COM3404- Short Answer #5 (Chapter 8)
HappyRainFrog1
Article-Touch-in-the-WP_V1.pdf
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES
Vol. XXIX Number 4 Winter 2017
A Gendered Emotional Display Perspective on
Workplace Touch and Perceived Supervisor Support
J. Bryan Fuller Humana Foundation/McCallister Endowed Professor of Management
Louisiana Tech University
Laura E. Marler Associate Professor of Management
Mississippi State University
Susie S. Cox Professor of Management
University of Arkansas Little Rock
Marcia J. Simmering Francis R. Mangham Endowed Professor of Management
Louisiana Tech University [email protected]
Rebecca J. Bennett Professor of Management
University of Central Florida [email protected]
Jenny L Curry Human Resources Representative
Vantage Health Plan Inc./Affinity Health Group, L.L.C. [email protected]
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
(395)
396 Workplace Touch and Support
Physically touching another individual is considered to be a particularly effective way of communicating various feelings and emotions (Hertenstein et al., 2006; Richmond and McCroskey, 2004). Humans use touch throughout their lives to convey what words may not be fully capable of expressing, and touch can also be used to intensify the meaning of emotional displays” (Hertenstein et al, 2006: 70; Knapp and
Hall, 2002). A warm hug from a dear friend in the office, a firm handshake after the deal is done, and a pat on the back from the supervisor are all examples of effective uses of positive touch that may occur in the workplace. Indeed, authors of various popular press books have suggested that managers may build better relationships with subordinates by using touch to communicate that they care and support the subordinate (e.g., The One Minute Manager, Blanchard and Johnson, 2003; Managing to Have Fun, Weinstein, 1996). However, taking an evidence-based management perspective (Rousseau, 2006; Rousseau and McCarthy, 2007), it may or may not be advisable for managers to attempt to use touch to enhance their interpersonal relationships with subordinates given the disconnect between these blanket statements and the lack of empirical research supporting this suggestion. Until there is a better understanding of the complexities of the use of touch in the workplace, managers who utilize touch as a way to express positive emotions may be putting themselves and their organizations at risk.
In general, very little is known about the potential for touch to build positive workplace relationships or how employees respond to tactile expressions of emotion by their supervisors. Certainly, there are reasons that research on interpersonal touch in the workplace is scant. First, researchers note the topic of touch is inherently difficult to study (Hall and Veccia, 1990). Much of the extant literature is observational in nature lending little insight into the meaning of touch (Hall and Veccia, 1990). The number of observational studies is not surprising, as studying naturally occurring touch presents researchers with challenges. In particular, workplace touch is difficult to study because non intimate parties are less inclined to engage in touching behavior (Major, 1981). Further, studying touch in a laboratory or experimental setting is problematic because it is likely to introduce methodological problems (Major, 1981). Second, the gendered nature of touch presents researchers with challenges, especially when it comes to touch in the workplace. There remains a fear of using touch in the workplace such that research examining the potential for using touch in a positive way at work is often considered to be taboo even among social psychologists and organizational behavior scholars (Major, 1981). The lack of attention to the topic is understandable considering that inappropriate touch in the workplace is fraught with potential negative outcomes (e.g., miscommunication, reduced relationship quality, sexual and other harassment charges).
While research on how men and women use touch in the workplace is scarce, a great deal of research has highlighted the gendered nature of touch. Despite debate about the asymmetry in the use of touch by men and women (Hall andVeccia, 1990; Henley, 1973; Major, 1981; Stier and Hall, 1984), research consistently reveals that men and women often use touch and interpret touch differently (Fuller etal., 2011; Hall andVeccia, 1990; Henley, 1973, 1977; Hertenstein and Keltner, 2011; Martin and Anderson, 1993; Stier and Hall, 1984). For example, male/female dyads in Hall and Veccia s (1990) study demonstrated more arm around touch, while females tended to prefer arms linked. Research on nonreciprocal touch also demonstrates that the initiator and recipient of touch may attach different meaning (Major and Heslin, 1982). Therefore, prior research
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
“
-
-
-
’ “ ” “ ”
F u ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben n ett, and Curry 397
indicates that gender is an important consideration when seeking a greater understanding of how managers might use touch effectively.
With such scant research on the topic, one important question is whether or not subordinates interpret touch from a male supervisor differently than from a female supervisor. The current paper seeks to begin to answer this question and develop a greater general understanding of the dynamics of interpersonal touch in the workplace by taking into account its gendered nature. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the relationship between supervisor use of touch to convey positive affect (i.e., support) and subordinate perceptions of supervisor support is dependent upon the gender of the supervisor. In other words, are male supervisors and female supervisors equally adept at using touch to foster subordinate feelings of supervisor support? Perceptions of supervisor support has proven to be an important construct studied by organizational behaviorists as it has been linked to perceived organizational outcomes in numerous studies (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), as well as key employee outcomes including role clarity (Babin and Boles, 1996), job satisfaction (Li et al., 2015), life satisfaction (Li et al., 2015), and workplace outcomes such as job performance, turnover intentions, and turnover (Maertz et al., 2007; Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006). Interestingly, one previous study reveals that supervisor touch can influence perceptions of perceived supervisor support (e.g., Marler et al., 2011). However, the study was experimental in nature and only captured participant observer s reactions to a video of a manager touching a subordinate. Further, the study only considered a male supervisor-subordinate dyad. As such, additional field studies considering both same gender and cross-gender dyads are needed to provide information about the extent to which supervisor touch can be used to foster feelings of supervisor support.
By taking a gendered emotional display perspective of touch in the workplace, this study is able to make several contributions to the extant literature. First, few studies have examined touch as a positive workplace behavior (Fuller et al., 2011; Kraus et al., 2010). In part, due to the taboo of touch and concerns regarding sexual harassment, research has for the most part neglected the role of positive touch in workplace interactions. By examining gender effects, the current study contributes to the emerging literature examining workplace touch by providing new insight into the role supervisor gender plays in the subordinate reactions to supervisor touch. That is, the notion that touch is a way in which supervisors are able to (and should or should not) positively influence their subordinates is examined here. Another meaningful contribution is that, unlike previous research (i.e., Fuller et al., 2011), the current study assesses supervisor touch as reported by supervisors rather than subordinate reports. That is, this study examines the extent to which supervisors touch intended to convey support is positively related to subordinate perceptions of supervisor support. In short, does the use of supportive touch by supervisors accomplish what they intend it to accomplish (i.e., make the subordinate feel supported) or does it result in unanticipated outcomes? This is critical to developing insight into any goal-directed behavior (Griffin and Lopez, 2005; Merton, 1936). Further, this type of information contributes to an understanding of when and if managers can discern when it is acceptable and appropriate to use touch in the workplace (i.e., workplace tactile intelligence; Simmering et al., 2013). Thus, these findings inform the literature on touch in the workplace, the human resource literature, and the greater field of positive organizational psychology. Finally, in addition to answering calls for future research on workplace touch (Fuller et al., 2011; Heaphy,
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
’
’
398 Workplace Touch and Support
2007), the current research works to bridge the gap between research and practice (Rynes et al., 2007).
In the present study, the emotions as social information theory (EASI) is drawn upon to develop a foundation for better understanding the interpersonal consequences of supervisor touch in the workplace. Unlike attribution theory (e.g., Martinko et al., 2006) or appraisal theory (e.g., Scherer et al., 2001) which focus upon the antecedents of emotional expressions, EASI focuses upon the outcomes of emotional expressions (Van Kleef, 2014: 4). Based upon EASI theory, this study proposes that through social relational factors and information processing, subordinates interpret touch as an emotional affirmation of their supervisor’s support. The following sections review relevant literature on touch in the workplace, EASI, and gender differences. Following the literature review, hypotheses related to a gendered emotional display perspective regarding supervisor touch in the workplace are presented. A discussion of the analyses and results provides a summary of the significance of these findings and potential limitations accompanying this type of study design. Finally, the paper is concluded with thoughts regarding human resource policy related to touch in the workplace as well as thoughts for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Touch within the Workplace Context
Touch, one of the five senses, is a fundamental part of the human experience (Knapp, 1980) and can convey a variety of both positive and negative emotions (Richmond and McCroskey, 2004). Even the mention of using touch in the workplace evokes emotion. In fact, neuroscientists have noted that even friendly touch is responsible for the secretion of oxytocin, which activates parts of the brain that fosters productivity among teams (Kraus et al., 2010). Indeed, not only can people communicate numerous distinct emotions with touch, but they are also able to accurately identify these different emotions when being touched (Hertenstein et al., 2006). For example, adults have the ability to distinguish between friendly and sexually interested behavior (Shotland and Craig, 1988). Accordingly, handshakes, pats on the back, and other common workplace touch (e.g., high fives) can generally be used legally and appropriately in the workplace (Fuller et al., 2011). Therefore, research suggests that tactile interaction when appropriately used among employees can be a means of enhancing interpersonal communication and influence, resulting in more positive relationships at work (Heaphy, 2007).
While appropriate touch may be welcome and beneficial in a workplace, there are a number of factors that are likely to limit the use of workplace touch. First, physical touch in the workplace may be associated with unwanted sexual contact and even bullying. Inevitably, sexual harassment laws and human resource management rules/policies make many managers afraid to use physical touch to communicate with their subordinates because of the uncertainty of how touch will be interpreted (Richmond and McCroskey, 2004). Human resource departments and legal advisors tend to err on the side of caution by advising employees, especially supervisors to refrain from touching employees. Yet, many forms of physical touch in the workplace do not fit the legal definition of sexual harassment and can indeed be appropriately used. Sexual harassment is considered such only if a reasonable person considers it to be offensive.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
-
-
“ ”
Fu ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben nett, and Curry 399
Further, for workplace touch to constitute evidence of a hostile work environment, it must be intentional, involve intimate body areas (U.S. EEOC, 1990: 8), or be executed in an offensive manner (U.S. EEOC, 1990: 11). Therefore, common forms of workplace touch (e.g., handshakes and high fives), do not constitute sexual harassment, and other forms of touch such as hugs and pats on the back are also unlikely to constitute harassment because they do not involve intimate body areas and an average person would not consider them to be offensive.
A second reason that workplace touch may be limited could be due to organizations attempt to create healthier workplaces, discouraging handshakes and other forms of appropriate touch. While handshakes can potentially transmit germ causing illnesses (Mela and Whitworth, 2014), humans still value touch as a form of communicating emotions. Recently, the fist bump has been used as a replacement for the common handshake, as it requires less touch. Thought to have originated with athletes that did not want to injury or dislocate a finger during celebratory handshakes (Hamblin, 2013), the fist bump gained national prominence when Barack and Michelle Obama shared a dap on stage at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 (Safire, 2008).
Finally, cultural background may play a role in an employee s perception of the use of workplace touch. Touch is a universal characteristic of human interaction and an important form of nonverbal communication. However, nonverbal communication is both culture bound and ambiguous (Chen and Starosta, 1997). The amount of touching that people accept and expect is determined by each particular society, varies from culture to culture, and may engender positive or negative emotions (Burwell, 1999; Frank, 1957; Heslin and Alper, 1983). For instance, interpersonal touching is infrequent in noncontact cultures such as Northern Europe, the United States, and Asia (Mazur, 1977; Thayer, 1988), whereas in high touch cultures (e.g., the Middle East, Latin America, and Southern Europe) people interact at closer distances and touch each other more in social conversations (Hall, 1966; Lustig and Koester, 1996). Those in high touch cultures may kiss or hug others in greeting, where in noncontact cultures, people are more likely to shake hands in greeting (LaFrance and Mayo, 1978). The effect of culture on the use of touch in social and business interactions may also depend on gender roles in the culture where more traditional cultures may have different gender expectations as to who does the most touching, men or women (DiBiase and Gunnoe, 2004).
With the variety of considerations related to the acceptability of touch, there is no official play book on the use of touch in the workplace (Bernstein, 2009), and using emotional expressions through touch as a social influence tactic “is a delicate endeavor (Van Kleef et al., 2011: 146). The appropriateness of touch is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. What one person may consider a warm hug, another may view as a violation of personal space. A manager may feel confident in his or her ability to use touch (i.e., touch self efficacy), yet the intended message may not be interpreted as desired. Research reveals that managers differ in their belief in their ability to use touch effectively and that the use of touch is often associated with anxiety (Fuller et al., 2011).
To date, a great deal of the literature examining workplace touch has focused on negative aspects such as sexual harassment (e.g., Rotundo et al., 2001), yet more recently researchers have begun to explore the potential for touch to build positive workplace relationships (e.g., Fuller et al., 2011; Heaphy, 2007; Marler et al., 2011). Previous research on touch reveals that it can be used to increase compliance (Kleinke, 1977) and
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
“ ” “ ”
’
“ ”
’
-
“ ”
“ ”
”
-
400 Workplace Touch and Support
to encourage prosocial helping (Goldman and Fordyce, 1983). A small amount of research on workplace touch suggests that it is a way in which managers can enhance their interpersonal relationships with subordinates (Fuller et al., 2011; Heaphy, 2007; Marler et al., 2011); findings indicate that supervisors who use touch to convey positive affect to subordinates tend to be viewed by subordinates as more likeable, supportive, and authentic (Fuller et al., 2011). The focus of the present study is positive affective touch that would generally be considered acceptable in the workplace—non-sexual or non-intimate physical touch that communicates positive affect to another person. This definition of touch comes from Fuller et al. (2011), who examined supervisor use of non intimate/non sexual touch to convey positive affect for a particular subordinate. This definition of touch is consistent with other definitions of touch such as Yohanan and MacLean s affective touch which they define as touch that communicates or evokes emotion (2012: 165) and Richmond and McCroskey s (2004) friendship warmth touch which conveys that one values and cares for another. As noted by Fuller et al. (2011), the concept of affective touch is also found in the writings of Heaphy (2007) and Knapp and Hall (2002).
Emotional Expression
The emotions as social information theory (EASI; Van Kleef et al., 2012) holds that one of the main functions of emotions is to influence others. That is, emotional expressions provide information to observers...which may influence their cognitions, attitudes, and behavior (Van Kleef et al. 2012: 313). Emotional expressions convey information about the expresser s feelings, intentions, and orientation toward other people. EASI theory suggests that observer reactions to another s emotional expressions are influenced largely by two processes: the observer s affective responses and the inferences the observer draws from the emotional expressions. For example, affective responses to another s positive emotional expressions may include liking because of the relational orientation the expression conveys (Van Kleef, 2009: 186). Alternately, observing another s positive emotional expression may lead an observer to infer that things are going well and expectations are positive” (Van Kleef, 2009: 185). EASI
theory suggests that affective reactions and inferential processes may converge to promote the same observer response or behavioral outcome or they may motivate different reactions and behaviors. One of the basic propositions of EASI theory is that positive emotional expressions tend to result in desired outcomes from the perspective of the individual expressing the emotion (a symmetrical effect; Van Kleef, 2014). Accordingly, this study focuses on determining the extent to which supervisor touch intended to convey positive affect results in a desired effect (i.e., subordinate perceptions that the supervisor cares about them).
Emotions can be expressed in several ways including verbal communication, nonverbal facial expressions, tears, and even physical touch. Expressed emotions provide information to observers, which may influence their reaction and subsequent behaviors (Van Kleef, 2009). Interpretation of these emotions is dependent on the observer s information processing and social-relational factors, including need for cognitive closure, power, time pressure, display rules and appropriateness. According to EASI theory, the observer s reactions to another s emotional expressions will differ across situations depending on how appropriate the emotional expression is in the given situation. Perceived appropriateness of the emotional display may be influenced by
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
- -
’ “ ” “ ” ’ “ -
”
“
” ’
’ ’
’
’ “
’
’ ’
Fu ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben n ett, and Curry 401
cultural stereotypes including gender. For example in the United States, hugging a new employee may garner resistance, whereas hugging a long-time employee that you have not seen for a period of time may be greatly appreciated.
A Gendered Perspective of Touch
Males and females are evaluated by different standards on many dimensions, and the use of touch is no different. Koenig et al. (2011) claim that leadership is generally associated with masculine traits, but females are generally viewed as being the kinder and nicer sex. In many cultures the expectation is for women to be nurturers, sensitive, and kind. These traits minimally overlap with common traits associated with leadership such as assertiveness, dominance, and competitiveness which are generally viewed as masculine traits (Basow, 2011). These common views can lead to role incongruity, such that the expectations for male leaders and female leaders supportive behaviors may differ. Male leaders are expected to be more dominant and assertive, but less nurturing and kind, whereas female leaders are expected to be stereotypically female in their sensitivity and caring. Therefore, even when a male and female leader engage in identical types of behaviors (i.e., touch), the social-relational factors differ (Van Kleef, 2009); thus, the nonverbal emotional communication is interpreted differently. For example, if a female boss is discussing a concern with a subordinate and places her hand on his arm, the employee sees this as expected because females should display caring acts; whereas, if a male supervisor places his hand on the employee s arm, the employee may see this as a form of showing authority.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
According to organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986), employees make determinations regarding the extent to which they are valued by the organization (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Because employees view supervisors as agents of the organization (see meta-analysis; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), treatment by a supervisor influences an employee s beliefs regarding the extent to which she or he is supported by the organization as a whole (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Levinson, 1965). Interestingly, Van Kleef et al. (2012) noted the significance of Newcombe and Ashkanasy’s (2002) findings that followers were more strongly influenced by leader emotions than the content of leader communications. Further, positive emotional expressions by leaders have been shown to result in higher dyadic relationship quality evaluations by the subordinate (Glonib and Hulin, 1997). In accord with EASI, emotional displays by leaders should result in affective reactions in followers, which in turn should influence attraction to the leader and evaluations of leader effectiveness (Bono and Hies, 2006). EASI theory (Van Kleef, 2014) suggests that affective reactions to emotional expressions tend to be symmetrical in nature. That is, positive emotional displays tend to cause positive affective reactions and negative emotional displays tend to cause negative affective reactions. Therefore, it seems likely that supervisor touch that expresses positive affect for the subordinate will result in subordinates positive affect towards the leader and positive evaluations of that leader. Indeed, Fuller et al. (2011) found that when subordinates reported relatively high levels of supervisor touch expressing positive affect, the subordinates tended to perceive that supervisor to be more supportive, more likeable, more authentic, and more interpersonally influential.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
’ ’
’
’
’
402 Workplace Touch and Su ppo rt
In other words, appropriate use of positive workplace touch helped the leader to convey emotions effectively.
A positive relationship between supervisor affective touch and subordinate perceptions of supervisor support is expected. Supervisor affective touch is likely to positively influence follower judgments of the supervisor’s positive intentions, friendliness, and helpfulness (i.e., warmth; Fiske et al, 2007: 77) which are indicative of care for the subordinate. According to Emotions as Social Information theory (Van Kleef, 2014), expressions of positive emotion by leaders should encourage followers to develop positive impressions of the leader. Indeed, research indicates that leaders who display positive emotions tend to have subordinates who report higher levels of ratings of leadership quality (Glomb and Hulin, 1997) and charisma (Bono and Ilies, 2006). As such, the following is predicted:
Hypothesis 1: Supervisor reports of their use of touch to convey positive affect is positively related to subordinateperceptions ofsupervisor support.
Emotions as Social Information theory (Van Kleef et al., 2012) suggests that supervisor gender may play an important role in determining subordinate reactions to supervisor affective touch. EASI theory suggests that the perceived appropriateness of emotional expressions may play an important role in determining the affective reactions and the inferential processes of observers’ gender role stereotypes may influence the perceived appropriateness of a leader s emotional expressions. Van Kleef et al.’s (2012) review of the literature found research indicating that leaders tend to be evaluated more positively when their emotional expressions are consistent with common gender stereotypes (e.g., Newcombe and Ashkanasy, 2002). This is known as a role congruity effect (Eagly and Karau, 2002), in that emotional display rules (expectations) are likely to be different for male leaders than for female leaders and that males and females will be more socially successful when their emotional displays are consistent with the general expectations for their gender.
Women (and women supervisors) are often stereotyped as more interpersonally sensitive and emotionally expressive than men (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Hess et al, 2000). Women supervisors are also generally expected to show more concern for others than male supervisors (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Further, women are stereotypically viewed as expressing greater positive emotions (e.g., happy and sympathetic) than men, and men are stereotypically viewed as expressing more negative emotions (e.g., anger) than women (Hertenstein and Keltner, 2011). Therefore, when women express positive emotions at work they are likely to evoke positive affective responses in others (i.e., a symmetrical effect ), while men expressing positive emotions at work are likely to evoke
negative affective responses in others (i.e., an asymmetrical effect”). According to EASI theory, symmetrical effects occur because an emotional display
evokes an affective reaction in the observer, while asymmetrical effects occur due to the inferential processes driven by the inappropriateness of the emotional display (Van Kleef, 2014). Because female supervisor touch intended to convey positive affect (i.e., touch that expresses concern, encouragement, approval) is a positive, appropriate emotional display and because perceptions of supervisor support is based upon feelings of emotional support, EASI theory would suggest that female supervisor affective touch will be positively related to perceptions of supervisor support, while male supervisor
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol.XXIX Number 4 Winter 2017
’
“ ” “
“ ”
Fu ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben nett, and Curry 403
affective touch will be negatively related to perceptions of supervisor support. Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between supervisor reported use oftouch and subordinate perceptions ofsupervisor support will be moderated by supervisorgender, such that the relationship will bepositivefor female supervisors and negativefor male supervisors.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The sample consisted of 120 supervisor-subordinate dyads recruited from undergraduate students at two different southern universities. The age of subordinates ranged from 19 to 59 with an average age of 26. Supervisor age ranged from 21 to 70 with an average age of 42. Fifty-eight percent of the subordinates in the study were female, and 62% of supervisors were female. Gender was coded as a 1 for males and a “2 for females.
Participation was voluntary, and survey instructions emphasized for this survey, touch is not intimate or sexual, but includes actions such as handshakes, pats on the back, tapping on a shoulder, high fives, elbowing, hugs, playful punches, etc. Undergraduate students in a variety of upper-level management courses were asked to participate as subordinates and recruit their current supervisor to participate in the supervisor survey. Students not currently working could ask an employed friend or family member to complete the subordinate survey and recruit their supervisor to participate as well. Each subordinate and supervisor survey set distributed had numerical codes to match them, and after participants completed the anonymous surveys, they sealed them in separate envelopes to be returned to the researchers. Students received a small amount of extra credit for their participation.
The sampling used in the current study is a form of convenience sampling, called snowball sampling, which is often preferred when attempting to collect data that might
otherwise be difficult to gather in a traditional way (Handcock and Gile, 2011), such as gaining access to an organization to survey supervisors and subordinates regarding the use of touch. Sampling from just one or two organizations for the current study would be ill-advised; there would likely be very little variance in the use of touch within one organization due to consistent rules or culture surrounding touch. Thus, a snowball sample capitalizes on the between-organization variance that is likely to produce more generalizability of findings to a wider population of working adults. While there may be some concern regarding the generalizability of snowball samples, for the purposes of statistical analysis, they do not differ substantially from other convenience samples (Handcock and Gile, 2011), which compare favorably to samples obtained from the field when one is interested in the generalizability of theories (i.e., the EASI theory), such as presented in the current paper (Highhouse and Gillespie, 2009).
Measures
Use of touch. Supervisors responded to four items from Fuller et al. (2011) to assess the frequency with which they use touch to convey positive affect to a subordinate (1
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
-
“ ” ”
“
”
“ ”
=
404 Workplace Touch and Support
never to 5 always ). These items, which had a coefficient alpha reliability of 0.93, were How often do you touch this employee to give him/her encouragement, How often do you touch this employee to show that you care about him/her, How often do you touch this employee to show approval of him/her, and “How often do you touch this employee to apologize to him/her?
Perceptions ofsupervisor support. Subordinate perceptions of supervisor support (a 0.84) were assessed with six items from Shanock and Eisenberger (2006). Sample
items include my supervisor really cares about my well-being” and my supervisor is willing to help me when I need a special favor.” These items were measured on a seven point scale with 1 strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree.
Control variables. Perceptions ofsupportive culture was included as a control variable because it is an aspect of social support that is related to supervisor support. Eight items from Wallach’s (1983) organizational culture index were used to assess supportive culture. Subordinates were asked to indicate the extent to which certain words described their organizations (e.g., relationship oriented, encouraging, sociable). This measure uses a four-point response format ranging from 1 this does not describe my organization at all” to 4 describes my organization most of the time (a 0.83). The other control variables included in the analysis are subordinate age and supervisor subordinate gender match. Subordinate age was anticipated to be negatively related to the use of touch, as prior research indicates that touch is used more often by younger workers and less often by older workers (Hertenstein el al., 2006). As gender match was an important part of the study, controlling for gender match allowed for an examination of the hypothesis based on it.
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilitiesa
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Supervisor reported 2.51 1.04 (0.93) Use of Touch
2. Perceived Supportive 4.08 0.76 0.02 (0.89) Culture (subordinate)
3. Perceptions of 4.31 0.58 -0.06 0.46 (0.84) Supervisor Support
4. Supervisor na na 0.08 0.11 0.32** Subordinate Same
5. Supervisor Gender na na -0.12 0.21* -0.01 0.13
6. Subordinate Age 26.27 9.01 -0.04 -0.05 -0.03 0.09 -0.03
an 120. Reliabilities in (). p < 0.05. p < 0.01
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
“ ” = “ ” “ ” “
” “ ”
”
= “ “
- = “ ” = “ ”
- = “
= “ ” = -
-
”
- —
—
= ‘ "
Fu ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben n ett, and Curry 405
Table 2 Summary of Moderated Regression Analysis
Subordinate Perceptions of Supervisor Support Steps and Variables Entered 1 2 3 Step 1 Control Variables
Subordinate Age -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 Supportive Climate 0 41*** 0.45*** 0.43*** Supervisor Subordinate
Same Sex 0.26** 0.28** 0.28**
Step 2 Main Effects Use of Affective Touch by
Supervisor -0.10 -0.07
Sex of Supervisor Step 3 Interaction
-0.12 -0.13
Use of Touch X Sex of 0.19* Supervisor
Overall F (df regression, df residual)
14.04 *(3, 116) 9.17 *(5, 114) 8.98 *(6, 113)
R2 0.27 0.29 0.32 AR1 0.27** 0.02 0.04* Note: n 120. The coefficients presented are the standardized Beta weights for the variables
in each equation. ' p < 0.05, ' p < 0.01, ““ p < 0.001
Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha reliabilities of each scale, as well as the correlations among study variables. The results indicate that supervisor-subordinate gender similarity and perceived supportive climate are positively correlated with perceptions of supervisor support. However, supervisor reports of use of touch to convey positive affect are not related to perceptions of supervisor support. Thus, Hypothesis 1was not supported.
To test Hypothesis 2, a hierarchical moderated regression analysis was conducted, with control variables (subordinate age, perceptions of a supportive climate, and supervisor-subordinate gender match) entered into the first step, the main effects (use of affective touch by the supervisor and sex of supervisor) entered in the second step, and the interaction of the use of touch and the sex of supervisor entered into the third step. As can be seen in Table 2, the statistically significant interaction term in step three indicates support for Hypothesis 2. However, a statistically significant interaction term does not necessarily mean it supports the expected form of the interaction (Champoux and Peters, 1980). Consequently, Figure I shows the form of the interaction between supervisor use of touch and supervisor gender, which does not conform to that described in Hypothesis 2 (i.e., that the relationship would be positive for female supervisors and negative for male supervisors). The slope of the regression line for male supervisors is negative and statistically significant, while the slope of the regression line for female supervisors is not statistically significant. That is, as male supervisors report increased
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol.XXIX Number 4 Winter 2017
-
-
-
-
“ " ”
=
406 Workplace Touch and Support
levels of touching subordinates, subordinates report lower levels of perceived supervisor support. Accordingly, Hypothesis 2 only received partial support.
Figure I Plot of Interaction
High
c_c c vut.0) p.
Male Supervisors
Low
Low High Supervisor reported Use of Affective Touch
DISCUSSION
The results of this study provide important contributions to the emerging literature on the use of touch in the workplace. First, the data did not demonstrate a positive relationship between the use of supervisor touch and subordinate perceptions of supervisor support. This finding is different from the results reported by Fuller et al. (2011). It seems likely that this result arises from the use of supervisor reports of touch as opposed to the subordinate reports of supervisor touch used in Fuller et al. s (2011) research. Fuller et al. (2011) did report a moderate positive correlation between supervisor-reports of using touch to convey positive affect and subordinate reports of supervisor touch that conveyed positive affect (i.e., r 0.33, p < 0.01). Even so, the results indicate that supervisor intentions to convey positive affect through touch may not yield the expected results. While it is notable that in the current study, it is the person
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX Number 4 WINTER 2017
-
’
- =
F u ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben nett, and Curry 407
who is being touched who defines the meaning of the touch, scholars stress that an important aspect of developing understanding and insight into any behavior is the extent to which the individual’s behavior achieves the outcome that it was intended to achieve (e.g., Griffin and Lopez, 2005; Merton, 1936). These results suggest that a better understanding of factors that might strengthen the congruence between supervisor intentions to convey positive affect through touch and subordinate perceptions of the supervisors positive intentions is needed (e.g., authenticity/value transparency, affective interpersonal trust). Accordingly, finding no relationship between supervisor touch intended to convey positive affect and subordinate perceptions of support suggests that the potential to use touch positively in the workplace is complex and that supervisors should be cautioned about their use of touch with subordinates because even positively intended affective touch may not yield expected results.
The results of this study generally support the view that touch is a highly gendered form of communication (Hertenstein and Keltner, 2011: 70). The relationship between supervisor use of affective touch and perceptions of supervisor support is moderated by supervisor gender. When plotted, the form of the interaction reveals that for male supervisors, subordinate perceptions of supervisor support are higher when these supervisors do not touch their subordinates than when they express positive affect with touch. This finding supports a role congruity perspective and the asymmetrical effect proposed by EASI theory. That is, male supervisors who display touch intended to convey positive affect tend to evoke negative reactions in their subordinates. In short, perceptions of supervisor support for male supervisors is highest when they conform to traditional expectations of low emotional expression for men (i.e., low levels of affective touch). Also, although not examined here, for some subordinates, touch by male supervisors may be viewed as a display of dominance or assertiveness. Interestingly, the results of this study do not frilly support a role congruity (i.e., symmetrical effect) perspective for female supervisors, as there was no difference in subordinate perceptions based on the use of touch by these supervisors. In sum, these findings serve as a useful reminder of the delicate nature of touch in the workplace and provide further support for the view that individuals differ in the meaning they assign to supervisor touch.
Practical Implications
The present study has important implications for the use of touch in the workplace, including human resource policies related to touch. The results are a cautionary tale for managers, both male and female, about using touch in the workplace. For male supervisors, the results indicate that as their use of touch increases, subordinates perception of supervisor support decreases. That is, the more male supervisors express positive affect for their subordinates through touch, the less supportive they appear to the subordinate. This finding suggests that male supervisors should be aware of their touching behavior towards subordinates. In comparison, female supervisor use of touch has no effect upon the subordinate s perception of supervisor support. Although this finding indicates that female supervisors might not benefit from using touch and should consider if it is wise to refrain from using touch to express positive affect for subordinates, the results are not as negative as for male supervisors.
These results have important implications for human resource policies discussing physical contact at work. Many firms have policies that prohibit inappropriate, unwanted, or unnecessary touching, even stating certain forms of touch (e.g., patting
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
“ ”
’
’
408 Workplace Touch and Support
and poking). Even so, these types of policies are potentially problematic as there is no playbook” about when and what type of touch may be welcome or unwelcome (Bernstein, 2009). Yet, in light of the findings of the current study, because even positively intended touch from a male supervisor is likely to have negative consequences, it seems a more stringent no touching approach to controlling workplace touch may be the best alternative for organizations, particularly in the United States and other non-contact cultures. Even so, human resource practitioners should be aware that the strict enforcement aspect of this type of policy is likely to be problematic to police consistently as it leaves no margin for judgment about what is accidental, appropriate, or welcomed. This type of policy also has the potential to have a negative impact upon interpersonal relationships and supportive cultures, leading to the feeling of a sterile workplace.
Lim itations and Future Research
There is a lack of research on positive workplace touch, and thus, this study should be seen as a first step. As such, several elements of the data collection could be seen as limitations to be addressed in future research. In particular, the data for the current study was collected with a convenience sample. While results from this sample are very likely to generalize because the focus is on theory testing, and because such a sampling technique allowed surveying of respondents across a broad range of occupations and workplaces, future studies should take a multilevel approach and examine the role of human resources policies and procedures related to sexual harassment and the use of touch. Additionally, while the current study benefitted from multi-source data, only supervisors provided information regarding the use of touch, and future studies should have subordinates provide ratings as well. Finally, while the current study controlled for subordinate age, the role of supervisor age and generational similarities or differences were not addressed directly. There is an absence of empirical research on age and age differences related to the perception ofworkplace touch, which makes it an area rich for future research.
While the findings of this research may indicate that firms should not encourage the use of interpersonal touch, this should not preclude further research into the dynamics of workplace touch and the potential for it to be used to better interpersonal relationships between supervisors and subordinates. Based upon the current study results, one avenue for future investigations is whether there are factors (i.e., contextual, personality, or behavioral) that might enable male supervisors to use affective touch with subordinates to obtain positive outcomes. For example, it might be that male supervisors who exhibit more feminine leadership characteristics and/or behavior patterns are able to use affective touch to greater effect than more traditionally masculine male supervisors.
Another consideration for future research regarding touch is the role of technology and distributed work. There is evidence that technology such as e-mail and social networking can alternately make humans feel more connected to one another (e.g., by overcoming obstacles of distance) or less connected with others (e.g., by reducing face to-face contact) (Human Kinetics, 2010). Future research should explore the degree to which social connections through technology might increase or decrease the influence of physical touch in the workplace.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
“
“ ”
“ ”
-
Fu ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben nett, and Curry
CONCLUSION
409
Currently, research on the positive use of touch in the workplace is limited. Yet, the present study indicates that tactile interaction in today s workplaces is present (i.e., supervisors in the study reported that they use touch in the workplace). Thus, it is surprising that research on the potential for touch to be used to positive effect in the workplace is in its infancy. Understanding that touch can convey positive emotions as well as drive positive reactions and behaviors, future research should examine whether touch can communicate positive emotions as a means to improve outcomes such as work engagement, voice, and other prosocial behaviors.
In sum, this study adds to the extant literature on touch in the workplace, highlighting how gender differences prevail and that developing human resource policy on this issue is no simple matter. Touch is a touchy subject; therefore, it takes skill and emotional intelligence to decipher if touch can benefit the relationship and understand the context as the recipient may view it.
References
Babin, B. J., and }. S. Boles. 1996. The Effects of Perceived Co-worker Involvement and Supervisor Support on Service Provider Role Stress, Performance and Job Satisfaction. "Journal ofRetailing 72: 57 75.
Basow, S. B. 2011. Evaluation of Female Leaders: Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination in the Workplace.” In Women as Transformational Leaders: From Grassroot to Global Interests. Eds. M. A. Paludi and B. E. Coates. ABC CLIO, LLC.
Bernstein, E. 2009. Touching Me, Touching You at Work.” Wall StreetJournal, June 29. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702039375045 74252261140036116.
Blanchard, K., and S. Johnson. 2003. The OneMinute Manager. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Bono, J. E., and R. Ilies. 2006. Charisma, Positive Emotions and Mood Contagion. The Leadership Quarterly 17(4): 317-334.
Burwell, J. 1999. May I Touch You? Haptics in the Multicultural Workplace.” Gender Journal 10: 1 13.
Champoux, J. E., and W. S. Peters. 1980. Applications of Moderated Regression in Job Design Research. Personnel Psychology 33(4): 759-783.
Chen, G. M., and W. J. Starosta. 1997. Foundations of Intercultural Communication. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
DiBiase, R., and J. Gunnoe. 2004. Gender and Cultural Differences in Touching Behaviour.” TheJournal ofSocial Psychology 144(1): 49-62.
Eagly, A. H., and S. J. Karau. 2002. Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review 109(3): 573-598.
Eisenberger, R., R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, and D. Sowa. 1986. Perceived Organizational Support."Journal ofApplied Psychology 71: 500-507.
, F. Stinglhamber, C. Vandenberghe, I. L. Sucharski, and L. Rhoades. 2002. “Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Retention."Journal ofApplied Psychology 87(3): 565-573.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
-----------
’
“
- “
- “ —
“ ”
“ -
“ ”
“
“ ”
“
410 Workplace Touch and Support
Fiske, S. T., A. J. Cuddy, and P. Click. 2007. Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(2): 77 83.
Frank, L. K. 1957. Tactile Communication. Genetic Psychology Monographs 56: 209-255. Fuller, B., M. J. Simmering, L. E. Marler, S. S. Cox, R. J. Bennett, and R. A. Cheramie.
2011. Exploring Touch as a Positive Workplace Behavior. Human Relations 64: 231-256.
Glomb, T. M., and C. L. Hulin. 1997. Anger and Gender Effects in Observed Supervisor Subordinate Dyadic Interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72(3): 281-307.
Goldman, M., and J. Fordyce. 1983. “Prosocial Behavior as Affected by Eye Contact, Touch, and Voice Expression.”Journal ofSocial Psychology 121(1): 125 129.
Griffin, R. W., and Y. P. Lopez. 2005. Bad Behavior’ in Organizations: A Review and Typology for Future Research." Journal ofManagement 31(6): 998-1005.
Hall, E. T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Hall, J. A., and E. M. Veccia. 1990. “More Touching Observations: New Insights on
Men, Women, and Interpersonal Touch. journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 59(6): 1155 1162.
Hamblin, J. 2013. The Fist Bump Manifesto.” The Atlantic (November 22). http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/ll/the-fist-bump-manifesto/ 280175/
Handcock, M. D., and K. J. Gile. 2011. Comment: On the Concept of Snowball Sampling. Sociological Methodology 41: 367-371.
Heaphy, E. D. 2007. Bodily Insights: Three Lenses on Positive Organizational Relationships.” In Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation. Eds. J. E. Dutton and B. R. Ragins. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaunt Associates.
Henley, N. M. 1977. Body Politics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. . 1973. Status and Sex: Some Touching Observations. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society 2(2): 91 93. Hertenstein, M. J., and D. Keltner. 2011. Gender and the Communication of Emotion
via Touch. Sex Roles 64: 70 80. Hertenstein, M. J., D. Keltner, B. App, B. A. Bulleit, and A. R. Jaskolka. 2006. Touch
Communicates Distinct Emotions.” Emotion 6(3): 528-33. , J. M. Verkamp, A. M. Kerestes, and R. M. Holmes, 2006. The
Communicative Functions of Touch in Humans, Nonhuman Primates, and Rats: A Review and Synthesis of the Empirical Research.” Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 132: 5 94.
Heslin, R., and T. Alper. 1983. Touch: A Bonding Issue.” In J. M. Weimann and R. P. Harrison (Eds) Nonverbal Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Hess, U., S. Senecal, G. Kirouac, P. Herrera, P. Philippot, and R. E. Kleck. 2000. Emotional Expressivity in Men and Women: Stereotypes and Self-perceptions.”
Cognition and Emotion 14(5): 609-642. Highhouse, S., and J. Z. Gillespie. 2009. Do Samples Really Matter That Much?” In
Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences. Eds. C. E. Lance and R. J. Vandenberg. New York, NY: Routledge.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
“ ” -
“ ”
“ ”
“ - ”
- ‘“
“ ” ”
- “
“ ”
“
----------- “ ” -
“ ” -
“
----------- “
- “
“
“
Fu ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben nett, and Curry 411
Human Kinetics. 2010. Dimensions ofLeisurefor Life: Individuals and Society. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Koenig, A. M., A. H. Eagly, A. A. Mitchell, and T. Ristikari. 2011. Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta Analysis of Three Research Paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 137(4): 616-642.
Kleinke, C. L. 1977. Compliance to Requests Made by Gazing and Touching Experimenters in Field Settings. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology 13(3): 218 223.
Knapp, M. L. 1980. Essentials of Nonverbal Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart Sc Winston.
, and J. A. Hall. 2002. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Kraus, M. W., C. Huang, and D. Keltner. 2010. Tactile Communication, Cooperation, and Performance: An Ethological Study of the NBA.” Emotion 10(5): 745-749.
LaFrance, M., and C. Mayo. 1978. Cultural Aspects of Nonverbal Communication. InternationalJournal ofIntercultural Relations 2(1): 71 89.
Levinson, H. 1965. Reciprocation: The Relationship between Man and Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 9: 370 390.
Li, A., J. Shaffer, and J. Bagger. 2015. The Psychological Well-Being of Disability Caregivers: Examining the Roles of Family Strain, Family-to-Work Conflict, and Perceived Supervisor Support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 20(1): 40 49.
Lustig, M. W., and J. Koester. 1996. Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Cultures (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Maertz, C. P., R. W. Griffeth, N. S. Campbell, and D. G. Allen. 2007. The Effects of Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support on Employee Turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(8): 1059 1075.
Major, B. 1981. Gender Patterns in Touching Behavior.” In Gender and Nonverbal Behavior. Eds. C. Mayo and N. M. Henley. New York: Springer-Verlag.
, and R. Heslin. 1982. “Perceptions of Cross-Sex and Same-Sex Nonreciprocal Touch: It Is Better to Give Than to Receive.”Journal ofNonverbal Behavior 6(3): 148 162.
Marler, L. E., S. S. Cox, M. J. Simmering, R. J. Bennett, and J. B. Fuller. 2011. Exploring the Role of Touch and Apologies in Forgiveness of Workplace
Offenses.”Journal ofManagerial Issues 23(2): 144 163. Martin, M. M., and C. M. Anderson. 1993. “Psychological and Biological Differences in
Touch Avoidance.” Communication Research Report 10(2): 141 147. Martinko, M. J., S. C. Douglas, and P. Harvey. 2006. Attribution Theory in Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: A Review. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 21: 127.
Mazur, A. 1977. Interpersonal Spacing on Public Benches in Contact vs. Noncontact Cultures. TheJournal ofSocial Psychology 101(1): 53 58.
Mela, S., and D. E. Whitworth. 2014. The Fist Bump: A More Hygienic Alternative to the Handshake. AmericanJournal of Infection Control 42(8): 916-917.
Merton, R. K. 1936. The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.” American Sociological Review 1(6): 894-904.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
-----------
-----------
“ - ”
“ ’’ -
“
“ ” -
“ ” -
“
” -
“
” - “
-
“ -
- “
”
“ ” -
“ ”
“
412 Workplace Touch and Support
Newcombe, M. J., and N. M. Ashkanasy. 2002. The Role of Affect and Affective Congruence in Perceptions of Leaders: An Experimental Study.” The Leadership Quarterly 13(5): 601-614.
Rhoades, L., and R. Eisenberger. 2002. Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature."Journal ofApplied Psychology 87(4): 698-714.
Richmond, V. P., and J. C. McCroskey. 2004. Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (5thed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rotundo, M., D. H. Nguyen, and P. R. Sackett. 2001. A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Sexual Harassment. Journal ofApplied Psychology 86: 914-922.
Rousseau, D. M. 2006. Is There Such a Thing as Evidence-based Management ? Academy ofManagement Review 31: 256-269.
, and S. McCarthy. 2007. Educating Managers from an Evidence-Based Perspective. Academy ofManagement Learning and Education 6: 84 101.
Rynes, S. L., T. L. Giluk, and K. G. Brown. 2007. The Very Separate Worlds of Academic and Practitioner Periodicals in Human Resource Management: Implications for Evidence-Based Management. Academy ofManagementJournal 50: 987-1008.
Safire, W. 2008. Fist Bump: Is This the End of the High Five? The New York Times Magazine (July 6). http://www.nytimes.eom/2008/07/06/magazine/06wwln-safire- t.html?_r 1
Scherer, K. R., A. Schorr, and T. Johnstone (Eds). 2001. Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shanock, L. R., and R. Eisenberger. 2006. When Supervisors Feel Supportive: Relationships with Subordinates Perceived Supervisor Support, Perceptions of Organizational Support, and Performance."Journal ofApplied Psychology 91(3): 689 695.
Shotland, R. L., and J. M. Craig. 1988. Can Men and Women Differentiate between Friendly and Sexually Interested Behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly 51(1): 66 73.
Simmering, M. J., J. B. Fuller, L. E. Mailer, S. S., Cox, and R. J. Bennett. 2013. Tactile Interaction Norms and Positive Workplace Touch. Journal of Managerial Issues 25(2): 132 153.
Stier, D. S., and J. A. Hall. 1984. Gender Differences in Touch: An Empirical and Theoretical Review. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 47(2): 440-459.
Thayer, S. 1988. Close Encounters. Psychology Today 22 (March): 31 36. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1990. Policy Guidance on Current
Issues ofSexual Harassment, http://www.eeoc.gov/ policy/docs/currentissues.html. Van Kleef, G. A. 2014. “Understanding the Positive and Negative Effects of Emotional
Expressions in Organizations: EASI Does It. Human Relations 67(9): 1145 1164. ■. 2009. How Emotions Regulate Social Life.” Current Directions in Psychological
Science 18(3): 184 188. , A. C. Homan, and A. Cheshin. 2012. Emotional Influence at Work: Take It
EASI. Organizational Psychology Review 2(4): 311 339. , E. A. Van Doom, M. W. Heerdink, and L. F. Koning. 2011. Emotion Is for
Influence. European Review of Social Psychology 22(1): 114 163. Wallach, E. J. 1983. Individuals and Organizations: The Cultural Match.” Training and
DevelopmentJournal 37(2): 28 36.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIX Number 4 Winter 2017
“
“
“ ”
“ “ ” ”
----------- “ ” -
“
”
“ ”
=
“ ’
-
“ -
“ ”
- “
” “ ” -
” - ----------- “
- ----------- “
” - ----------- “
” - “
-
Fu ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben nett, and Curry 413
Weinstein, M. 1996. How Fun at Work Can Motivate Your Employees, Inspire Your Coworkers, and Boost Your Bottom Line. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Yohanan, S., and K. E. MacLean. 2012. The Role of Affective Touch in Human Robot Interaction: Human Intent and Expectations in Touching the Haptic Creature. InternationalJournal ofSocial Robotics 4(2): 163 180.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017
“ - ”
-
Copyright of Journal of Managerial Issues is the property of Journal of Managerial Issues / PSU and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Accessibility Report
- Filename:
- Article-Touch-in-the-WP.pdf
- Report created by:
- Organization:
[Enter personal and organization information through the Preferences > Identity dialog.]
Summary
The checker found no problems in this document.
- Needs manual check: 0
- Passed manually: 2
- Failed manually: 0
- Skipped: 0
- Passed: 30
- Failed: 0
Detailed Report
Document |
||
| Rule Name | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility permission flag | Passed | Accessibility permission flag must be set |
| Image-only PDF | Passed | Document is not image-only PDF |
| Tagged PDF | Passed | Document is tagged PDF |
| Logical Reading Order | Passed manually | Document structure provides a logical reading order |
| Primary language | Passed | Text language is specified |
| Title | Passed | Document title is showing in title bar |
| Bookmarks | Passed | Bookmarks are present in large documents |
| Color contrast | Passed manually | Document has appropriate color contrast |
Page Content |
||
| Rule Name | Status | Description |
| Tagged content | Passed | All page content is tagged |
| Tagged annotations | Passed | All annotations are tagged |
| Tab order | Passed | Tab order is consistent with structure order |
| Character encoding | Passed | Reliable character encoding is provided |
| Tagged multimedia | Passed | All multimedia objects are tagged |
| Screen flicker | Passed | Page will not cause screen flicker |
| Scripts | Passed | No inaccessible scripts |
| Timed responses | Passed | Page does not require timed responses |
| Navigation links | Passed | Navigation links are not repetitive |
Forms |
||
| Rule Name | Status | Description |
| Tagged form fields | Passed | All form fields are tagged |
| Field descriptions | Passed | All form fields have description |
Alternate Text |
||
| Rule Name | Status | Description |
| Figures alternate text | Passed | Figures require alternate text |
| Nested alternate text | Passed | Alternate text that will never be read |
| Associated with content | Passed | Alternate text must be associated with some content |
| Hides annotation | Passed | Alternate text should not hide annotation |
| Other elements alternate text | Passed | Other elements that require alternate text |
Tables |
||
| Rule Name | Status | Description |
| Rows | Passed | TR must be a child of Table, THead, TBody, or TFoot |
| TH and TD | Passed | TH and TD must be children of TR |
| Headers | Passed | Tables should have headers |
| Regularity | Passed | Tables must contain the same number of columns in each row and rows in each column |
| Summary | Passed | Tables must have a summary |
Lists |
||
| Rule Name | Status | Description |
| List items | Passed | LI must be a child of L |
| Lbl and LBody | Passed | Lbl and LBody must be children of LI |
Headings |
||
| Rule Name | Status | Description |
| Appropriate nesting | Passed | Appropriate nesting |
