Identify and describe two possible reasons for individuals’ becoming ‘nontouchers’ in our society. Explain marasmus? and what it says about the impo

Nonverbal Communication

Chapter 8

The Effects of Touch on Human Communication

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES

Vol. XXIX Number 4 Winter 2017

A Gendered Emotional Display Perspective on

Workplace Touch and Perceived Supervisor Support

J. Bryan Fuller Humana Foundation/McCallister Endowed Professor of Management

Louisiana Tech University

[email protected]

Laura E. Marler Associate Professor of Management

Mississippi State University

[email protected]

Susie S. Cox Professor of Management

University of Arkansas Little Rock

[email protected]

Marcia J. Simmering Francis R. Mangham Endowed Professor of Management

Louisiana Tech University [email protected]

Rebecca J. Bennett Professor of Management

University of Central Florida [email protected]

Jenny L Curry Human Resources Representative

Vantage Health Plan Inc./Affinity Health Group, L.L.C. [email protected]

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017

(395)

396 Workplace Touch and Support

Physically touching another individual is considered to be a particularly effective way of communicating various feelings and emotions (Hertenstein et al., 2006; Richmond and McCroskey, 2004). Humans use touch throughout their lives to convey what words may not be fully capable of expressing, and touch can also be used to intensify the meaning of emotional displays” (Hertenstein et al, 2006: 70; Knapp and

Hall, 2002). A warm hug from a dear friend in the office, a firm handshake after the deal is done, and a pat on the back from the supervisor are all examples of effective uses of positive touch that may occur in the workplace. Indeed, authors of various popular press books have suggested that managers may build better relationships with subordinates by using touch to communicate that they care and support the subordinate (e.g., The One Minute Manager, Blanchard and Johnson, 2003; Managing to Have Fun, Weinstein, 1996). However, taking an evidence-based management perspective (Rousseau, 2006; Rousseau and McCarthy, 2007), it may or may not be advisable for managers to attempt to use touch to enhance their interpersonal relationships with subordinates given the disconnect between these blanket statements and the lack of empirical research supporting this suggestion. Until there is a better understanding of the complexities of the use of touch in the workplace, managers who utilize touch as a way to express positive emotions may be putting themselves and their organizations at risk.

In general, very little is known about the potential for touch to build positive workplace relationships or how employees respond to tactile expressions of emotion by their supervisors. Certainly, there are reasons that research on interpersonal touch in the workplace is scant. First, researchers note the topic of touch is inherently difficult to study (Hall and Veccia, 1990). Much of the extant literature is observational in nature lending little insight into the meaning of touch (Hall and Veccia, 1990). The number of observational studies is not surprising, as studying naturally occurring touch presents researchers with challenges. In particular, workplace touch is difficult to study because non intimate parties are less inclined to engage in touching behavior (Major, 1981). Further, studying touch in a laboratory or experimental setting is problematic because it is likely to introduce methodological problems (Major, 1981). Second, the gendered nature of touch presents researchers with challenges, especially when it comes to touch in the workplace. There remains a fear of using touch in the workplace such that research examining the potential for using touch in a positive way at work is often considered to be taboo even among social psychologists and organizational behavior scholars (Major, 1981). The lack of attention to the topic is understandable considering that inappropriate touch in the workplace is fraught with potential negative outcomes (e.g., miscommunication, reduced relationship quality, sexual and other harassment charges).

While research on how men and women use touch in the workplace is scarce, a great deal of research has highlighted the gendered nature of touch. Despite debate about the asymmetry in the use of touch by men and women (Hall andVeccia, 1990; Henley, 1973; Major, 1981; Stier and Hall, 1984), research consistently reveals that men and women often use touch and interpret touch differently (Fuller etal., 2011; Hall andVeccia, 1990; Henley, 1973, 1977; Hertenstein and Keltner, 2011; Martin and Anderson, 1993; Stier and Hall, 1984). For example, male/female dyads in Hall and Veccia s (1990) study demonstrated more arm around touch, while females tended to prefer arms linked. Research on nonreciprocal touch also demonstrates that the initiator and recipient of touch may attach different meaning (Major and Heslin, 1982). Therefore, prior research

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017

“

–

–

–

’ “ ” “ ”

F u ller, Marler, Cox, Sim m ering, Ben n ett, and Curry 397

indicates that gender is an important consideration when seeking a greater understanding of how managers might use touch effectively.

With such scant research on the topic, one important question is whether or not subordinates interpret touch from a male supervisor differently than from a female supervisor. The current paper seeks to begin to answer this question and develop a greater general understanding of the dynamics of interpersonal touch in the workplace by taking into account its gendered nature. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the relationship between supervisor use of touch to convey positive affect (i.e., support) and subordinate perceptions of supervisor support is dependent upon the gender of the supervisor. In other words, are male supervisors and female supervisors equally adept at using touch to foster subordinate feelings of supervisor support? Perceptions of supervisor support has proven to be an important construct studied by organizational behaviorists as it has been linked to perceived organizational outcomes in numerous studies (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), as well as key employee outcomes including role clarity (Babin and Boles, 1996), job satisfaction (Li et al., 2015), life satisfaction (Li et al., 2015), and workplace outcomes such as job performance, turnover intentions, and turnover (Maertz et al., 2007; Shanock and Eisenberger, 2006). Interestingly, one previous study reveals that supervisor touch can influence perceptions of perceived supervisor support (e.g., Marler et al., 2011). However, the study was experimental in nature and only captured participant observer s reactions to a video of a manager touching a subordinate. Further, the study only considered a male supervisor-subordinate dyad. As such, additional field studies considering both same gender and cross-gender dyads are needed to provide information about the extent to which supervisor touch can be used to foster feelings of supervisor support.

By taking a gendered emotional display perspective of touch in the workplace, this study is able to make several contributions to the extant literature. First, few studies have examined touch as a positive workplace behavior (Fuller et al., 2011; Kraus et al., 2010). In part, due to the taboo of touch and concerns regarding sexual harassment, research has for the most part neglected the role of positive touch in workplace interactions. By examining gender effects, the current study contributes to the emerging literature examining workplace touch by providing new insight into the role supervisor gender plays in the subordinate reactions to supervisor touch. That is, the notion that touch is a way in which supervisors are able to (and should or should not) positively influence their subordinates is examined here. Another meaningful contribution is that, unlike previous research (i.e., Fuller et al., 2011), the current study assesses supervisor touch as reported by supervisors rather than subordinate reports. That is, this study examines the extent to which supervisors touch intended to convey support is positively related to subordinate perceptions of supervisor support. In short, does the use of supportive touch by supervisors accomplish what they intend it to accomplish (i.e., make the subordinate feel supported) or does it result in unanticipated outcomes? This is critical to developing insight into any goal-directed behavior (Griffin and Lopez, 2005; Merton, 1936). Further, this type of information contributes to an understanding of when and if managers can discern when it is acceptable and appropriate to use touch in the workplace (i.e., workplace tactile intelligence; Simmering et al., 2013). Thus, these findings inform the literature on touch in the workplace, the human resource literature, and the greater field of positive organizational psychology. Finally, in addition to answering calls for future research on workplace touch (Fuller et al., 2011; Heaphy,

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 4 WINTER 2017

’

’

398 Workplace Touch and Support

2007), the current research works to bridge the gap between research and practice (Rynes et al., 2007).

In the present study, the emotions as social information theory (EASI) is drawn upon to develop a foundation for better understanding the interpersonal consequences of supervisor touch in the workplace. Unlike attribution theory (e.g., Martinko et al., 2006) or appraisal theory (e.g., Scherer et al., 2001) which focus upon the antecedents of emotional expressions, EASI focuses upon the outcomes of emotional expressions (Van Kleef, 2014: 4). Based upon EASI theory, this study proposes that through social relational factors and information processing, subordinates interpret touch as an emotional affirmation of their supervisor’s support. The following sections review relevant literature on touch in the workplace, EASI, and gender differences. Following the literature review, hypotheses related to a gendered emotional display perspective regarding supervisor touch in the workplace are presented. A discussion of the analyses and results provides a summary of the significance of these findings and potential limitations accompanying this type of study design. Finally, the paper is concluded with thoughts regarding human resource policy related to touch in the workplace as well as thoughts for future research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Touch within the Workplace Context

Touch, one of the five senses, is a fundamental part of the human experience (Knapp, 1980) and can convey a variety of both positive and negative emotions (Richmond and McCroskey, 2004). Even the mention of using touch in the workplace evokes emotion. In fact, neuroscientists have noted that even friendly touch is responsible for the secretion of oxytocin, which activates parts of the brain that fosters productivity among teams (Kraus et al., 2010). Indeed, not only can people communicate numerous distinct emotions with touch, but they are also able to accurately identify these different emotions when being touched (Hertenstein et al., 2006). For example, adults have the ability to distinguish between friendly and sexually interested behavior (Shotland and Craig, 1988). Accordingly, handshakes, pats on the back, and other common workplace touch (e.g., high fives) can generally be used legally and appropriately in the workplace (Fuller et al., 2011). Therefore, research suggests that tactile interaction when appropriately used among employees can be a means of enhancing interpersonal communication and influence, resulting in more positive relationships at work (Heaphy, 2007).