COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL …web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/Becker_gonzaga_0736M...COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN THE CONTEXT ... Under the Supervision

COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN THE CONTEXT

OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

Under the Supervision of Dr. Pavel Shlossberg

Under the Mentorship of Dr. Kristina Morehouse

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

By

Kaleen Becker

December 2015

COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION i

SIGNATURE PAGE

We the undersigned, certify that we read this thesis and approve it as adequate in

scope and quality for the degree Master of Arts.

Thesi

Faculty Mentor

Faculty Reader

Gonzaga University

MA Program in Communication and Leadership Studies

COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION ii

ABSTRACT

We live in a world reliant on relationships. Through interpersonal relationships we

construct our own individual and group identity. As members of the workforce, it is imperative

that we consistently mold our thoughts and beliefs in coordination with our surroundings. This

study examines a) how coordinated group meaning is affected by nonverbal communication in

the context of organizational change and b) the impact of organizational change on workplace

identity. Pearce and Cronen’s (2012) Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) is used as

the theoretical basis. This theory helps provide deeper understanding of why nonverbal

communication has a greater impact on communication and identity. Interviews of seven

individuals in support roles found that nonverbal communication plays a significant role in the

acceptance or rejection of organizational change. Participants consisted of both managers and

subordinates with varying degrees of work experience and tenure. Results demonstrate that,

through coordinated group meaning, individual identity is impacted by change and nonverbal

cues play an important role in guiding and altering beliefs and perception. Navigating change

becomes complicated with the introduction of unfamiliar nonverbal communication cues. As the

surrounding environment changes and new people are introduced to a group, individuals struggle

with their own understanding and acceptance of change. It is through working together that

change becomes acceptable.

COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Importance of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 2

Definition of Terms 2

Organization of Remaining Chapters 3

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4

Introduction 4

Philosophical Assumptions 5

Communication Theory 5

The Literature 8

Research Rationale 11

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 13

Scope of the Study 13

Methodology 13

Data Collection 15

Data Analysis 15

Ethical Considerations 15

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY 16

Introduction 16

Results of the Study 17

Discussion 25

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS 30

Limitations of the Study 30

Recommendations for Further Study 30

Conclusions 31

REFERENCES 33

APPENDIX 36

Interview Questions 36

Consent Form 38

COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Nonverbal communication is an integral part of our daily lives. As human beings, we

participate in what Bard (2009) calls “communicative engagements.” She explains that as infants

we engage in “proto-conversations” with adults in which we take part in “face-to-face

conversations and recognize and imitate facial movements, facial expressions, some sounds, and

some actions” (p. 941). Understanding the impact of others’ nonverbal cues on our own identity

provides us with the opportunity to adapt and change our communication within today’s

workforce.

This study focuses on the dynamics nonverbal communication has within the context of

organizational change. One becomes more cognizant of communication contradictions as they

are immersed in the workforce. It seems that nonverbal communication is often thought of in a

negative context. Through research the author hopes to demonstrate that deeper understanding of

organizational change is possible when we attend to nonverbal communication dynamics.

1.2 Importance of the Study

Dr. Albert Mehrabian (1971) said that 93% of our communication is nonverbal and 7% is

verbal. More specifically, 55% is body language, 38% is tone, 7% is verbal (Yaffe, 2011, p. 1).

In accordance with these statistics, people in the workforce are encouraged by the current state of

communication to alter their perceptions of individuals and ideas. This behavior should allow a

deeper understanding of the messages individuals are trying to convey. As time passes and

organizations change people also must change in order to be successful within the workplace.


1.3 Statement of the Problem

Organizational change is prevalent in today’s workforce and learning to navigate the

changes can be complicated. Everyone reacts differently when change is introduced and

recognizing nonverbal cues may alter the way one understands and accepts change.

This study will examine the effects nonverbal communication has on workplace identity

in the context of organizational change. Information collected from individuals within small

organizations at corporate companies will demonstrate how working together can help one

navigate the complications of organizational change. It will also focus on the ability of people to

alter their own perceptions and beliefs in order to achieve understanding during changing times.

1.4 Definition of Terms

Throughout this study there are terms used that need to be defined in order to recognize

the impact of this study. These terms will be explained in more detail later in the paper.

Identity – An individual’s own unique sense of self and personality affected by the

surrounding environment

Nonverbal Cues – Communication through body language or any other form beyond

verbal expression

Organizational Change – Change that occurs in the workplace in various forms:

technological, personnel, processes and procedures, etc.

Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) – Communication theory developed by

Pearce and Cronen stating that relationships are created through in-person conversations.


1.5 Organization of Remaining Chapters

This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter two contains a review of the literature

on the subjects of organizational change and nonverbal communication, as well as the theoretical

basis that shapes the study. The scope of the project is discussed in chapter three and the

methodology for the research is also detailed. Chapter four contains the results of the study and

relates the results to previous literature on the subject. It also includes discussion regarding the

research questions posed for the study. A summary of the study is detailed in chapter five along

with the limitations of the research. A proposal for future studies on the topic is also laid out in

the chapter.


2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Communication involves the decoding of verbal and nonverbal cues. Noordzij et al

(2009) say that “human communication rides on a large background of pragmatic inference –

otherwise ironies, sarcasms, hints, and indirections would pass us by” (p. 1). In essence, daily

communication revolves around understandings and assumptions. These assumptions lend

themselves to the development of communication identity.

Nonverbal communication is an incredibly powerful tool. The use of one’s body in

conversation adds a different element to verbal expression. The nature of our relationship with

one another is better understood through social interactions wherein nonverbal expression is

used. As we grow, relationships and social interactions change, leading us to alter our

communication. This is recognized predominantly in our work relationships as organizational

change is unavoidable. In times of organizational change, individual identity changes as a means

of better understanding and accepting the change taking place.

The development of identity begins at birth, with late adolescence and early adulthood

the time of greatest individual growth and development. Erikson and Erikson (1997) define

identity as a sense of individuality and uniqueness, one’s placement of themselves in society and

time (Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2009, p. 558). As time moves forward individual identity changes. The

emotional, physical, and environmental factors affect the ways in which people respond to

others, thus altering their identity to fit the requirements of that particular time. Pasupathi and


Hoyt (2009) describe this concept as “narrative identity” in which “narratives construct personal

continuity over time by linking past to the present and future” (p. 559).

As organizations change, personal identity changes. Loseke (2007) describes this type of

change as organizational identity, a form of identity explicitly fashioned to change personal

identity (p. 662). Through the time of change individuals need to be willing to rethink their

assumptions and recognize different communication cues provided by others.

2.2 Philosophical Assumptions

To assess the effects of organizational change on identity the theory of acting from duty

will be considered. This theory states that “I will have a good will only if my actions are

motivated by my duty to do what is right, and by duty alone,” (Wall, 2008, p. 36). In times of

organizational change, employees act in accordance with their personal beliefs and assumptions.

Acting from duty ties in with the transactional leadership theory, recognizing that “leaders and

followers reach their own goals by supplying lower level wants and needs so that they can move

up to higher needs,” (Cuilla, 1995, p. 15). In comparison to transformational leadership,

transactional leaders believe that the small wins are what make a difference. This is an important

distinction as the constant change within organizations reinforces the need for identity

transformation, thus small changes are the guiding force in acceptance.

2.3 Communication Theory

Coordinated Management of Meaning

We can use communication theory to look at the effects nonverbal communication can

have on organizational change. Pearce and Cronen (2012) write that our social world is created


through events and objects. Communication is the process that creates these objects and events,

the looming question being what we are making of our social world. The Coordinated

Management of Meaning (CMM) theory recognizes that our world is created and shaped through

in-person conversations (p. 67). Understanding the relationship between meaning and action and

recognizing the nonverbal cues of those around us allows CMM to take shape (Montgomery,

2004).

CMM as an interpretive theory is molded by four principles: 1) communication forms the

individuals and creates the relationship; 2) nonverbal cues are more important than verbal

communication; 3) the longer the conversation continues, the more our actions are affected; and

4) CMM is a social constructionist theory; therefore each interaction pokes at the curious aspect

of human thought (Barnett Pearce & Cronen, 2012). Social constructionist theories focus on the

understanding that communication meaning and significance are developed in coordination with

others, not strictly within the individual. Human beings are curious of others and CMM

reinforces this natural tendency.

Barnett Pearce describes CMM as “an attempt to do for communication what someone

did for speech when he/she/they developed the phonetic alphabet” (Gallegos et al, 2012, p. 2).

The underlying concept of the theory lies in its ability to look “at” communication rather than

“through” it. CMM focuses on the assumptions around the socially accepted concept of

communication, changing the mind as it strives to understand the meaning behind an uttered

phrase. This theory recognizes that communication is about managing the meaning of our world

in coordination with others. As Barnett Pearce said “Managing our meanings is never done in

isolation” (Gallegos et al, 2012, p. 4).


As organizations change, employees are encouraged to change with it. As the

transformation of the organization occurs, people go through what is known as “transformational

learning” in which learning new things is not enough, but we must learn to think about new

things in different ways (Gallegos et al, 2012, p. 7). However, people can be resistant to

organizational change as their own personal identity is at risk through the process.

As personal goals and beliefs can conflict with those of the organization, any amount of

change can be cause for resistance. Employees may voice their dissatisfaction verbally, but most

often it is the nonverbal cues that provide the most insight. The professional arena is shaped by

three principles: 1) market principle, the focus of which is price competition; 2) hierarchy

principle, wherein authority is the key player; and 3) community principle, which relies on trust

(Adler, Kwon, Heckscher, 2008). The hierarchy and community principles are direct influences

upon nonverbal communication. Individuals seek understanding during time of organizational

change, thus altering their beliefs and assumptions. Through CMM, we can focus on the idea

that multiple interpretations and perspectives are available and that increasing our awareness of

other’s interpretations and perspectives helps us reach new understanding of their nonverbal

cues.

CMM uses a hierarchy model to aid in understanding patterns of identity and perspective.

Pearce (1989) focuses on five main categories of the hierarchy model: 1) self-concept, 2)

relationship, 3) the type of episode, 4) cultural expectations, and 5) specific speech acts,

occurrences, or interactions to explain how “different contexts become the dominating frames for

a conversation” (Gallegos et al, 2012, p. 29). As relationships and organizations evolve, the

patterns of communication evolve to identify critical moments and increase understanding of

communication cues.


2.4 The Literature

Importance of Nonverbal Communication

As human beings, we have the ability to recognize the emotional state of others through

conversation. Defined by Sanchez-Burks and Huy (2001) as emotional aperture, it is recognized

that we not only understand the emotions of one individual, but we pick up on the diverse

emotions of a group or business unit. In order to be successful within the professional

environment it is imperative that one practice not only emotional aperture, identifying cues and

recognizing assumptions, but the physical nonverbal cues of their work group.

When people talk, the movement of their arms and hands often corresponds to the

conversation, but sometimes are independent of the topic at hand (Beattie & Shovelton, 2002, p.

403). These gestures contribute to the nonverbal cues associated with emotional aperture and aid

in interpreting the meaning behind the conversation. In 1985 a paper published in the

Psychological Review questioned the way in which we should think about these spontaneous arm

gestures (Beattie & Shovelton, 2002, p. 403). It was at this point that scholars and theorists began

attributing gestures to nonverbal communication, what they believed to be an entirely separate

entity from speech, or verbal communication.

Gesture and speech are part of a single integrated system. “Speech provides information

sequentially through arbitrary symbols, gesture is holistic and imagistic” (Kelly et al, 2014, p.

517). While it is possible to engage in communication using just speech, gesture helps paint a

more complete picture. As people engage in conversation, they become more emotionally

invested, thus inspiring them to use gestures as a means of conveying a clearer message.


Through the use of speech and gesture, the receiver is able to interpret the beliefs and

assumptions of the presenter.

Nonverbal cues are open to interpretation by the receiver. Scholars have theorized that

gender differences may have an effect on the success of accurate interpretation. Hall (1978), in

her review of Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) work, discovered that their belief that “girls are

more “tuned in” to what other people are thinking and feeling than boys are” (p. 846) does not

have verifiable evidence to support the claim. Therefore, the belief that gender affects one’s

ability to accurately assess nonverbal cues does not lend itself to the study of nonverbal

communication.

The ability to effectively communicate and get along with others – developing trusting

relationships – is what Morand (2001) describes as people skills. The process of building good

people skills involves emotional aperture, as understanding the emotional state of the presenter is

an important factor in becoming adaptable to change. In Morand’s study of people skills and

emotional aperture, he focused on the facial expressions of each subject: “Facial expressions are

heavily laden with emotional information, perhaps far more so than any other channel” (Morand,

2001, p. 24). The ability of individuals to study the facial expressions of others and effectively

assess their emotional state aids in the acceptance of change.

CMM Within Organizations

As organizations change employees’ acceptance and tolerance levels change. CMM is a

social constructionist theory concerned with all aspects of social life. In other words, people in

conversation is the most important aspect of communication. The assumptions within

conversation encourage a shift in individual identity. Sigman (1995) says that “people can think


in all sorts of ways. How people think depends on the ways of thinking they construct in the

course of social life” (p. 20).

Ekman and Friesen (1969) and Rosenthal et al (1979) say that we express emotion using

nonverbal channels – the face, the voice and the body – and the degree to which they can be

controlled is greatly varied (Elfinbein & Ambady, 2002, p. 964). As human beings, we possess

the ability to express ourselves using these channels; however the ways in which we choose to

use them is dependent upon individual beliefs. Organizational change affects the ways in which

individuals choose to respond to varying communication cues.

People need people. In today’s workforce, technological communication has led to

people communicating in person less frequently. “We need other people to compare notes with,

to affirm our worth with, to anchor us to reality” (Goldhaber, 1990, p. 8). The foundation of

CMM lies in the understanding that managing our world is only achievable when working with

others. As organizations change and adapt to advances in technology and processes, so must

employees adapt and work together to achieve balance as a team through unique communication

cues.

West and Turner (2004) state that rules are the means by which individuals coordinate

meaning. “Rule usage in a conversation is more than an ability to use a rule; it also requires

flexible expanding abilities that cannot be reduced to technique” (para. 3). In the organizational

setting, we look at the environment and social setting around us and use it to dictate the ways in

which we communicate with one another.

CMM uses the hierarchy model to understand identity and perspective and the rules

employed during conversation are given context. As conversations take place we interpret the

behavior of others – constitutive rules (West & Turner, 2004, para.4). Utilizing this rule


individuals assign meaning, aiding in understanding intention imposed by others. In accordance

with constitutive rules, regulative rules communicate the next step of the conversation (West &

Turner, 2004, para. 5). How we react to the intention of others influences our reality. As

organizations change, individuals alter their reality to aid in acceptance and understanding.

2.5 Research Rationale

The majority of information we receive from others is nonverbal. Statistically, over 93%

of the information we receive is via body language (Caputo, Hazel, McMahon, 1994).

Understanding nonverbal cues – from the simple clear nod of the head to the less clearly

understood deep sigh – is an important aspect of communication theory, with many in the field

studying the concept of nonverbal interactions. There is little known of the effects of nonverbal

communication in the professional environment. Using the social constructionist theory of

Coordinated Management of Meaning the correlation between organizational change and its

function within group contexts will be explored through the use of in-person conversations with

the intent of demonstrating the effects of nonverbal communication on group resistance or

acceptance of organizational change.

The research presented herein will shape our understanding of nonverbal communication

in professional setting of organizational change. The nonverbal cues given on a daily basis

within the professional environment help mold individuals. In-person conversations shape our

world. This research will aid in understanding the nature of these conversations and the

nonverbal cues that play a part in creating and changing professional teams.

The research herein will seek to answer the following questions:

1) How does nonverbal communication inform coordinated group meaning regarding

organizational change?


2) How does nonverbal communication impact workplace identity in the context of


.


3. Scope and Methodology

3.1 Scope of the Study

This study is an empirical exploration into how the acceptance of organizational change

can be affected by nonverbal communication It will aid in understanding the effects that

nonverbal communication has on the process of change, as nonverbal cues provide an in-depth

look into the beliefs and assumptions of individuals within the organization.

The study is designed to understand the perceived links between nonverbal

communication and the ways in which it inhibits or promotes organizational change. In essence,

how is the way an individual views organizational change influenced by the nonverbal cues of

fellow employees and/or managers? Are they positively or negatively affected by the nonverbal

cues of others, thus potentially impacting and altering their own perception of change?

The nature of this study is specific to one group within a larger organization. Because of

this, it is not meant to reflect the nature of organizational change as a whole, but rather focus on

the changes within a specific work group and how their beliefs and assumptions might be applied

to outside organizations.

3.2 Methodology

The empirical nature of this study requires a qualitative approach as a quantitative

approach does not provide the correct frame of reference. This type of research requires

understanding of the dynamics of individuals within their work groups, therefore focus groups

and detailed interviews will be used to analyze the use of nonverbal communication in small

work groups. By using both methods, results will be more conclusive. Interviews create a more


structured environment, thus resulting in more detailed responses; while focus groups lend

themselves to a variable atmosphere in which participants create the surrounding environment

themselves. Those taking part in the study will reflect upon the nonverbal aspect of each of their

individual work groups, with particular emphasis on the ways in which nonverbal cues impact

organizational change. Recognizing that every individual has unique personality characteristics,

it is important that each member of the focus group be cognizant of nonverbal cues as they relate

to each person as opposed to the group as a whole

This study’s research will include only individuals employed at a large company as those

companies larger than 500 employees make up less than 5 percent of businesses within the

United States. The individuals to be studied are members of a small group within the chosen

large company. For the purpose of this study, “small groups” represents teams consisting of 6 –

10 members, including management.

This research study will utilize interviews to develop its findings and gain a more detailed

understanding of the effects of organizational change and the ways in which nonverbal

communication plays a role in acceptance as the nonverbal cues are issued through professional

relationships, as well as demonstrating a deeper understanding of communication cues and their

effect on professional relationships. Through this determination, the researcher will focus the

study on individual participant interaction and their interpretation of nonverbal cues in a small

group organizational context. “Impression management in workplace settings is often motivated

by desires concerning career goals for progression or promotion” (Barnett & Pearce, 2012, p.

23). Recognizing individual motivation, the study will focus on perceived participant

assumptions regarding organizational change and the nonverbal communication cues as a result.


3.3 Data collection

Data will be collected using thorough observation and detailed interviews in a focus

group setting. The data set will consist of two individual work groups, each with 6 to 10

employees and 1 manager. These work groups perform different similar functions with varied

scope. Both groups are currently undergoing organizational change, either as a result of

employee transition or process improvement, thus the reason for their participation in the study.

3.4 Data analysis

The collected data will be analyzed using a thematic method. Rather than basing the

results on pre-formed assumptions, themes will emerge as data is collected. This method, while

heavily data-driven, will require highly detailed responses to aid the researcher in determining

themes.

3.5 Ethical Considerations

The largest ethical consideration is that of invasion of privacy. One way in which to

ensure participant privacy is to create and anonymous consent form which will allow selected

participants to accept or withdraw from the focus group and interviews at any time. While

participants and the researcher will know they are participating in this study, they will have the

ability to opt out of questioning at any time. No names will be listed on the consent forms or

within the final research so as not to compromise trust or identity.


4. Study and Analysis of Results

4.1 Introduction

This study involved understanding the perceptions of nonverbal communication as it

adheres to organizational change by performing in-depth interviews. The interviews consisted of

managerial and subordinate employees working within small groups. The first set of interviews

were five subordinate employees that work in teams of no more than six people, none of them

having any management experience. Each was a member of a different work group performing

similar job functions, such as support for other organizations. The organizations which they work

for specialize in particular areas of scheduling and support for larger organizations within the

companies at which they are employed. Interviews were performed at various locations as each

participant works in a different location in the surrounding metropolitan area.

The second set of interviews was made up of two individuals that serve and have served

in management positions and currently work for the same company within the same support

organization; however they both perform different job roles. The first is currently acting in a lead

capacity of a team of two people, having previously served as a manager of an entire division

within a different large corporation. The second individual is currently a manager of a small

eight person team and has been working at the same company within the same organization for

five years.

Research participants come from different cultural and historical backgrounds, as well as

different age groups. They also vary in their work history, with all but one having been a part of

the professional workforce for more than 10 years. The individual with less than 10 years of

experience has been at the same company for the entirety of their professional career. Their


differences amongst these people represent the diversity of the companies at which they work,

bringing to light the acceptance of a vast range of temperaments in today’s workforce.

Job role was a factor during both the observations and interviews. Interview participants

were chosen based upon their current job role and function, as well as their tenure. Five of the

seven participants work at a worldwide company in support roles. The organization they work in

involves scheduling and supporting other work groups to ensure they complete work efficiently

and on time. One participant is technology support at a medical clinic while the last participant

works at an international company supporting their partner programs. Participant tenure spans a

4 to 20 year time period. The researcher determined how long individuals have been employed

and narrowed the participant pool based upon these factors. Age was not a factor in the research

as it is not relevant to this particular study of nonverbal communication.

To ensure confidentiality, no names are used throughout the research. Each person

interviewed signed a written consent form detailing the intent of the interview and their

responsibility therein and allowed the discussion to be recorded and transcribed.

4.2 Results

Accepting Change

A number of themes were uncovered during analysis of the interview transcripts. The

responses of participants were placed into categories based upon their responses to

organizational change. These results have been formulated from the participant’s level of

acceptance to organizational change utilizing a list formulated by Simplicable (2013). According

to Simplicable, there are 10 categories of organizational change. For the purpose of this study,

the categories have been consolidated into three predominant categories. Table 1 lists the three


categories and how study participants respond to each in regards to acceptance or resistance of

the change.

Table 1

Acceptance of Various Types of Organizational Change

Change Accept Refute

Structural 4 3

Technological 5 2

Relationships 7 --

Once the various types of organizational changes were sufficiently understood,

participants noted the importance of each form. Though not all participants are receptive to each

type of change, there seemed to be a clear understanding as to how that change may benefit the

company as a whole. In response to how change affects their company, Subject 2 noted that they

are currently searching for a new leader stating “I know that management knows what direction

the company is going in, it’s just a matter of finding that mind that will help them make business

decisions.”

All participants recognized the value of change in organizational relationships. Subject 3

in particular noted the amount of turnover affecting their team in recent months and the ways in

which this change had an effect on their relationships. “I definitely trust the woman who has

been there for the last 18 months but I am experiencing some apprehension with the gentleman

who joined our team most recently. This is primarily due to him not fully understanding the job

function yet.” The lack of understanding job function was a common theme amongst interview

subjects, with many recognizing that personal relationships are affected when another feels

unsure of themselves as a result of change.


While interviewees recognize the importance of change, in practice they struggle with

acceptance when it revolves around personal relationships. Organizational change as it exists in

principle appears easier to accept as the dynamics surrounding personal relationships are deeper

than the change itself. Change has the ability to alter the relationships between individuals as it

may bring to light one’s insecurities in relation to their job role and may affect how they and

others see them as a member of the team. This is not always the case as Subject 5 explains:

As a team we all work well together so when someone is gone the others have to

pick up the slack. We have had one team member out for six weeks because of a

medical issue and it’s been tough covering their work, but as a team we have all

taken care of it. We also share a good personal relationship and help each other

out on a personal level. It doesn’t affect our work relationships, if anything it

makes them stronger.

Technological advances consistently force organizations into a state of change.

According to Subject 7, “There have been people on my team in the past that refused to accept

advances in technology because they were close to retirement, but at the same time that’s not an

excuse.” Responses are dependent upon individual people, but are also affected by the reaction

of multiple team members. “I don’t know if the group itself had the same mentality, but they

were not willing to learn the new program and were being surpassed by those teams that were

willing to accept the change and learn,” Subject 7 noted.

During times of technological change, participants noted that the aversion of their fellow

employees did little to affect how they respond to the change. Individual acceptance of

technology is more dependent upon how one personally feels about technology in general than


the feelings of others. While participants noted that the resistance of their team members might

create a temporary distraction from the change for the entire team, it ultimately did not alter the

way they personally approached it.

“When you get comfortable at a job that means you’ve got to jump out of your comfort

zone and you have to do things that aren’t normally within your routine” says Subject 6. “During

change they have to come up with a new routine and that leads to an aversion of change, fear of

the unknown.”

Influencing Change

The second classification of themes focuses around the influence team members have on

participant’s acceptance and understanding of organizational change. As change is diffused

through the organization, the ability of participants to accept the change may be dependent upon

how their fellow team members react to the change. Of great consideration is the nonverbal cues

provided by their team. Chart 2 shows the level of verbal and nonverbal influence participants

accept from their team by classifying each participant interviewed and how they respond to the

influence of their fellow team members. When looking at the chart, notice that just one

participant noted very little influence while four stated that they are greatly influenced by their

team members.

Chart 2

Level of Influence by Fellow Team

Members

42

1

Level of Influence

Greatly Influenced

Mildly Influenced

Little Influence


Of the 7 subjects interviewed, all report that they respond to both verbal and nonverbal

cues of their team members when considering their own acceptance of organizational change.

Dependent upon the unique traits of each participant, they respond differently to each form.

Subject 5 says “I respond more to verbal because I do not know everyone’s body language in a

big setting. Some people are very good at hiding that so I respond more to what they say or how

they say it. Verbal is easier to read because of how they say things.” As information is flowed

out the ways in which people respond to it affects individuals in varying ways. While all people

have a nonverbal reaction to information, the weight one puts on those nonverbal cues may

change their response to that information.

“My response to nonverbal communication is to ask questions because I like verbal

communication” says Subject 2. The idea of taking another’s nonverbal cues in an incorrect way

leads the subject to verbal responses. Based upon their response, it is understood that nonverbal

communication guides people to different conclusions, thus leading to change within the team.

As an example, Subject 2 related their being on a different floor than their boss as a complication

in understanding nonverbal communication. As they do not see each other as often during the

day as other members of the team when they do come into contact it might be more difficult to

understand one another’s nonverbal cues. Their perception of each other might be altered based

upon their lack of face-to-face communication. As Subject 1 explained the two go hand-in-hand,

but it depends on who the individual is whether or not they choose to alter their perception.

As an individual in a management position, Subject 6 recognizes the nonverbal cues of

their team, oftentimes altering their delivery of information based upon how their team responds.


“If I communicate things a certain way and get a lot of stoic faces and very short answers, that

tells me that my team is not happy. I’m coming from a position of power and if I don’t get any

pushback that means that I’m over-influencing my position of power.”

Nonverbal Cues

Interview participants also uncovered the importance of management cues as they relate

to understanding organizational change. Throughout times of change, it is the responsibility of

management to guide team members to success; however participants noted that management

can, at times, contradict themselves when you focus on their nonverbal cues. Subject 1 most

effectively describes this:

Nonverbal communication is important as support. If it’s something I don’t care

about and everyone else looks like they don’t care about [the change] then I feel

supported. If it’s something I don’t care about and everyone else looks upset or

has a different reaction, their responses will affect me. I reconsider my initial

reaction to the change. It’s like a health check for me. I develop my own feelings

first but others help me either support how I feel or rethink my stance.

Table 3 demonstrates management success rate during times of organizational change.

The depicted numbers are derived from how each subject rates their management during times of

change. For example, Subject 3 denotes that their management is successful half of the time and

unsuccessful the other half when considering one type of change.


Table 3

Degree of Management Success during Times of Organizational Change

Participants Successful Not Successful

Subject 1 .5 .5

Subject 2 .5 .5

Subject 3 .5 .5

Subject 4 1 --

Subject 5 1 --

Subject 6 .5 .5

Subject 7 -- 1

Total 4 3

Key importance in Table 3 is that Subjects 3 and 6 have both served in management

positions. Their understanding of management responsibilities influences their responses to

organizational change in ways the other participants are not influenced. Subject 3 explains

“Having been a manager myself I can spot nonverbal cues easier than the average person

because you pick up on certain ticks. You know when they’re telling the truth or when they don’t

agree with what they are saying.” As a person of authority, it is important to note that trust is an

important aspect of successful teamwork.

“I need dialogue in order for my team to be successful” says Subject 6. “If I don’t pay

attention to nonverbal cues I’m just blowing out direction and hoping for the best.” Without

trust, the team responses may or may not lend themselves to the best plan of action, thus leading

to an inferior result. “The annoying management cues are the nonverbal cues that pretty much


say ‘I don’t have time for this’ or ‘I don’t have time for you.’ Those are the ones that really bug

because they break down that trust” explains Subject 3.

Another aspect of management cues is the concern of management transition. Working

under different individuals with their own unique management style has the potential to disrupt

the acceptance of organizational change as fear of the unknown forces people outside of their

comfort zone. Subject 2 detailed the shift from one manager to another and the ways in which

their ability to understand nonverbal cues changed as a result of their lack of knowledge of their

new manager’s style. “I went from having a female manager to a male manager and women

manage differently” they explained. “My new manager is also not located on the same floor as I

.am, which makes it difficult to understand him and the meaning behind everything he sends me

because we send emails most of the time. Not talking in person creates a bit of a barrier between

us and it is difficult at times.”

Change during times of management transition may affect the way employees and

managers respond to nonverbal communication. The nonverbal cues of one manager are different

than nonverbal cues of another manager which may complicate the transition. Unfamiliarity in

regards to change may lead to complications. Communication style of all parties must be altered

in order for the transition to be successful, also encouraging personal growth and acceptance of

change. If management chooses to open up to their new team and employees are willing to be

more receptive of their cues, the team will be better prepared to navigate this type of change in

the future.

Subject 4 summed up this concept clearly: “I think communication can always be

improved. Generally speaking I think leadership includes who they believe to be key players in


the change but may leave it up to others to communicate to the floor. This is a business risk

because they may not be aware of someone who should be really considered a key player in the

change.”

4.3 Discussion

The results of the study can be made sense of through the Coordinated Management of

Meaning (CMM) model of thinking, which theorizes that our world is made up of and shaped by

in-person conversations (Montgomery, 2004). CMM sheds light on the fact that we are always in

relationships with others either in the actual moment or in the way that our “internal voices” are

shaped by the social world. “Working as a team gives you a different perspective. There are

always minute differences between the way they think and the way you think, even though you

may agree. The opinions of others force you to re-evaluate your responses and think of things in

a different way” says Subject 5. By opening ourselves up to the possibility of multiple

perspectives we accept the transcendence of CMM.

In many situations participants recognized and responded to the cues given by the

researcher. They also discussed the cues delivered by their own team members and engaged in

open and thoughtful dialogue surrounding the subject. When participants felt comfortable with

the topic they spoke naturally with very little encouragement from the researcher. Yet when the

question or topic was not clear, their natural tendency was to stumble with their words and

request that the question be restated. This is representative of their responses, as many relayed

that when they are comfortable with the individuals around them their receptiveness of


organizational change is more positive than if the alternative is true. As understanding nonverbal

cues is dependent on personal relationships, when team members work well together and have

good and stable relationships their ability to recognize and respond to one another’s nonverbal

cues is affected. Understanding the change is easier when they coordinate with one another,

helping each other to see things differently.

Professionals in the workplace come into contact and must learn to coexist with multiple

other people. The question at the center of CMM – “what are we making together?” (Creede,

Fisher-Yoshida & Gallegos, 2012, p. 23) – is the most important aspect of professional

relationships. By asking this question, individuals recognize that teamwork is the pivotal point of

successful navigation of organizational change. When it comes to successful teamwork, Subject

4 notes “I try not to acknowledge negative body language because I do not like conflict. If

someone is expressing happiness or excitement about a project then I am more likely to

participate and listen. This generates a positive outlook on the organization.”

Hutcheson (2012) quotes Pearce (1989) in his thoughts on CMM, “Speech, acts, words

and turns of a phrase are linked together by a story” (p. 114). The act of telling a story connects

individuals. Personal revelations come about during conversation, thus linking those

communicating as their own beliefs and assumptions are altered by the responses of others. In

times of organizational change, people make conscious decisions to change their thinking as a

result of the stories provided by their team members. Subject 6 says:

I’m the first to recognize that the most important communication is not verbal, it’s

nonverbal. When I see a lot of people crossing their arms, averting their eyes, that

tells me ‘Hey, these people don’t like it.’ I recalibrate and change my


communication based on their reactions. I put a lot of weight on nonverbal

communication.

The response each participant has in regards to organizational change and the influence

of outside opinion and communication cues reflect the core principle of CMM. As each

participant is in a different point in their career their ability to influence and be influenced by

their social world varies greatly. At its strongest point, CMM works to break unwanted repetitive

patterns (URPs) that interfere with the environment and relationships and construct new patterns

geared toward positive change (Fisher-Yoshida, 2012, p. 46). Through times of organizational

change participants were challenged by the beliefs of others, helping to alter the surrounding

environment and affect understanding and acceptance of change. They also resisted change as

the nonverbal cues of others encouraged them to question the effect of change. When discussing

change, participants recognized the difficulty interpreting each type of change when the

nonverbal cues of fellow team members and managers were new or different.

The dialogue within the interviews helped to answer the two research questions put forth

for this study.

RQ1: How does nonverbal communication inform coordinated group meaning in regards

to organizational change?

Participant responses to organizational change vary; however, as seen above, each finds

relevance in nonverbal communication as a tool for understanding and accepting change. During

times of change one recognizes the effect change has on the surrounding environment, thus

altering the perception of people involved. While verbal responses guide the conversation and

open deeper lines of communication, the nonverbal cues tell a deeper story of acceptance or


rejection of change. Interpersonal relationships are affected by the ability of work groups to

effectively transcend change and alter their reality.

When discussing the importance of nonverbal communication on organizational change,

it is important to note that difficulty interpreting nonverbal cues can lead to a lack of acceptance

of change. Specifically during times of employee and management transition when one may not

recognize or understand the nonverbal cues, their change acceptance is hindered. This may affect

the team as a whole as the context of the change may be lost, thus altering interpersonal

relationships.

RQ2: How does nonverbal communication impact workplace identity in the context of


The ability to change your own attitude and beliefs as a result of recognizing the beliefs

and attitudes of others is an important aspect of communication. Barnett Pearce says “Managing

our meanings is never done in isolation” (Gallegos et al, 2012, p. 4). We must coordinate with

others if we hope to effectively navigate organizational change. Working through times of

uncertainty requires coordination with both team members and managers, both informing your

sense of identity in different ways. As mentioned previously, when participants felt supported,

the nonverbal cues of team members reflected their own beliefs. If they react differently than

their team members, their sense of identity is threatened, affecting their reception of change.

In the case of all involved in this study, each makes the conscious decision to evaluate the

nonverbal cues given by their team members. Though not all respond positively to the cues, they

recognize when the verbal and nonverbal communication conflict and accordingly alter their

attitude. Personal identity is fluid in times of organizational change as one must be open to


different perspectives. As coordination with others is transcendent, so must people transform

their reality and interpret change through varying perspectives.


5. Summaries and Conclusions

5.1 Limitations of the Study

This study on nonverbal cues in the context of organizational change was limited due to

the narrow scope. The study only looked at the nonverbal cues relevant in small groups low in

the large company’s organizational hierarchy. The interviews took place with individuals that are

either in non-management positions or first-level management positions which clearly limits the

results.

The occupational slice examined was also limited. The study focused on individuals that

work only in support groups whose job success is dependent upon how well they support their

customers. This was intentionally done by the researcher because of the limitation of time. With

the narrow project scope it was imperative that the results themselves were also narrow as the

possibility of extensive amounts of information was possible.

Due to practical constraints, participant observations were not utilized. Findings are

based in self-reports gleaned through interviews.

5.2 Recommendations for Further Study

As stated previously, the scope of this study was limited, having only considered the

nonverbal cues within small groups at lower ranks in the company. While this scope was

intentionally chosen by the researcher, further studies would benefit from focus on the effect of

nonverbal communication at higher managerial levels. No one higher than a first level manager

was interviewed.


While nonverbal cues have an effect on team members and their immediate manager, the

effects are potentially limited in regards to leadership. Those in high leadership positions often

work more independently then lower-level managers. It is their responsibility to make decisions

regarding change and flow out the information and they often work with a limited number of

people on a daily basis. Not having constant access and interaction with team members severely

limits the ability of others to understand their nonverbal cues, as well as limiting their own

understanding of nonverbal cues during times of organizational change.

Morand (2001) notes that people skills help us build trusting relationships and effectively

communicate with others, further research should examine nonverbal cues (and their lack) and

the role that they play in communicating and navigating organizational change across high and

low positions within the organizations hierarchy. People skills are developed through life and

through our relationships with others. Understanding the levels of people skills including

nonverbal communication of each high-level leadership participant would provide deeper insight

into the issues at hand. The identity of each participant is shaped as a result of their unique set of

people skills – recognizing how those skills may be affected during times of organizational

change is important.

5.3 Conclusion

While there are not many studies centered on nonverbal communication in the context of

organizational change, there are studies focused on nonverbal cues and how humans utilize and

understand them. Though limited in scope, this study has confirmed the findings of a number of

those studies: people interpret the behaviors of others by recognizing body language and

nonverbal cues help us with emotional expression.


The participant interviews uncovered areas that have not been explored before.

Participants noted that coordination and working together encourages acceptance of change.

They emphasized the importance of understanding one another and becoming familiar with each

other’s communication cues. Through mutual understanding relationships grow stronger and

acceptance during times of change becomes a group effort.

The introduction of unfamiliar communication cues and their effect on acceptance of

change was something participants noted during the interviews. During times of employee and

management transition new nonverbal cues are present. These foreign cues make it difficult for

other team members to recognize the various aspects of change and therefore their acceptance

wanes. Participants noted the importance of group coordination when working through personnel

changes.

As the surrounding environment changes, individual identity must change. Results

demonstrate that transcending change is imperative in order to maintain positive interpersonal

relationships. The ability of people to work together to understand varying aspects of change

within their organization is key to successfully navigating changes through time.

Though research is limited in regards to nonverbal cues during times of organizational

change, participants were able to recognize the ways in which nonverbal communication affects

them during these times. Of particular importance is management’s responsibility in ensuring

their team appropriately understands change. If management cues do not line up with what the

team recognizes, change is met with resistance. Through management guidance, barriers can be

broken down. Recognition of one’s beliefs and understanding of nonverbal cues paves the way

for acceptance of organizational change.


References

Achilles, C., & Crump, H. (1978, April 1). Why can't they be like we were...? Educational

Leadership, 509-515.

Adler, P., Kwon, S., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Professional work: The emergence of collaborative

community. Organization Science, 19(2), 359-376.

Bard, K. (2009). Social cognition: Evolutionary history of emotional engagements with infants.

Current Biology, 19(20), 941-943.

Barnett Pearce, W., & Cronen, V. (2012). Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM). In

Griffin, E. (8th Ed.) A First Look at Communication Theory (p. 67-83). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Beattie, G., & Shovelton, H. (2002). What properties of talk are associated with the generation of

spontaneous iconic hand gestures? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 403-403.

Caputo, J., Hazel, H., & McMahon, C. (1994). Interpersonal communications: Competency

through critical thinking. Lakewood, WA: Hippo Books.

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

28.

Eastin, M., Glynn, C., & Griffiths, R. (2007). Psychology of communication technology use in

the workplace. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(3). doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9935

Elfinbein, H., & Ambady, N. (2002). Predicting workplace outcomes from the ability to

eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 963-971. Retrieved October 9,

2015, from Ebscohost.

Erikson, G.H. & Erikson, J.M. (1997). The life cycle completed: extended version. New York:

Norton.

Fogg, P. (2008). When generations collide. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(45).

Gallegos, P., Fisher-Yoshida, B., & Creede, C. (2012). The Reflective, facilitative, and

interpretive practices of the coordinated management of meaning: Making lives, making

meaning. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson.

Goldhaber, G. (1990). Organizational Communication (5th ed.). Buffalo, New York: Wm. C.

Brown.

Hall, E. (1959). The Silent Language. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, Inc.


Hall, J. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85(4), 845-

857. Retrieved from Ebscohost.

Kelly, S., Healey, M., Ozyurek, A., & Holler, J. (2014). The processing of speech, gesture, and

action during language comprehension. Psychon Bulletin Review, 22, 517-523. Retrieved from

ProQuest.

LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research.

Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.

Loseke, D. (2007). The study of identity as cultural, institutional, organizational, and personal

narratives: Theoretical and empirical integrations. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(4), 661-688.

Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press

McLeod, S. (2007). Social psychology. Simply Psychology

Montgomery, E. (2004). Tortured families: A coordinated management of meaning analysis.

Family Process, 43(3), 349-371.

Morand, D. (2001). The emotional intelligence of managers: Assessing the construct validity of a

nonverbal measure of "people skills" Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(1), 21-33.

Retrieved from Ebscohost.

Myers, K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective

millennials' organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,

25(2), 225-238.

Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, S., De Ruiter, J., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S., & Toni, I. (2009).

Brain mechanisms underlying human communication. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3(14).

Retrieved October 3, 2015, from Ebscohost.

Parker, M. (2007). Ethnography/ethics. Social Science and Medicine, 65(11), 2248-2259.

Pasupathi, M., & Hoyt, T. (2009). The development of narrative identity in late adolescence and

emergent adulthood: The continued importance of listeners. Developmental Psychology, 45(2),

558-574.

Pearce, W. Barnett (1989). Communication and the human condition. Carbondale, IL: Southern

Illinois University Press.

Pugh, R. (2007). Dual relationships: personal and professional boundaries in rural social work.

The British Journal of Social Work, 37(8), 1405-1423.


Ruffman, T., Halberstadt, J., & Murray, J. (2009). Recognition of facial, auditory, and bodily

emotions in older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 64B(6), 696-703.

Retrieved from Ebscohost.

Sanchez-Burks, J., & Huy, Q. (2009). Emotional aperture and strategic change: The accurate

recognition of collective emotions. Organization Science, 20(1), 22-34.

Sigman, S. (2013). The Consequentiality of Communication (pp. 1-248). Routledge.

Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G., & Grosser, T. (2013) Positive and negative workplace

relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology,

1-13.

Wagner, H., MacDonald, C., & Manstead, A. (1986). Communication of individual emotions by

spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 737-743.

Wall, T. F. (2008). Thinking critically about moral problems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning.

West, R. & Turner, L. (2004). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application.

Boston: McGraw-Hill

Yaffe, P. (2011, October 1). The 7% rule: Fact, fiction, or misunderstanding. Ubiquity, 1-5.

Zuckerman, M., & Feldman, L. (1984). Actions and occurrences in attribution theory. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 541-550. Retrieved from Ebscohost.


Appendix

A. Interview Questions

QUESTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES:

1) Has your work organization undergone change? In what ways – retention, physical

location, process/procedural?

2) Explain how organizational change affects you. Are you open to change? Resistant to it?

In what ways does change affect how you perform your job? Does it affect your job

performance?

3) Describe the personality traits of your team. Are many people similar in personality or

different?

4) Do individual personality traits change the way you respond to organizational change?

Explain how the behavior of others during these times may affect your response.

5) Describe how you respond to nonverbal cues given by management and colleagues. Does

their nonverbal communication alter your perception of organizational change?

6) The acceptance of organizational change can be dependent upon the flow down of

information from leadership. Do you feel that leadership has successfully relayed

information during times of change? If not, has that affected your individual response?

QUESTIONS FOR MANAGERS:

1) In what ways has your organization undergone change? Have you noticed change more

frequently in one area than others?

2) How do you guide your employees through times of change? Do you have particular

processes or procedures that aid or guide you?

3) Explain the personality traits of your team. The differences and similarities and how they

may promote or inhibit change.

4) Do you feel that flow down of information is successful in guiding employees through

change positively? Is there a need to change the way information is presented?

5) Do you, as a manager, feel that nonverbal cues contribute to employees’ views of

organizational change? How important are nonverbal cues on the reception of



6) Describe your managerial style, specifically in regards to organizational change. If style

is different during these times, explain why you choose to manage this way.

7) Explain how you manage varying personality types. Do you rely on verbal or nonverbal

communication as indicators of unique personal identifiers?


B. Consent Form

Nonverbal Communication and Organizational Change Consent Form

You are being asked to take part in a research study about the effects of nonverbal

communication on organizational change. Please read this form carefully and ask any questions

prior to agreeing to take part in the study.

What the Study is About: The purpose of the study is to understand the effects of

organizational change on individual identity and how nonverbal communication cues may affect

the way an individual reacts to changes.

Your Role in the Study: If you agree to be a part of the study, you will take part in an interview.

The interview will consist of a handful of questions focused on your individual feelings about

organizational change and your work team’s thoughts on organizational change, as well as the

nonverbal cues of others and their effect on your individual thinking. The interview will last

about 30 minutes and, with your permission, will be recorded.

Risks & Benefits: I do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study other than those

encountered in day-to-day life.

There are no benefits to you. This study is for academic purposes only and the researcher hopes

to reach a better understanding of nonverbal communication in the workplace.

Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept private. In any public report of this study

there will be no information that will make it possible to identify you. Only the research will

have access to the interview records. If the interview is tap recorded the tape will be destroyed

after it is transcribed.

Taking Part in the Study: This study is completely voluntary. You may skip any questions that

you do not want to answer. If you choose to take part you may withdraw at any time.

Questions: The interview will be conducted by Kaleen Becker as part of her thesis project for

Gonzaga University. Please direct any questions to her at any time.

You will be given a copy of this form for your records.

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information and received answers to any

questions I have. I agree to take part in this study.

Your Signature ____________________________________

Date _______________________________

Your Name (Print) ___________________________________________


In addition to agreeing to participate, I agree to have the interview recorded.

Your Signature _____________________________________

Date ______________________________

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent ______________________________

Date_______________________________

Documents

COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL …web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/Becker_gonzaga_0736M...COORDINATED MEANING OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN THE CONTEXT ... Under the Supervision