AN EXPECTANCY VIOLATIONS THEORY STUDY OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

______________________________________________

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

________________________________________________

Under the Supervision of Dr. John Caputo

Under the Mentorship of Dr. David Givens

________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirement for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

_______________________________________________

By

Melissa Cleland

1

2

Abstract

This study seeks to find what drives employee satisfaction using the expectancy violations

theory. An exploration of the literature including Judee Burgoon’s expectancy violations theory

against leadership credibility, narcissistic communication, and use of power are fully discussed.

Ethnographic research is used to study a nonprofit organization, the three employees of

Nonprofit XYZ were surveyed, interviewed, and observed over a two week period. The

Executive Director of Nonprofit XYZ allowed full access to her office space and employees,

however, didn’t participate in the study. The results of the study showed that employee

satisfaction was a direct result of specific leadership attributes which include credibility, power

usage, and narcissism-all which were individual factors. Further study recommendations would

include having a study with both men and women, obtaining a larger sample size, and using the

expectancy violations theory to study the impact a media crisis has on employees’ job

satisfaction both during and after the crisis.

3

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction.......................................................................................................................................The Goal 5

...............................................................................................................Importance of the Study 5

.............................................................................................................Statement of the Problem 5

...........................................................................................................Definitions of Terms Used 6

...........................................................................................Organization of Remaining Chapters 7

Chapter 2: Literature Review....................................................................................................... 8

..........................................................................................................Philosophical Assumptions 8

..........................................................................................................................Theoretical Basis 8

  ..............................................................................................................Communication Theory 9

.............................................................................................................................The Literature 12

....................................................................................................................................Rationale 21

....................................................................................................................Research Questions 21

Chapter 3: Scope and Methodology

...........................................................................................................................Scope of Study 22

..............................................................................................................................Methodology 23

Chapter 4: The Study

................................................................................................................................Introduction 26

.............................................................................................................................Data Analysis 27

...................................................................................................................Results of the Study 30

..................................................................................................................................Discussion 33

Chapter 5: Conclusion

..................................................................................................................Limitations of Study 35

.........................................................................................Recommendations for Further Study 36

................................................................................................................................Conclusions 36

References..................................................................................................................................... 38

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 41

4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM OR GOAL AND DEFINITIONS OF

TERMS USED

The Problem/Goal

Importance of the Study

Teachers, students, receptionists, and the President of the United States all posses

volumes of power over those they serve and lead. “Leadership is one of the most significant

aspects in the modern organizational context. It is often considered as a factor that has major

influence on the performance of organizations, managers, and employees” (Wang, Law, Hackett,

Wang, D. and Chen, 2005, p. 421). Communication between a leader and their employee is

essential to the success of an organization.

An incompetent boss is a tenuous leader and research shows this combination will lead to

a dissatisfying working environment for employees. Hogan and Kaiser stated “bad leadership

degrades the quality of life for everybody associated with it” (p. 169). Organizations cannot

operate by themselves, and if leadership lacks the trust and respect of their employees, it can

cause the organization to fail. “Two major concerns of most organizations in contemporary

society are productivity and employee satisfaction” (Richmond, V., Wagner, J, McCroskey, J,

1982, p. 27).

Statement of Problem

Expectancy violations theory will be used to describe how the perceptions of a leaders’

credibility and use of power combined with leadership style, can have an impact on employee

satisfaction which effects the success or demise of an organization. “Credibility is a foundation

5

for successful influence. If subordinates do not trust a supervisor, the resulting communication

between the two parties will tend to be evasive” (Teven, p. 157). Burgoon confirms that the

nonverbal expectancy violations theory “holds that positive violations produce more favorable

communication outcomes than conformity to expectations, while negative violations produce

less favorable ones, and that regards characteristics of the communicator mediate the

interpretation and evaluation of violations” (1998, p. 58). People who feel safe within their

current surroundings have a better chance of yielding a promising response from a source who

has just been violated; rather than the opposite where any number of interpretations on the

violation could take place.

According to Barrett, credibility of a leader who refuses to “play by the rules” as to act as

their own governing body, will risk alienation of potential allies in forthcoming situations (p.

262). “Narcissistic individuals are rhetorically deficient, as far as they are unwilling or incapable

in play. The narcissistic code of being a "law unto myself” conflicts sharply with formalities of

play and rhetorical interchange” (Barrett, 1986, p.261).

Definitions Used

Arousal - a heightened state of awareness, orienting response, or mental alertness that stimulates

a review of the relationship (Griffin, 2009, p. 88)

Expectancy - what people predict will happen, rather than what they desire (Griffin, 2009, p. 89)

Violation Valance - the perceived positive or negative value assigned to a breach of

expectations, regardless of who the violator is (Griffin, 2009, p. 90).

Communicator Reward Valance - the sum of positive and negative attributes brought to the

encounter plus the potential to reward or punish in the future (Griffin, 2009, p. 91).

6

Organization of Remaining Chapters

The remainder of this study is divided into five chapters. Chapter two discusses and explores

literature that is current to the study including the philosophical basis, rational, and clearly

defines the research questions this research is seeking to answer. Chapter three states the scope

and methodology of the study. Chapter four defines the study, analyses the data, states and

discusses the results. Chapter five states the limitations and further recommendations of the

study.

7

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter explores literature that pertains to leadership credibility, use of power, and

conversational narcissism, and shows how, through the expectancy violations theory, these

leadership qualities affect employee satisfaction.

Theoretical and Ethical Basis

Burgoon and Hale (1988) discuss the Expectancy Violations Theory model when “there

are circumstances under which violations of social norms and expectations may be a superior

strategy to conformity” (p. 58). The foundation of this study is the expectancy violations theory

which has been defined by Poire and Burgoon: “according to the expectancy violations theory,

following violations of expectations, or the exhibition of behaviors that fall outside the

expectancy, arousal may be overlooked” (2008, p. 211). In the beginning of Burgoon’s research,

she felt that people were psychologically aroused when their expectancies were violated (Griffin,

2009). “She [Burgoon] now views arousal as a side effect of a partner’s deviation and no longer

considers it a necessary link between expectancy violation and communication outcomes such as

attraction, credibility, persuasion, and involvement” (Griffin, 2009, p. 88). The heightened

arousal has the potential to cause the receiver of the violations to pay special attention to the

violation, as it has a direct consequence on the life of the relationship (Burgoon & Hale, 1988).

Philosopher, Immanual Kant believed that people should always be truthful, and that

thinking before we speak or act is necessary (Griffin, 2009).

In terms of the expectancy violations theory, Kant would have us look at the violation we

are considering and ask, What if everybody did that all the time? If we don’t like the

answer then we have a solemn duty not to do that deed” (Griffin, 2009, p. 95).

8

Scholars have done previous research studies that show communication success and

failure can be predicted by the cause-and-effect relationship of the communicators (Griffin,

2009). “Expectancy violations theory focuses on what’s effective. Before we knowingly violate

another’s expectations we should consider what’s ethical” (Griffin, 2009, p. 94).

The expectancy violations theory seeks to find answers for responses to unexpected

communicated behaviors done by the sender and receiver. For example, if the employee in an

organization has a positive attitude and liking towards his employer and an unexpected behavior

occurs, the theory says the behavior will be received positively. However, if that employee has a

negative attitude towards his employer, the reaction to an unexpected behavior could be negative.

Through the expectancy violations theory this thesis seeks to find a link between leadership

credibility, use of power, and conversational narcissism and the impact these topics have on

employee satisfaction.

Description of Communication Theory

Expectancy Violations Theory

The expectancy violations theory model implies that the nonverbal behaviors of others

are judged as communicators by both senders and receivers with a certain expectancy.

“Violations of these expectations are posited to trigger a change in arousal, which heightens the

salience of cognitions about the communicator and behavior” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p. 59).

Depending on the high or low reward communicator valence involved in the circumstance, will

have a direct relation to the outcome. “The valenced evaluation of the communicator, implicit

messages associated with the violation behavior(s), and evaluations of the act combine to

9

determine whether a violation is positive or negative, which in turn influences communication

outcomes” (Burgonn & Hale, 1988, p. 59).

Elements of the Model

The model, according to Burgoon and Hale (1988), has the probability to go beyond

rapport and other nonverbal occurrences. There are six elements in the expectancy violations

model which are: expectancies, violations and arousal, communicator reward valence, behavior

interpretation evaluation, and violation valence (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). The expectancy

violations model “attempts to predict and explain terminal communication consequences, such as

attraction and persuasion, as well as more macro-level exchange patterns (Burgoon & Hale,

1988, p. 59).

“According to the expectancy violations model, expectancies may include cognitive,

affective, and conative components and are primarily a function of (1) social norms and (2)

known idiosyncrasies of the other” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p. 60). Burgoon perceived that

expectancies were based on: communicator, relationship, and context characteristics; examples

of communicator characteristics could include: demographics, personality traits, and relationship

characteristics could include intimacy and/or power (Johnson & Lewis, 2010).

According to the expectancy violations model, if one’s interaction partner conforms to

expectancies, the expectancies themselves and the nonverbal behaviors they govern

should operate largely out of awareness, and communication outcomes should depend on

such pre-interactional and interactional factors as a communicator and relational

characteristics, the definition of the situation, and the intrinsic meaning of the verbal and

nonverbal behaviors being exchanged (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, pp. 61).

10

In the second element, violations and arousal, if the person doing the communicating

violates the expectancies to an increased level, that violation will intensify the person who was

violated (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). If this violation developed in an organization between a leader

and subordinate, where the leader violated the subordinate, the degree of the violation would

cause the subordinate to seek out the answer to the violation in their relationship. The

communicator reward valence, in the third element, is the initial part of the model where the

valence of the violation could be considered as a positive or negative by the violatee (Burgoon &

Hale, 1988). “It is the net valence of all the relevant communicator and relationship

characteristics that can be judged on an evaluative continuum” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p. 62).

An example of this element can be seen when a leader and a subordinate are interacting with one

another, which is a rare occurrence. Even though the interaction is full of criticisms and could

appear negative to those not present, the violatee finds the interaction positive. When that leader

and subordinate communicate, the third elements is apparent when the reward for interacting

together exceeds whatever the value could be (Burgoon & Hale, 1988).

In the fourth element, behavior interpretation and evaluation, the communicator can

interpret the valencing of their violation in two ways (Burgoon & Hale 1988). First, the

interpretation of the violations could affect the meaning of that violation (Burgoon & Hale,

1988). The second interpretation is “that the behavior is disregarded, either because it is seen as

eternally caused or because it has no discernible meaning” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p. 63).

The last element of this model is violation valence. “The expectancy violations model

predicts that an extreme violation, if committed by a high reward communicator, can be

positively valenced, producing reciprocal communication patterns and positive outcomes such as

11

higher credibility and attraction” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p. 63). If a subordinate finds his

leader very creditable, when a violation offers, the violation valence would assert the violation

can be positive and enhance their relationship.

Examples of the expectancy violations theory can be seen throughout many aspects of a

person’s life and within many different types of relationships. “There are two primary

relationships examined in organizations: supervisor-subordinate and co-worker

relationships” (Dunleavy, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010, p. 242). Researchers have studied the

expectancy violations theory within a classroom between a teacher and students, between males

and females, and between a leader and subordinates.

The Literature

Leadership Credibility

“Leadership is one of the most significant aspects in the modern organizational context.

It is often considered as a factor that has major influence on the performance of organizations,

managers, and employees” (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, D. and Chen, 2005, p. 421). Politics

within an organization are rampant, relationships between leaders and subordinates is in direct

relation to each of their inclusiveness in the organizational politics (Ram & Prabhakar, 2010).

“Organizational politics is an inescapable and intrinsic reality. Organizational politics in a

company manifests itself through struggle for resources, personal conflicts, competition for

power and leadership and tactical influence executed by individuals and groups to attain power,

building coalitions, etc” (Ram & Prabhakar, 2010, p. 41). Studies are limited on how a leader

can create and sustain credibility and how their credibility can influence the decisions of their

12

subordinates. But, when a leader has the ability to communicate effectively, research shows that

the employees have a greater sense of satisfaction within their workplace (Madlock, 2008)

Researchers, Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner (2003) inform readers on how to discover

themselves in a leadership capacity, become better leaders, and build credibility. Kouzes and

Posner (2003) have done research on leadership throughout the world in many different types of

businesses and organizations. Part of their research is based on how the level of credibility, at

the leadership level, will directly have an impact on the employee’s loyalty and commitment

level, which affects how an organization can survive. The level of credibility of the leadership

within an organization will be the deciding factor how employees will “give more of their time,

talent, energy, experience, intelligence, creativity, and support” (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p.32).

“Credible leaders raise self-esteem. Leaders who make a difference to others cause

people to believe that they, too, can make a difference. They set people’s spirits free and enable

them to become more than they might have thought possible” (Kouses & Posner, 2003, p. 31).

Leaders with these attributes build credibility and create subordinates that lead, take charge, and

develop a sense of ownership. These actions help to create the success of an organization where

the leader and subordinate have the same goals, and respect one another. Kouses and Posner

(2003) have placed leadership attributes into five practices and ten commitments that are listed in

Table 1.1 (2007, p. 26).

Practice Commitment

Model the Way 1. Clarify values of finding your voice and affirming shared goals.

2. Set the example by aligning actions with shared values

13

Practice Commitment

Inspire a Shared Vision 3. Envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities.

4. Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations.

5.Challenge the Process 5. Search for opportunities by seizing the

initiative and by looking outward for innovative ways to improve.

6. Experiment and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from experience.

Enable Others to Act 7. Foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships.

8. Strengthen others by increasing self-determination and developing competence.

Encourage the Heart 9. Recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence.

10. Celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of community.

Transactional and transformational are the two main types of leadership studied and used

today. According to Ram and Prabhakar (2010) “Transactional leadership focuses on the role of

supervision, organization, and group performance. These theories base leadership on a system of

reward and punishment; rewarded when successful and punished when there is a failure”

(pp. 40-1). Transactional is different from transformational leadership by way of the leaders

ability to get to know their employees. Punish and reward versus motivate and inspire.

“Transformational theories focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers.

These leaders motivate and inspire people. Transformational leaders are focused on the

performance of group members, but also want each person to fulfill his or her potential” (Ram &

Prabhakar, 2010, p.41). Kouses and Posner (2007) would argue that, “what leaders say they do

is one thing; what constituents say they want and how well leaders meet these expectations is

14

another” (p. 28). “Based on previous research, leadership appears to be enacted through

communication in such a way that it contains a relational (affective) and task (content)

component” (Madlock, 2008, p. 62).

“Credibility is a foundation for successful influence. If subordinates do not trust a

supervisor, the resulting communication between the two parties will tend to be evasive” (Teven,

2007, p. 157). Research has suggested that when deception occurs the perceived credibility of

that person in the leadership role will diminish (Grover, 1997; Powers, 1993). Deception by

leader or peer can be difficult to experience. Research suggests that those who deceive others

see it as a necessary vehicle to accomplishing goals. Those who don’t lie, and see deception as

morally and ethically wrong, vow to never partake in it (Oliveira & Levine, 2008).

The deception that occurs in a relationship not only will diminish the character of the

person doing the deceiving but if present within an organization, it will diminish the subordinates

view of the leader and could lead to unwilling employees (Powers, 1993). Kant believed that

breaking promises and lying was wrong, he consistently felt that any type of nonverbal deception

was also wrong (Griffin, 2009). “The extent to which people see deception as acceptable likely

impacts the message production, message processing, and important communication

outcomes” (Oliveira & Levine, 2008, p. 282). Kouses and Posner’s (2007) research show that

people regard honesty as being closely tied to ethics (p. 33). “A high need for control coupled

with lack of empathy leads those with narcissistic personalities to engage in deceptive and

manipulative behavior” (Oliveira & Levine, 2008, p. 283).

Narcissistic Communication

15

Freud was the first to introduce narcissism as a “psychoanalytic” idea (Catt, 1986). The

commitments and positions that a narcissist takes will alter greatly depending on the situation

and how it changes (King, 2007). “Thus, in a crisis situation, narcissists will portray signs of

sincerity and trustworthiness at one moment, but may quickly alter their position if it will portray

or place them in a favorable light” (King, p. 185). Possessing a negative self-image, narcissists

try to enhance it with a phony identity (Vangelisti, Knapp, Daly, 1990, p. 253).

Charles Derber (1997) describes conversational narcissism as “ways that American

conversationalists act to turn the topics of ordinary conversations to themselves without showing

sustained interest in others’ topics” (p. 5). This allows individuals to seek and turn all the

attention from a conversation to themselves (Derber, 1997, p. 3). The narcissist is often thinking

of how things can positively affect his or her own interests (King, 2007). Research would

suggest that narcissism, in many forms, is fused throughout our lives each day (Vangelisti,

Knapp, Daly, 1990, p. 251).

If a crisis occurs within an organization a narcissistic leader will often seek out people

who will obey decisions without asking questions. “Often described as a ‘mirror-hungry‘

personality, narcissists seek a continuing flow of admiration from their followers in order to

nourish their self-esteem” (King, 2007, p.185). Among other major problems, a narcissistic

leader can cause an organization to become severely dysfunctional if he/she isn’t able to handle a

crisis well (King, 2007). According to King, (2007), “...an accurate appraisal of reality is at

stake if the members tell the leader what she or he wants to hear, rather than what she or he needs

to hear” (p. 186). Research would suggest that understanding narcissistic behavior is key to

understanding the level of social interaction (Vangelisti, Knapp, Daly, 1990, p. 252).

16

Narcissism as a Form of Power

According to researchers Virginia Richmond, John Wagner, and James McCroskey

(1983), “power is considered to be an individual's potential to have an effect on people’s

behavior” (p. 243). In an organization, possession of power can be both positive and negative.

The delivery of the power and the credibility of the sender have the potential to bring about the

ultimate demise of an organization. There are two types of powers that can affect relationships

in an organization between leaders and subordinates, and between coworkers.

Referent power refers to one’s capacity to influence another organizational

member based on perceptions that the other can identify with the course and wants to

please him/her. Expert power refers to a person’s ability to influence another based on

perceptions that the source is competent and knowledgeable within the organization

(Dunleavy, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010, p. 243).

Both sources of power can lead to extreme success in an organization or extreme failure.

“Communication between a superior and a subordinate is most likely to be the most important

factor in determining the superior’s power and influence” (Dunleavy, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010,

p. 244).

Brenda Allen (2004) discusses power in terms of how society plays out its roles. For

example, people hold power over others in different aspects of society, mother versus child, child

versus child and so on. Power doesn’t have to be something only leaders possess. Those who

have the power may not be the ones perceived as having the power. “Although some persons are

authorized to wield power, everyone engages in power practices, including those who may be

lower in an organizational or societal hierarchy” (Allen, 2004, p. 26).

17

An example of unknown power could be a receptionist at a very busy salon who makes it

very difficult for a client to make an appointment with a particular stylist. That receptionist

holds the power over clients and how fast they might be able to see the stylist. Another example

would be how teachers have real power over their students, but students can wield power over a

teacher, both verbally and nonverbally (Allen, 2004).

There are leaders who chose to do the “right thing” by society and their peers. With these

leaders, power just comes with the leadership role and is not sought. Juana Bordas (2007)

discusses servant leadership as a person who “sought to serve first then made a conscious effort

to lead” (p. 118). Examples of these types of leaders who did not take for granted, the power

they where given and those who aren’t known as extreme narcissists, include: Martin Luther

King, Jr, Susan B. Anthony, and Nelson Mandela (Bordas, 2007).

Narcissism can affect both linear managers as well as subordinates in an organization

while power is used as tool to control employees. The Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management (2007) paraphrased the American Psychiatric Association on the nine traits of

narcissism which can directly have an impact on an organization, if present.

According to the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, there are nine traits associated with

narcissism: (1) belief in a grandiose sense of self-importance; (2) a preoccupation with

fantasies of unlimited success, power, beauty, or ideal love; (3) seeks recognition as being

superior, special, or unique by others; (4) seeks excessive admiration from other; (5)

expects a sense of entitlement - i.e., unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

from others; (6) consciously exploits others to gain personal desires (7) lacks empathy

18

towards others; (8) envious of other and believes others are envious of them; and finally,

(9) displays arrogant, rude, and snobbish behaviors towards others (American Psychiatric

Association, 2000, 184).

Research has shown that these traits are toxic when present in a relationship. However, when

any one of these traits is present in an organization the leader can employ his or her power and

quickly become masked with narcissism. According to Carrie Blair, Brian Hoffman, and

Katherine Helland, “These characteristics [the nine traits of narcissism] drive individuals to seek

positions of power; thus, narcissistic individuals are often found in positions of leadership. Yet,

although these individuals are driven to seek positions of power, there is evidence to suggest that

these individuals make ineffective leaders who lack integrity” (2008, p. 255).

As described in an article entitled, “A Backlash Against Obama’s Budget,” authors

Sasseen and Epstein (2009) outline the uproar that has risen as a result of the financial planning

that Obama and his administration have cast forth as their vision for the United States of

America. Oorvis Communications partner, Stan Collender, brings up the valid point that, "The

President has the bully pulpit, he has strong public support, and these are all things he

campaigned on" (p.1). The reference that Collender makes about Obama’s campaigning

platform is a great example of referent power. The President made his way into office by

lighting a fire in American’s bellies that, might interfere with small businesses, but will remain in

the minds and hearts of American voters. When a leader has power over followers based on a

relationship alone, this power can be considered referent power; hence the leader will posses

referent power when they’ve become a role model or mentor. (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy,

2009).

19

Sasseen and Epstein (2009) provides a great example of coercive power in the way that

followers are able to influence leaders.

On Mar. 3 former Columbia/Hospital Corporation of America CEO Richard L. Scott,

contributing $5 million from his own pocket, launched a $20 million advertising and

public-relations effort emphasizing free-market alternatives to Obama's health-care plans.

Scott plans three weeks of ads on CNN and NBC, then video documentaries hosted by

former CNN anchor Gene Randall in which doctors and patients in Britain and Canada

bemoan their health systems (Sasseen and Epstein, 2009, p. 1).

This type of action is an example of how coercive power can be used against leaders for the

benefit of followers. Obama has a vision of following through with his vision and budget and by

facing obstacles such as a $20 million advertising campaign opposing this vision shows how

coercive power can become evident on both ends of the spectrum (Sasseen and Epstein, 2009).

The relationship between a powerful leader in an organization and a subordinate is

directly related to how successful an organization can be. The Journal of Crisis Management

continues the conversation by stating “for instance, narcissistic managers and supervisors may

have problems interacting with colleagues, as well as communicating with lower-level staff and

line workers” (King, 2007, p. 185).

Because interaction is key to the success of any organization, the lack of available

communication between a manager and a subordinate can be exceptionally damaged. Madlock

(2010) found that in order for a leader to communicate organizational goals effectively, he or she

must touch on the needs and interests of the followers. Researchers have found that leaders who

20

inhibit power which isn’t respected are not competent and often “alienate subordinates as a result

of their devaluation of others, insistence on having their own way, lack of empathy, and

willingness to exploit others” (Lubit, 2002, p. 130).

Rationale and Research Question

The current research on the expectancy violations theory is still forming, and the quantity

seems limited, unlike the extensive research for the nonverbal expectancy violations theory. It

has been a semi-resent movement to explore the expectancy violations model through verbal

communication as opposed to nonverbal communications. This literature review leads to the

following research questions:

RQ1: If employees believe their leader possesses narcissist characteristics how does that relate to

their level of employee satisfaction?

R2: What is the level of employee satisfaction when an employee is violated by a high or low

reward communicator?

RQ3: How does the perception of leadership credibility affect employee satisfaction?

The research will be important to show how a leader’s violations can affect credibility and

ultimately affect employee satisfaction.

21

CHAPTER THREE: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

This thesis has been divided into five chapters. Chapter one gives a summary of the

initial need for the study. The previous research and literature is summarized throughout chapter

two, additionally the research questions the thesis seeks to find are clearly identified. The scope

of the research and methodology of the study is discussed in chapter three, which includes the

means of obtaining qualitative data. Chapter four will give an in depth analysis of the research

data that was found, while chapter five will discuss limitations and opportunities for further

research.

Scope of Study

The scope of this study is to examine how employee satisfaction can be affected by the

organization’s leadership credibility, power usage, and narcissism. Local Nonprofit XYZ was

chosen for this study as result of its recent popularity in local media regarding the ethics of the

Executive Director. The Executive Director at Nonprofit XYZ and its Board of Directors has

given the researcher full access to all employees and office space for the duration of the current

study. This access includes, but is not limited to, staff meetings, marketing meetings, board

meetings, weekly sales meetings, offices, and employee reviews.

Nonprofit XYZ has three full-time employees, an Executive Director, and a twelve-

person board of directors, all of whom have a vested interest in the organization. The population

that will be examined in this study is the employees at Nonprofit XYZ. For the purpose of this

study, the Executive Director and the Board of Directors at Nonprofit XYZ will not be studied,

as they are not included in the employee count, and will not be present during any confidential

research. This current employment number is due to an operational funding cut fourteen months

22

ago—before the cut, the employee count was fourteen. The current employee count versus the

past employee count is valid in this study as the termination of the eleven employees increased

case loads and resulted in media attention for existing employees, which may affect perceptions.

Methodology

The research method that will be used in this study is that of Ethnographic research. All

field research will take place at Nonprofit XYZ’s office space. Rubin (2010) states,

“ethnographers try to explain the regularities of how people behave in social situations” (pp.

222-223). As the researcher has been granted full access to the site, social situations could range

from sales calls to private meetings. Neuman (2006) suggests that ethnography describes how

the researcher will become a native of the research site, chronicle this other way of life, and

understand the culture. In describing how ethnographic research can be understood, Neuman

(2006) states:

Ethnography assumes that people make inferences-that is, go beyond what is explicitly

seen or said to what is meant or implied. People display their culture (what people think,

ponder, or believe) through behavior (e.g., speech and actions) in specific social contexts.

Displays of behavior do not give meaning; rather, meaning is inferred, or someone

figures out meaning. Moving from what is heard or observed to what is meant is at the

center of ethnography. (pp.381)

Ethnographic research will allow for the researcher to watch how people act and react differently

through an array of situations (Rubin, 2010, p. 222). The amount of disclosure the researcher

offers to the participants can be in direct relation to the degree of disclosure the researcher plans

to receive from members within the study (Neuman, 2006). The researcher is encouraged to be

23

open about who she is outside of the study which could build a relationship with the participant,

in hopes of increasing their open communication together. “Disclosing your [the researcher]

personal life, hobbies, interests, and background can build trust and close

relationships” (Neuman, 2006, p. 389). Through participant observation, the researcher will

record observations in the organization around them (Rubin, 2010). “A participant observer

might secure a job in an organization, observe superior-subordinate interactions, talk to

colleagues who have worked there more than two years, examine memos, plaques, and

documents, overhear conversations, and, perhaps, examine personal files (Rubin, 2010, p. 223).

Due to the researcher being granted full access to the office and employees of Nonprofit

XYZ, a naturalistic approach will be used. “Naturalism involves observing ordinary events in

natural settings, not in contrived, invented, or researcher-created settings” (Neuman, 2006, p.

383). This will allow for a safe setting where employees can be free to act as themselves.

Although not necessary, interviews and surveys can be adapted into the research to make sure the

predicted observations were correct (Rubin, 2010).

In conjunction with the ethnographic approach, two additional qualitative research

methods will be used, face-to-face interviews (See Appendix A) and surveys (See Appendix B).

Qualitative researchers will extract multiple points of views from the social life they are studying

and attempt to explain how people become their identities (Neuman, 2006). “Qualitative

researchers use a language of cases and contexts, employ bricolage, examine social processes

and cases in their social context, and look at interpretations or the creation of meaning in specific

settings” (Neuman, 2006, p. 157). Some researchers would classify this qualitative method as

“soft” and abstract, as it can be seen as unidentifiable (Neuman, 2006). However, Neuman

24

(2006) finds that untrue. He states that, “Qualitative data involve documenting real events,

recording what people say (with words, gestures, and tone), observing specific behaviors,

studying written documents, or examining visual images” (Neuman, 2006, p. 157). The face-to-

face interviews and surveys will allow the researcher to view and obtain data in a real-life

setting, thus attempting to answer the research questions.

In order for the researcher to gather genuine and ethical answers from interviews and

surveys, and to view authentic interactions, confidentiality must be achieved. Neuman (2006)

defines confidentiality as having the researcher posses all answers and names related to the study

in confidence, and to keep them from reaching the public. All participants will sign a

Confidentiality Form (See Appendix C).

The surveys, interviews, and observation will be necessary to collect the appropriate

qualitative data from Nonprofit XYZ in order to answer the research questions. The collected

data is discussed in depth throughout chapter four.

25

CHAPTER FOUR: THE STUDY

Introduction

Data for this study were collected using three methods: interviews, surveys, and

participant observation. This chapter will explain how the data from the study were collected

and the results. Burgoon (1988) is at the forefront for studying the Expectancy Violations

Theory, however, her studies are minimal on and can be dated some twenty years ago which

could be considered outdated. Although there is an abundant amount of research on leadership

credibility and use of power, research is lacking on how credibility and power specifically can

affect employee satisfaction. The study presented in this chapter is important because of the

current lack of research on employee satisfaction through leadership credibility, use of power,

and conversational narcissism through the lens of the expectancy violations theory.

Participants

There were three participants in this study. All three participants are females who have

worked for Nonprofit XYZ, respectively, for an average of 21.6 years. The participants’ ages

range from 45 to 60 years old. Nonprofit XYZ does not have a high turnover rate with

employees or leaders. Until recently, Nonprofit XYZ had a full staff of fifteen people with an

average length of employment of seventeen years. The participants have all worked under the

current executive director during their entire time at Nonprofit XYZ. The executive director has

been employed there for thirty plus years. During the survey and the interviews only the

researcher and participants where present, in order to give the participants a safe zone to be

honest about their feelings. The participant observation centered upon staff meetings and

employee interaction,which often included the executive director.

26

Data Analysis

Face-to-face Interviews

Each one of the employees at Nonprofit XYZ participated in individual face-to-face

interviews. The individual interviews (please see APPENDIX A) took place at a nearby coffee

shop on Monday, October 31, 2011. The researcher requested that each participant allow one

hour for the interviews, and that the interviews take place outside the walls of Nonprofit XYZ to

allow for comfort away from the workplace. The purpose of the face-to-face interviews was to

gain insight from the participants regarding their views of the leader of Nonprofit XYZ. These

questions where designed to start a conversation regarding the different roles the executive

director plays and insight on the relationships she has with each employee.

Survey

Participants gathered in the main conference room of Nonprofit XYZ on Friday, October

28 and responded to the survey (APPENDIX B). Each blocked out one hour of the workday to

participate in the survey. Although the survey wasn’t expected to last one hour, participants were

able to fully answer the questions. Once seated in the conference room, each participate was

asked to sign the confidentiality form that reassured confidentiality in the study. It was verbally

announced that their identities would remain anonymous and their survey answers would not

have an impact on their employment at Nonprofit XYZ. Once the surveys were handed out, it

was announced that the individual answers were to not be shared or discussed.

The intent of the survey was to introduce ideas about the leadership at Nonprofit XYZ

and how that could affect the employee’s job satisfaction. The participants were asked to rank

six questions in accordance with a Likert Scale.

27

In addition, six questions on the survey required a written answer. The six questions

include the following:

1. Would you say the relationship with your boss is positive or negative?

2. Do you find the expectations of your boss realistic?

3. When engaged in conversation with your boss, does the conversation typically turn

to the topic of her?

4. How would you improve your job satisfaction?

5. Describe how your boss is perceived in the community.

6. How does working for your boss affect your job satisfaction?

Participant Observation-Ethnographic Research

A staff meeting at Nonprofit XYZ was observed on Monday, October 26. This meeting

takes place every other Monday at 9:30 a.m. It’s a common occurrence that the Executive

Director runs the meeting while allowing each employee time to share project statements and

discuss business. This, and all of Nonprofit XYZ’s staff meetings, are held in the conference

room at the office. The only people present at each staff meeting are the executive director and

the three employees. For the purpose of this study, the researcher (an outsider) was allowed to

observe as a non-participant.

The researcher arrived at Nonprofit XYZ for participant observation at 9:20 a.m. After

the researcher was escorted to the conference room and asked to take any seat, the employees

started to arrive at 9:35 a.m. The last person to arrive to the meeting was the executive director,

whose arrival time was 9:43 a.m. The three employees were engaged in conversation that was

immediately stopped when the boss walked in. The executive director sat down and said “go.”

28

From the observation, it was clear the executive director had her mind on something else. This

was shown by her lack of eye contact with each employee, her unwillingness to ask followup

questions, and her inability to show general interest in the topics being discussed. Each

employee spoke for about fifteen minutes without any questions or comments from the executive

director. When the conversation turned to the executive director, she spoke about a recent article

in the media in which Nonprofit XYZ was at the center of a debate; hence, her apparent lack of

engagement in the meeting. The conversation quickly turned to the impact the article might have

on her job and how that might affect Nonprofit XYZ’s reputation. The employees remained very

positive and said they believed that the opinion article would not have any affect on the

organization.

The researcher also observed daily activities of P1 and P2, who share an office. Their

ability to speak freely regarding the behaviors of the executive director showed that their office

was a safe zone. P2 stated that while she respected her boss, her ability to ignore her

accomplishments “drove her insane.” P1 followed up with stating that the executive director

often spoke very condescendingly towards her and felt that her “boss was always competing with

her”. While the researcher was in their office for a total of three hours observing their tasks,

phone calls, and daily duties, the executive director came in four times to momentary discuss

acute problems. Every time the executive director left their office P1 and P2 rolled their eyes,

and negatively spoke about their boss. This was shown when the boss came into P1 and P2’s

office asking for a report which wasn’t due for one week. She demanded that it be done

immediately and before the employees left for the day. Once she departed the office, P1 and P2

rolled their eyes and P1 stated “she’s on the warpath again,” which was followed by eye-rolling.

29

As the researcher thanked them for their time and confirmed the research meetings

scheduled for later in the week, each employee specifically noted their admiration for their boss

and mentioned that her responses hindered only a small part of their job. It should be noted that

these comments were unsolicited but very welcome by the researcher as part of the observation

study.

Results of the Study

Face-to-Face Results

Although there were numerous questions, because of time commitment promised to the

participants, only questions 1 and 2 were able to be answered by participant 1 and 3, and

questions 1-3 were answered by participant 2.

Question 1: Describe your level of job satisfaction. What makes it peak and dip?

Response 1:

Participant 1 (P1) stated: “An example where I felt a lack of respect from her was when I

accomplished a goal that was being recognized throughout the industry, this was a very big deal

and was in a lot of our industry publications. She has often made her feel unaccepted when I’ve

performed well. I really don’t know what the problem is, although I do think she might even be

jealous and just refuses to celebrate others’ accomplishments.”

Participant 2 (P2) stated: “I know that my job satisfaction is directly related to my boss. I really

notice that she projects negative feelings towards me when she is not happy herself. This is often

shown by her lack of interest and immediate change of conversation to herself. When she is

happy and “in a good mood”, the job I do for Nonprofit XYZ is appreciated which makes me

feel validated.”

30

Participant 3 (P3): “I thoroughly enjoy my job. Although I think the level of appreciation I feel

from my boss decreases when I truly accomplish something great. The greatness I feel from my

nonprofit work exceeds that perceived negativity from her [the boss].”

Question2: If a negative unexpected behavior is displayed by your boss toward you, how does

this affect his or her level of credibility?

Response 2:

P1: “If my boss negatively displays behavior towards me I feel her level of credibility decreases

when I know the behavior is uncalled for and in direct relation to the something great I did. I

know her credibility outside of our office is called upon by leaders throughout the country and is

extremely positive, however, inside the office and community her credibility has been questioned

more than once. Also, her inability to praise others in the office for a job well done drives down

her credibility, in my eyes.”

P2: “I’m very much aware that my boss has a very high level of credibility throughout our

industry in this country, which is shown by the accomplishments that are hung throughout this

office. However, because of her lack of willingness to collaborate with local community leaders,

her credibility has been questioned. I have mixed feelings towards her credibility, I’m grateful to

work for such an industry leader, however, I’m somewhat embarrassed to work for her within our

community. To specifically answer your question, when she behaves negatively towards me, I

find myself siding with the locals.”

P3: “My work isn’t valued here and most of the time, my boss never gives me accolades for the

good work I’m doing. This makes me think the people in this town are correct about her

credibility and her ability to lead, although sometimes I think she’s just jealous.”

31

Survey Results

The following Table 1.1 reflects the average scores between the three employees that

participated. The Likert scale scores ranged from “1” which show that the participant strongly

disagreed with the statement and “7” which was reflected to show strong agreement.

Participants who rated the statement higher than “5” show strong agreement, a “4” rating reflects

a neutral response, and a “3” or below will shows a general disagreement of the statement.

Table 1.1 - Likert Survey Questions Average Employee Score

1. I feel the leader of my organization fully engages in conversations with me.

6

2. I feel my boss abuses her power in one way or another. 2

3. I’m proud of the reputation my boss has within our community and with colleagues outside the organization.

5

4. The satisfaction I feel towards my job is in large part due to my leader.

4

5. I enjoy my boss and consider her a true leader. 5

6. I’m happy working for Nonprofit XYZ. 6

The six survey questions that required a written answer were 2 to 1 in favor of their boss.

P3 had an overwhelming theme that continued throughout the six answers. She loved her job

regardless of the way she was treated by the Executive Director. P3 felt very grateful for the

years of mentorship her boss had given her. The only thing that could increase her level of job

satisfaction was more time to work on projects, more help, and more money to get the job done.

Aside from lack of resources, P3 mentioned the high level of credibility her boss seemed to have

with colleagues in the same industry that are spread throughout the country. P2 came to the

conclusion that it was time for their boss to retire and that that was the cause of the recent

32

negative attention from the media. Both of these participants felt that their boss’s lack of

willingness to bring new ideas and people to the table made their jobs harder and their level of

satisfaction decreased.

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that Burgoon (1988) was correct in regarding that

negative behaviors affect credibility. “The reward valence alone does not dictate whether a

violation is a positive or negative one. The social meaning of the violation behavior must also be

taken into account. Both factors together influence the consequences of violations” (Burgoon &

Hale, 1988, p. 76). The participants’ answers showed that the negative behaviors displayed by

the boss became a negative violation in which the consequence was a decreased level of

credibility the participants felt toward the boss.

It proposes that the attentional shift to the relational level makes communicator and

message/behavior characteristics more salient, causing the violatee to engage in a

two-stage interpretation and evaluation process that results in the violation act being

defined as either a positive or negative violation of expectations” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988,

p. 62).

The survey’s specific results agree with Burgoon’s (1988) study. The consequences of

the boss’s actions towards the participants was not frequent enough to cause detrimental

consequences to the relationship or the level of positive leadership standing. “Given the

frequency with which we encounter others who deviate from expected behaviors in their daily

transactions, it becomes an important communication issue to determine if and when such

violations have favorable as opposed to detrimental consequences” (Burgoon & Hale, 1988, p.

33

58). As Wang et al. (2005) discussed, leadership is one of the most influential factors in

employee satisfaction. The Likert-scale that was given to each participant also concluded this to

be true. The participants averaged a four out of five (five is most agreeable) when asked if their

job satisfaction was due to their leader.

The participants seemed to have mixed emotions regarding their boss and her potential

lack or possession of narcissism. Two of the three participants felt that when in a conversation

with their leader the conversations rarely turned to the topic of her [the boss], which shows her

lack of narcissism, as defined above by the American Psychiatric Association (2000). However,

those same participants felt that when they each succeed or deserved praise for a job well done,

their boss neglected to acknowledge their achievements. One participant felt that her boss was

jealous of her accomplishments, which could show a presence of a narcissistic traits as defined

by the American Psychiatric Association (2000).

The results in this study would agree with Kouses and Posner’s (2003) view that a

credible leader affects employee satisfaction and organizational success. In the six written

questions the participants were asked to answer on the survey, P3’s answer to question six was

exactly what Kouses and Posner predicted. “I’ve been very appreciative of the mentorship my

boss has given me all this time. I’ve worked for her for twenty-five years and during that time

I’ve become the successful sales director I’ve always wanted to be. She’s enabled me to

succeed, by far the best boss I’ve had. That doesn’t mean we haven’t had problems or that she’s

perfect, but she’s an extraordinary leader and, overall, has my respect.” Nonprofit XYZ has been

very successful in its thirty years of existence, which is based on the employee satisfaction and

the industry accolades the boss and the organization has received.

34

The Likert Scale Survey showed that the participants disagreed when asked if their boss

abused her power. As Richmond et al (1983) discussed, possession of power can affect another’s

behavior and that mixed with the leader’s credibility can enable an organization to succeed or

fail. The results of this study would believe this to be true. Although the participants have

mixed emotions regarding their boss’s local credibility, they all agree that their boss’s national

credibility is extremely high which they would agree with. The limitations and further potential

studies are outlined in the next chapter.

35

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the Study

As outlined in Chapter 4, this research was able to answer the three research questions

that were specifically developed for the study. Despite the fact that the research questions were

answered, certain limitations nonetheless apply. The first limitation was the small size of

sample, which consisted of three participants. While Nonprofit XYZ was forced to lay off ten

employees months prior to the study, a larger sample could have changed the results.

Another limitation of the study was how admittedly protective the employees were of

their leader and how admittedly jaded they were of the media because of the negative popularity

they had received over the past fourteen months, which also made them seem somewhat fearful

of this study. One possible explanation is that employees answered the survey according to what

they wanted to be true, as to protect the boss. For example, in the middle of P2’s survey she

stated “Just so you know, I’m answering these questions as if the past year didn’t happen,

because I feel before that truly reflects my real feelings towards my boss and this institution.”

Anonymity and confidentiality was promised to the participants by the researcher, however, the

participants still felt the need to answer untruthfully. Although there were limitations to this

study, the results are advantageous.

Further Study or Recommendations

This study provides options for further research. One recommendation for further study

would be for a researcher to follow a nonprofit that is experiencing popular media coverage

(both positive and negative) and study the employees’ reactions to their leader’s credibility

during and after, and how the leader’s choices affect satisfaction. This additional study could

36

eventually help nonprofit leaders adjust their leadership strategies, to help an employee through

the media trauma and stay satisfied with and connected to the organization.

An additional recommendation would be to study a nonprofit with more employees,

inclusive of both men and women, and one that hasn’t experienced the recent media trauma that

Nonprofit XYZ did. If the research was expanded to include these suggestions, the potential

results could be dramatically different. Researching more employees within one nonprofit would

allow for an exceptional sample and different opinions which could change the outcome of the

results. To expand this study with a nonprofit that hasn’t experienced the media coverage that

Nonprofit XYZ had could potentially offer results that didn’t have an admittedly guarded answer

behind them.

Conclusion

Overall, the study was able answer three research questions: RQ1) If employees believe

their leader possesses narcissist characteristics, how does that relate to their level of employee

satisfaction? RQ2) What is the level of employee satisfaction when an employee is violated by a

high or low reward communicator? RQ3) How does the perception of leadership credibility

affect employees satisfaction? Judee Burgoon’s Expectancy Violations Theory was used as the

communication theory to help analyze the collected data.

Burgoon observed that expectancies develop based on: communicator, relationship and

context characteristics. Communicator characteristics include demographics or

personality traits such as verbal aggression or biological sex, while relationship

characteristics include power or intimacy variables, such as position in a social hierarchy

or comparisons of friendship to stranger relationships. (Johnson and Lewis, 2010, p. 107)

37

The philosophical basis of the study was that of Immanual Kant. Believing that people should be

truthful one hundred percent of the time, that the degree of a violation shouldn’t vary from

violatee to violatee, and that a person has a solemn duty to always consider what is ethical

(Griffin, 2009). The ethnography used in this was study was important to show the relationship

between leader and subordinate. This was seen throughout the interviews, surveys, face-to-face

interviews and the actions that were observed during the staff meeting and daily office behaviors.

The results show that when an employee was violated by a high reward communicator

their level of satisfaction. However, they decreased only momentarily. The leadership

characteristics including credibility directly influenced employee satisfaction. The negative

violations displayed by the leader towards the employee wasn’t frequent enough to impact the

overall level of satisfaction the employee felt for the job. However, it did impact the satisfaction

the employee felt for the job. These results support the expectancy violations position that the

frequency of the negative violations either weren’t strong enough or frequent enough to have a

detrimental consequence on the relationship.

38

References

Allen, B. (2004). Difference matters: Communicating social identity. Longrove, IL: Waveland Press.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Blair, C., Hoffman, B., Helland, K. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A multi-source appraisal reflects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21, p. 254-276.

Burgoon, J.K. (1995). Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Applications of Expectancy Violations Theory. Intercultural Communication Theory, Richard Wiseman (ed.) p.194-214. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, J.K and Hale, J. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behavior. Communication Monographs, 55, p. 58-79.

Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, soul, and spirit: Leadership for a multicultual age. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Catt, I.E., (1986). Rhetoric and narcissism: A critique of ideological selfism. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50(summer), p. 242-253.

Ciulla, J.B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), p. 5-28.

Derber, C. (1979). The pursuit of attention: Power and individualism in everyday life. Boston: G.K. Hall.

Dunleavy, K., Chory, R., Goodboy, A. (2010). Responses to deception in the workplace: Perception of credibility, power, and trustworthiness. Communication Studies, 61(2), p. 239-255.

Garner, J.T., Poole, M. (2009). Opposites attract: Leadership endorsement as a function of interaction between a leader and a foil. Western Journal of Communication, 73(3), p. 227-249.

Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Grover, S.L. (1997). Lying in organizations: Theory, research and future directions. In R.A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (p. 68-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9, p. 169–180.

Houser, M.L. (2006). Expectancy violations of instructor communication as predictors of motivation and learning: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 54(3), p. 331-349.

Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. McGraw-Hill Primis.

Johnson, D.I., & Lewis, N. (2010). Perceptions of Swearing in the work setting: An expectancy violations theory perspective. Communication Reports, 23 (2), p. 106-118.

Lubit, R. (2002), The long-term organizational impact of destructively narcissistic managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), p. 127–138.

Johnson, D., & Lewis, N. (2010). Perceptions of swearing in the work setting: An expectancy violations theory perspective. Communication Reports, 23(2), p. 106-118.

King, (2007). Narcissism and effective crisis management: A review of potential- problems and pitfalls. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(4), p. 183-193.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). Credibility: how leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. California: Jossey-Bass.

Le Poire, B.A, & Burgoon, J. (1996). Usefulness of differentiating arousal responses within communication theories: Orienting response or defensive arousal within nonverbal theories of expectancy violation. Communication Monographs, 63(9), p. 208-230.

Madlock, P.E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), p.61-78.

Oliveira, C.M., & Levine, T.R. (2008). Lie acceptability: A construct and measure. Communication Research Reports, 25(4), p. 282-288.

Powers, W.G. (1993). The effects of gender and consequence on perception of deceivers. Communication Quarterly, 28, p. 37-46.

40

Ram, P. & Prabhakar, G. (2010). Leadership styles and perceived organizational politics as predictors of work related outcomes. European Journal of Social Science, 15 (1), p. 40-55.

Richmond, Wagner, McCroskey (1983). The impact of perceptions of leadership style, use of power, and conflict management style on organizational outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 31(1),p. 27-36.

Sasseen, J & Epstein, K. (2009, March 5). A backlash against obama's budget. Business Week, Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_11/b4123016507664.htm.

Teven, J. (2007). Effects of supervisor social influence, nonverbal immediacy, and biological sex on subordinates’ perception of job satisfaction, liking, and supervisor credibility. Communication Quarterly, 55(2), p. 155-177.

Vangelisti, A.L., Knapp, M.L., Daly, J.A., (1990). Conversational narcissism., Communication Monographs, 57(12), p. 251-274.

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, 48, p. 420-32.

41

APPENDIX A - Face-to-Face Interview Questions

1. Describe your level of job satisfaction. What makes it peak and dip?

2. If a negative unexpected behavior is displayed by your boss toward you, how does this affect

his or her level of credibility?

3. Please describe the approval or disapproval you feel toward your boss.

4. How does it feel when your boss unexpectedly responds to you in a negative way?

5. Does your boss display “self-loving” qualities? How does this make you feel?

6. If yes, when and how are those qualities seen?

7. Do you feel appreciated by your boss?

8. How does it make you feel when your boss has to “pull strings” to accomplish a task?

9. Working for Nonprofit XYZ sounds fulfilling. Do you find value in the work you do?

10. If a paycheck wasn’t necessary, would you continue to come to work everyday?

11.Please complete this statement: When my boss unexpectedly acts negative towards me, my

level of production____________

42

APPENDIX B - Survey Questions:

Name: ___________________________ Gender:____________________________

Directions: Please fill out this survey to the best of your ability. Please note your confidentiality

will be protected according to the confidentiality form you signed.

Title at Nonprofit XYZ_________________________________

Years Employed at Nonprofit XYZ________________________

For questions 1-6, please use a 1-10 sliding scale to show your agreement on the statement.

1 = Strongly Disagree and 10 = Strongly Agree

1. I feel the leader of my organization fully engages in conversations with me.

2. I feel my boss abuses her power in one way or another.

3. I’m proud of the reputation my boss has within our community and with colleagues outside

the organization.

4. The satisfaction I feel towards my job is in large part due to my leader.

5. I enjoy my boss and consider her a true leader.

6. I’m happy working for Nonprofit XYZ.

For the next six questions please write out your answer.

1. Would you say the relationship with your boss is positive or negative?

2. Do you find the expectations of your boss realistic?

3. When engaged in conversation with your boss, does the conversation typically turn to the

topic of her?

43

4. How would you improve your job satisfaction?

5. Describe how your boss is perceived within the community.

6. How does working for your boss affect your job satisfaction?

44

APPENDIX C - CONFIDENTIALITY FORM

PURPOSE: You are being asked to participate in an ethnographic research study for a Gonzaga

Graduate Student. Participants are all employees of Nonprofit XYZ. The purpose of this study

is to examine leadership and how it affects employee satisfaction.

AGREEMENT: All information given and seen by the researcher will be completely

confidential. Your agreement to this will include one face-to-face interview, one survey, and

observation done by the researcher.

LIABILITY: Your decision will not affect your employment at Nonprofit XYZ, this is for

research only.

_____ Yes, I agree to participate in the study

_____ No, I don’t agree and will not be participating.

____________________________ ______________________________ Participant Signature Researcher Signature

____________________________ ______________________________Date Date

45