 93-110.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Scandura, T., & Graen, G. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a
leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
Scandura, T.A., Graen, G.B., & Novak, M.A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 1-6.
Schank, R.G. (1977). Rules and topics in conversation. Cognitive Science, 1, 421-444.
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1955). Social class and modes of communication. American Journal of Sociology, 60,
329-338.
Scherer, K.R. (1979). Voice and speech correlates of perceived social influence in simulated juries. In H. Giles &
R.N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 88-120). Baltimore: University Park Press.
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 235

Schiemann, W.A., & Graen, G.B. (1984). Structural and interpersonal effects in patterns of managerial
communication. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50,
199-236.
Schriesheim, J. (1980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations: An investigation of the effects of group
cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183-194.
Schriesheim, C.A., Kinicki, A.J., & Schriesheim, J.F. (1979). The effect of leniency on leader behavior descriptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 1-29.
Scott, M.B., & Lyman, S.M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
Sigman, S.J., Sullivan, S.J., & Wendell, M. (1988). Conversation: Data acquisiton and analysis. In C.H. Tardy
(Ed.) A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring and
assessing communication processes (pp. 163-192). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership and the management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 78, 257-273.
Swann, W.B., Jr., Giuliano, T., & Wegner, D.M. (1982). Where leading questions can lead: The power of
conjecture in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1025-1035.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human categories and social groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.)
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tannen, D. (1979). What's in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.), New
directions in discourse processing (pp. 137-181). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Vecchio, R. (1982). A further test of leadership effects due to between-group variation and within-group variation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 200-208.
Vecchio R., & Gobdel, B. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems'and prospects.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.
Wagner, J. (1980). Strategies of dismissal: Ways and means of avoiding personal abuse. Human Relations, 33.
603-622.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of
interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
Wiseman, R.L., & Schenck-Hamlin, W. (1981). A multidimensional scaling valididation of an inductively-derived
set of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Monographs, 48, 251-270.

APPENDIX
Excerpt 7
(1) Larry: ***** . . . you see people pick up responsibility . . . on the job and the job is more
flexible/
(2) Norm: /Yeah/
(3) Larry: /and it should be more rewarding for them and also more more rewarding for the
company/
(4) Norm: /But there's another way to look at that obviously not necessarily sayin' that / look at it
that way but it is that every time you want to make a change in a manager you gotta buy
your way into the change . . . by payin people . . . for more money/
(5) Larry: /Yeah, an I under/
(6) Norm: /for for more work that is [coughing] not really changed from what it was before/
(7) Larry: /Yeah I understand that fear I have that concern too . . . but I felt. . . you know I would
have felt differently if we came out 30 points shy . . . or anything below t h a t . . . but being
in range I'm saying . . . Jesus you know we're close . . . and that/
(8) Norm: /Yeah/
(9) Larry: /that came out fairly . . . you know what haven't we looked at on the or made/
(10) Norm: /Let me tell ya where I stand . . . ah first I could be convinced that we ought to do that/
(11) Larry: / U h hum/
(12) Norm: / I have some concerns.
(13) Larry: Uh hum.
(14) Norm: One . . . that the shipper job*****

Excerpt 2
(15) Norm: Thing two just philosophically . . . ah when when the job was broken u p /
(16) Larry: / U h hum/
 236 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

(17) Norm: /it was broken up and people got more pay . . . and now that we're combining it people
gonna get more pay . . . every time you make a change people get more pay why? the
work remains exactly the same/
(18) Larry: /Uh hum/
(19) Norm: /and unless we want to bastardize our job evaluation system which I don't want to I hold
that/
(20) Larry: /Uh hum/
(21) Norm: / I want to hold that in some kind of high regard/
(22) Larry: / U h h u m /
(23) Norm: /Ah [sigh] I'd like to try to look at it as objectively as possible and all we're really doing
here . . . is evaluating three different . . . styles of loading and asking people to really
rotate among those three assignments and combine em all into one job description . . .
rather than having three separate ones but the work is exactly the same so it seems to me
that there's no real reason for the consolidation of those three jobs to equal more than ah
the sum of them.
(24) Larry: I really see it differently than that . . . I think it should equal more than the sum of
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

them/
(25) Norm: /Okay/
(26) Larry: /because you you interact with each one of them less frequently you have to retain more
to be able to do all of em proficiently so that one job title . . . would work and there there
are a number of benefits you know somethin you'd get a a greater variety of tasks that you
have to . . . be able to deal with . . . skillfully/
Excerpt 3
(27) Norm: Ok let's close out this discussion... [clears throat] I'll support you in whatever you want
to do . . . I'd like ya to think . . . for awhile . . . before you move ahead . . . on the on what
you see as the needs put yourself in the position of the plant manager/
(28) Larry: / U h h u m /
(29) Norm: /Now with this bracket creep thing . . . your talkin about a significant bracket creep that
you're gonna cause [cough] to happen/
(30) Larry: /Uh huh/
(31) Norm: /here in the warehouse.
(32) Larry: /Uh huh.
(33) Norm: [clears throat] I've done the same thing since/
(34) Larry: / U h h u m /
(35) Norm: /I've been here for four years when I came in here every job was " F " rated except [job
name] and it was " J " now there's no job ... that's as low as " F " (2.0) every single job in
the warehouse is more than that/
(36) Larry: /Uh huh/
(37) Norm: /and " I " isn't the top any longer (2.0) so there's been significant bracket creep in the last
four years . . . and what we're doing is fostering (2.0) saying that's the^way we want to
run the plant (1.5) and what we're doing i s . . . one department is competing with another
department... to get its jobs a little higher than the other departments (2.0) recognize it
and see whether that's what you want to do and/
(38) Larry: / O k /
(39) Norm: /I'll support you with whatever you want.
(40) Larry: I appreciate that Norm . . . and the thing that I try to look objectively at is gee are we
doing something that's not to bastardize the job evaluation system . . . but is what we're
asking our people w i s e . . . the fact that they'd be moving up would we be moving them up
just blatantly or officially? . . . and when I look back . . . at you know at least where
they're at right now . . . and I had nothin to do we haven't had nothin to do with the (job
title] evaluation you know from the beginning b u t . . . but just looking at the different jobs
. . . I'm tryin to compare this in my mind to the [job name] systems operator job in many
ways and ah . . . there are a number of things about that that that make it comparable as
we start combining the job responsibilities . . . ah because they're a whole . . . they're a
whole number of things that people have to start keeping/
(41 ) Norm: / I think when you start wanting to do those kinds of things that you want out of our [job
title] systems operator . . . then I think we're ready to go back in the job evaluation and
talk about the responsibility factor and some things like that/
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 237
(42) Larry: /Yeah/
(43) Norm: /Don't/
(44) Larry: /not/
(45) Norm: /don't try to snow me Larry I know damn well that the job consolidation of these three
jobs is not going to materially change things out there/
(46) Larry: /No I'm I'm sayin/
(47) Norm: /People are each day are not going to see anything different in their lives/
(48) Larry: /Well/
(49) Norm: /and you're your're gonna be facing a a argument in seniority and things like that that
are probably going to end up keeping exactly the same people doin [job title] and exactly
the same people doin . . . ah the front door work although that that might get muched
together but you see/
(50) Larry: /Well/
(51 ) Norm: /the people gonna keep doin [job title] cause your gonna have all kinds of grievances and
it's gonna be supported among all those people sayin we want to exercise our seniority
and choose the work we want to do on the basis of seniority . . . and I don't think there's
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

any reason for us to fight/

(52) Larry: / U h huh/
(53) Norm: /something like that/
(54) Larry: /No/
(55) Norm: /that's of no value for them/
(56) Larry: /Well hell we are the system we come up with that we'd like to suggest to them that
rotating is based on senior people doin the top priority work/
(57) Norm: /Yeah yeah/
(58) Larry: /But but one of the I was thinking of the comparison to the [job name] not at this level...
because we know what this level means although it breaks down some significant barriers
. . . it's at the next level/
(59) Norm: /Does that tape recorder bother you?/
(60) Larry: No
(61) Norm: You looked at it a couple of times [laughter]
(62) Larry: I'm just I'm just you know/
(63) Norm: /Ok/
(64) Larry: /lookin around the room it doesn't bother me at all ah (3.0) I guess I see it at the next
level . . . so that's why I'm not concerned about about the moving up.
(65) Norm: Ok
(66) Larry: Plus we had a/
(67) Norm: /Ok just remember you may one day be in a different module and your gonna be lookin
at this whole situation and tryin to balance it/
(68) Larry: / I . . . I understand I had the same theory about it/
(69) Norm: [very low speaking] /You may be the plant manager one day and say Goddamm back
when I was in the warehouse I really messed things up [laughter]
(70) Larry: If we get these changes out of it 111 feel it's worth it*****

Discussion continues for one minute.

(71) Norm: I don't think it's any better debating it any further I think you know where I stand and
I'll I'm with you if you feel it's necessary.

Excerpt 4
(72) June: ***** Sure (2.5) I think they need to know a lot more than a unit cost a unit cost is
meaningless to them if they don't know what they can do and how much of whatever they
can do they have to do to decrease it.
(73) Norm: Yeah . . . of course there's the risk, on the other side of knowing way too much . . . I'm
tryin to follow all kinds of things.
(74) June: Well I don't think ya need to follow a bunch of things I just think they need to be aware of
some things like you know when you spend $3,000 detention a month what kind of
impact's that have on unit cost?
(75) Norm: Ok/
(76) June: /Those are the kinda things that I'd like to have them understand.
 238 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
(77) Norm: Ok (2.0) The thought that I had was ah with regard to goal setting which we . . . ah just
thinking about how we're gonna deal with i t . . . and how we will involve the people (2.0)
one of the traps . . . that I have fallen into several times . . . has been to set (1.5) set a goal
for everything that we said is important/
(78) June: / U h hum (1.5)
(79) Norm: and ya end up with a whole lot of goals . . . ya know we've got two goal sheets up here
now . . . one of them we call the helper goals or/
(80) June: /support goals/
(81 ) Norm: /support goals . . . and the other one the primary goals .. . what ends up is that we've got
so many goals... we have basically covered the business with goals . . . and it it gets hard
to focus on any one thing.
(82) June: I agree.
(83) Norm: And it's especially hard I think for our operators to do t h a t . . . so I suspect that when ah
we s t a r t . . . finally setting goals and talking cost and tracking things each month . . . that
it'll be important to limit that to (2.0) maybe two. . .
(84) June: Uh hum/
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

(85) Norm: /ah maybe safety and ah . . . cost goal and maybe it's just a unit cost or something (1.5) I
don't k n o w . . . ok how do you how would you propose that we go about developing ah the
cost... per . . . training . . . program and cost portion of the communication program?

Excerpt 5
(86) June: ***** If they [the loaders] can see t h i s . . . and see one obvious. . . error they made.. .that
to me is a lot more meaningful and then supervisors keep track . . . for purposes of
performance appraisals . . . of known errors/
(87) Norm: / O k /
(88) June: /that's the best what we want/
(89) Norm: / I think/
(90) June: / I think is to have/
(91 ) Norm: / I think you're right.. . I'm concerned about one thing/
(92) June: /better/
(93) Norm: /You're gonna give those to the supervisor and then you're never gonna see them
again...
(94) June: Well so far I have and I've given to 'em a couple of times and they get back within a week
or so.
(95) Norm: Oh, is that right? Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned then.
(96) June: Well I jus' told them I needed the I told 'em what to do with 'em and just to give 'em back
to me ASAP.
(97) Norm: I have several other concerns . . . one of which is . . . if we wanna set up some kind of
record . . . to be used for performance appraisal . . . ah it's going to be dependent the
quality of that record or whether that record exists at a l l . . . will be dependent upon the
particular supervisor that you happen to give that to (1.5) for example give it to Tom it
might get stuck in his briefcase and it's gone forever give it to Joe maybe he is very very
dilligent he keeps his record you give it to Gary and well most of the time he does a pretty
good job he gets out and talks with the people but he doesn't keep any record ah (2.0)
(98) June: You're right there I don't have an answer for that (2.0) but again I think the most
important thing is that well . . . maybe the thing to do is jus' to have one supervisor be
responsible for feeding back . . . information about loading errors . . . I don't know how
many other sources we have to recognize a loading error beside I guess receiving forms and
our planned receiving forms (7.0)
(99) Norm: We're Iookin at really two problems... one we're looking at my need to have a record so
that I can see . . . how we're doing . . . and two we're looking at supervisors' needs . . . to
have give feedback to their employees (3.0) passing it on to the supervisor is surely gonna
satisfy that second need . . . I guess I'm most concerned with my need is for me to get
satisfied/
(100) June: /Ok when you say you need to know how we're doing... w-what additional information
ya wanna know loaders' names attached to all those claims . . . in addition to the truckers
and the customers?
 SOCIAL STRUCTURE 239

Excerpt 6
(101) Norm: Ya might wanna try to pursue this headache thing ah to see if there's some justification
for i t . . . I don't know what the solution might be but don't turn a deaf ear to it.
(102) Rick: Yeah I'm not gonna.
(103) Norm: But I'd I'd suggest to ya that your wanna make sure and differentiate between a safety
issue and a work performance issue . . . do that real clearly.
(104) Rick: Yes ok alright.
Excerpt 7
(105) Rick: So I made a 9/1 management decision and said gentlemen this company will buy you
glasses but as of a week from now mandatory eye protection will be required of all
individuals inside of the shop area.
Excerpt 8
(106) Norm: What's what's necessary next? I mean what is the next step?
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 11:18 06 January 2015

(107) Rick: There was a stack of [product] that had to be moved and that was it . . . and then say . . .
folks this is i t . . . it's a lay-on . . . to a large extent... we won't allow tractors to be left...
sitting idle in the warehouse and people have to do certain clean-up functions at certain
times and certain inspection functions at certain times ah but the implementation of it
would be relatively simple I believe.
(108) Norm: I gotta feeling we could implement that . . . in a manner other than a lay-on *****
there've just been so darn many lay-ons around here lately . . . that I'd like to/
(109) Rick: /Back away from some of the lay-ons?/
(110) Norm: /Yeah do some of these things ah in a in a different way if we could (3.0)
(111) Rick: /Yeah I think you're a little bit . . . I don't have any problem with lay-ons . . . and I
honestly don't think my men have much of a problem with certain lay-ons . . . if they're
absurd it's a very tough pill to swallow but by and large they ah/
(112) Norm: /ya know they become a way of life after awhile.
(113) Rick: Yes they can be. (2.0)
(114) Norm: And that's not the direction we wanna go . . . we're wanting to go in a different direction
. . . to get our employees to "own" the business and ah assume more responsibility for
making decisions an and their own actions and that just directionally doesn't happen
when you're giving more and more and more orders about what you want done and how
you want it done...
(115) Rick: I don't know . . . I j u s t . . . ah that's ah we could have a long conversation on this.
(116) Norm: Yep we could.
(117) Rick: Ya know I think once we reach minimum standards there need not be any lay-ons (3.0) but
if we assume that we're gonna achieve minimum standards on a voluntary basis... I think
we're really mistaken and I think that's part of our problem right now . . . our standards
are are well below what we would call minimumly acceptable . .. and in order to get to
that acceptable point I think it's gonna take some lay-ons (2.0) it's gonna take some
practice . . . it's gonna take breaking old habits . . . and those are done in a lay-on/
(118) Norm: /yeah you're right we can spend an awful lot of time/
(119) Rick: /Sure/
(120) Norm: /talkin that I don't think we have that time/
(121) Rick: /Right*****