Most organizations are hierarchical, with some people holding positions of power over others. Relationships between coworkers of different organizational status are called mixed-status relationships, and they provide the structural foundation on which most organizations are built (Farace et al., 1977).

Mixed-status relationships take many forms, including officer-subordinate, trainer-trainee, and mentor-protégé. But when most of us think of mixed-status relationships, what leaps to mind are supervisory relationships, ones in which one person outranks and supervises another (Zorn, 1995). Most of these relationships are assigned rather than chosen.

Supervisory relationships are less likely than peer relationships to evolve into friendships because of the power imbalance (Zorn, 1995). In most friendships, people downplay any difference in status and emphasize their equality. Supervisors by definition have more power. They direct their subordinates’ efforts, evaluate their performance, and make decisions regarding their pay and job security.

While some supervisors and subordinates can become friends, many organizations discourage or even forbid friendships between supervisors and their subordinates because it’s assumed that such relationships will impair a supervisor’s ability to objectively assess a subordinate’s work performance (Zorn, 1995). Research on organizational decision making supports this assumption. Managers are less likely to give negative feedback to employees they like than to those they dislike (Larson, 1984). This occurs for two reasons. First, we are reluctant to give friends who work under us negative feedback because of the relationship consequences that may ensue—our friend may become angry or accuse us of unfairness. Second, as we saw in Chapter 3, our perceptions of others are substantially biased by whether we like them or not. Consequently, if we’re in the supervisory position, our affection for a subordinate friend may lead us to judge his or her performance more generously than others.

MANAGING UP

A-11

Persuading superiors to support our work-related needs and wants is achieved through upward communication—communication from subordinates to superiors—and is conducted with an eye toward achieving influence. People feel more satisfied with their work lives when they believe that their supervisors listen and are responsive to their concerns (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2004).

Organizational communication scholar Eric Eisenberg argues that the most effective form of upward communication is advocacy (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2004). Through advocacy, you learn your superior’s communication preferences and how to design messages in ways that will appeal to him or her. Advocacy is based on six principles. First, plan before you pitch. Most spontaneous appeals to supervisors (“Can I have a raise?” “Will you sign me up for that software course?”) are rejected. To avoid this, take time to craft your request before you pitch it.

Second, know why your supervisor should agree with you. Your supervisor has the power to make decisions, so the burden is on you to present a compelling case. In your message, connect your goals to something your supervisor thinks is important. For example, “If you sign me up for this course, I’ll be able to maintain our new database.”

Third, tailor your message. Think about successful and unsuccessful attempts to influence your supervisor. Compare the different approaches you and other people have used, and consider their efficacy. Does your supervisor respond more favorably to statistics or to an anecdote? to details or to generalities? Based on your supervisor’s preferences, tailor your evidence and appeal accordingly.

A-12

Fourth, know your supervisor’s knowledge. Many attempts at upward communication fail because subordinates present information at an inappropriate level. For example, they present their request in overly abstract terms, wrongly assuming that their supervisor is familiar with the subject. Or they present their appeal in a simplistic form, inadvertently coming across as condescending. To avoid this, know your supervisor’s knowledge of the subject before you broach it. You can find this out by talking to other workers who are familiar with your supervisor.

Fifth, create coalitions before communicating. Most arguments made by one person are unconvincing, particularly when presented by a subordinate to a supervisor. Try to strengthen your argument with support from others in your organization. Remember to present such information as a helpful and personal observation (“Just to make sure I wasn’t completely off about the situation, I checked with Joan, Denise, and Erika, and they all agreed”) rather than as a threat to your supervisor’s authority (“For your information, three other people feel the same way I do!”). Be sure to get approval beforehand from the people whose opinions you plan to cite. Some may not want their viewpoints referenced, and to use their sentiments as support for your arguments without their approval is highly unethical.

Finally, competently articulate your message. You can plan and tailor a message all you want, but if you’re unable to articulate it, your supervisor probably won’t take it seriously. Before you talk with your supervisor, revisit the information on competent interpersonal communication described in Chapters 1 and 7 to brush up on your skills.

COMMUNICATING WITH SUBORDINATES

When you communicate upward, you’re typically trying to influence your supervisors. But when you’re the supervisor, you have the influence. When you present a request or demand to your subordinates, you don’t have to worry about using advocacy. You can simply tell them what to do and use whatever language you want. Or can you?

Having formal authority in an organization gives you freedom in the messages you use when interacting with subordinates, known as downward communication. But with this freedom comes responsibility. Although many people in power positions exploit their freedom by bullying or harassing employees (as we’ll discuss shortly), what distinguishes competent downward communication is the willingness of empowered people to communicate without relying on their power in order to appeal to subordinates in positive, empathic, respectful, and open ways.

Competent Downward Communication A supervisor’s communication sets the tone for his or her subordinates or organization. When a supervisor communicates competently, the effects radiate downward; employees are more motivated, more satisfied with their work, and more productive (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2004). But when a supervisor communicates incompetently, frustration and dissatisfaction build quickly. If you’re a manager, you have not only organizational power and status but the power of your interpersonal communication to shape the morale and performance of all the workers under you, simply through how you communicate with them.

A-13

Competent downward communication can be achieved by observing five principles (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2004). First, routinely and openly emphasize the importance of communication in workplace relationships with subordinates. For example, some supervisors engage in both informal and formal interactions with subordinates—hallway chats, impromptu office visits, weekly status updates, or team meetings. They also clearly and concisely explain instructions, performance expectations, and policies.

Second, listen empathically. Respond positively to your employees’ attempts at upward communication rather than perceiving such attempts as a threat to power. Listen to subordinates’ suggestions and complaints and demonstrate a reasonable willingness to take fair and appropriate action in response to what they are saying.

A-14

Third, when communicating wants and needs to subordinates, frame these messages as polite requests (“Do you think you could . . . ”) or persuasive explanations (“Here’s why we need to get this done in the next week . . . ”). By contrast, incompetent downward communication involves using power to make threats (“Do this now or else!”) and demands (“Take care of that customer now!”).

Fourth, be sensitive to your subordinates’ feelings. For instance, if a reprimand is in order, try to make it in private rather than in front of other workers. Keep such exchanges focused on behaviors that need to change rather than making judgments about the subordinate’s character or worth: “John, I noticed that you arrived late to the last three staff meetings. I’m worried that late arrivals disrupt the meetings and cause us to lose time. What ideas do you have for ensuring that you get to meetings on time?”

Last, share relevant information with employees whenever possible. This includes notice of impending organizational changes as well as explanations about why the changes are coming. For example: “Our company hasn’t been meeting its forecasted revenues, so several units, including ours, are being sold to another company. We’ll have an opportunity to accept jobs here or move to the company that’s acquiring us. As soon as I know more about what this change means for all of us, I’ll share that information.”

Compliments and Criticism Two challenges of downward communication are (1) how to effectively praise subordinates and (2) how to constructively criticize them. Offering subordinates praise for their workplace accomplishments fosters a healthy organizational climate. Studies repeatedly show that employees rank “appreciation” and “supervisory recognition” at the top of their list of factors motivating them to work hard, and that feeling unappreciated at work is a leading cause of employee turnover (Forni, 2002).

Complimenting your subordinates is most effectively done when the compliments are focused on a subordinate’s work—his or her achievements, expertise, attitude, cooperativeness, and so forth. Avoid compliments about personal matters—like a subordinate’s appearance. Regardless of your intention, something as innocuous as complimenting the stylishness of a subordinate’s hairstyle or the beauty of his or her skin may make the person feel uncomfortable. In some organizations, such compliments can trigger charges of sexual harassment or discrimination.

Praise is best presented privately rather than publicly, except in formal contexts, such as recognition dinners and award ceremonies. Many supervisors enjoy spontaneously singling out particular employees for praise in front of their coworkers (“Everyone, let’s give Samantha a round of applause—she was our unit sales leader again this past month!”). These supervisors incorrectly believe that such praise improves morale, but it can do the opposite. When someone is publicly singled out in a context in which such recognition is unexpected, that person’s status is elevated. This might be merited, but it could foster resentment and envy among the person’s peers and ultimately undermine the organization’s climate.

A-15

Of course, criticizing subordinates is no easier. Especially challenging is providing constructive criticism to high-achieving employees, who often have little experience receiving criticism and expect only praise (Field, 2005). But offering constructive criticism isn’t as difficult as you might think. Instead, it requires you to draw on the many skills you have mastered in previous chapters.

Begin by using your knowledge of emotion management from Chapter 4, remaining calm, kind, and understanding throughout the exchange. Open your interaction with positive remarks, and end your comments with similar commendations: “It was obvious you worked really hard on designing that presentation” or “This isn’t the end of the world—just something I’d like you to work on for future presentations.”

Second, follow the guidelines for competent interpersonal communication described in Chapter 1, and cooperative language detailed in Chapter 7. Informatively, honestly, and clearly identify the issue or behavior that concerns you, describing it neutrally rather than personalizing it or leveling accusations. For example, instead of saying “You clearly don’t realize how you came across,” say “I think the way you defended our team’s work yesterday may not have been the most effective approach.” Rather than “You shouldn’t have gone in unprepared like that,” say “There seemed to be an expectation in the room of more precise data on projected sales.”

Strive to experience and express empathy toward your subordinate through perspective-taking and empathic concern (Chapter 3), showing that you understand how he or she may feel: “The same thing has happened to me before” rather than “I would never let something like that happen.” Keep in mind how you have felt when receiving criticism from your superiors, and adapt your communication accordingly.

Finally, avoid belaboring the error that has been made, and instead focus most of your talk time on ideas for avoiding such missteps in the future. Although you have the authority to dictate corrections, subordinates respond more favorably when supervisors negotiate solutions with them. Offer your subordinate specific ideas, but frame them as suggestions, asking for his or her opinion. The goal of constructive criticism is not only to correct the errant behavior but to create a mutual consensus with your subordinate.

MAINTAINING MIXED-STATUS RELATIONSHIPS

As we’ve seen, communicating competently in mixed-status relationships presents numerous challenges—whether you’re trying to influence a superior, praise a subordinate, or provide constructive criticism to an employee whose performance is inadequate. But a broader challenge is maintaining these relationships. Maintaining mixed-status relationships requires you to do two things (Albrecht & Bach, 1997). First, with your supervisor and subordinates, develop and follow communication rules for what’s appropriate to talk about as well as when and how to communicate. For example, supervisors who think their subordinates agree with them on how they should communicate tend to rate those subordinates higher on overall performance than subordinates who hold different beliefs about communication (Albrecht & Bach, 1997). Communication rules govern matters such as how often a supervisor and subordinate meet to discuss work projects, whether communications are formal or informal, and which channels (e-mail, instant-messaging, texting, printed memos, face-to-face conversations) are the most appropriate.

A-16

Second, communicate in consistent and reliable ways. This means displaying a stable and professional manner with supervisors and subordinates, rather than allowing personal problems or moods to influence your communication. It also means being punctual, following through on appointments and promises, and keeping confidences. Consistency builds trust, an essential component of any interpersonal relationship; a perception that you’re “trustworthy” will feed into other positive perceptions of you as well, including your integrity, openness, and competence (Albrecht & Bach, 1997).