Assignment 5

International Journal of Business Communication 2017, Vol. 54(4) 431 –451

© The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2329488415572778

journals.sagepub.com/home/job

Article

From Listening to Leading: Toward an Understanding of Supervisor Listening Within the Framework of Leader- Member Exchange Theory

Karina J. Lloyd1, Diana Boer2, and Sven C. Voelpel1

Abstract This study explores the value of supervisor listening as a seeming key competence in effectively leading employees. We conceptualize listening within the theoretical framework of leader-member exchange (LMX). Specifically, we argue that supervisor listening contributes to satisfaction with the supervisor, interactional justice, and job satisfaction, and that listening unfurls its effect through fostering strong LMX. Data from 250 German employees from various professional backgrounds was used to assess validity criteria as prerequisites for the examination of listening vis-à-vis LMX for the three outcome variables. Good performance in all validity criteria and path-modeling results indicated that perceived supervisor listening provides value for future research on supervisor-employee interactions in the work setting.

Keywords leader listening, construct validation, leader-member exchange theory, empathy

Introduction

Since Rogers and Roethlisberger’s (1952/1991) thought-provoking essay in the Harvard Business Review, “Barriers and Gateways to Communication,” scholars and practitioners have embraced the concept of empathic listening in management litera- ture or handbooks on effective leadership (e.g., Drucker, 2004; Frey, 1993; Reave, 2005; Steil & Bommelje, 2004). Although this concept is elusive, there appears to be

1Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany 2University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Corresponding Author: Karina J. Lloyd, Jacobs University, Bremen, Campus Ring 1, D-28759 Bremen, Germany. Email: [email protected]

572778 JOBXXX10.1177/2329488415572778International Journal of Business CommunicationLloyd et al. research-article2015

432 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

a practical and intuitive appeal of the positive effects of listening, which has led to increased attention of this concept in psychological literature (e.g., Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2000; Beukeboom, 2009; Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2009). However, in the fields of organizational psychology and management research, the term listening still appears both vague and conjectural due to a lack in theory and specification (e.g., Bodie, Cyr, Pence, Rold, & Honeycutt, 2012; Brownell, 1994). Bodie (2012) summarizes approaches to listening research in a variety of academic fields and argues that research is in need of incorporating “listening” into theoretical frameworks that are “capable of explaining how listening works and functions to the betterment of people’s lives” (p. 121). The current article aims at contributing to this call by investigating perceived supervisor listening and its links to related constructs and work outcomes within the theoretical framework of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory.

LMX theory in its core suggests that “effective leadership processes occur when leaders and followers are able to develop mature leadership relationships (partner- ships) and thus gain access to the many benefits these relationships bring” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 225). Such quality leader-member interaction has been linked to more positive organizational outcomes such as increased performance, job satisfac- tion, or commitment (Gerstner & Day, 1997). However, LMX is a rather broad term (see below) and does not detail what specific leader behavior may establish strong leader-member relationships. Listening to employees has the positive potential to cre- ate and maintain strong leader-follower partnerships (Bodie, 2012; Steil & Bommelje, 2004) and may thus be one specific component that fosters LMX. Work by Comer and Drollinger (1999) for instance proposed that sales persons’ active-empathic listening (AEL) behaviors can establish and maintain more positive relationships with clients (see also Drollinger & Comer, 2013).

Originally based on Carl Rogers’s (1951) observations in client-centered therapy, empathic listening or “active listening” has been described as an accepting and non- judgmental approach of attending to an individual (Rogers, 1959). Emphatic listening creates a mutual bond between interaction partners, which over time evolves into a relationship of trust and reciprocal understanding (Rogers, 1957, 1975). When applied to organizational settings, listening may have similar effects in the supervisor- employee interaction (e.g., Brownell, 1990; Reave, 2005). Rogers’s work on empathic listening can help provide specificity to the meaning of listening in the business con- text. Empirical research in the organizational context suggests that listening may be a crucial factor in the supervisor-employee relationship that may affect other work- related attitudinal (e.g., Ellinger, Ellinger, & Keller, 2003) and behavioral outcomes (Lloyd, Boer, Keller, & Voelpel, 2014; Stine, Thompson, & Cusella, 1995). For instance, Lobdell, Sonoda, and Arnold (1993) showed that perceived supervisor listen- ing competence is positively associated with employee perceptions of leader respon- siveness and support. Similarly, empirical evidence suggested a link between supervisor listening and perceived relationship quality with employees (Stine et al., 1995), which might, in the long term, also affect more distal variables such as employee perception of the climate of organizational openness and supportiveness (Husband,

Lloyd et al. 433

Cooper, & Monsour, 1988), overall job satisfaction (Brownell, 1990; Ellinger et al., 2003), and organizational citizenship performance (Lloyd, Boer, Keller et al., 2014).

Listening research suggests positive links of listening with work outcomes such as perceived leadership effectiveness (Johnson & Bechler, 1998), employee commitment (Lobdell et al., 1993), organizational trust and performance (Stine et al., 1995). Two studies by Lloyd, Boer, Keller et al. (2014) recently demonstrated that perceived supervisor listening contributes to three important work outcomes—one proximal (emotional exhaustion) and two more distal (organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions). Together, these findings indicate that assessing listening in the workplace may promise similar value as in clinical or psychological research and hence needs specification in terms of its relationship to related constructs and out- comes. We propose that supervisor listening contributes to positive organizational out- comes via its related construct LMX (see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 for a detailed review).

This article’s overall purpose is to foster the scholarly dialogue and advance the understanding of listening in organizational research by providing a more precise clar- ification of listening in the workplace. Specifically, our main focus is to integrate lis- tening and LMX in a holistic model based on theoretical considerations that listening fosters strong relationships between leaders and followers. To establish a sound basis, we seek first to evaluate validity criteria of perceived listening quality in the context of supervisor-employee relationships and its links to work-related variables. Empirical examination of internal reliability as well as convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity intends to foster the refinement of listening within the supervisor-employee relationship.

The Concept of Listening

Listening is a multifaceted process (Bodie, Cyr et al., 2012) and as such, conceptual- izations have ranged from studying listening attitudes and skills (e.g., Mishima, Kubota, & Nagata, 2000) to behaviors (e.g., Bodie, Cyr et al., 2012; Ramsey & Sohi, 1997), and differ in terms of underlying theory and measurement. To provide a con- ceptual framework for listening in the supervisor-employee relationship, it is helpful to review Rogers’s initial work on empathic listening. In this article, we build on Rogers’s (1951, 1975) definition of empathic listening as an appreciating and non- judgmental way of perceiving and responding to an individual. When the individual feels accepted and cared for, Rogers argued, mutual understanding and trusting bonds are possible. Hence, in this article, we focus on how the person being listened to per- ceives the listener (see also Barnlund, 1962; Stone, Patton, & Heen, 1999; Tyler, 2011) and conceptualize listening as a subjective perception of listening quality. Listening quality captures the individual’s perception of being attended to, accepted, and appre- ciated (Rogers, 1975). This is in line with the leadership literature that describes super- visor listening as demonstration of active acceptance of employee opinions and ideas (Spears, 1995) or the willingness to do so (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

434 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

Leadership handbooks (e.g., Covey, 1989; Gordon, 1977; Steil & Bommelje, 2004), business journals, and management scholars have long argued in favor of listening as a “key management skill” (e.g., Drucker, 2004; Ewing & Banks, 1980; Frey, 1993) that enables both understanding of feelings and the demonstration of concern (Gabarro, 1991). Some empirical evidence has been put forward in support of this, demonstrat- ing, for example, a link between supervisor listening and perceived relationship qual- ity with employees (Stine et al., 1995). Overall, however, it is noteworthy that leader listening and leadership styles have only rarely been considered simultaneously (for exceptions, see Bechler & Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Bechler, 1998; Kluger & Zaidel, 2013). Yet listening most commonly takes place in dyadic interactions, develops in a unique way during the process of interacting (Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2009), and may con- secutively develop each interaction in a unique way. Hence, to enhance our under- standing of listening in the supervisor-employee relationship, it is necessary to embed it in leadership theories. The leadership approach arguably most closely related to our conceptualization of listening is LMX theory.

The Listening Leader and Leader-Member Exchange

LMX theory, which originated from vertical dyad linkage theories (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), is unique among leadership theories in that it focuses on the dyadic and specific leader-follower relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). According to LMX theory, this relationship may have a unique qual- ity for each dyad, which in turn predicts organizational outcomes at the individual level of analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Meta-analytical results also suggest that strong leader-member relationships significantly influence outcomes such as job per- formance, satisfaction with supervision, overall satisfaction, commitment, role con- flict, role clarity, member competence, and turnover intentions (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

LMX contains certain aspects that relate to listening. Strong LMX requires that employees feel appreciated, cared for, and supported by a supervisor (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden & Graen, 1980). These are essential features of the listening construct (Rogers, 1951, 1975). The strongest similarity is that both concepts predict tight bonds and strong relationships between the interaction partners.

The range of components inherent in the LMX construct appears fairly broad and touches various components such as support, responsiveness, and consideration, leav- ing room for the actual behavior and interpersonal perceptions that elicits the creation of strong relationships. The theory does not specify which specific behavior fosters such strong leader-follower bonds. Listening—as a mean to actively demonstrate acceptance of follower opinions and suggestions (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Spears, 1995)—may be a viable component in developing sustainable leader-follower rela- tionships. Since listening facilitates the development of mutual understanding and trust (Lloyd, Boer, Kluger, & Voelpel, 2014; Stine et al., 1995) it might lay the basis for fruitful partnerships and strong relationships. In the long run, this fosters further positive interactions, mutual cooperation, and support. Inevitably, this will also

Lloyd et al. 435

enhance further communication. In other words, listening and leader-member interac- tion are mutually interwoven; yet, especially in an early stage of a relationship, listen- ing may have the beneficial effect of creating strong leader-member interaction which both, in turn, will be positively related to organizational outcomes. In this article, we examine the possibility that listening quality may precede the development of LMX— that is, suggesting a sequence of listening quality affecting positively on LMX, which then contributes positively to outcomes.

From numerous potential outcome variables of organizational behavior, we will focus on a choice of three that reflect different interaction levels: (a) employee satis- faction with the supervisor, (b) interactional justice, and (c) overall job satisfaction. Listening quality should have the strongest effect on the more proximal outcomes that are affected by direct interaction with the supervisor.

Perceived supervisor listening affects employee perceptions of interaction pro- cesses. As outlined earlier, listening quality can influence speaker attitudes and feel- ings toward the listener (Bavelas et al., 2000; Beukeboom, 2009). Hence, not being listened to and not feeling understood by a supervisor may elicit negative affective reactions such as the feeling of disrespect and injustice (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Blader & Tyler, 2003). Thus, we chose satisfaction with the supervisor and interactional jus- tice (Kim & Leung, 2007) as proximal outcome of supervisor listening. Interactional justice captures the degree to which individuals feel treated with respect and dignity by authorities or third parties (e.g., the leader) involved in executing or implementing procedures (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1987). Although we expect that listening qual- ity will affect outcomes closely related to the interaction, listening quality might also have effects on more distal variables related to the job and affect overall job satisfac- tion (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). Hence, to get a more inclusive view on listen- ing quality’s predictive validity, we will examine its relationship to three outcomes related to the supervisor, the supervisor-employee interaction, and the job.

Overview of the Present Study

To extend our understanding of listening within the supervisor-employee relationship, we investigate listening quality based on Rogers’s conceptualization of empathic lis- tening within the framework of LMX theory. We obtain validity evidence for the lis- tening quality scale by assessing its relation with measures closely related to listening such as feeling understood (Lun et al., 2008) and AEL (Bodie, 2011; Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006), as well as LMX (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004), which all already have a validity portfolio. We expect that employee perceptions of supervi- sor listening quality will be positively related to both, employee ratings of their super- visor’s AEL and ratings of feeling understood by the supervisor. We then examine in detail how listening quality is related to LMX and the unique predictive contribution of the two constructs to three outcome measures. We then simultaneously examine listening vis-à-vis LMX in predicting satisfaction with the supervisor, interactional justice, and job satisfaction. We then integrate listening quality and LMX in a path model that tests a sequence between listening quality, LMX, and work outcomes.

436 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

Building on theoretical considerations, we examine the possibility that listening pre- cedes LMX, which in turn is related to the three outcomes. In sum, we propose and test four hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (convergent validity): Listening quality will be positively related to AEL and feeling understood as well as LMX. Hypothesis 2 (divergent validity): Listening quality will be conceptually distinct from LMX. Hypothesis 3a (predictive validity): Listening quality will predict satisfaction with the supervisor. Hypothesis 3b (predictive validity): Listening quality will predict interactional justice. Hypothesis 3c (predictive validity): Listening quality will predict job satisfaction. Hypothesis 4 (sequential model): Listening quality is associated with LMX, which in turn relates to outcomes (satisfaction with the supervisor, interactional justice, and job satisfaction).

Method

Participants

Two hundred and fifty-one German employees from different companies participated in this survey study voluntarily and without monetary reward (57% women; mean age = 34.1, SD = 8.7; 60% with university degree or equivalent). Participants were recruited by convenience sampling methods as described below. A wide range of job functions were represented in the sample—including administration, engineering, finance, marketing, and teaching. The average tenure at the company was 4.8 years (SD = 5.4), and the average time participants had been working for their current super- visor was 3.2 years (SD = 2.6).

Procedure

Convenience sampling measures were taken to recruit a heterogeneous sample of employees to increase generalizability. We administrated an online survey through various online discussion forums to reach a maximum variety in age, job level, and industry. Examples included general work related forums in which employees discuss or exchange work related information as well as job specific forums for occupational groups (e.g., police officers, mechanics, engineers, etc.). Permission to post an invita- tion to participate in our study was obtained from the web administrators. Only ques- tionnaires that were fully completed were included in the analysis.

Measures

All measures were adapted to German by translation and back-translation techniques (Brislin, 1970) by a team of bilingual psychologists and professional translators. Unless

Lloyd et al. 437

otherwise noted, we measured items using 7-point Likert-type scaling (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). All items (i.e., the set of items belonging to each mea- sure) as well as the measures were presented in random order to control for order effects (Bishop, 2008). Since all measures referred to internal psychological states and perceptions (e.g., job satisfaction), employees were best positioned to provide ratings on these.

Perceived Listening Quality. To assess the extent to which employees felt listened to by their supervisor, we adapted a seven-item listening quality scale (Lloyd, Boer, Keller et al., 2014; Lloyd, Boer, Kluger et al., 2014) to the context of supervisor-employee interactions (appendix). Participants were asked to refer to a typical interaction with their supervisor when answering the questionnaire. The items were prefaced with the statement “Generally, when my supervisor listens to me, I feel my supervisor . . . ”; sample items included “is interested in what I have to say,” “makes me comfortable so I can speak openly,” and “understands my feelings.”

A pretest (n = 51; 53% women; mean age = 32.26, SD = 9.97) was conducted to test the items concerning internal consistency and applicability to the supervisor-employee interaction. The items revealed acceptable internal reliability (α = .92). Principal com- ponent analysis yielded one principal component that explained 71% of the item variance.

In the current study, listening quality was well represented by the one-factor model (χ2 [df = 13] = 74.78, p < .01, Standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .03, comparative fit index [CFI] = .96, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = .94).1 The residuals of two items (“cares about me” and “is interested in me personally”) reveal covariance, most likely owing to high semantic similarity. We added this covariance to all tested models including listening quality. The internal reliability of the seven items was acceptable (α = .95).

Active-Empathic Listening. Employee perceptions of their supervisor’s AEL was mea- sured by 11 items of the Active Empathetic Listening Scale (AEL Scale, Drollinger et al., 2006), which contains three subscales (sensing, processing, responding). All items were adapted to refer to the supervisor. Participants were instructed to think of a typi- cal interaction with their immediate supervisor when answering the questions. The items were prefaced with “Generally, when my supervisor listens to me”; sample items included were “my supervisor is sensitive to what I am not saying,” “my supervisor listens for more than just the spoken words,” and “my supervisor shows me he or she is listening by his or her body language (e.g., head nods).” The scale was well repre- sented by a second-order model distinguishing between the three subfacets, which load on the second-order factor (χ2 [df = 41] = 129.56; p < .001; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .09, SRMR = .04, CFI = .96, TLI = .95). The overall scale revealed acceptable internal reliability (α = .95).

Feeling Understood by Supervisor. The degree to which employees felt overall under- stood by their supervisor was measured using two items from Lun et al. (2008):

438 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

“During your interaction with your supervisor, to what extent do you feel understood by your supervisor?” and “To what extent do you feel misunderstood by your supervi- sor?” (reverse-coded). Response categories ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (totally). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was. 91.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). LMX was assessed using seven items from Janssen and Van Yperen (2004). Sample items were “My supervisor would be personally inclined to help me solve problems in my work,” “My supervisor understands my problems and needs,” and “My working relationship with my supervisor is effective.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .95.

Interactional Justice. Respondents were asked to assess how they felt treated in interac- tions with their supervisor at work. Sample items of the three-item scale (Kim & Leung, 2007) were “In interpersonal encounters, my supervisor gives me fair treat- ment” and “The way my supervisor treats me is fair.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .95.

Satisfaction With Supervisor. We adapted three items from the Job Dissatisfaction Scale (Zhou & George, 2001) to capture the extent to which employees were satisfied with their supervisor. Sample items were “In general, I like working for my supervisor” and “In general, I don’t like my supervisor” (reverse-coded). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .94.

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the three-item Job Dissatisfaction Scale (Zhou & George, 2001). Sample items were “All in all, I am satisfied with my job” and “In general, I don’t like my job” (reverse-coded). The three-item scale revealed acceptable reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.

Control Variables. We controlled for individual’s tenure of working for the specific supervisor, since the time period might relate to both work outcomes such as job sat- isfaction and quality of LMX. We also controlled for the influence of major demo- graphic variables including sex, age, and educational level in the analysis.

We computed an overall model including all study variables to test the distinctive- ness of all measured variables. The seven-factor model2 revealed a moderate overall fit, χ2 (df = 557) = 1265.04, p < .001; RMSEA = .072; SRMR = .043; TLI = .92; CFI = .93. In comparison, the baseline model in which all items loaded on one factor, did not reveal satisfactory fit, χ2 (df = 594) = 2684.88, p < .001; RMSEA = .119; SRMR = .055; TLI = .78; CFI = .79, and differed significantly from the seven-factor model (Δχ2 = 1419.84, Δdf = 37, p < .001).

Analytical Strategy

First, we test Hypotheses 1 and 2 using the confirmatory factor analyses approach. Convergent validity of the listening quality scale was assessed based on the

Lloyd et al. 439

intercorrelations of the latent listening quality construct with AEL, LMX, and feeling understood by the supervisor. For empirical support of convergent validity, at large effects are expected (Cohen, 1992). Discriminant validity of listening quality vis-à-vis LMX was assessed based on distinct latent factors (comparing one-factor model with the two-factor model).

Hypotheses 3a to 3c are tested in multivariate hierarchical regression analysis assess- ing the predictive validity of listening quality on each of the three dependent variables: satisfaction with supervisor, job satisfaction, and interactional justice (see Model 1). We entered control variables in the first block, then individually tested listening quality (Model 1) as well as LMX (Model 2) and both as predictors (Model 3). The latter two regression analyses aim to gain clarity on the interdependency of listening quality and LMX. Model 3 evaluates the contribution of listening quality over and beyond LMX, which qualifies as initial gauging of the sequential model (Hypothesis 4).

To test Hypothesis 4 explicitly, we employed latent variable modeling (structural equation modeling [SEM] in Mplus6). This analysis additionally accounts for two potential limitations inherent in the present data: (a) to account for the relatedness of the three outcome variables and (b) to control for common method variance that might arise from the cross-sectional study design and monomethod approach (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Following previous studies, we control for the effects of a single unmeasured latent method factor by including it in the SEM analysis (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Elangovan & Xie, 1999; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998). All item loadings were con- strained to be equal in their loadings on the method factor (Conger et al., 2000; Elangovan & Xie, 1999; MacKenzie et al., 1999).

Results

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all study variables.

The latent construct listening quality was correlated to the three comparative latent measures of AEL (see Figure 1a), feeling understood by the supervisor (see Figure 1b), and LMX (see Figure 1c; see also Table 1). These intercorrelations of large effects size support adequate convergent validity of listening quality (Hypothesis 1).

We analyzed the distinctiveness of perceived listening quality vis-à-vis AEL (again differentiating its three subscales loading on a second-order factor). The model sepa- rating listening quality and AEL revealed a moderate overall fit, χ2 (df = 130) = 468.04, p < .001; RMSEA = .102; SRMR = .049; TLI = .92; CFI = .93 (see Figure 1a). The baseline model in comparison did not reveal satisfactory fit, χ2 (df = 135) = 859.01, p < .001; RMSEA = .15; SRMR = .06; TLI = .83; CFI = .85, and differed significantly from the separate model (Δχ2 = 390.97, Δdf = 5, p < .001). Taken together, the results indicate discriminant validity of two listening scales. Furthermore, the model separat- ing listening quality and LMX revealed a good overall fit of the measurement model, χ2 (df = 75) = 242.85, p < .01; SRMR =.028; RMSEA = .095; TLI = .95; CFI = .96 (see Figure 1c). In comparison, the one-factor model did not reveal satisfactory fit (χ2 [df = 77]

440 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

Figure 1a-1c. Results of confirmatory factor analysis assessing convergent and divergent validity of the latent listening quality construct with AEL (1a), LMX (1c), and feeling understood by the supervisor (1b).

= 503.08, p < .001; SRMR = .04; TLI = .87; CFI = .89) and differed significantly from the two-factor model (Δχ2 = 260.23, Δdf = 2, p < .001). These results in sum support adequate discriminant validity of the listening construct vis-à-vis LMX and AEL (Hypothesis 2).

The predictive validity of perceived listening quality on three outcome variables (i.e., satisfaction with supervisor, interactional justice, and job satisfaction) was deter- mined by three regression analyses for each outcome entering (a) listening quality as

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations of All Study Variablesa.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Listening quality 4.56 1.69 (.95) 2. Active-empathic listening 4.32 1.54 .89*** (.95) 3. Feeling understood 4.24 1.67 .78*** .79*** (.91) 4. Leader-member exchange 4.75 1.94 .87*** .86*** .82*** (.95) 5. Satisfaction with supervisor 5.12 1.39 .82*** .79*** .79*** .89*** (.94) 6. Interactional justice 5.25 1.71 .76*** .71*** .75*** .80*** .83*** (.82) 7. Job satisfaction 5.51 1.51 .54*** .56*** .55*** .65*** .64*** .57*** (.85)

Note. The diagonal displays Cronbach’s alphas of the study variable. a. N = 251. ***p < .001.

Lloyd et al. 441

sole predictor, (b) LMX as sole predictor, and (c) listening quality and LMX both as predictors. The last regression model determined if perceived listening quality still accounted for the prediction of organizational outcomes beyond what is afforded by differences in LMX. Table 2 displays the standardized regression coefficients (β), changes in R2 (ΔR) as well as changes in F (ΔF) values for each model.

As shown in Table 2, for satisfaction with the supervisor, entering the main effect of listening quality (Model 1) results in a significant increment in R2. Regression results were similar for LMX (Model 2) as sole predictor. Adding listening quality to the equation after LMX (Model 3), the effect of listening quality on supervisor satis- faction was reduced to a β of .20 which failed to reach significance. The results sug- gest that over two thirds of variability in satisfaction with the supervisor is predicted by perceived listening quality. However, listening quality did not significantly contrib- ute to this prediction when the effect of LMX is accounted for.

A similar pattern was found for the prediction of interactional justice. Listening quality, as sole predictor (Model 1), explained 53% of the variance in interactional justice. LMX as sole predictor (Model 2) revealed similar results. Entering listening quality to the equation with LMX (Model 3) reduced the effect of listening quality to β of .20.

Last, the results for the prediction of job satisfaction showed that listening quality’s main effect (Model 1) explained 28% of variability in overall job satisfaction and LMX (Model 2) accounted for 31% of variability. After adding listening quality to the equation, however, listening quality’s main effect, was again reduced to insignifi- cance. The results’ pattern indicate that the effect of listening quality is absorbed by the broader construct of LMX.

Next, we employed latent variable modeling (SEM in Mplus6) to test for the pos- sibility that listening may precede LMX, which then in turn relates to the outcome variables. The results of the SEM analysis are presented in Figure 1.

As indicated by the standardized coefficients, perceived supervisor listening was positively associated with LMX which in turn was positively associated with the three outcome variables. Overall, the SEM model displayed in Figure 1 fitted the data well (χ2 [df = 220] = 545.17; RMSEA = .077; CFI = .949; TLI = .941; SRMR = .035). To control for common method variance, we estimated the model with and without com- mon method factor. Table 3 displays the standardized parameter estimates before and after controlling for this common method factor.

All relationships were significant and of similar—if not the same—magnitude, which indicated that the data were not influenced by common method variance. Taken together, the analysis supports the robustness of the findings (Hypothesis 4) in account of the weaknesses of the study design.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of perceived listening quality in the supervisor-employee relationship within the theoretical framework of LMX theory. Therefore, we examined their relationships to three work outcomes and tested a path

442

T a b

le 2

. R

es ul

ts o

f H

ie ra

rc hi

ca l R

eg re

ss io

n A

na ly

se s

(N =

2 50

).

Sa ti sf

ac ti o n

w it h

su pe

rv is

o r

In te

ra ct

io na

l j us

ti ce

Jo b

sa ti sf

ac ti o n

M

o de

l 1 M

o de

l 2 M

o de

l 3 M

o de

l 1 M

o de

l 2 M

o de

l 3 M

o de

l 1 M

o de

l 2 M

o de

l 3

C on

tr ol

v ar

ia bl

es G

en de

r −

.0 5

− .0

6 −

.0 5

− .0

4 −

.0 4

.0 4

− .0

3 −

.0 3

− .0

3 A

ge .0

1 .0

5 .0

5 −

.1 0

− .0

4 −

.0 4

.0 4

.0 7

.0 7

T en

ur e

(s up

er vi

so r)

.0 2

− .0

1 −

.0 0

− .0

2 −

.0 1

.0 0

.0 2

.0 0

.0 1

Ed uc

at ed

− .0

3 −

.0 8

− .0

7 −

.0 3

− .0

2 −

.0 1

.1 2

.1 0

.1 0

M ai

n va

ria bl

es LM

X .8

2* **

.6 5*

** .7

8* **

.6 2*

** .5

7* **

.4 3*

** Li

st en

in g

qu al

it y

.7 7*

** .2

0 .7

4* **

.2 0

.5 4*

** .1

5 R

2 (f

o r

m ai

n va

ri ab

le s)

.6 1

.6 8

.6 7

.5 6

.6 3

.6 3

.2 9

.3 2

.3 1

Δ R

2 .5

9 .6

6 .0

1 .5

3 .6

0 .0

1 .2

8 .3

1 .0

0 Δ

F (d

f1 , d

f2 )

22 5.

46 **

*

(1 , 1

52 )

31 5.

46 **

* (1

, 1 52

) 3.

72

(1 , 1

51 )

18 2.

59 **

* (1

, 1 52

) 24

4. 00

** *

(1

, 1 52

) 2.

90

(1 , 1

51 )

59 .6

1

(1 , 1

52 )

69 .8

7* **

(1

, 1 52

) 0.

99

(1 , 1

51 )

N ot

e. M

o de

l 1 =

c o nt

ro l v

ar ia

bl es

a nd

li st

en in

g qu

al it y;

M o de

l 2 =

c o nt

ro l v

ar ia

bl es

a nd

le ad

er -m

em be

r ex

ch an

ge (

LM X

); M

o de

l 3 =

c o nt

ro l v

ar ia

bl es

a nd

le ad

er -

m em

be r

ex ch

an ge

( St

ep 2

) an

d lis

te ni

ng q

ua lit

y (S

te p

3) . C

o nt

ro l v

ar ia

bl es

= a

ge , g

en de

r (d

um m

y co

de d)

, t en

ur e

(r es

pe ct

iv e

su pe

rv is

o r)

, a ca

de m

ic b

ac kg

ro un

d (d

um m

y co

de d;

1 =

u ni

ve rs

ity o

r eq

ui va

le nt

, 0 =

o th

er ).

** *p

< .0

01 .

Lloyd et al. 443

model that aimed at integrating listening and LMX. Initial validity assessments were conducted as prerequisites to the usability of listening quality as measurement tool within the work context. Convergent, divergent, and predictive validity were assessed vis-à-vis validated measures. Positive correlations between perceived supervisor lis- tening quality and two related constructs—supervisor’s AEL and employees’ feelings of being understood—demonstrated acceptable convergence. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that although listening quality and LMX may share considerable variance, these two concepts are distinguishable and demonstrate acceptable discrimi- nant validity. Listening quality demonstrated acceptable predictive validity concern- ing three organizational outcomes—employees’ job satisfaction, satisfaction with their supervisor, and interactional justice. However, when LMX was statistically accounted for, listening quality did not significantly explain variance over and beyond LMX, as indicated by the results of the hierarchical regression analysis. We followed the

Table 3. Standardized Parameter Estimates With and Without Controlling for Common Method Variance.

Not controlling for CMF Controlling for CMF

Description Listening quality → LMX .92*** .93*** LMX → Satisfaction with supervisor .94*** .95*** LMX → Interactional justice .84*** .86*** LMX → Job satisfaction .69*** .73***

Note. N = 250. Standardized coefficients reported; CMF = common method factor; LMX = leader- member exchange. ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Latent path model of listening effects and LMX. Note. N = 250. SEM analysis accounted for covariation among outcome variables. Standardized coefficients reported, controlling for a common method factor. ***p < .001.

444 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

commonly used procedure to examine the additional contribution of two constructs. LMX is a relatively broader construct that encompasses various components of inter- action toward employees. Listening could be a more specific component of those and thus in its associations with work outcomes statistically swallowed by LMX. These results are based on a cross-sectional analysis and clearly cannot infer causality includ- ing the path-modeling results. However, they may initially indicate that supervisors who listen well might establish strong relationships to their employees more easily and foster good quality LMX. This in turn may benefit work outcomes such as satisfaction with the supervisor, their interaction, and the job.

Contribution

This study contributes to the listening literature, but also to the leadership literature, in several ways. First, our results underline previous research that suggested the positive impact of supervisor listening on followers’ job satisfaction ratings (Brownell, 1990; Ellinger et al., 2003; Kluger, 2013) and extend these results to two other work out- comes: interactional justice and satisfaction with the supervisor. Taken together, these results highlight that listening is a leadership skill that deserves more attention, both in research and in everyday work life.

Most important, we incorporated listening and LMX theory, which provides a theo- retical framework and more clarity for studying listening in the organizational context as was suggested by Bodie (2012). Within this theoretical framework, the term “listen- ing” is conceptualized as a contributing part to leader-follower interaction that fosters strong relationships. Our results reflected the close relationship between listening and LMX, while showing their unique contribution.

With this, we also add to the scarce body of research that empirically examines listening in relation to leadership theories. Since listening has been proclaimed a “key management skill,” it is critical to include and investigate listening in a broader frame- work of leadership theory. The results indicated that listening—as a specific compo- nent of leadership behavior—can help us better understand how leaders influence their followers’ attitudes and behaviors—through growing strong relationships with employees.

In this study, we attempted to incorporate both listening and LMX and their links to organizational outcomes more holistically. Although conceptually distinctive, the results reflected a close link between the two. The path-modeling analysis indicated that the effect of listening on work outcomes might be unfolded by LMX. However, these results have to be interpreted with caution. They are based on cross-sectional data and do not allow for causality statements. Clearly, in any established leader-fol- lower relationship, listening quality and quality of LMX are inseparably interwoven. LMX is a broad construct that combines for instance perceptions of leader support and relationship effectiveness. Hence, this construct always refers to and is based on an established relationship. In contrast, listening has to be treated within this theoretical framework as a specific receptive behavior, which is important at any stage of a

Lloyd et al. 445

relationship. It is similarly valuable in first encounters between strangers (Lloyd, Boer, Kluger et al., 2014) and contributes to establishing of strong relationships.

Clearly, in the current sample, the relationship between listening and LMX presents a chicken-and-egg problem, which cannot be solved without further studies. On the whole, the results advance our understanding how supervisor listening, as a specific part of leader-follower interaction, interacts with LMX and hence may offer particu- larly important implications for organizational practice.

Practical Implications

Our research suggests that feeling listened to by leaders may foster satisfaction with the supervisor, the perceptions of fair treatment, and overall perceptions of job satis- faction. It also suggests that listening may be a valuable lever for building and sustain- ing strong leader-subordinate relationships. When leaders exert high motivation to listen, an organizational culture of mutual understanding is possible—as has been sug- gested before (Rogers & Roethlisberger, 1952/1991). Early resolutions of interper- sonal and task-related issues may be an example of such a work culture, which may translate into additional positive work indicators.

Organizations that want to implement such a work culture should select managers who are truly interested in listening and understand their followers. Listening may afford far more patience than speaking or advising, and followers may quickly notice when leaders’ listening is an attempt at mutual understanding or employed as a “tech- nique to manipulate” (Tyler, 2011). In the case of the latter, all attempts and future ones, however honest, may be detrimental to the supervisor-employee relationship.

For unfolding and developing the full value of leader listening, additional manage- ment training will be a necessary supplement to selection criteria. Research has dem- onstrated that people can successfully be trained to listen (e.g., Ikegami et al., 2010; McNaughton, Hamlin, McCarthy, Head-Reeves, & Schreiner, 2008). Taken together, our results draw the attention to listening as “powerful management skill” (e.g., Drucker, 2004; Ewing & Banks, 1980) that may, however, require correct usage and extensive training.

Limitations and Future Research

Our study is limited by its cross-sectional design and the data available reflect only a specific point in time. Hence, this does not allow for making any causal inferences of the effects. As discussed earlier, listening and LMX are inseparably interwoven in any leader-follower relationship. At an early stage of the relationship, effective lis- tening could be a viable engine for creating strong relationships. In the long run, a mutual interaction should be expected: listening affects strong relationships, and strong bonds will affect the quality of future listening. In the extreme, it seems unlikely that employees who perceive their supervisor as bad listener would per- ceive their supervisor as understanding and their relationship as effective. One

446 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

intriguing approach to the chicken-and-egg problem would be a longitudinal study design that observes the effects of listening and LMX over time. It would be particu- larly interesting to incorporate a sample of new employees who started freshly at a company.

Inherent in the cross-sectional design, this study is limited in that respondents answered all questions, and all at the same time. For the purpose of our research ques- tion, however, it was inevitable to have participants answer all variables: All items referred to followers’ perceptions and hence employees were best positioned to answer them. A “second source” could not have answered this adequately. Thus, common method variance might have inflated the results. To overcome this shortcoming, we applied SEM methods and controlled for a common method factor as well as the relat- edness of all outcome variables. However, depending on the nature of the study vari- ables, future research should nonetheless include complementary ratings by the supervisor to get a more holistic picture, especially for observable measures such as performance.

Third, to be able to reach and examine a wide range of different industries and job functions, we employed convenience sampling. Although checking thoroughly if sam- pling bias lead to skewed results, the current data may differ from a representative randomly chosen sample of employees. Hence, further studies are needed to strengthen the external validity of the results.

Similarly, our sample consisted of German employees, limiting generalizability to other cultures. Additional studies are needed to examine listening effects in different cultures and specific industries. For instance, leadership styles and leader-follower interactions vary between Western and East Asian cultures (e.g., Chen, 1995; Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004; Dorfman et al., 1997; Kim & Leung, 2007). Evaluating how listening effects differ in a cultural comparison would be a particularly fruitful avenue.

Finally, future research may incorporate additional outcome variables. For instance, it would be important to investigate supervisor listening effects on work-related out- comes such as, for example, turnover intentions. Prior research demonstrated that job satisfaction and strong work relationships are the strongest attitudinal drivers for turn- over. Thus, if listening affects job satisfaction and high-quality interactions, a link between listening and turnover may be likely.

Conclusion

The current research revealed evidence for listening as an important management skill within the theoretical framework of LMX. Strong relationships between leaders and followers are clearly an indispensable factor for fruitful and productive interactions, and hence organizational success. Follower perceptions of being listened to by their leader are linked to their perceptions of fair treatment and satisfaction with the super- visor as well as their job in general. These results show promise for using listening as a valuable variable in the investigation of leader-follower interactions.

Lloyd et al. 447

Notes

1. We refrained from considering the commonly reported RMSEA owing to the low complex- ity of the model and low degrees of freedom (df). For small df and low N models, especially for the former, there is greater sampling error, which can result in artificially large values of the RMSEA (Kenny & McCoach, 2003). For this reason, Kenny, Kaniskan, and McCoach (2011) recommend that one may not even compute the RMSEA for low df models.

2. AEL consists of three subfacets (sensing, processing, and responding; Drollinger et al., 2006), which are modeled via a second-order factor (see Method section).

References

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconcep- tions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64.

Barnlund, D. C. (1962). Toward a meaning-centered philosophy of communication. Journal of Communication, 12, 197-211. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1962.tb01547.x

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transfor- mational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 941-952. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941

Appendix

Measure of Perceived Supervisor Listening

The response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Think of a typical interaction with your supervisor. Generally, when my supervisor

listens to me, I feel my supervisor . . .

1. is interested in what I have to say. 2. makes me comfortable so I can speak openly. 3. makes it easy for me to open up. 4. understands my feelings. 5. is interested in me personally. 6. accepts me for what I am. 7. cares about me.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

448 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

Bechler, C., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Leadership and listening: A study of member perceptions. Small Group Research, 26, 77-85. doi:10.1177/1046496495261004

Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective expressions of listeners change a speaker’s language use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 747-756. doi:10.1002/ejsp.572

Bishop, G. F. (2008). Item order randomization. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (p. 398). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747-758. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006007

Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and evi- dence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly, 59, 277-295. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583495

Bodie, G. D. (2012). Listening as positive communication. In T. Socha & M. Pitts (Eds.), The positive side of interpersonal communication (pp. 109-125). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Bodie, G. D., Cyr, K. S., Pence, M., Rold, M., & Honeycutt, J. (2012). Listening competence in initial interactions I: Distinguishing between what listening is and what listeners do. International Journal of Listening, 26, 1-28.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301

Brownell, J. (1990). Perceptions of effective listeners: A management study. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 401-415. doi:10.1177/002194369002700405

Brownell, J. (1994). Creating strong listening environments: A key hospitality manage- ment task. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3), 3-10. doi:10.1108/09596119410059182

Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles of busi- ness. London, England: Routledge.

Cheng, B., Chou, L., Wu, T., Huang, M., & Farh, J. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subor- dinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89-117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.112.1.155

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Comer, L. B., & Drollinger, T. (1999). Active empathetic listening and selling success: A con- ceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 15-29. doi:10. 1080/08853134.1999.10754156#.VGut6HtOlPA

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and fol- lower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. doi:10.1002/1099- 1379(200011)21:7<747::AID-JOB46>3.0.CO;2-J

Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leader- ship within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78. doi:10.1016/0030- 5073(75)90005-7

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership

Lloyd et al. 449

processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 233-274. doi:10.1016/S1048- 9843(97)90003-5

Drollinger, T., & Comer, L. B. (2013). Salesperson’s listening ability as an anteced- ent to relationship selling. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28, 50-59. doi:10.1108/08858621311285714

Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and validation of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 161-180. doi:10.1002/ mar.20105

Drucker, P. F. (2004, June). What makes an effective executive? Harvard Business Review, 58-63. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2004/06/what-makes-an-effective-executive

Elangovan, A., & Xie, J. L. (1999). Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate stress and motivation: The moderating role of subordinate characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 359-373. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 435-458. doi:10.1002/ hrdq.1078

Ewing, D., & Banks, P. (1980). Listening and responding to employees’ concerns. Harvard Business Review, 58(1), 101-114.

Frey, R. (1993). Empowerment or else. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 80-94. Gabarro, J. J. (1991). Retrospective commentary. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 108-109. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange

theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-843. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

Gordon, T. (1977). Leader effectiveness training, L.E.T. the no-lose way to release the produc- tive potential of people. New York, NY: Wyden Books.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi- level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. doi:10.1016/1048- 9843(95)90036-5

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22. doi:10.2307/257990

Husband, R. L., Cooper, L. O., & Monsour, W. M. (1988). Factors underlying supervisors’ per- ceptions of their own listening behavior. Journal of the International Listening Association, 2, 97-112. doi:10.1080/10904018.1988.10499100

Ikegami, K., Tahara, H., Yamada, T., Mafune, K., Hiro, H., & Nagata, S. (2010). Effects of a mental health training program for manufacturing company managers. Journal of UOEH, 32, 141-153.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader- member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368-384. doi:10.2307/20159587

Johnson, S. D., & Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between listening effective- ness and leadership emergence perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small Group Research, 29, 452-471. doi:10.1177/1046496498294003

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). The performance of RMSEA in mod- els with small degrees of freedom (Unpublished manuscript). University of Connecticut, Storrs.

450 International Journal of Business Communication 54(4)

Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333-351. doi:10.1207/ S15328007SEM1003_1

Kim, T., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural compar- ison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 83-95. doi:10.1016/j. obhdp.2007.01.004

Kluger, A. N. (2013, June). Dyadic listening effects: Meta-analyses & theory. Paper presented at the International Listening Association Convention, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Kluger, A. N., & Zaidel, K. (2013). Are listeners perceived as leaders? International Journal of Listening, 27, 73-84. doi:10.1080/10904018.2013.754283

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leader- ship. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465. doi:10.2307/255511

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, (Vol. 15, pp. 47-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Keller, J. W., & Voelpel, S. C. (2014, June). Is my boss really listen- ing to me? The impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion, turn- over intention, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2242-4

Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Kluger, A. N., & Voelpel, S. C. (2014). Building trust and feeling well: Examining intraindividual and interpersonal outcomes and underlying mechanisms of lis- tening. International Journal of Listening, 29, 12-29. doi:10.1080/10904018.2014.928211

Lobdell, C. L., Sonoda, K. T., & Arnold, W. E. (1993). The influence of perceived supervi- sor listening behavior on employee commitment. Journal of the International Listening Association, 7(1), 92-110.

Lun, J., Kesebir, S., & Oishi, S. (2008). On feeling understood and feeling well: The role of interdependence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1623-1628.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 396-410.

McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., & Schreiner, M. (2008). Learning to listen: Teaching an active listening strategy to preservice education professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 223-231. doi:10.1177/0271121407311241

Mishima, N., Kubota, S., & Nagata, S. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to assess the attitude of active listening. Journal of Occupational Health, 42, 111-118.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational sup- port mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351-357. doi:10.2307/256913

Pasupathi, M., & Hoyt, T. (2009). The development of narrative identity in late adolescence and emergent adulthood: The continued importance of listeners. Developmental Psychology, 45, 558-574. doi:10.1037/a0014431

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended rem- edies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customers: The impact of perceived sales- person listening behavior on relationship outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 127-137. doi:10.1007/BF02894348

Lloyd et al. 451

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655-687. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as devel- oped in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Formulations of the person and the social context (Vol.3, pp. 184-256). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 2-10. doi:10.1177/001100007500500202

Rogers, C. R., & Roethlisberger, F. J. (1952/1991). HBR Classic: Barriers and gateways to com- munication. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 105-111. (Original work published 1952)

Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant- leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY: Wiley.

Steil, L. K., & Bommelje, R. K. (2004). Listening leaders: The ten golden rules to listen, lead & succeed. Edina, MN: Beaver’s Pond Press.

Stine, M., Thompson, T., & Cusella, L. (1995). The impact of organizational structure and supervisory listening indicators on subordinate support, trust, intrinsic motivation, and per- formance. International Journal of Listening, 9, 84-105. doi:10.1080/10904018.1995.104 99143

Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York, NY: Viking.

Tyler, J. A. (2011). Reclaiming rare listening as a means of organizational re-enchantment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 143-157. doi:10.1108/09534811111102328

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682-696. doi:10.2307/3069410

Author Biographies

Karina J. Lloyd (PhD) is an organiaztional psychologist who received her PhD in Business Administration from Jacobs University Bremen, Germany. Her professional work in consulting and research focusses on leadership and strategic human recourses development.

Diana Boer (PhD) is professor for social and organizational psychology at University of Koblenz-Landau in Koblenz, Germany. Her research investigates how culture, the environment and situations impact on attitudes, behaviors and motivations, in particular those that facilitate cooperation, well-being and prosocial values.

Sven C. Voelpel (PhD) is professor for business administration at Jacobs University Bremen in Bremen, Germany and director of the WISE Demographic Network.

Copyright of International Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association for Business Communication 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.