business essay
shobiii....
emeraldinsight.pdf
Management Decision Nonverbal communication and relational identification with the supervisor: Evidence from two countries Panagiotis Gkorezis, Victoria Bellou, Nikolaos Skemperis,
Article information: To cite this document: Panagiotis Gkorezis, Victoria Bellou, Nikolaos Skemperis, (2015) "Nonverbal communication and relational identification with the supervisor: Evidence from two countries", Management Decision, Vol. 53 Issue: 5, pp.1005-1022, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630
Downloaded on: 23 May 2019, At: 18:57 (PT) References: this document contains references to 107 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3957 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2015),"How leaders influence followers through the use of nonverbal communication", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 Iss 1 pp. 69-80 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/ LODJ-07-2013-0107">https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2013-0107</a> (2000),"The role of nonverbal communication in service encounters", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 Iss 5 pp. 378-391 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040010341008">https:// doi.org/10.1108/08876040010341008</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:131740 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Nonverbal communication and relational identification with
the supervisor Evidence from two countries
Panagiotis Gkorezis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Victoria Bellou University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece, and
Nikolaos Skemperis Mediterranean College of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract Purpose – Nonverbal communication comprises a core element of the interactions between leader and follower. Nevertheless, there is limited empirical attention regarding the impact of nonverbal cues on followers’ attitudinal outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to this gap by linking a salient form of nonverbal communication, kinesics, to an under-researched leader-follower relationship outcome, that is relational identification (RI) with the supervisor. In doing so, the authors also highlight the mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX) in the aforementioned relationship. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted two studies in different countries. Moreover, the authors examined the hypotheses using hierarchical regression and bootstrap analysis. Findings – As hypothesized, the present results showed that kinesics have both a direct and an indirect effect, through LMX, on RI with the supervisor. Originality/value – To the best of authors’ knowledge this is the first study that links a form of nonverbal communication to both LMX and RI. Keywords Leader-member exchange, Kinesics, Relational identification with the supervisor Paper type Research paper
Introduction The role of communication for leadership in organizations is indisputable, supporting everyday interaction between supervisors and subordinates (Nohe et al., 2013; Yukl, 2002). This is probably the reason why verbal communication has received considerable attention by leadership scholars (Bligh et al., 2004; Fiol et al., 1999; Omilion-Hodgesa and Baker, 2013; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004). Interestingly, Mehrabian and Wiener (1967) found that when forming impressions of others, individuals take into consideration not only the content of the message sent but also, and far more, the facial expression and the tone voice, highlighting the significance of nonverbal communication. Likewise, Birdwhistell (1955) argued that nonverbal communication accounts for 60 to 93 percent of overall effective human communications and Barnum and Wolniansky (1989) pointed out that more than 70 percent of communication is being completed through nonverbal methods. Despite its aforementioned potency, nonverbal communication has been neglected in the hitherto leadership literature (Schyns and Mohr, 2004). Only limited existing evidence relates it to different attitudinal responses of followers, such as satisfaction with the leader (Riggio et al., 2003), perceived
Management Decision Vol. 53 No. 5, 2015
pp. 1005-1022 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747 DOI 10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630
Received 4 November 2014 Revised 19 January 2015 Accepted 3 March 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
1005
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
leader’s performance (Riggio et al., 2003) and effectiveness (Awamleh and Gardner, 1999; Gardner, 2003).
Following this line of thinking and research, this paper set out to examine its influence on relational identification (henceforth RI) with the supervisor, reflecting the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of their relationship with their leader (Sluss and Ashforth, 2007). Despite the fact that recent studies have highlighted its contributing role to both organizations (i.e. Cem Ersoy et al., 2011) and individuals (Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011), RI with the supervisor remains under-researched.
In addition, researchers (i.e. Madlock et al., 2007; Omilion-Hodgesa and Baker, 2013) have identified verbal communication as a significant predictor of leader-member exchange (henceforth LMX), whereas the latter positively affects RI with the supervisor (Carmeli et al., 2011). Combined with prior research that highlighted LMX as a major follower attitudinal response antecedent (Ohana and Meyer, 2010; Wayne et al., 1997) and its core mediating role in linking leader behavior to follower responses (Dulebohn et al., 2012), we incorporate it as an explanatory mechanism of the relationship between supervisor nonverbal communication and RI with him/her.
Taken together, this study seeks to investigate the role of nonverbal communication in enhancing RI with the supervisor via LMX (Figure 1). Taking into account the limited related evidence on these relationships, two studies were conducted in different – albeit similar with regards to power distance (Hofstede et al., 2010) – national contexts (Belgium and Greece), adopting different sampling methods. As regards its contribution, on a theoretical basis the present study will enrich our understanding of the role of nonverbal communication for leadership and shed light to the underlying mechanism of identifying with the supervisor relationally. Practically, suggestions for using kinesics successfully and enhancing RI with the supervisor will be offered.
Literature review RI with the supervisor Organizational behavior scholars have long focussed on organizational identification, that is the “perception of oneness with or belongingness to the organization” (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). Building upon the relational and comparative definition of the self (Tajfel and Turner, 1985), Sluss and Ashforth (2007, 2008) emphasized the relational aspect of employee identification, suggesting that individuals may define themselves vis-à-vis their relationship with various targets including subordinates, peers and supervisors.
In a leader-follower relationship, followers’ identification with the leader indicates the extent to which an individual really understands what being a follower means and has actually internalized that role as part of his/her self-definition (Carmeli et al., 2011). As Gu et al. (2015, p. IV) note “employee identification with leader is a follower’s relational self-based on close relations with the leader.” In fact, identification with the supervisor denotes the extent to which individuals have developed a self-concept that first recognizes that he/she and his/her leader share similar values and/or second wishes to change his/her self-concept, in order to become more similar to the leader (Pratt, 1998).
Relational identification with the supervisor
Kinesics
LMX
Figure 1. The hypothesized model
1006
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Identification with the supervisor draws upon the social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981). According to the social identity theory, individuals classify themselves into various social categories (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). In this vein, individuals can segment, order their social environment and in turn locate themselves in this social environment. Identification emerges when two basic needs, the need for self-categorization and the need for self-enhancement, are satisfied. The former pertains to the “process by which people define their self-concepts in terms of membership in social groups” (Chatman and Flynn, 2001, p. 957) which helps them to determine their place in society (Tajfel, 1981). In doing so, based on the need to be seen in a positive view, individuals favor the in-group norms and stereotypes by comparing them with out-group ones (Hogg et al., 1995).
Research evidence suggests that identification with the supervisor enhances organizational identification (Carmeli et al., 2011), organizational citizenship behavior (Cem Ersoy et al., 2011), self-efficacy (Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011), creativity (Yoshida et al., 2014), and task performance (Wang et al., 2013), and also leader’s reputation (Huang et al., 2014). As for its antecedents, transformational (Wang and Howell, 2012; Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011) and family-friendly leadership style have been recognized (Wang et al., 2013).
Nonverbal communication Nonverbal communication is communication that uses any method other than language (Jandt, 2001) or any form that does not use spoken words (Greene et al., 1994). In their meta-analysis of nonverbal communication, Hall et al. (2005, p. 898) recorded “the face, head, eyes, hands, body, and voice; interpersonal distance and angle of orientation; and ability to express emotions through nonverbal cues” as its content. Within the organizational setting, nonverbal communication complements the messages transmitted by leaders through everyday face-to-face interaction, speeches and announcements (DeGroot et al., 2011), bolsters followers’ perceptions of leaders’ qualities such as charisma (Gardner, 2003), inculcate vision arouse emotions (Antonakis et al., 2011). Overall, several disciplines, including legal studies (i.e. Burnett and Badzinski, 2005), sociology (i.e. Palmer and Simmons, 1995) and marketing (i.e. Schwepker, 2003) have examined the role of nonverbal cues, all agreeing on the increased effectiveness of nonverbal communication.
So far, different typologies have been developed to divide the elements of nonverbal communication, such as sign, action and object languages (Ruesch and Kees, 1956), performancial, artificial, contextual and mediatory codes (Harrison, 1974), and kinesics, proxemics, paralanguage and physical appearance (Sundaram and Webster, 2000). The latter, and kinesics in particular, is the one adopted in this study, since it is the richest and most visible form of nonverbal communication (Gamble and Gamble, 2013). Kinesics, as systemized by Birdwhistell (1952), pertains to facial movements (eye contact, smile), the head (nodding) and the rest of the body (hand shaking, gestures and body orientation). Although several nonverbal cues may be displayed at a time, evidence suggests that they do communicate similar signals. As Sundaram and Webster (2000, p. 381) note, “the cues of casual smiling, light laughter, forward body lean, open body posture and frequent eye contact are perceived as conveying intimacy and non-dominance – the characteristics commonly associated with friendliness and courtesy.”
Kinesics and RI with the supervisor Kinesics has been related to perceptions of increased credibility (Hemsley and Doob, 1978), truthfulness (Burgoon et al., 2014), likeability and believability (Beebe, 1980),
1007
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
attentiveness (Sundaram and Webster, 2000), sincerity (Keltner and Kring, 1998) and warmth (Bayes, 1972). Since all these traits are essential for desirable supervisors (Burke et al., 2007; Den Hartog et al., 1999; Eberly and Fong, 2013; Russell, 2001), our expectation is that, in accordance with the implicit leadership theory, the effective use of kinesics by a supervisor is likely to turn him/her into a role model in the eyes of the subordinate. Researchers have already stressed the elevated consistency between senders’ facial expressions, as perceived by receivers, and actual intentions, personality traits and experiences of senders (Ambady and Rosenthal, 1992; Willis and Todorov, 2006), indicating facial expressions as valid and reliable predictors of social characteristics. In parallel, as Keltner and Kring (1998) point out, nonverbal signals generate cues regarding the motivation and intention of the sender. Furthermore, Taute et al. (2011) argued that kinesics is a basic part of the overall impression of the leader. Hence, it is suggested that:
H1. Supervisor kinesics is positively related to employee RI with the supervisor.
LMX and its mediating role The last decades have seen a burgeoning increase in scholarly interest in the LMX quality. As such, numerous studies have shown the positive role of LMX in core employee attitudinal and behavioral outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and performance (for a review see meta-analysis from Dulebohn et al., 2012; Gerstner and Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007). One of the key tenets of the LMX theory lies in the different dyadic relationships that leaders develop with their followers (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen and Cashman, 1975; Liden and Graen, 1980). Put differently, the relationship quality between leaders and followers may range from low, which is heavily built on a transactional approach of the employment contract, to high, which is based on more interpersonal aspects such as trust, mutual liking, loyalty and respect (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). As noted earlier, Dulebohn et al. (2012) argued that LMX serves as a dominant mediator, explaining the effect of leader behaviors on a host of outcomes. Likewise, it is expected that LMX will mediate the impact that supervisor’s kinesics have on employees’ RI with the supervisor.
Kinesics, as a form of nonverbal communication, is a foremost element of interpersonal interactions within organizations, helping individuals to enrich typical communications (Vrij and Baxter, 1999). In fact, according to the Brunswikian lens model, receivers are likely to interpret nonverbal signals before understanding the verbal ones (Scherer, 1982). Our expectation is that a positive overall view of the supervisor will instigate a positive view of the quality of the social exchange between the supervisor and the subordinate, as reflected by LMX. Such an expectation is based upon two theories: the signaling theory and the uncertainty reduction theory. The signaling theory is based on information asymmetries that arise when “different people know different things” (Stiglitz, 2002, p. 469). In their effort to reduce such asymmetries, individuals tend to consider the observable actions of organizations as signals of less observable characteristics (Spence, 1973, 2002). It is thus critical if, how and when the sender signals that information and how the receiver interprets it (Connelly et al., 2011). In the leader-follower relationship, informational asymmetries are a fact as leaders are more informed to support their decision-making process (Pratt and Zeckhauser, 1985). Thus, kinesics may accompany or even replace leaders’ verbal messages, helping thus followers fill information gaps they have.
1008
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Second, uncertainty reduction theory postulates that individual’s need to predict others’ behavior stimulates them toward reducing uncertainty (Berger and Bradac, 1982). This is the reason why individuals seek to gather information that will help them overcome their uncertainty, with cues that will enrich the message said or written. Nonverbal communication assists the decoder to form an impression of the sender, allowing thus the decoder to predict the sender’s behavior (Berger and Douglas, 1981). Within the leader-follower framework in the employment setting, the subordinate is likely to be faced with task-related uncertainties, performance or even job security. In this sense, kinesics may help them “read between leader’s lines,” based on leader’s gestures, facial expressions and body language, diminishing hence feelings of uncertainty due to greater information.
Considering the aforementioned influence of LMX on RI with the supervisor, high-quality exchanges between leaders and members encompass high levels of commitment, trust and liking which, in turn, bolster employees’ RI with the supervisor (Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011). Moreover, researchers (Aron and Aron, 1997; Carmeli et al., 2011) have argued that when the relationship between supervisor and subordinates matures and the latter evaluate their role relationship in a positive manner it is more likely that they will identify with it. Consequently, it is expected that:
H2. LMX mediates the relationship between supervisor kinesics and employee RI with the supervisor.
Study 1 Method Sample and procedures. In study 1 participants were employed from a large occupational health company in Belgium. Authors sent an e-mail to the Human Resource Department providing information on the study and including a web-link for the questionnaire to forward it to employees. The web-link offered potential participants information on the study, ensured anonymity and confidentiality of responses and asked participants to answer the questionnaire. Overall, 102 respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these, 63.7 percent were male. In addition, 41.2 percent of the sample was less than 32 years old. Last, 52.9 percent has worked for the present organization for less than ten years and 57.8 percent respondents have less than ten years of working experience.
Measures. All measures in this study used a five-point Likert scale where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree. All scale reliabilities (Table I) were acceptable, exceeding the value (0.70) recommended by Nunnally et al. (1967).
Kinesics. Kinesics was tapped using the five-item scale adapted from Jung and Yoon (2011). A sample item is “My supervisor nods his/her head properly.”
LMX. A seven-item scale, developed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), was used in order to assess LMX. An example item includes “My supervisor recognizes my potential.”
RI with the supervisor. RI with the supervisor was assessed using the scale taken from Walumbwa and Hartnell (2011). A sample item is “When someone criticizes my supervisor, it feels like an insult to me.”
Control variables. We controlled for the effects of gender (0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female), age (1 ¼ 18-32, 2 ¼ 33-46, 3 ¼ 47-65, 4 ¼ more than 65), employment status (1 ¼ full time,
1009
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
2 ¼ part time, 3 ¼ trainee, 4 ¼ other), job tenure (1 ¼ 1-3 years, 2 ¼ 4-10, 3 ¼ 11-19, 4 ¼ more than 20 years) and organizational tenure (1¼ less than one year, 2 ¼ 1-5, 3 ¼ 6-10, 4 ¼ more than ten years).
Data analysis. Data analysis included multiple steps. First, descriptive statistics were computed. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (AMOS 20) was performed to demonstrate discriminant and convergent validity, and to assess the potential influence of common method variance (CMV), through Harman’s single factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Third, in order to examine our hypotheses, the three-step approach posited by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used. According to this process, mediation is supported when the following three conditions occur: first, the independent variable relates to the mediating variable; second, the independent variable relates to the dependent variable; and third, the mediating variable relates to the dependent variable and the relationship of the independent variable with the dependent variable is significantly lower in magnitude in the third equation than in the second. Finally, we examined the mediation hypothesis by conducting bootstrapping analysis in SPSS using macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004). The specific approach has the advantage that it does not assume the normality of the sampling distribution. Thus, 1,000 bootstrap samples with 95 percent confidence intervals were used.
Results Descriptive statistics. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for all variables are displayed in Table I. The results showed that kinesics is related to both LMX (r ¼ 0.47, po0.01) and RI with the supervisor (r ¼ 0.56, po0.01). Moreover, LMX is positively correlated with RI with the supervisor (r ¼ 0.61, po0.01).
Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (Table II) indicated that our three-factor model provided the best fit to the data ( χ2 (202) ¼ 313.10, po0.01, TLI ¼ 0.90, CFI ¼ 0.92, IFI ¼ 0.92, RMSEA ¼ 0.07). Also, all standardized coefficients were significant (ranged from 0.51 to 0.87) demonstrating convergent validity. Since data were taken using a cross-sectional design, we attempted to determine the magnitude of CMV. As such, Harman’s single factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) was used. The results demonstrated a poor fit for the one factor model ( χ2 (205) ¼ 515.49, po0.01, TLI ¼ 0.73, CFI ¼ 0.76, IFI ¼ 0.77, RMSEA ¼ 0.12). Therefore, CMV may not constitute a severe problem for this study.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Gender 0.36 0.48 2. Age 1.80 0.81 0.01 3. Employment status 1.84 1.07 −0.12 −0.29** 4. Job tenure 2.33 0.96 0.14 0.79** −0.29** 5. Organizational tenure 2.51 1.00 0.15 0.66** −0.42** 0.74** 6. Kinesics 3.73 0.82 0.07 −0.02 0.05 −0.04 −0.05 (0.82) 7. LMX 3.54 0.85 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.16 0.14 0.47** (0.89) 8. Relational identification 3.27 0.88 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.03 −0.01 0.56** 0.61** (0.90)
Notes: **p ⩽ 0.01
Table I. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations
1010
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Hypotheses testing. According to the results (Table III), kinesics positively affect LMX ( β ¼ 0.48, po0.01) and RI with the supervisor ( β ¼ 0.55, po0.01) supporting, thus, our first hypothesis. Also, the results demonstrated a significant positive relationship between LMX and RI with the supervisor ( β ¼ 0.45, po0.01). However, when LMX was added in the equation, the relationship between kinesics and RI with the supervisor was attenuated ( β ¼ 0.34, po0.01). Taken together and based on the criteria of Baron and Kenny (1986), it is posited that LMX mediates the relationship between kinesics and RI with the supervisor. Hence, H2 was supported. In order to further support these results, we employed bootstrapping analysis with 95 percent confidence intervals. Congruent with the above findings, bootstrapping supported our mediating model. The results showed that kinesics has an indirect effect on RI with the supervisor via LMX since the bias corrected confidence interval of the specific indirect effect does not contain zero (from 0.02 to 0.43) (Preacher and Hayes, 2004).
Study 2 Method Sample and procedures. In order to test our hypotheses in a more diverse sample of employees regarding industries, occupations and hierarchical levels (Heckathorn, 1997), a different sampling method was adopted. In particular, snowball method was used, namely, we invited personal and professional contacts and asked them to invite their contacts. As with Study 1, all potential participants got a web-link that informed
Model χ2 df Dχ2 CFI TLI IFI RMSEA
Three-factor model 313.10 202 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.07 Two-factor model: Kinesics and relational identification 396.21 204 83.11** 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.10 Two-factor model: Kinesics and LMX 451.46 204 138.36** 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.11 Two-factor model: LMX and relational identification 376.61 204 63.51** 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.09 One factor model 515.49 205 202.39** 0.76 0.73 0.77 0.12 Notes: **p ⩽ 0.01
Table II. Confirmatory factor analysis (study 1)
Variables LMX Relational identification
Step 1 Step 2
Control variables Gender 0.01a 0.04 0.03 Age −0.05 0.16 0.18 Employment status 0.15 0.11 0.05 Job tenure 0.17 −0.04 −0.12 Organizational tenure 0.13 −0.01 −0.06 Kinesics 0.48** 0.55** 0.34** LMX – – 0.45** Adjusted R2 0.23 0.29 0.44 Notes: aStandardized regression coefficients. **p ⩽ 0.01
Table III. Regression analysis
for testing hypotheses (study 1)
1011
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
them on the scope of the study, ensured confidentiality and anonymity and asked participants to answer the questionnaire. Overall, 158 participants employed in diverse Greek organizations completed the online questionnaire. The majority of this sample were male (65.8 percent) and was less than 32 years old (65.2 percent). Last, 77.8 percent has worked for his/her organization for less than five years and 73.4 percent respondents have less than ten years of working experience.
Measures. The same measures as in Study 1 were used. All scale reliabilities (Table IV) were acceptable, exceeding the value (0.70).
Data analyses. The analyses conducted in Study 1 were replicated.
Results Descriptive statistics. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for all variables are presented in Table IV. The results demonstrated that kinesics is correlated to both LMX (r ¼ 0.52, po0.01) and RI with the supervisor (r ¼ 0.51, po0.01). Furthermore, LMX is related with RI with the supervisor (r ¼ 0.70, po0.01).
Confirmatory factor analysis. To assess the discriminant validity of our model we compared our measurement model with other nested models using AMOS (20). The results showed that our measurement model provided a better fit ( χ2
(206) ¼ 339.18, po0.01, TLI ¼ 0.93, CFI ¼ 0.94, IFI ¼ 0.94 RMSEA ¼ 0.06) than the alternative models (Table V). Regarding convergent validity, all standardized coefficients were significant, ranging from 0.50 to 0.89. Similar to the first study, we
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Gender 0.34 0.48 2. Age 1.44 0.68 −0.12 3. Employment status 2.08 1.12 −0.07 −0.30**
4. Job tenure 1.90 0.90 −0.13 0.67** −0.40** 5. Organizational tenure 2.05 1.02 −0.04 0.55** −0.41** 0.74**
6. Kinesics 3.58 0.84 −0.15 −0.11 −0.01 −0.02 −0.02 (0.86) 7. LMX 3.49 0.85 −0.21** 0.06 −0.10 0.19* 0.20* 0.52** (0.91) 8. Relational identification 2.98 0.85 −0.12 0.10 −0.07 0.10 0.09 0.51** 0.70** (0.91)
Notes: *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01
Table IV. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations
Model χ2 df Dχ2 CFI TLI IFI RMSEA
Three-factor model 339.18 206 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.06 Two-factor model: Kinesics and relational identification 522.79 208 183.61** 0.85 0.84 0.86 0.10 Two-factor model: Kinesics and LMX 529.55 208 190.37** 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.10 Two-factor model: LMX and relational identification 541.40 208 202.22** 0.85 0.83 0.85 0.10 One factor model 712.83 209 373.65** 0.77 0.74 0.77 0.12 Notes: **p ⩽ 0.01
Table V. Confirmatory factor analysis
1012
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
also attempted to ascertain the problem of CMV, due to the cross-sectional design of the study. Harman’s test showed that the one factor model has a poor fit ( χ2 (209) ¼ 712.83, po0.01, TLI ¼ 0.74, CFI ¼ 0.77, RMSEA ¼ 0.12).
Hypotheses tests. According to the results (Table VI), kinesics has a positive impact on LMX ( β ¼ 0.50, po0.01). Similarly, kinesics is positively related to RI with the supervisor ( β ¼ 0.52, po0.01). Therefore, the results supported our first hypothesis. Additionally, the results showed that LMX affects RI with the supervisor ( β ¼ 0.62, po0.01). Yet, by adding LMX in the equation, the relationship between kinesics and RI with the supervisor was mitigated ( β ¼ 0.21, po01). Therefore, our second hypothesis was supported positing that LMX has a mediating role in the relationship between kinesics and RI with the supervisor. Again, to further support the present results, we conducted bootstrapping analysis with 95 percent confidence intervals. The results corroborated the aforementioned findings by indicating an indirect effect of RI with the supervisor through the mediation of LMX. Specifically, the bias corrected confidence interval of the specific indirect effect does not contain zero (from 0.21 to 0.45) (Preacher and Hayes, 2004).
Discussion The purpose of the present research was to examine the positive effect of supervisor’s use of kinesics on employee RI with the supervisor. Results supported our hypothesis indicating the direct relationship between these two constructs. Moreover, using an important linking mechanism in leadership theory, that is LMX, the findings revealed that supervisor kinesics also indirectly affected employee RI with the supervisor through LMX.
Theoretical implications Researchers have stressed the fundamental role of nonverbal communication in leadership (Mulder, 1987; Schyns and Mohr, 2004). In this context, and paired with the limited evidence on the impact of nonverbal communication on facets of leadership, the present study looks into the effect of kinesics, a salient form of nonverbal communication, on a relatively new attitudinal follower response, namely, RI with the supervisor. In specific, supervisor’s kinesics was expected to have a positive impact on subordinate’s RI with the supervisor both directly and through LMX. To increase
Variables LMX Relational identification
Step 1 Step 2
Control variables Gender −0.12a −0.03 0.05 Age 0.07 0.14 0.18* Employment status −0.02 −0.02 0.01 Job tenure 0.12 −0.03 −0.10 Organizational tenure 0.15 0.04 −0.05 Kinesics 0.50** 0.52** 0.21** LMX – – 0.62** Adjusted R2 0.31 0.26 0.52 Notes: aStandardized regression coefficients. *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01
Table VI. Regression analysis
for testing hypotheses
1013
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
generalizability of findings we performed two studies, one among Greek and one among Belgian employees.
Our findings are uniform in nature, offering support to our hypotheses. First of all, to the extent that subordinates consider supervisor’s kinesics positive, they are more likely to identify themselves with their supervisor. The use of positive kinesics by the supervisor is likely to instigate perceptions of greater sincerity (Keltner and Kring, 1998), integrity (Gardner, 2003) and trustworthiness (Krumhuber et al., 2007) among subordinates. In line with the social identity theory, since individuals tend to attribute such characteristics to effective leaders (Burke et al., 2007), they are more likely to consider themselves similar with their leader if he/she supplements his/her communication with smiles, nodding, etc. Besides, Gregory (1994), Gregory and Gallagher (2002) argued that verbal communication is largely responsible for the perception that subordinates form regarding the attributes of their leader. Also, as Ashforth (2001) postulated, role relationships are likely to satisfy psychosocial needs. As a result, the leader-follower relationship may help the latter fulfill such needs, making the former seem attractive and in turn augment identification with him/her (Sluss and Ashforth, 2008).
Given the recognition of LMX as a partial mediator in the relationship between kinesics and RI with the supervisor in this study, kinesics appears to have a significant importance for subordinates’ perceptions of the quality of the exchange relationship with their supervisor. Such a finding is congruent with the signaling and the uncertainty theory aforementioned. To the extent that leaders complement their verbal communication with kinesics, followers are more likely to ascribe desirable characteristics to them (Bayes, 1972; Beebe, 1980; Keltner and Kring, 1998; Sundaram and Webster, 2000), developing a high-quality relationship with them. This qualitative dyadic relationship, in turn, is likely to make followers feel proud of them, look up to them as a role model and ultimately, identify with them relationally. As such, our findings are in line with those of Dulebohn et al. (2012) highlighting LMX as a transmitting mechanism of the impact of leader’s behavior on followers’ responses.
Last, given that extant empirical studies on RI are scarce, this study also sheds light to the antecedents of employee RI with the supervisor, which hitherto largely focussed on leadership styles (i.e. Wang and Howell, 2012).
Practical implications According to previous researchers, RI with the supervisor is pivotal for organizations, leading among others to enhanced employee task performance (Wang et al., 2013), creativity (Yoshida et al., 2014) and organizational citizenship behavior (Cem Ersoy et al., 2011). As Kark et al. (2003) stress, evoking their subordinates’ RI is critical if leaders are to actually have an effect upon them. Yet, existing evidence on enhancing it is rather limited. Our findings, however, clearly identify nonverbal communication and kinesics in particular as a valuable tool toward this direction. Since senders cannot fully express themselves through verbal communication alone (Taute et al., 2011), their ability to use kinesics effectively is vital. Therefore, training supervisors regarding the effective use of kinesics is significant to help them avoid conscious or unconscious inconsistencies, increasing in turn the effectiveness and precision of communication. To improve overall organizational effectiveness, given that both encoding and decoding ability of individuals may vary (Rosenthal et al., 1979), top management could train all employees in the use of nonverbal communication. In such a case, role-playing
1014
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
would be the most appropriate form of training to be adopted while case studies enriched with visual and audio material could also help. Additionally, behavior modeling through video feedback accommodates the analysis of both verbal and nonverbal cues (Fukkink et al., 2011).
The positive influence of supervisors’ kinesics on LMX implies that to further increase RI with the supervisor and evoke subsequent positive outcomes (i.e. Yoshida et al., 2014; Walumbwa et al., 2011) organizations could embolden leaders to cultivate their relationships with their subordinates on an individual basis. Toward this end, leaders may enhance followers’ positive perceptions of LMX by engaging in frequent personal and direct communication (Waldron, 1991), discussing problems with subordinates as soon as they emerge (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) and increase employee participation in decision making (Fairhurst, 1993). Fostering leadership styles that reduce power distance and trust, such as transformational and ethical (Carmeli et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2005), would also evoke perceptions of high-quality exchange relationship with the supervisor.
In parallel, given that coordinating face, head and rest of body movements with verbal communication are likely to improve supervisor’s argumentation and make decisions and proposals more convincing (Cole, 2004), top management may want to ensure that their verbal and nonverbal cues are in absolute coincidence when communicating major decisions. Important to note here is that sincerity is vital for the development of true and long-lasting dual relationships (Eberly and Fong, 2013). Finally, nonverbal communication, including kinesics, facilitates through emotional contagion (Hatfield and Cacioppo, 1994) the transmission of feelings from supervisor to subordinates. Given that emotions reflect individuals’ intentions and behaviors, managers should be cautious with the feelings expressed through kinesics, as these – if negative – will ignite negative emotions among subordinates, too. In any occasion, unspoken rules regarding emotions that can or cannot be displayed in a professional setting should be taken into consideration (Kramer and Hess, 2002).
Limitations and suggestions for future research As in the majority of studies, the present study has some limitations that need to be addressed. First, the present study employed a cross-sectional design and therefore, it is difficult to determine causality. Second, data were gathered from a single source (employees) and thus, this may raise the issue of CMV. As such, a host of possible remedies was employed. For instance, researchers (Richman et al., 1999) have argued that web-based surveys show less social desirability distortion, which is a primary source of common bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), compared to the paper-and-pencil questionnaires. We also employed statistical tests (Harman test) in order to determine the magnitude of such bias. However, despite our aforementioned attempts we still cannot exclude the possibility that CMV confounded our results. Last, data were collected from two different countries (Belgium and Greece) using two different methodologies. Despite our attempt to enhance the generalizability of our findings they may be limited to the present contexts.
Nevertheless, the above limitations suggest promising avenues for future research. Future studies should pursue experimental designs in order to test the causality of the hypothesized relationships. Relatedly, future studies may address the issue of common bias by adopting a longitudinal design. Furthermore, researchers could address some potential moderating mechanisms that are likely to affect the decoding of the nonverbal signals and therefore, the relationship between kinesics and both LMX and RI
1015
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
including personality traits (Byron and Baldridge, 2007) or gender similarity between supervisor and subordinate (Case, 1994; Cole, 2004). Last, future studies may test the positive impact of other forms of nonverbal communication such as paralanguage and proxemics on both outcomes.
Conclusion The present research attempted to highlight the positive role of supervisor kinesics in the supervisor-subordinate relationship. By doing so, two samples from two different countries were employed. Using two key supervisor-related employee outcomes, the findings demonstrated that the use of such a form of nonverbal communication by the supervisor is likely to promote higher levels of RI with the supervisor via LMX. Hopefully this paper will encourage researchers to examine various forms of nonverbal communication in relation to other core employee and organizational outcomes.
References Ambady, N. and Rosenthal, R. (1992), “Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of
interpersonal consequences: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 256-274.
Antonakis, J., Fenley, M. and Liechti, S. (2011), “Can Charisma can be taught? Tests of two interventions”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 374-396.
Aron, A. and Aron, E.N. (1997), “Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self”, in Duck, S. (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 251-270.
Ashforth, B. (2001), Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Awamleh, R. and Gardner, W.L. (1999), “Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 345-373.
Barnum, C. and Wolniansky, N. (1989), “Taking cues from body language”, Management Review, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 59-60.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bayes, M.A. (1972), “Behavioral cues of interpersonal warmth”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 333-339.
Beebe, S.A. (1980), “The role of nonverbal communication in education: research and theoretical perspectives”, paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New York, NY, November 13-16.
Berger, C.R. and Bradac, J.J. (1982), Language and Social Knowledge: Uncertainty in Interpersonal Relations, Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, London.
Berger, C.R. and Douglas, W. (1981), “Studies in interpersonal epistemology: III. Anticipated interaction, self‐monitoring, and observational context selection”, Communications Monographs, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 183-196.
Birdwhistell, R.L. (1952), Introduction to Kinesics: An Annotation System for Analysis of Body Motion and Gesture, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
1016
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Birdwhistell, R.L. (1955), “Background to kinesics”, Educational Technology and Change, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 10-18.
Bligh, M.C., Kohles, J.C. and Meindl, J.R. (2004), “Charisma under crisis: presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the september 11th terrorist attacks”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 211-239.
Burgoon, J.K., Schuetzler, R. and Wilson, D.W. (2014), “Kinesic patterning in deceptive and truthful interactions”, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Burke, C.S., Sims, D.E., Lazzara, E.H. and Salas, E. (2007), “Trust in leadership: a multi-level review and integration”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 606-632.
Burnett, A. and Badzinski, D.M. (2005), “Judge nonverbal communication on trial: do mock trial jurors notice?”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Byron, K. and Baldridge, D.C. (2007), “E-mail recipients’ impressions of senders’ likability the interactive effect of nonverbal cues and recipients’ personality”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 137-160.
Carmeli, A., Atwater, L. and Levi, A. (2011), “How leadership enhances employees’ knowledge sharing: the intervening roles of relational and organizational identification”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 257-274.
Case, S.S. (1994), “Gender differences in communication and behaviour in organizations”, in Davidson, M. and Burke, R.J. (Eds), Women in Management: Current Research Issues, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 144-167.
Cem Ersoy, N., Born, M.P., Derous, E. and van der Molen, H.T. (2011), “Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior among blue-and white-collar workers in Turkey”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 356-367.
Chatman, J.A. and Flynn, F.J. (2001), “The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 956-974.
Cole, N.D. (2004), “Gender differences in perceived disciplinary fairness”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 254-279.
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D. and Reutzel, C.R. (2011), “Signaling theory: a review and assessment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-67.
Dansereau, F. Jr, Graen, G. and Haga, W.J. (1975), “A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: a longitudinal investigation of the role making process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 46-78.
DeGroot, T., Aime, F., Johnson, S.G. and Kluemper, D. (2011), “Does talking the talk help walking the walk? An examination of the effect of vocal attractiveness in leader effectiveness”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 680-689.
Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. and Dorfman, P.W. (1999), “Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universal”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-256.
Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2012), “A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye toward the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1715-1759.
Eberly, M.B. and Fong, C.T. (2013), “Leading via the heart and mind: the roles of leader and follower emotions, attributions and interdependence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 696-711.
Fairhurst, G.T. (1993), “The leader-member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: a discourse analysis”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 321-351.
1017
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Fiol, C.M., Harris, D. and House, R. (1999), “Charismatic leadership: strategies for effecting social change”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 449-482.
Fukkink, R.G., Trienekens, N. and Kramer, L.J. (2011), “Video feedback in education and training: putting learning in the picture”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-63.
Gamble, T.K. and Gamble, M.W. (2013), Interpersonal Communication: Building Connections Together, SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gardner, W.L. (2003), “Perceptions of leader charisma, effectiveness, and integrity effects of exemplification, delivery, and ethical reputation”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 502-527.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-844.
Graen, G. and Cashman, J.F. (1975), “A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmental approach”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds), Leadership Frontiers, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH, pp. 143-165.
Graen, G.B. and 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”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Greene, M.G., Adelman, R.D., Friedmann, E. and Charon, R. (1994), “Older patient satisfaction with communication during an initial medical encounter”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1279-1288.
Gregory, S.W. (1994), “Sounds of power and deference: acoustic analysis of macro social constraints on micro interaction”, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 497-526.
Gregory, S.W. and Gallagher, T.J. (2002), “Spectral analysis of candidates’ nonverbal vocal communication: predicting US presidential election outcomes”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 298-308.
Gu, W., Li-Ping, T.T. and Jiang, W. (2015), “Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader-member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 513-529.
Hall, J.A., Coats, E.J. and LeBeau, L.S. (2005), “Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131 No. 6, pp. 898-924.
Harrison, R. (1974), Beyond Words; an Introduction to Nonverbal Communication, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hatfield, E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1994), Emotional Contagion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heckathorn, D.D. (1997), “Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations”, Social Problems, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 174-199.
Hemsley, G.D. and Doob, A.N. (1978), “The effect of looking behavior on perceptions of a communicator’s credibility”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 136-142.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed., McGraw Hills, New York, NY.
Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. and White, K.M. (1995), “A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 58 No 4, pp. 255-269.
1018
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Huang, J., Wang, L. and Xie, J. (2014), “Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: the roles of identification with leader and leader’s reputation”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 42 No 10, pp. 1699-1711.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 269-277.
Jandt, F.E. (2001), Intercultural Communication: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Jung, H.S. and Yoon, H.H. (2011), “The effects of nonverbal communication of employees in the family restaurant upon customers’ emotional responses and customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No 3, pp. 542-550.
Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-255.
Keltner, D. and Kring, A.M. (1998), “Emotion, social function, and psychopathology”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 320-342.
Kramer, M.W. and Hess, J.A. (2002), “Communication rules for the display of emotions in organizational settings”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 66-80.
Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A.S., Cosker, D., Marshall, D., Rosin, P.L. and Kappas, A. (2007), “Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative behavior”, Emotion, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 730-735.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, G. (1980), “Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 451-465.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43-72.
Madlock, P.E., Martin, M.M., Bogdan, L. and Ervin, M. (2007), “The impact of communication traits on leader-member exchange”, Human Communication, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 451-464.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Mehrabian, A. and Wiener, M. (1967), “Decoding of inconsistent communications”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 109-114.
Mulder, M. (1987), “Revitalization of leadership and the innovation of leadership development”, European Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 34-39.
Nohe, C., Michaelis, B., Menges, J.I., Zhang, Z. and Sonntag, K. (2013), “Charisma and organizational change: a multilevel study of perceived charisma, commitment to change, and team performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 378-389.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H. and Berge, J.M.T. (1967), Psychometric Theory, Vol. 226, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ohana, M. and Meyer, M. (2010), “Should I stay or should I go now? Investigating the intention to quit of the permanent staff in social enterprises”, European Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 441-454.
Omilion-Hodgesa, L.M. and Baker, C.R. (2013), “Contextualizing LMX within the workgroup: the effects of LMX and justice on relationship quality and resource sharing among peers”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No 6, pp. 935-951.
1019
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Palmer, M.T. and Simmons, K.B. (1995), “Communicating intentions through nonverbal behaviors conscious and nonconscious encoding of liking”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 128-160.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Pratt, J.W. and Zeckhauser, R. (1985), Principals and Agents. The Structure of Business, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pratt, M.G. (1998), “To be or not to be: central questions in organizational identification”, in Whetten, D.A. and Godfrey, P.C. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 171-207.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual and empirical extensions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-354.
Richman, W.L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S. and Drasgow, F. (1999), “A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 754-775.
Riggio, R.E., Salinas, C., Riggio, H.R. and Cole, E.J. (2003), “The role of social and emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 83-103.
Rosenthal, R., Hall, J.A., DiMatteo, M.R., Rogers, P.L. and Archer, D. (1979), Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS test, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Ruesch, J. and Kees, W. (1956), Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Visual Perception of Human Relations, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-84.
Scherer, K.R. (1982), “Methods of research on vocal communication: paradigms and parameters”, in Scherer, K.R. and Ekman, P. (Eds), Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal Behavior Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 136-198.
Schwepker, C.H. Jr (2003), “Customer-oriented selling: a review, extension, and directions for future research”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-171.
Schyns, B. and Mohr, G. (2004), “Nonverbal elements of leadership behaviour”, Zeitschrift für Personalforschung/German Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 289-305.
Sluss, D.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (2007), “Relational identity and identification: defining ourselves through work relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Sluss, D.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (2008), “How relational and organizational identification converge: processes and conditions”, Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 807-823.
Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signaling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 355-374.
Spence, M. (2002), “Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets”, American Economic Review, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 434-459.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2002), “Information and the change in the paradigm in economics”, American Economic Review, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 460-501.
1020
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Sundaram, D. and Webster, C. (2000), “The role of nonverbal communication in service encounters”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 378-391.
Tajfel, H. (1981), Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn, Nelson-Hall, Chicago.
Taute, H.A., Heiser, R.S. and McArthur, D.N. (2011), “The effect of nonverbal signals on student role-play evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 28-40.
Vrij, A. and Baxter, M. (1999), “Accuracy and confidence in detecting truths and lies in elaborations and denials: truth bias, lie bias and individual differences”, Expert Evidence, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Waldron, V. (1991), “Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: the multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics”, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 289-306.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Hartnell, C.A. (2011), “Understanding transformational leadership- employee performance links: the role of relational identification and self‐efficacy”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 153-172.
Walumbwa, F.O., Mayer, D.M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K. and Christensen, A.L. (2011), “Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: the roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 204-213.
Wang, H., Law, K.S. Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z.X. (2005), “Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 420-432.
Wang, P., Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, H. and Aryee, S. (2013), “Unraveling the relationship between family-supportive supervisor and employee performance”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 258-287.
Wang, X.F. and Howell, J.M. (2012), “A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 775-790.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader- member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Willis, J. and Todorov, A. (2006), “First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face”, Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 592-598.
Yoshida, D.T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G. and Cooper, B. (2014), “Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 1395-1404.
Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Further reading
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Ekman, P. (1997), “Should we call it expression or communication?”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 333-344.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
1021
Nonverbal communication
and RI
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
Kirkpatick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991), “Leadership: do traits matter?”, The Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-60.
Riel, C.B.M. and Fombrun, C.J. (2007), Essentials of Corporate Communication: Implementing Practices for Effective Reputation Management, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H. and Van Riel, C.B. (2001), “The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1051-1062.
About the authors Dr Panagiotis Gkorezis is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. His research interests pertain to various human resource management and organizational behavior topics such as, rewards, leadership, psychological empowerment, employee identification, counterproductive relationships and humor in the workplace.
Victoria Bellou is an Assistant Professor at the University of Thessaly, Greece. She has gained her Bachelor’s Degree at the University of New Haven, CT, USA, her Master’s at the University of Macedonia, Greece, and her PhD at the University of Piraeus, Greece. Her research interests include psychological contract, organizational culture, leadership and management of change. Victoria Bellou is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Nikolaos Skemperis is a Student at the Mediterranean College of Thessaloniki, Greece and holds a Bachelor Degree in Economics from the University of Macedonia, Greece.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
1022
MD 53,5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by C
Q U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 18
:5 7
23 M
ay 2
01 9
(P T
)
