High-Quality Work Relationships & Employee Vitality:

Does Thinking About Relationships Make a Difference?

Meghana A. Rao, MA, MOD Meghana.Rao@cgu.eduJuly 3rd, 2014

Work Relationships

Relationships in the organizational context

• Customer relationships (Kahn, 1998)

• Leader-member exchange relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)

• Relationship networks (Moch, 1980)

Co-worker Relationships

Hostile, toxic relationships

Workplace Bullying, Incivility, Social

Undermining, Ostracism, Workplace Mistreatment

Positive, energizing relationships

High-Quality Connections & Relationships, Relational Coordination, Synergy

High-quality connections

High-quality connections (Dutton, 2003)

• Short-term positive dyadic interactions

• Dynamic, generative, life-giving “connective tissue” between individuals

• High-quality connections - flexible, strong and resilient; in low-quality connections - more brittle with every interaction

• Unit of analysis is brief encounters and “micro-bits” of interactions

Components of High Quality Connections

Structural Capacities

• Emotion carrying capacity

• Tensility of the connection

• Openness-based connectivity

Emotional Experiences

• Positive regard

• Mutuality

• Vitality

High Quality Relationships

• Psychological Safety (Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009)

• Learning (Brueller & Carmeli, 2011)

• Innovation & Creativity (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009)

• Thriving (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009)

• Vitality and Performance (Carmeli, 2009)

Socio-Cognitive Process: Relational Cognition

• The cognitive attention focused on the relationship and the interactions between partners (Martin, 1991)

• Cognitive attention affects interpersonal judgments (Blanchard-Fields & Cooper, 2004)

• Cognitive appraisal of events rather than the events themselves shape and impact emotions (Siemer, Mauss, & Gross, 2007)

Study

Research question: Exploring the role of relational cognition in high-quality relationships and its impact on vitality

Hypothesis: Relational cognition would moderate the links between

a) emotion-carrying capacity b) tensility c) opennness based connectivity d) positive regard e) mutuality

and Vitality (Dependent Variable)

Method

• Web-based online survey conducted in the U.S.

• Sample: n=401; Female = 49%; Caucasian American = 81%

• Respondents had to meet the following criteria to participate:

• Should have been employed at the current organization for at least 6 months

• Should work for 35 or more hours per week

• Have face-to-face interaction with at least 3 co-workers regularly

• Should be working in an office that has 5 or more employees

• Measures –

• High-Quality Relationships scale (HQR; Carmeli, 2009)

• Relationship Thinking scale (Cate, Koval, Lloyd & Wilson, 1995) adapted for the organizational context

Correlations Table

Positive Affect

Questioning Network Thinking

Emotion Carrying

Tensility Openness Connectivity

Positive Regard

Mutuality Vitality

Positive Affect 1 .132** .403** .489** .465** .042 .576** .571** .586**

Questioning .132** 1 .383** -.154** -.093 .005 -.215** -.206** -.075

Network Thinking .403** .383** 1 .224** .208** .035 .236** .151** .323**

Emotion Carrying Capacity

.489** -.154** .224** 1 .522** .050 .639** .659** .601**

Tensility .465** -.093 .208** .522** 1 .095 .577** .608** .484**

Openness-based Connectivity

.042 .005 .035 .050 .095 1 .057 .072 .102*

Positive Regard .576** -.215** .236** .639** .577** .057 1 .810** .738**

Mutuality .571** -.206** .151** .659** .608** .072 .810** 1 .718**

Vitality .586** -.075 .323** .601** .484** .102* .738** .718** 1

Results

Correlations - MALESPositive Affect

Questioning Network Thinking

Emotion Carrying

Tensility Openness based

Connectivity

Positive Regard

Mutuality Vitality

Positive Affect 1 .140* .392** .543** .388** -.006 .560** .559** .585**

Questioning .140* 1 .435** .007 -.090 .019 -.118 -.125 .035

Network Thinking

.392** .435** 1 .239** .140* .050 .228** .134 .299**

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations - FEMALES

Positive Affect

Questioning Network Thinking

Emotion Carrying

Tensility Openness based

Connectivity

Positive Regard

Mutuality Vitality

Positive Affect 1 .114 .407** .440** .518** .079 .586** .580** .582**

Questioning .114 1 .310** -.307** -.119 -.012 -.315** -.284** -.193**

Network Thinking

.407** .310** 1 .203** .250** .017 .236** .163* .327**

Regression Model with Positive Affect, Co-worker and Network thinking

Note: Unstandardized parameter estimates. N = 401. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Network

Thoughts

Vitality

a3=.226** b3=.378***

c = .872***

Questioning

Thoughts

Positive

Affect

Thoughts

a1= .324*** b1= 1.265***

b2= .048ns a2= -.106ns

c1’= .673*** c2’= .89*** c3’= .83*** Positive

Regard

Regression Model with Positive Regard and Relationship Thoughts for Males

Regression Model with Positive Affect, Co-worker and Network thinking For Females

Note: Unstandardized parameter estimates. N = 401. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Network

Thoughts

Vitality

a3=.202** b3=.534***

c = 1.076***

Questioning

Thoughts

Positive

Affect

Thoughts

a1= .337*** b1= 1.413***

b2= -.322** a2= -.263***

c1’= .913*** c2’= 1.100*** c3’= 1.025*** Positive

Regard

Regression Model with Positive Regard and Relationship Thoughts for Females

Regression Model with Mutuality and Relationship Thoughts for Males

d Relationship Thoughts For Males

Note: Unstandardized parameter estimates. N = 401. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Network

Thoughts

Vitality

a3=.18ns b3=.378***

c = 1.116***

Questioning

Thoughts

Positive

Affect

Thoughts

a1= .439*** b1= 1.265***

b2= .048ns a2= -.152ns

c1’= .816*** c2’= 1.141*** c3’= 1.068*** Mutuality

Regression Model with Mutuality and Relationship Thoughts for Females

hts For Females

Note: Unstandardized parameter estimates. N = 401. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Network

Thoughts

Vitality

a3=.179* b3=.534***

c = 1.375***

Questioning

Thoughts

Positive

Affect

Thoughts

a1= .428*** b1= 1.413***

b2= -.322** a2= -.304***

c1’= 1.162*** c2’= 1.389*** c3’= 1.315*** Mutuality

Discussion & Conclusion

• Emotional experiences are strongly related to vitality

• Women are more likely than men to have fewer ruminative/questioning thoughts if their work relationships are characterized by positive emotional experiences

• Women are more likely than men to experience a decrease in vitality if they have ruminative/questioning thoughts about their work relationships

• Limitations –

• Mono-method bias

• May vary across cultural contexts

Implications & Future Directions

• Impact of relationship-enhancing thoughts

• Exploration of relationship thoughts in different relationships, e.g. mentoring, supervisory, etc.

• Impact of interdependency, closeness, amount of interaction

References

Blanchard-Fields, F., & Cooper, C. (2004). Social cognition and social relationships. In F. R. Lang, K. L. Fingerman, F. R. Lang, K. L. Fingerman (Eds.) , Growing together: Personal relationships across the lifespan (pp. 268-289). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press.

Carmeli, A. (2009) Positive work relationships, vitality, and job performance. In C.E.J. Hartel, N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe (Eds.) , Research on emotions Volume 5: Emotions in groups, organizations and cultures (pp. 45-71). Bingley, WA UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Cate, R. M., Koval, J., Lloyd, S. A., & Wilson, G. (1995). Assessment of relationship thinking in dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 2(2), 77-95

Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to build and sustain high-quality connections at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Kahn, B. E. (1998). Dynamic relationships with customers: High-variety strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 45-53. doi:10.1177/0092070398261005

Martin, R. W. (1991). Examining personal relationship thinking: The Relational Cognition Complexity Instrument. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(4), 467-480.

Moch, M. K. (1980). Job involvement, internal motivation, and employees' integration into networks of work relationships. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 25(1), 15-31. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(80)90023-9

Siemer, M., Mauss, I., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Same situation--different emotions: How appraisals shape our emotions. Emotion, 7(3), 592-600. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.592