listening as key management skill – an empirical analysis

�

�

Listening as key management skill –

An empirical analysis of psychological drivers

and organizational outcomes

by

Karina Jade Lloyd

a Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in Business Administration �

�

�

Approved Thesis Committee

Prof. Dr. Sven C. Voelpel (chair)

Prof. Dr. Avraham N. Kluger

Prof. Dr. Adalbert F. X. Wilhelm

Prof. Dr. Ronaldo Parente

Date of Defense: December 13, 2013

School of Humanities and Social Sciences �

� �

TABLE OF CONTENTS � � �

�

�

�

TABLE OF CONTENTS

�

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. 1

SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 5

GOAL OF THE THESIS ........................................................................................... 10

THESIS OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 11

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 14

CHAPTER 2

BUILDING TRUST AND FEELING WELL – EXAMINING INTER-INDIVIDUAL AND

INTERPERSONAL OUTCOMES AND UNDERLYING MECHANISMS OF LISTENING ... 23

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... 24

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 25

METHOD .............................................................................................................. 33

RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 38

DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 41

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 48

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................ 59


�

�

�

CHAPTER 3

FROM LISTENING TO LEADING: TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUPERVISOR

LISTENING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE

THEORY................................................................................................................... 61

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... 62

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 63

METHODS ............................................................................................................ 70

RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 76

DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 82

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 89

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................... 101

CHAPTER 4

IS MY BOSS REALLY LISTENING TO ME? THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED

SUPERVISOR LISTENING ON EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION, TURNOVER INTENTION,

AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ................................................ 103

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... 105

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 105

STUDY 1 ............................................................................................................ 107

METHOD ............................................................................................................ 109

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 110

STUDY 2 ............................................................................................................ 111

METHOD ............................................................................................................ 112

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 113

GENERAL DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 114

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................... 116

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 117


�

�

�

CHAPTER 5

GENERAL DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 121

SUMMARY OF THE MAIN FINDINGS ..................................................................... 122

INTEGRATION OF RESULTS AND THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION ......................... 124

MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTION ........................................................................... 127

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................................. 128

CONCLUDING REMARKS .................................................................................... 131

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... ��

�

�

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS � � �

�

�

�

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I was most fortunate to have many sources of encouragement and support along this

creative journey and I am deeply grateful to all of them.

First, I would like to thank Prof. Sven Voelpel without whom this thesis would not

have been possible. Sven, you introduced me to many companies and enabled fruitful

insights into management practice. Foremost, you gave me the autonomy to develop

and pursue my own ideas, and always encouraged me to aim high. I am highly

thankful for your encouragement and all the opportunities you provided for learning

and growing.

I especially express my appreciation to Prof. Avraham Kluger. Avi, you invited me to

the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and introduced me to listening research, and

guided me in finding my “niche” in management research. Together we developed my

first study and you accompanied me ever since. It was a pleasure working you and I

am grateful for your invaluable contribution to this thesis.

I also thank Prof. Adalbert Wilhelm who so readily became a member of my PhD

committee. Thank you for your scientific curiosity and openness to my research, and

our valuable discussions on the development of my work.

My thanks are also due to Prof. Ronaldo Parente from Florida International University

for being on my PhD committee. Ron, your expertise in business research and

consulting benefited my thesis a lot and I would like to thank you for your

contribution.

I express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Diana Boer, my mentor, co-author, and friend.

Diana, you were my role model and made me the researcher I am today. Your positive

energy and amazing methodological knowledge inspired me. You were always

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT � � �

�

�

available for guidance, no matter what time zones lay between us, and accompanied

and motivated me through all my ups and downs. Thank you for your dedication.

Your contribution is priceless.

My gratitude is owed to Prof. Joshua W. Keller, whom I was able to work with at

Nanyang Business School in Singapore. Josh, our heated discussions on definitions

and core research constructs were not only intellectually stimulating and fun, but

significantly contributed to the development of our paper and the whole thesis. Thank

you for devoting so much of your time and ideas to our project. I am also grateful to

the SHSS for supporting this thesis financially with a scholarship and a part-time

position at the Career Services Center (CSC). It was a great experience working at the

CSC – officially awarded “The Department with the Best Mood” in 2012 – and

fruitfully completed the theoretical part of this thesis with practical insights of

employee management and organizational practice. Predrag, Petra, and Ines, it was a

pleasure working with you and I am grateful for all I was able to learn about training,

coaching, and career development.

I also thank my colleagues and friends of the WISE research group for all their

constructive discussions, invaluable thoughts, and creative input to my research. I am

particularly thankful to my PhD companions Katharina and Anika for supporting my

data collection but foremost for sharing the grad school experience with me and

making this time so enjoyable.

Special thanks go to all my friends of the Jacobs community, in Bremen, and around

the world who accompanied me on this journey and made it all the way worthwhile.

Finally, I am deeply grateful to my parents, Pat and Peter, for their never-ending,

unconditional support. You are true listeners!

Karina J. Lloyd� �

2

SUMMARY � � �

�

�

SUMMARY

Management literature over the past 60 years has highlighted the importance of

effective listening in the workplace and suggested it to be a key management skill of

successful leaders. Yet, most of this work has been intuitive, descriptive, and

prescriptive and has received little scientific attention. Despite its popularity in the

managerial literature and in executive education, little is known empirically about

how effective listening affects interpersonal relationships, leader-follower

interactions, and more distal work outcomes such as job satisfaction or voluntary

turnover. The goal of this dissertation is to open this black box and shed light onto

fundamental aspects of listening. Specifically, this research addresses the questions of

how important listening is within interpersonal relationships, what kind of distal and

proximal outcomes it affects, and through which underlying mechanisms it may

operate.

To this end, this thesis employs a multi-method approach in four empirical

studies, including a zero-acquaintance paradigm, two cross-sectional questionnaire

studies, and a multi-rater organizational survey study. First, the findings from a

controlled setting with a student sample indicated the importance of feeling listened to

for individual well-being and building positive relationships with others. Perceived

listening quality was associated with trust in the unacquainted partner and enhanced

situational well-being. The results also indicated that these two listening effects are

driven by distinct cognitive and socio-emotive mechanisms – clarity and social

attraction. Transferring these findings to the workplace, the organizational data

suggested that effective listening is similarly beneficial in the dyadic leader-follower

interaction in which perceived supervisor listening was positively associated with

3

SUMMARY � � �

�

�

employee attitudes towards their leader, the leader-follower interaction, and the job

(i.e., satisfaction with the leader, interactional justice, and job satisfaction). Most

important, this study empirically examines the validity of the listening construct for

organizational research, and integrates the concept of supervisor listening into the

framework of leader-member exchange theory. Finally, two organizational studies

address effective listening as a management skill. The results demonstrated that

employee perception of supervisor listening is important for three different

organizational outcomes: one proximal (emotional exhaustion) and two more distal

(organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions). Furthermore, these

organizational studies address the questions of why listening is important and how it

affects these work outcomes, and put forward evidence that suggested positive and

negative affect as two distinct mediating mechanisms.

In conclusion, this thesis deepens our theoretical and practical understanding of

listening effects in dyadic (leader-follower) interactions and their underlying

mechanisms. It revealed that employees’ perceptions that the supervisor is listening

can have major consequences for employee well-being and the organization as a

whole. The findings have important managerial implications for successful employee

management and overall organizational functioning as well as significant implications

for future research on listening and its integration into organizational theory.

�

4

�

CHAPTER 1 � � �

�

�

�

�

�

�

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

5


�

�

Since the Harvard Business Review (HBR) published Rogers and

Roethlisberger’s (1952) article Barriers and Gateways to Communication,

practitioner handbooks on effective listening as a desirable workplace skill have been

prolific (e.g., Cooper, 1997; Nichols & Stevens, 1957). Until 2013, the HBR has

published 120 articles with the keyword ‘listen’ in the abstract, emphasizing the

importance of listening as a key management skill (e.g., Drucker, 2004; Frey, 1993)

and important leadership behavior (Reave, 2005). Yet, these broad assertions have

received little attention in the academic business environment and empirical research

in peer-reviewed business journals remains scarce (Brownell, 1994). Scholarly data

on listening has been largely descriptive, prescriptive, and anecdotal and seldom goes

beyond intuitive textbook descriptions. Hence, although highly recommended for

successful workforce management (Bechler & Weaver, 1994; Steil & Bommelje,

2004) and implicitly included in descriptions of effective leadership behavior (Bass &

Riggio, 2006), our scientific understanding of the nature of listening in the

organizational setting is far from complete. This appears even more surprising since

managers claim to spend the majority of their time communicating (Axley, 1996),

45% of that time listening (Abrams & Hibbison, 1986), and rate listening as the most

important aspect of their communication (Goby & Lewis, 2000) and of successful

employee management (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). Therefore, the scarce

theoretical and empirical consolidation of the listening concept is astounding and calls

for empirical elucidation.

In a variety of business fields, including practitioner and academic accounts,

listening has been discussed as a vital interpersonal skill for success concerning

customer retention (De Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000), customer interactions (Bonoma,

1982; Schaeffer, 2002), sales performance (Castleberry & Shepherd, 1993; Ramsey &

6


�

�

Sohi, 1997), change management (Heifetz & Linskey, 2002), executive coaching

(Good, 1993), as well as employee satisfaction (Brownell, 1990; Ellinger, Ellinger, &

Keller, 2003), commitment (Lobdell, Sonoda, & Arnold, 1993), and performance

(Stine, Thompson, & Cusella, 1995). Business scholars have lamented the current

state of listening as a sheer paradox: despite its acknowledged value as a vital

management skill, the empirical investigation of the nature, mechanisms, and

outcomes of listening has received little attention (Brownell, 1994; Flynn, Valikoski,

& Grau, 2008). Without a sound basis, however, listening as an organizational

variable will continue to lack the necessary credibility and legitimacy in business

science. This necessitates rigorous research on listening in the workplace.

Scientific research from a variety of academic disciplines – including

cognitive, clinical, developmental, and lifespan psychology – have suggested diverse

positive effects of listening such as, for instance, the development and social

construction of people’s narrative identity (Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2000) and

autobiographical memory (Pasupathi, 2001; Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2009), client progress

in psychotherapy (Aspy, 1972; Rogers, Gendlin, Kiesler, & Truax, 1967) and trauma

treatment (Shay, 1994), strong interpersonal relationships (Davis & Oathout, 1987;

Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006), as well as increased well-being

and life satisfaction (Lun, Kesebir, & Oishi, 2009; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, &

Ryan, 2000). Experimental manipulations of listening have revealed that listeners can

influence speakers’ effective encoding of information, choice of language,

conciseness and quality of reproduced information, facial expression, as well as

speakers’ affective reactions and attitudes towards the listener (Bavelas et al., 2000;

Beukeboom, 2009; Krauss, Garlock, Bricker, & McMahon, 1977; Krauss &

Weinheimer, 1966; Kraut, Lewis, & Swezey, 1982). Hence, listening is not only

7


�

�

important in management literature but is also an important psychological construct.

This thesis will examine listening as a management skill – that is, as a psychological

phenomenon in the organizational context.

While business scholars and organizational research mainly tend to focus on

managers’ effective expression and assertive communication (e.g., Anderson, Spataro,

& Flynn, 2008; Billing & Alveson, 2000), there are reasons why receptive behavior –

that is, listening – may be as important as a workplace skill, particularly for

supervisors. Effective listening, defined as listening with empathy, positive regard,

and nonjudgmental attitude – “listening with understanding” (Rogers et al.,

1952/1991), “empathic listening” (Rogers, 1951), or “facilitative listening” (Kluger,

2011) – has been claimed the gateway to communication (Rogers et al., 1952/1991).

Listening is an important behavior that signals managerial openness (Ashford,

Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998) and motivates employees to speak up (Milliken,

Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003). Effective listeners encourage productive two-way

communication (Bass et al., 2006) in that they elicit speaker self-disclosure of job-

related and personal information (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983). Hence, effective

listeners may encourage employees to open up and reveal critical information more

readily and effectively (Miller et al., 1983; Milliken et al., 2003). All too often,

employees refrain from disclosing information in fear of negative consequences

(Morrison & Milliken, 2000) or in anticipation of not being heard (Detert & Burris,

2007; Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003; Milliken et al., 2003). In many cases, this

information can be decisive for the success or failure of projects. Hence, supervisors

who listen well may get the crucial information about what is going on in the team,

the job, and in the company. Similarly, effective listening also provides insights into

others’ more personal motives and attitudes, which may allow for a more precise

8


�

�

assessment and understanding of the individual and his or her behavior and

motivation.

In addition to this informational account, listening has important implications

for relationships. John J. Gabarro (1991), professor of human resource management at

Harvard Business School, called it “the grey flannel ethic”: the idea that people’s

feelings matter and that, with one key management skill, a leader is able to understand

both thoughts and feelings of others, through active listening. Effective listeners foster

an atmosphere of safety to speak openly, create intimacy and positive interpersonal

interactions (Beukeboom, 2009; Edmondson & Moingeon, 1999). Listening affects

perceptions of consideration, respect (Bass et al., 2006), and justice (Blader & Tyler,

2003), as well as trust in and liking of the listener (Collins & Miller, 1994). A

relationship paved with trust and respect lays the foundation for successful working

relationships, commitment, and open communication (Detert et al., 2007; Dirks &

Ferrin, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997). This thesis will examine how these

psychological aspects of listening affect diverse components of perceived leader

behavior, the leader-follower interaction, and important organizational outcomes.�

Considering employee perspectives o� what is important to them in a leader,

further highlights the importance of listening as a management skill. For instance,

investigating employee interests, the Walker Information survey (Walker Information,

Inc., 2001) revealed fairness and “care and concern for employees” as priorities for

employees. Similarly, in a national survey by Personnel Decisions International (PDI,

1999) employees rated communication and interpersonal relationship skills as most

important qualities of good supervisors. Complementary to these employee ratings of

what is important in a leader, research found expressing empathy towards employees

to be a key variable of perceived management effectiveness (Kellett, Humphrey, &

9


�

�

Sleeth, 2002) and performance (Bass & Avolio, 1989; Collins, 2001, Goleman, 1998;

Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and to positively correlate to job

satisfaction, low voluntary turnover, group cohesion, group performance, and group

efficiency (Bass, 1990; Champoux, 2000; Keller, 1992). In sum, various research

disciplines indicate that listening to employees may well be an important component

of perceived leader behavior, the leader-follower interaction, and – since it has

important effects on work outcomes – also overall organizational functioning.

GOAL OF THE THESIS

This thesis primarily seeks to achieve a broader scientific understanding of the

nature of listening in the workplace. Specifically, it aims at examining listening as a

vital management skill by illuminating the main questions of what kind of effects

listening has on individuals, employees, and work outcomes, and why – that is,

through which underlying mechanisms does listening operate. To this end, this thesis

empirically investigates diverse (proximal and distal) outcomes of listening and their

distinct underlying psychological mechanisms. Four systematic studies will include a

zero-acquaintance paradigm within a student sample, two employee survey studies,

and an organizational multi-rater study. With these four studies, the thesis aims to

contribute towards a more precise and comprehensive understanding of listening as a

management skill and as a credible and valid construct in organizational research.

Particularly, this thesis contributes to generating new theory concerning the

psychological drivers of listening and advances current academic knowledge of the

effects of perceived supervisor listening on employees and work outcomes. It also

contributes to academic knowledge on the listening phenomenon in more general, and

fosters its integration into organizational research disciplines.

10


�

�

THESIS OVERVIEW

This dissertation contains three empirical chapters (Chapters 2-4) followed by

a general discussion. The chapters all have a common thread, consecutively

contributing to the dissertation’s overarching goal: the theoretical and practical

understanding of managerial listening in the workplace. The empirical chapters are

written as individual scientific articles to be published in peer-reviewed journals and

follow the same structure – theoretical background, methods, results, and discussion.

In acknowledgement of the other collaborating parties who contributed to this

research, the term ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ is used throughout the thesis.

Together, the three empirical chapters provide a series of four studies that all have

in common that they examine a) different individual, interpersonal, and organizational

outcomes of listening, and b) the distinct psychological mechanisms that drive these

listening effects.

We start in Chapter 2 – Building Trust and Feeling Well – Examining

Intraindividual and Interpersonal Outcomes and Underlying Mechanisms of Listening

– by examining listening effects in a controlled setting of student dyads. Before

investigating listening in the broader context of leadership behavior and workforce

management, it is essential to investigate if and to what extent listening is actually

important. To capture mere listening effects, we employ a zero-acquaintance

paradigm to analyze dyadic interactions in which one participant tells a personal story

while the partner listens silently. Based on early theories and current research, we

examine two outcomes of listening quality – one for the individual (emotional well-

being) and one for the interpersonal relationship (trust) – as well as two distinct

underlying psychological mechanisms (situational clarity and social attraction).

11


�

�

We continue in Chapter 3 – From Listening to Leading: Towards an

Understanding of Supervisor Listening within the Framework of Leader-Member

Exchange Theory – by transferring the results into the hierarchical leader-follower

relationship. We examine the validity of the listening construct within the framework

of leader-member exchange theory and test its usability to measure perceived

supervisor listening. Using survey data of employees from various professional

backgrounds, we assess the convergent, divergent, and predictive validity of

perceived supervisor listening, while integrating supervisor listening and leader-

member exchange. In sum, this study provides a sound basis for the next studies,

which examine perceived supervisor listening and its mechanisms and organizational

outcomes more closely.

While the first paper examines if listening affects strong dyadic interactions,

and the second paper creates the basis for examining leader listening in the

workplace, Chapter 4 – Is My Boss Really Listening to Me? The Impact of Perceived

Supervisor Listening on Emotional Exhaustion, Turnover Intention and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior – deals with the core questions of how

supervisor listening affects employees, why it matters for them, and what the

consequences are for the organization. Based on organizational data from two studies

– a two-level team study and a cross-sectional survey study – we address current

theoretical and empirical gaps in listening research by showing that perceived

supervisor listening is important for employees and affects three different work

outcomes: one proximal (emotional exhaustion) and two more distal (organizational

citizenship behavior and turnover intentions). We also address the question why

listening is important and how it affects these outcomes, and suggest positive and

negative affect as two distinct mediating mechanisms.

12


�

�

Chapter 5 concludes with an overall review of the thesis’ findings and

discussion of the theoretical and practical contributions in light of the overarching

goal. The chapter closes with a critical review and directions for future research.

�

�

13


�

�

REFERENCES

Abrams, K. S., & Hibbison, E. (1986). Communication at work: Listening, speaking,

writing, and reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Managers doing leadership: The extra-

ordinarization of the mundane. Human Relations, 56(12), 1435-1459.

Anderson, C., Spataro, S. E., & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality and organizational

culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 702-

710.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb:

The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.

Aspy, D. (1972). Toward a technology for humanizing education. Champaign,

Illinois: Research Press.

Axley, S. R. (1996). Communication at work: Management and the communication-

intensive organization. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to

share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How

prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of

transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 509-527.

14


�

�

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941-952.

Bechler, C., & Weaver, R. L. (1994). Listen to win: A manager's guide to effective

listening. New York: Master Media Publishing Company.

Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective expressions of

listeners change a speaker's language use. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 39(5), 747-756.

Billing, Y. D., & Alvesson, M. (2000). Questioning the notion of feminine leadership:

A critical perspective on the gender labelling of leadership. Gender, Work and

Organization, 7(3), 144-157.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice:

Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29(6), 747-758.

Bonoma, T. V. (1982). Major sales. Harvard Business Review, 60 (May-June), 111-

119.

Brownell, J. (1990). Perceptions of effective listeners: A management study. Journal

of Business Communication, 27(4), 401-415.

Brownell, J. (1994). Teaching listening: Some thoughts on behavioral approaches.

Business Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 19-24.

15


�

�

Castleberry, S. B., & Shepherd, C. D. (1993). Effective interpersonal listening and

personal selling. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13(1),

35-49.

Champoux, J. E. (2000). Organizational behavior: Essential tenets for a new

millennium. Cincinnati: Thomson South-Western.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others

don't. New York: HarperCollins.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic

review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475.

Cooper, L. O. (1997). Listening competency in the workplace: A model for training.


Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic

relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 53(2), 397-410.

De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. G. (2000). The impact of perceived listening behavior

in voice-to-voice service encounters. Journal of Service Research, 2(3), 276-284.

Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006).

On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in

close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 313-327.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the

door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.

16


�

�

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and

implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),

611-628.

Drucker, P. F. (2004). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review

(June), 58-63.

Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and

employee voice as multidimensional constructs*. Journal of Management

Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.

Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1999). Learning, trust and organizational change.

In M. Easterby-Smith, L. L. Araujo & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational

learning and the learning organization (pp. 157-175). London: Sage

Publications.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching

behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A

dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458.

Flynn, J., Valikoski, T., & Grau, J. (2008). Listening in the business context:

Reviewing the state of research. The International Journal of Listening, 22(2),

141-151.

Frey, R. (1993). Empowerment or else. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 80-95.

Gabarro, J. J. (1991). Retrospective commentary. Harvard Business Review, 69(6),

108-109.

17


�

�

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member

exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,

82(6), 827-843.

Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (2000). The key role of listening in business: A study of

the Singapore insurance industry. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 41-

51.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam

Books.

Good, D. J. (1993). Coaching practices in the business-to-business environment.

Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 8(2), 53-60.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). A survival guide for leaders. Harvard Business

Review, 80(6), 65-74.

Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and

development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489-501.

Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task

performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 523-

544.

Kluger, A. N. (2011, December). Facilitating Listening: A Quantitative Review, a

Qualitative Review, and a Theory. In Kluger, A. N. (Chair) Listening, A

symposium presented at the 1st Israel Organizational Behavior Conference. Tel

Aviv, Israel.

18


�

�

Krauss, R. M., Garlock, C. M., Bricker, P. D., & McMahon, L. E. (1977). The role of

audible and visible back-channel responses in interpersonal communication.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 523-529.

Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1966). Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the

encoding of referents in verbal communication. Journal of Personality and


Kraut, R. E., Lewis, S. H., & Swezey, L. W. (1982). Listener responsiveness and the

coordination of conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

43(4), 718-731.

Lobdell, C. L., Sonoda, K. T., & Arnold, W. E. (1993). The influence of perceived

supervisor listening behavior on employee commitment. Journal of the

International Listening Association, 7(1), 92-110.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates

of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the

MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Lun, J., Kesebir, S., & Oishi, S. (2008). On feeling understood and feeling well: The

role of interdependence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1623-1628.

Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit

intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6),

1234-1244.

19


�

�

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of

employee silence: Issues that employees Don’t communicate upward and why.

Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change

and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4),

706-725.

Nichols, R. G., & Stevens, L. A. (1957). Are you listening? Ney York: McGraw-Hill.

Pasupathi, M. (2001). The social construction of the personal past and its implications

for adult development. Psychological Bulletin, 127(5), 651-672.

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.

Personnel Decisions International. (1999, October 12). What makes a good boss?

Americans say it’s communication and interpersonal relationship skills. PR

Newswire.

Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customers: The impact of

perceived salesperson listening behavior on relationship outcomes. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 127-137.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655-687.

20


�

�

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily

well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419-435.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centred therapy: Its current practice, implications and

theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R., & Roethlisberger, F. J. (1991/1952). HBR Classic - Barriers and

gateways to communication (Reprinted from Harvard Business Review, July,

August, 1952). Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 105-111.

Rogers, C. R., Gendlin, E. T., Kiesler, D. J., & Truax, C. B. (Eds.). (1967). The

therapeutic relationship and its impact. A study of psychotherapy with

schizophrenics. Madison, Wisconsin University of Wisconsin Press.

Schaeffer, L. D. (2002). The leadership journey. Harvard Business Review, 80(10),

42-47.

Shay, J. (2010). Achilles in Vietnam: Combat trauma and the undoing of character.

New York: Atheneum.

Steil, L. K., & Bommelje, R. K. (2004). Listening leaders: The ten golden rules to

listen, lead & succeed. Edina, M.N.: Beaver's Pond Press.

Stine, M., Thompson, T., & Cusella, L. (1995). The impact of organizational structure

and supervisory listening indicators on subordinate support, trust, intrinsic

motivation, and performance. International Journal of Listening, 9(1), 84-105.

21


�

�

Walker Information, Inc. (2001). Loyalty in the workplace: 2001 national employee

benchmark study. Retrieved September 14, 2010, from:

http://www.hrnewcorp.com/articles/National_Employee_Study.pdf

22

CHAPTER 2

�

CHAPTER 2

BUILDING TRUST AND FEELING WELL –

EXAMINING INTRAINDIVIDUAL AND

INTERPERSONAL OUTCOMES AND UNDERLYING

MECHANISMS OF LISTENING12

1 I am particularly thankful to Diana Boer, Avraham N. Kluger, and Sven C. Voelpel for co-

authoring this manuscript. 2 Accepted for Publication: April 28, 201, International Journal of Listening. Reprinted by

permission of The International Listening Association

23

CHAPTER 2

ABSTRACT

We investigate perceived listening quality in relation to individual (self-clarity and

emotional well-being) and dyadic variables (social attraction and trust). Specifically,

we proposed that the link between perceived listening quality and emotional well-

being is mediated by self-clarity, and that the link between perceived listening and

trust is mediated by social attraction. We obtained data in a controlled setting from a

sample of 50 unacquainted student dyads, in which the narrator told a personal story

while the partner listened silently. The data showed a good fit to the model. Our work

expands the understanding of listening by illuminating the role of mediating processes

and by demonstrating correlates of perceived listening quality in the context of

unacquainted dyads.

KEYWORDS:

Perceived listening quality

Emotional well-being

Self-clarity

Social attraction

Trust

24

CHAPTER 2

INTRODUCTION

Listening is at the heart of every healthy relationship and an important factor

for individual well-being according to Rogers (1951). Although it is one key

component of communication, listening has received little empirical attention (Bodie,

Cyr, Pence, Rold, & Honeycutt, 2012; Janusik, 2010). The small body of empirical

research suggests that listening may have far-reaching implications for both

individual emotional well-being and interpersonal relationships. For instance,

effective listening has been linked to strong relationships in contexts such as romantic

couples (Davis & Oathout, 1987), therapist-patient (Rogers, Gendlin, Kiesler, &

Truax, 1967), salesperson-customer (Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006), and

leader-follower (Stine, Thompson, & Cusella, 1995). Furthermore, perceived

supervisor listening has been found to relate to employee health (Dolev & Kluger,

2011; Mineyama, Tsutsumi, Takao, Nishiuchi, & Kawakami, 2007). While these

examples suggest that listening may play an important role in social relationships and

for individual well-being, only few studies (e.g., Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson 2000;

Beukeboom, 2009) have attempted to isolate the specific influence of listening

perceptions.

Furthermore, while some evidence of listening benefits has been put forward,

the theoretical understanding of the underlying mechanisms is far from complete. To

better understand if and how listening perceptions translate into well-being and strong

relationships, the present study attempts to open this black box and considers the

psychological processes that may be facilitated by listening. The overarching purpose

of this study is to examine correlates of perceived listening quality concerning two

outcomes, one for the self (affective well-being), and one for the interpersonal

relationship (trust) between unacquainted individuals, and to explore the underlying

25

CHAPTER 2

mechanisms that may explain these associations (situational self-clarity and social

attraction).

Listening as a concept began receiving new attention of scholars, practitioners,

and lay public outside the educational field (Wilt, 1950; Wolvin & Coakley, 1979)

through Carl Rogers’ work on client-centered therapy (Rogers, 1951, 1957). Rogers

stated that in mentally maladjusted individuals, inner communication has broken

down, which – in turn – also damages the interpersonal communication with others,

and consequently their relationship. Being listened to empathically (e.g., by a

therapist or friend) can facilitate interpersonal communication and eventually also

restore communication within the self. According to Rogers (Rogers &

Roethlisberger, 1991/1952), “psychotherapy is good communication within and

between people,” and, conversely, “good communication, or free communication,

within or between people is always therapeutic” (p. 105). This statement already

indicates some link between listening perceptions, interpersonal relationships, and

(psychological) well-being. Following Rogers’ conceptualization, the current research

focusses on how the discloser of a positive life event perceived an unacquainted

listener and how this perception is related to the internal states of perceived trust and

emotional well-being. Non-arguably the actual behavior of the listener is important

and there has been considerable work on what specific behavior may account for

perceptions of listening competencies (e.g., Bodie et al., 2012). However, when it

comes to evaluating the development of psychological states in first encounters, the

speaker’s perceptions of effective listening may be the driver of speaker's reaction,

regardless of the objective listening behavior. Hence, rather than defining listening as

any specific behavior, we conceptualize listening as a subjective perception of

listening quality. In the next sections, we elaborate these links and examine two

26

CHAPTER 2

outcomes of perceived listening quality: interpersonal trust and individual well-being.

Moreover, we develop two underlying psychological mechanisms that contribute to

our understanding of how listening unfolds its effects.

LISTENING AND TRUST

Clearly, listening has important relational implications. Listening is a dyadic

process between individuals. Listening conveys appreciation and interest in the other

and has the potential to create, maintain, and enhance positive interpersonal

relationships (Bodie et al., 2012). The influence of listening was demonstrated by

Beukeboom’s (2009) experimental research, in which different listeners with either a

positive or negative nonverbal expression influenced the speakers’ mood such that it

was congruent with the manipulated nonverbal expression. Furthermore, speakers’

perceptions of listening quality determine speakers’ decisions to speak openly and

reveal information (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1999; Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983),

and influence the content, language, and quality of information shared with a listener

(Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson 2000; Beukeboom, 2009; Petronio, 2002; Rubin, Hill,

Peplau, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1980). These aspects, in turn, can influence subsequent

communication and interaction quality. For instance, research revealed that mutual

sharing of personal information is pivotal for creating closeness and intimacy

(Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006; Petronio, 2002; Reis & Shaver, 1988). In sum,

listening is an interactive, bilateral process in which listeners and speakers mutually

influence each other (Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2009, 2010), and it is likely that perceptions

of listening quality and relationship quality are positively interrelated.

The fundamental characteristic of strong relationships is interpersonal trust

(Miell & Duck, 1986; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985), since it is the essential factor

that enables relationship partners to lay down continuous vigilance and protective

27

CHAPTER 2

measures (Hosmer, 1995). Hence, we will use trust in this study as an indicator of

relationship quality. There is some empirical research that listening is a trust-

enhancing factor. For instance, Mechanic and Meyer (2000) examined the antecedents

of patient trust in their attending physician and found that patient perceptions of

physician listening were the strongest determinant of patient trust in their physician.

This direct link between listening and trust has also received support from business

research. For instance, salespersons’ listening behavior was positively associated to

clients’ trust in them (Drollinger et al., 2006). A similar relationship was found for

supervisor listening and employee trust in their supervisor (Stine et al., 1995). While

this research suggests a positive effect of listening on trust, these listening effects

were examined within samples of already established relationships (e.g., salesman-

client, physician-patient, and supervisor-employee). Less is known about the

contribution of listening perceptions in the process of building trust between

unacquainted individuals. Yet, if perceived listening quality contributes to creating

closeness and intimacy, then it is likely to facilitate the development of trust between

unacquainted individuals. Therefore, we propose that people who are perceived to be

good listeners will also be perceived as more trustworthy, even after a first short

encounter.

H1a: Perceived listening quality is positively related to trust in the listener.

H1a is mainly intended to re-evaluate the link between perceived listening

quality and trust which has been suggested by prior research. Extending current

knowledge, we now consider the psychological mechanisms that may mediate

listening effects on trust. Trust is a fundamental characteristic of relationships (Miell

et al., 1986) that allows individuals to make predictions about a partner’s behavior

and influences risk-taking decisions related to the partner (Hosmer, 1995). Hence,

28

CHAPTER 2

trust is inherently directed to the future (Luhmann, 1989) and develops over time on

the basis of iterative social interactions (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). In an early stage

of a relationship, other more immediate, short-term mechanisms may facilitate the

development of trust.

The small body of experimental research that has investigated listening effects

between strangers demonstrates how listeners can affect speakers. For instance,

Beukeboom’s (2009) experimental manipulation of nonverbal listening behavior

significantly explained differences in speakers’ language use and affective reactions

(i.e., the extent of positive or negative feelings). Listeners’ positive facial expression

and responsive behavior affected speakers’ affective expressions and mood in a

positive way, while nonresponsive listeners affected these aspects negatively. Bavelas

and colleagues’ (2000) results from several experiments also demonstrate how

listeners and speakers mutually influence each other’s listening and speaking

behavior. Taken together, perceived listening quality might affect initial positive or

negative perceptions of the partner, that is, influence interpersonal attraction (e.g.,

Berscheid & Walster, 1969). More precisely, social attraction of a partner refers to the

socio-emotional component or “liking component” of interpersonal attraction (e.g.,

Kiesler & Goldberg, 1968). This, in turn, determines the next sequence, including

decisions about whether and how to continue the communication. Over time, this

mutual exchange may iteratively develop and determine the relationship. Empirical

evidence from research areas related to listening suggests that mutual exchange of

information influences interpersonal attraction between partners (Collins & Miller,

1994; Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011) and is positively linked

to the development of close relationships (Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; Petronio,

2002). We propose that perceived listening quality is associated with immediate

29

CHAPTER 2

positive perceptions of a partner (i.e., social attraction), which then encourages future

interactions and fosters the development of trust. Therefore, we predict:

H1b: The effect of perceived listening quality on trust is mediated by social

attraction.

LISTENING AND WELL-BEING

Effective communication in which individuals are perceived to listen to each

other well can be therapeutic (Rogers et al., 1991/1952). However, the effect of

listening on emotional well-being remains relatively unexplored. The well-being

literature suggests that meaningful conversations in which partners feel understood

and appreciated are strong predictors of subjective well-being (Reis, Sheldon, Gable,

Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000), life satisfaction and physical health (Lun, Kesebir, & Oishi,

2009). Similarly, an extensive body of research has put forward evidence for the

positive relationship between talking about experiences (e.g., sharing secrets) and

emotional well-being and health (e.g., Greene et al., 2006; Kelly, 2002; Kelly &

McKillop, 1996; Pennebaker, 1995; Pennebaker & O’Heerons, 1984). As positive

psychology suggests, happy people have strong social relationships (Diener &

Seligman, 2002) in which people understand each other’s needs and values (Reis,

Clark & Holmes, 2004). While this research implicitly indicates well-being effects of

listening, listening was not examined explicitly in these studies.

In the previous section, we elaborated on experimental studies that

demonstrated listening effects on speakers’ mood and feelings. Hence, there is some

indication that listening may contribute to emotional well-being. A small body of

organizational research explicitly examined the link between listening and broader

facets of well-being in the organizational context. For instance, supervisor listening

skills were related to employee ratings of psychological stress reactions – fatigue,

30

CHAPTER 2

anxiety, and depression (Ikemi, Kubota, Noda, Tomita, & Hayashida, 1992;

Mineyama et al., 2007). While the absence of illness is not equivalent to well-being

(Ryff & Singer, 1998), these findings are nonetheless intriguing since they present

initial evidence for a link between perceived listening and well-being. Dolev and

Kluger (2011) extended these studies and revealed a positive association between

supervisor listening and employee well-being and life satisfaction. Yet, relatively

little is known about the distinctive association between perceived listening quality

and well-being. Partial support for such listening effects comes from research on

supportive communication that suggests, similarly to Rogers’ work, emotional

support must be person-centered and nonverbally immediate (Burleson, 2003; Jones,

2004). Bodie and Jones (2012) have suggested one essential component of supportive

communication to be active listening. To better understand if and how perceived

listening and well-being are related, the current study examines the short-term

emotional well-being association of perceived listening in the context of unacquainted

individuals. Individuals who perceive their partners as effective listeners should

reveal higher levels of emotional well-being than those who do not perceive their

partners as effective listeners. Therefore, we predict:

H2a: Perceived listening quality is positively associated with affective well-

being.

Coming to the underlying process, positive effects of perceived listening

quality on emotional well-being have been theorized to be facilitated by the

communication within the self (Rogers, 1951; Rogers et al., 1991/1952). The self is

supposed to be composed of different ‘voices’ that represent different aspects of the

self (Rogers, 1951, 1975). It is suggested that listening fosters the inner dialogue

between these voices and enables the individual to pay attention to aspects that may

31

CHAPTER 2

have been unattended or even suppressed. Being listened to in an accepting and

understanding way enables the individual to become aware of these different aspects

of the self, and to reevaluate, accept, and integrate those (Rogers, 1975). For Rogers,

this was the basis for personal development and psychological well-being (Rogers,

1957). More contemporary research describes cognitive mechanisms (e.g., Blascovich

& Tomaka, 1996; Fiedler, 1990) that point towards similar well-being effects of

listening (e.g., Lepore, Ragan, & Jones, 2000).

According to contemporary theories, opening up and sharing (burdensome)

cognitions with others facilitates cognitive processing of experiences. This enables

understanding of the experience, facilitates acceptance, and – finally – positive

reintegration (Lepore et al., 2000; Weeks & Pasupathi, 2011). Similar effects of

perceived listening quality, in a broader sense, have been found in the business

context for mentor listening on mentees’ perceptions of role clarity3 (Cohen, 2013).

Role clarity is based on the theory of need for clarity (Ivancevich et al., 1974) and a

lack of role clarity has been related to psychological and physical stress (House &

Rizzo, 1972; Lyon, 1971). Cohen’s (2013) study revealed that perceived mentor

listening is positively associated with mentee ratings of situational clarity directly

after a mentoring session and related to a broader scope of clarity regarding their

work role. In sum, incorporating these different theories and literatures, listening is

likely to unfold its well-being effects through increasing clarity. Perceptions of

attentive listening may enable the speaker to structure aspects of a story, to see

different or new perspectives, and to gain new insights. Thus, the speaker gains

clarity, which may not only concern the story, but also clarity within the self.

3 Role clarity encompasses all information regarding the expectations associated with one’s

role at work (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1974).

32

CHAPTER 2

Therefore, we propose that the relationship between perceived listening quality and

well-being are derived – at least in part – from clarity.

H2b: The effect of perceived listening quality on affective well-being is

mediated by clarity.

METHOD

SAMPLE

One hundred first-year students at the beginning of their first semester

volunteered to participate in this study as part of a communication workshop. Of

these, 51% were female and 49% male, ranging in age between 16 and 25 (M = 18.95;

SD = 1.24). The study took place at an English-speaking university in Germany.

PROCEDURE

The study was conducted within the framework of a soft-skills workshop in

order to increase the likelihood of a balanced sample of first year students. All first-

year undergraduate students had received an invitation to a ‘communication skills

workshop for success in business and personal life’ on their first day on campus.

Upon arrival at the workshop, subjects were randomized to an unacquainted partner.

This resulted in 50 dyads (n (male-male) = 8; n (female-female) = 10; n (male-female)

= 32). Due to ethical considerations, we were not allowed to record information that

revealed the pair membership (see Discussion).

Participants first answered a short questionnaire concerning demographics and

control variables (e.g., gender, attachment style; see measures below). To evaluate

correlates of perceived listening quality in the dyadic setting more precisely, we

applied methods commonly used in co-counselling (for more details see Evison &

Horobin, 1988; Jackins, 1970). Co-counseling, similar to Rogers’ conceptualization of

33

CHAPTER 2

listening within client-centered therapy, focuses on putting attention on the speaking

individual. Following this approach, subjects were then instructed to talk to their

partner for seven minutes each about ‘a positive experience in their life.’ This topic

was chosen for two reasons. First, it was necessary that every participant would be

able to talk about this topic. Second, this allowed controlling for the emotional states

that may arise during storytelling.

The 7-minute speaking-listening task was designed to isolate and measure

listening effects more precisely than is possible in natural conversations. While one

participant spoke, the partner was only allowed to listen quietly – without speaking,

asking questions, or commenting. Participants were allowed to show their

attentiveness non-verbally (e.g., by nodding and by saying ‘Aha’). After the listening

exercise, participants were asked to answer a questionnaire and were debriefed about

the study purpose.

MEASURES

Unless otherwise noted, we measured items using 7-point Likert scales, with

response categories ranging from 1 =strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Perceived-listening quality. Perceived listening quality was assessed with a

7-item scale specifically designed to capture how the speaker perceived being listened

to. The items were prefaced with “When my partner listened to me, I felt that he or

she” and sample items included “was interested in me personally” and “understood

my feelings” (see Appendix A). The scale was pretested to assess internal consistency

and usability. The pretest revealed acceptable internal reliability (N = 20; Cronbach’s

alpha = .93). In the current study, a CFA confirmed a one-factor model structure, χ2

34

CHAPTER 2

(14) = 28.59; p < .01, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.944, of the listening scale.

We allowed a covariance of residuals of two items (“cares about me” and “is

interested in me personally”) which shared semantic similarity to achieve a reasonable

model fit5. The internal reliability was acceptable, alpha = .84.

Well-being. We used a short-term affective measure of well-being, using 10

positive affect (PA) items of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS;

Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Items were prefaced with “After this interaction

with my working partner, I feel,” sample items included “interested” and

“determined.” The CFA revealed that the one factor model fitted the data well

according to the fit indices, χ2 (34) = 64.77, p < .01, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.95, TLI =

0.94. We allowed a covariance between two residuals (“interested” and “attentive”)

due to semantic similarity to improve model fit. Cronbach’s alpha was .91.

Trust. Trust was measured using five items adapted from the Organizational

Trust Inventory (Cummings & Bromley, 1996). Sample items included “tells me the

truth” and “is reliable”. Trust was well represented by one factor, χ2 (4) = 4.57, p =

.33, SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99. The residuals of two items (“is reliable”

and “will keep his word”) were allowed to covary due to high similarity in semantic

meaning. Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

Clarity. A 6-item scale was designed to assess self-clarity, that is, the extent

to which participants felt clearer about their thoughts, feelings, and their self. Items

were prefaced by “When my partner listened to me” and sample items included “I got

4 We refrained from considering the commonly reported RMSEA due to the low complexity

of the model and low number of degrees of freedom (df). For small df and low N models,

especially for the former, there is greater sampling error, which can result in artificially large

values of the RMSEA (Kenny & McCoach, 2003). 5 Similarity between items’ content that go beyond the conceptual content of the latent factor

often lead to shared variance in residual terms. Adding those to the measurement model is a

common and adequate practice when the covariations are theoretically justified as in our case

(see for instance, Byrne, 2012; Kline, 2012).

35

CHAPTER 2

a clearer picture of who I am,” “I learned more about myself,” and “I detected new

aspects of myself which I wasn’t aware of” (Appendix B). The scale was pretested to

assess internal consistency and usability, and revealed acceptable internal reliability

(N = 20; Cronbach’s alpha = .85). In the main study, the clarity scale was well

represented by the one factor model, χ2 (14) = 17.49, p = .23, SRMR = 0.03, CFI =

0.99, TLI = 1.00. Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Social attraction. We assessed social attraction – that is, the socio-emotional

component or “liking component” of interpersonal attraction – using four items from

Mikulincer and Nachshon (1991). Items were prefaced with “After I worked with him

or her” and included sample items such as “I like him or her” and “I liked the

conversation”. The data fitted the one-factor model well, χ2 (1) = .003, SRMR = 0.00,

CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.02, all factor loadings were significant and ranged between 0.66

and 0.94 (standardized). Two items (“like him/her” and “like the conversation”) were

allowed to covary due to similarity in semantic meaning. Cronbach’s alpha was .90.

Control variables. We collected data on other variables that may offer

alternative explanations for the link between perceived listening and affective well-

being as well as trust based on previous research. Control variables were attachment

style, life satisfaction, as well as gender match and speaking order. First, attachment

style may influence how comfortable participants generally feel in dyadic

interactions, their willingness to disclose information, and their ability to build trust

(e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Mikulincer et al., 1991). We measured attachment style

using the 12 item Experience in Close Relationship Scale (ERC-Short Form, Wei,

Russell, & Mallinckrodt, 2007). Four items measured avoidant attachment style

reliably (α = .71) and as a one-dimensional construct, χ2 (2) = 0.19, SRMR = 0.01,

CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.07, and four items measured anxious attachment style as a

36

CHAPTER 2

reliable (α = .69) one-dimensional construct, χ2 (2) = 0.35, SRMR = 0.01, CFI = 1.00,

TLI = 1.08. Four items had to be excluded due to low factor loadings.

Second, research indicates that individuals who are generally more satisfied

with their life may also have a more positive attitude towards others and may feel

better in specific situations. Their stories about a positive experience in life may also

be more positive. Taken together, satisfied participants might reveal higher well-being

ratings after the listening task than individuals with lower life satisfaction. We

measured life satisfaction using five items (α = .78) of the Satisfaction With Life Scale

(SWLS, Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Sample items included “In most

ways, my life is close to my ideal” and “I am satisfied with my life”. The one factor

model fitted the data well, χ2 (5) = 10.60, SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.90).

Last, gender effects and order effects were assessed. Some individuals might

be more comfortable talking to same-sex partners and hence they may benefit more

from the listening situation. Similarly, the first speaker’s performance may have an

influence on the second speaker.

ANALYTICAL STRATEGY

To evaluate listening effects on trust and well-being, as well as the

hypothesized mediation effects, we conduct individual indirect effects analysis (via

bootstrapped bias corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals; Preacher &

Hayes, 2008a, 2008b). In a second step, we examine all the links simultaneously

using path modeling techniques in Mplus6 to show that there are two distinctive

paths. We analyze observed instead of latent variables due to sample-size

considerations.

37

CHAPTER 2

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of the

study variables.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations of the Study Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Listening quality 5.45 0.93 (.84)

2. Social attraction 5.89 0.90 .68** (.90)

3. Clarity 4.27 1.29 .39** .21* (.90)

4. Trust 5.92 0.81 .47** .53** .12 (.85)

5. Emotional well-

being (PA)

4.30 1.39 .31** .22* .56** .24* (.91)

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01. Cronbach’s alpha in brackets.

We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine the distinctiveness of

the study measures. The five-factor model including the above mentioned model

specifications revealed a moderate overall fit, χ2 (290) = 415.62, RMSEA = 0.06

SRMR = 0.07, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.92. The baseline model in which all items loaded

on one factor revealed poor fit, χ2 (296) = 900.48, p < .001; RMSEA = 0.14; SRMR =

0.15; TLI = 0.64; CFI = 0.60, and differed significantly from the five-factor model,

∆χ2 = 484.85, ∆df = 6, p < .001. Thus, these results indicated acceptable discriminant

validity of the study variables.

We conducted two separate indirect effects analyses. First, to evaluate listening

effects on trust (H1a) and the mediating role of social attraction (H1b), a bootstrap

mediation analysis (Preacher et al., 2008a) was run, entering social attraction as

38

CHAPTER 2

mediator while controlling for attachment style, life satisfaction, gender match, and

speaking position. Mediation is based on a point estimate and bootstrapped 95%

confidence interval (CI based on 1,000 bootstrap iterations). A mediator effect is

significant if zero is not included in the CI. The analysis revealed that perceived-

listening quality was positively associated with trust (Figure 1a). Furthermore, social

attraction mediated the link between perceived listening quality and trust, point

estimate = .27, CI = .13/.40. The model explained 36% of the outcome’s variance.

Taken together, the results were in line with H1a and H1b. None of the covariates

were significant, all βs < .23, ns, indicating that the listening-trust model is not

dependent on attachment style, life satisfaction, gender match, or speaking position.

Figure 1: Intraindividual and Interpersonal Outcomes of Perceived Listening Quality

and Mediating Mechanisms: a – b) Results of indirect effects analyses (bias corrected

and accelerated; 1000 bootstrap resamples). N = 100. Control variables: attachment

style, life satisfaction, gender match, speaking position. Unstandardized coefficients

reported. c) Results of path modeling analysis. N = 100. Standardized coefficients

reported. ***p < .001; **p < .01, *p < .05.

39

CHAPTER 2

Second, the association of perceived listening and well-being (H2a) and the

mediation of clarity (H2b) were evaluated. Clarity was entered as mediator in the

bootstrap mediation analysis, while controlling for attachment style, life satisfaction,

gender match, and speaking position. The analysis revealed that perceived listening

quality was positively associated with well-being (Figure 1b) and that clarity

mediated the link between perceived listening quality and well-being, point estimate =

.28, CI = .13/.49. The model explained 36% of the outcome’s variance. Again, none

of the covariates were significant. In sum, perceived-listening quality was positively

associated with well-being, and this link was mediated by clarity, supporting H2a and

H2b6.

Finally, we simultaneously examined the proposed links and relationships

between study variables (Figure 1c) using path modeling procedures. Since no effects

of the covariates were found in prior mediation analysis, they were excluded from

further testing. The data revealed a good fitting model, χ2 (5) = 7.50, RMSEA = 0.07,

SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, according to criteria presented by Vandenberg

and Lance (2000). This inclusive model7 suggested two independent paths of listening

effects – one for the self and one for the relationship. Perceived listening quality is

related to social attraction which in turn is related to trust in the partner. Perceived

listening quality was associated with clarity which was linked to positive affect.

6 Since all variables were closely related we conducted additional indirect effects analyses to

test the possibility of other mediators (e.g., positive affect as mediator for self-clarity). No

significant indirect effects were found. 7 We built the holistic listening model on deductive considerations. However, we tested

various alternative models that seemed reasonable (e.g., trust as a mediator of positive affect).

None of the models revealed acceptable fit indices.

40

CHAPTER 2

DISCUSSION

In this study, we looked at the role of perceived listening quality in the context

of a first interaction of unacquainted individuals. Employing a zero-acquaintance

paradigm, we sought to investigate the direct correlates of perceived listening quality

with emotional well-being and on interpersonal relationships. We also addressed the

question how perceived listening may unfold its links to trust and wellbeing by

examining two distinctive psychological mechanisms. The results suggested that

perceived listening quality is linked to situational indicators of emotional well-being

and interpersonal trust. These individual and interpersonal correlates of perceived

listening quality were mediated by distinctive cognitive and socio-emotive

mechanisms. The inclusive analysis of study variables suggested that listening effects

may follow two separate and distinctive paths.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study has important implications for theory and practice. First, the study

empirically highlights the importance of how listeners are perceived. With this, we

followed the call for research by scholars who deplored the neglect of the listener in

scientific research in which “listeners are considered non-existent or irrelevant

because the theory either does not mention them or treats them as peripheral”

(Bavelas et al., 2000, p. 941). However, perceptions of being listened to are a crucial

factor in the communication process (Bavelas et al., 2000; Pasupathi, 2001) that drive

the decision to open up (Miller et al., 1983) and whether or not to continue the

exchange, and is thus an important variable for building (new) relationships and

developing trust. Clearly, the listening interaction in this study only presents a small

part of this sequential process. Yet the results indicate the importance of perceived

41

CHAPTER 2

listening for dyadic interactions. Second, we integrated Rogers’ (1951) theory of

listening effects on emotional well-being and current well-being research that

revealed that sharing information and feeling understood by a partner is essential for

(psychological) well-being and life satisfaction (Kelly, 2002; Lun et al., 2008;

Pennebaker, 1995; Reis et al., 2000). The results suggest that perceived listening

quality is linked to increased (short-term) emotional well-being. The short listening

interaction in this study arguably only reflects a small part of the whole story. Well-

being is composed of and influenced by various (situational and dispositional) factors,

and this study examined listening effects on short-term situational well-being. Our

results indicate that listening may influence short-term affective facets of well-being,

which in the long run may play out on more general aspects of well-being.

Third, the results supported our hypothesis that listening associations on trust

are, at least partly, explained by increased social attraction of the partner. This result

is in line with previous research showing that perceived responsiveness of interaction

partners is related to social attraction (Reis et al., 2011). This socio-emotive mediator

did not explain the other association of listening, that is, on well-being 8 . In

accordance with prior theoretical considerations, the current findings suggested that

the well-being association might be related to situational clarity, that is, the extent to

which individuals felt clearer about themselves and their story in this situation.

According to different theories, listening may foster internal dialogue (Rogers, 1957,

1975) and raise awareness for (unknown) aspects of the self, enabling the speaker to

structure and reintegrate cognitions and emotions (Lepore et al., 2000; Weeks et al.,

2011), and thus to gain clarity. In the listening interaction in this study, perceived

listening quality was found to be linked to increased clarity, which in turn was related

8 Indirect effect = .02, CI = -.28 / .34

42

CHAPTER 2

to higher well-being. Situational clarity was not related to the interpersonal outcome

of trust. Integrating the results, this study suggested that the different outcomes of

listening are driven by distinctive cognitive and socio-emotive mechanisms.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Being an inherent component of communication, perceptions of listening may

have important implications for social interactions. Perceived listening quality seems

essential for well-being as well as relationships. The listening concept and its positive

correlates suggest that people may benefit from putting more attention on listening to

each other. For business professionals, the results may offer promising avenues for

treating newcomers, initiating mentoring, or coaching. In therapy, perceptions of

listening in the initial encounter may be crucial to the client’s progress. The results

also have important implications for training in diverse contexts. Our results suggest

that even if listeners cannot respond verbally, speakers perceive large variation in

their partners’ listening quality. This in turn, may suggest that speakers are sensitive

to the amount of attention the listener pays and the perceived listener’s intentions and

attitudes towards them. Thus, training that emphasizes "being there" for the speaker,

rather than any specific active-listening behavior, may be fruitful. This suggestion is

consistent with some observations that active-listening instructions may be perceived

as cynical in business settings (Tyler, 2011) and ineffective in the context of marriage

(Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). Effective listening training could be

integrated into employee and management training or in educational contexts where

positive relationships are essential for organizational or educational success. Based on

our current understanding and practitioners’ appreciation of the topic (e.g., Rogers et

al., 1991/1952), perceptions of listening quality might contribute to developing and

maintaining positive work relationships among employees and with supervisors

43

CHAPTER 2

(Lloyd, Boer, Keller, & Voelpel, 2014) or between teachers and pupils. This might be

especially fruitful in positions that afford building strong relationships very quickly.

On a more personal note, life quality may generally benefit if people spent more time

listening well.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The results are based on a small sample, which does not allow for certain

analyses (e.g., latent paths analysis) and decreases the findings’ generalizability. We

counteracted this limitation by analyzing observed (instead of latent) variables, and by

using a bootstrapping approach for analyzing indirect effects, which yields robust

mediation effects, particularly for small sample sizes (Preacher et al., 2008a).

Similarly, the sample size may have limited the scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha),

which could have biased the model results. However, all Cronbach’s alphas were of

similar size and acceptably high (all alphas > .84, Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006).

Yet, future studies are needed to determine the findings’ stability within larger and

different types of samples.

Another limitation refers to the correlational nature of the data in this study.

Although we employed a zero-acquaintance paradigm to better isolate listening

effects, the listening measure still reflects naturally-occurring (instead of

manipulated) variance in listening. Future studies should include an experimental

manipulation of listening. For instance, two experimental conditions could be

designed in which confederate listeners demonstrate particularly good (versus poor)

listening behaviors.

The study’s controlled setting also entails some points of discussion. For

instance, we employed a zero-acquaintance paradigm and instructed participants to

listen silently, while the other partner was tasked with talking about a positive event.

44

CHAPTER 2

Real-life encounters are marked by mutual interaction and exchange, including asking

questions, providing reassurance, and interrupting. Consequently, the study’s focus on

isolating perceived listening quality, that is, on increasing internal validity, entailed

the trade-off of decreasing generalizability. Yet, the methods commonly applied in

co-counselling offered a validated approach to investigating listening as in Rogers’

initial conceptualization. That is, that the focus on the individual being perceived with

positive regard and full attention. Of course, silent listening must be attentive as to

send signals of attentiveness, known as back-channeling (Bavleas et al., 2000).

Moreover, the type of listening we employed was found to increase the degree of

psychological safety experienced by speakers, relative to a normal conversation

condition, in a laboratory experiment (Castro & Kluger, 2011). Therefore, we

encourage future research to extend and compare our findings in more natural

interactions in the field. We speculate that this type of listening helps people become

more attentive to their partner, and that the attentiveness or the positive intention

towards the other is responsible for the effects we observed (cf. reappraisal function

of emotional comforting, Jones & Wirtz, 2006). Such alternative processes could be

explored in future research by expanding the theoretical exploration of the mediators

of effective listening.

Related to this limitation, the measure of perceived listening quality shares

considerable conceptual overlap with the responsiveness measure (Reis et al., 2011).

Listening is a multidimensional construct (Bodie et al., 2012; Jones, 2011) of which

responsiveness and perceived listening quality are certain dimensions. Obviously both

concepts are overlapping, and thus future research should attempt to distinguish

conceptually and empirically, if possible, between these concepts.

45

CHAPTER 2

Furthermore, while the positive event that participants recounted might have

influenced situational well-being ratings to the positive end (Lambert, Gwinn,

Baumeister, Strachman, Washburn, Gable, & Fincham, 2013), this procedure was

necessary to ensure that individuals would talk about experiences with similarly

positive valence, which countervailed the possibility that different emotional states

would arise during storytelling over the whole sample. We also controlled for

individual differences in the broader well-being measure of life satisfaction.

Consequently, although individual differences might have led to a positively enlarged

baseline in affective well-being, the procedure and instructions cannot fully explain

the association between perceived listening quality and situational well-being. Yet,

future research is necessary to specifically address these issues. For instance, it would

be intriguing to compare different samples in which participants report a neutral,

positive, or negative event, and test for interaction effects of story content and

perceived listening quality on well-being. This would allow for insights into when

listening shows its effects the best – that is, maybe recounting of sad experiences

requires especially good listening and under these circumstances listening may have

the greatest benefit for the speaker.

Last, we were not able to account for the possible interdependency of

responses within dyads which might have led to an overestimation of degrees of

freedom and, consequently, of effect sizes (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). We sought

to attenuate this inconvenience by controlling for the speaking order, and did not find

any order effect. Considering the strong correlates of perceived listening found in this

study, we are confident about the findings’ robustness despite this methodological

limitation. Yet, if data collection allows for matching dyads, we recommend testing

for the reciprocal influence of partners.

46

CHAPTER 2

CONCLUSION

Clearly, To conclude, we have shown that perceived listening quality is related

to interpersonal outcomes (trust), a link that was mediated by social attraction, and to

intrapersonal outcomes (emotional well-being), a link that was mediated by clarity.

Hence, listening seems not only essential for interpersonal relationships, but it also

plays a crucial role for emotional wellbeing. These findings beg the question of

whether these associations are causal. Future research may test whether experimental

variation in actual listening behavior indeed simultaneously benefits interpersonal and

intrapersonal processes.

47

CHAPTER 2

REFERENCES

Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social

psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 107-160.



Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective expressions of

listeners change a speaker's language use. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 39(5), 747-756.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal

regulation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology

(Vol. 28, pp. 1-51). New York: Academic Press.

Bodie, G. D., & Jones, S. M. (2012). The nature of supportive listening II: The role of

verbal person centeredness and nonverbal immediacy. Western Journal of

Communication, 76(3), 250-269.

Bodie, G. D., Cyr, K. S., Pence, M., Rold, M., & Honeycutt, J. (2012). Listening

competence in initial interactions I: Distinguishing between what listening is and

what listeners do. International Journal of Listening, 26(1), 1-28.

48

CHAPTER 2

Burleson, B. R. (2003). Emotional support skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson

(Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551-594).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts,

applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

Castro, D. R. & Kluger, A. N. (2011, December). Can a 3-minutes listening make you

safe? In Kluger, A. N. (Chair) Listening. Symposium presented at the 1st Israel

Organizational Behavior Conference. Tel Aviv, Israel.

Cohen, Y. (2013). Can listening in mentoring relation increase role clarity?

(Master’s thesis). Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and social attraction: A meta-

analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-175.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and

relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 58(4), 644-663.

Cummings, L. L. & Bromley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory: OTI. In

R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler, (Eds.). Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory

and research (pp. 302 – 330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic

relationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and


49

CHAPTER 2

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with

life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science,

13(1), 81-84.

Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and validation

of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychology and Marketing, 23(2), 161-

180.

Dolev, A., & Kluger, A. N. (2011, December). The Effects of Supervisors Listening

on Subordinates Well-Being. In A.N. Kluger (Chair), Listening. Symposium

presented at the 1st Israel Organizational Behavior Conference. Tel Aviv, Israel.

Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1999). Learning, trust and organization change. In

M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning

and the learning organization (pp. 157-175). London: Sage.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching

behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A

dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development

Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458.

Evison, R., & Horobin, R. (1988). Co-counselling. In J. Rowan & W. Dryden (Eds.),

Innovative therapy in Britain. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Fiedler, K. (1991).On the task, the measures and the mood in research on affect and

social cognition. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments (pp. 83-

107). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

50

CHAPTER 2

Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital

happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 60(1), 5-22.

Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal

relationships. (pp. 409-427). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and

philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R., (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables

in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 7, 467-505.

Ikemi, A., Kubota, S., Noda, E., Tomita, S., & Hayashida, Y. (1992). Person-centered

approach in occupational mental health: Theory, research and practice. Sangyo

Igaku, 32, 18-29.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1974). A study of role clarity and need for

clarity for three occupational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 17(1),

28-36.

Jackins, H. (1970). Fundamentals of co-counselling manual. Seattle: Rational Island.

Janusik, L. A. (2010). Listening pedagogy: Where do we go from here? In A. D.

Wolvin (Ed.), Listening and human communication: 21st century perspectives

(pp. 193-224). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.

51

CHAPTER 2

Jones, S. M. (2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional

support: Emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of

comforting in helping situations. Communication Research, 32, 338-360.

Jones, S. M., & Wirtz, J. G. (2006). How does the comforting process work? An

empirical test of an appraisal‐based model of comforting. Human

Communication Research, 32(3), 217-243.

Jones, S. M. (2011). Supportive listening. International Journal of Listening, 25(1-2),

85-103.

Johnson, S. D., & Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between listening

effectiveness and leadership emergence perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small

Group Research, 29(4), 452-471.

Kelly, A. E. (2002). The psychology of secrets. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Kelly, A. E., & McKillop, K. J. (1996). Consequences of revealing personal secrets.

Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 450-465.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York:

Guilford Press.

Kiesler, C. A., & Goldberg, G. N. (1968). Multi-dimensional approach to the

experimental study of interpersonal attraction: Effect of a blunder on the

attractiveness of a competent other. Psychological Reports, 22(3), 693-705.

52

CHAPTER 2

Kline, R. B. (2012). Assumptions of structural equation modeling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.),

Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 111–125). New York: Guilford

Press.

Lambert, N. M., Gwinn, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., Strachman, A., Washburn, I. J.,

Gable, S. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). A boost of positive affect: The perks of

sharing positive experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30,

24-43.

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly

reported cutoff criteria. What did they really say?. Organizational Research

Methods, 9(2), 202-220.

Lepore, S. J., Ragan, J. D., & Jones, S. (2000). Talking facilitates cognitive–

emotional processes of adaptation to an acute stressor. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 78(3), 499-508.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work

relationships. In R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organizations:

Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Keller, J. W., & Voelpel, C. (2014). Is my boss really listening

to me? The impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion,

turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior. Manuscript

submitted for publication (copy on file with author).

Luhmann, N. (1989). Trust and power. New York: Wiley.

53

CHAPTER 2



Lyon, T.F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 99-110.

Mechanic, D., & Meyer, S. (2000). Concepts of trust among patients with serious

illness. Social Science and Medicine, 51(5), 657-668.

Miell, D. E., & Duck, S. W. (1986). Strategies in developing friendships. In V. J.

Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 129-

143). New York: Springer.

Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-

disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321-331.

Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit

intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6),

1234-1244.

Mineyama, S., Tsutsumi, A., Takao, S., Nishiuchi, K., & Kawakami, N. (2007).

Supervisors' attitudes and skills for active listening with regard to working

conditions and psychological stress reactions among subordinate workers.

Journal of Occupational Health, 49(2), 81-87.

Pasupathi, M. (2001). The social construction of the personal past and its implications

for adult development. Psychological Bulletin, 127(5), 651-672.

54

CHAPTER 2

Pasupathi, M., & Hoyt, T. (2010). Silence and the shaping of memory: How distracted

listeners affect speakers' subsequent recall of a computer game experience.

Memory, 18(2), 159-169.




Pennebaker, J. W. (1995). Emotion, disclosure, and health. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Pennebaker, J. W., & O'Heeron, R. C. (1984). Confiding in others and illness rate

among spouses of suicide and accidental-death victims. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 93(4), 473-476.

Petronio, S. S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008a). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior

Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008b). Contemporary approaches to assessing

mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B.

Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for

communication research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as

an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek,

55

CHAPTER 2

A. Aron (Ed.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J.

(2011). Familiarity does indeed lead to attraction in live interaction. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, &

D. F. Hay (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and

interventions (pp. 367-389). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily

well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419-435.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.



Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic

personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.

Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling

Psychologist, 5(2), 2-10.

56

CHAPTER 2

Rogers, C.R., Gendlin, E.T., Kiesler, D.J., & Truax, C.B. (1967). The therapeutic

relationship and its impact. A study of psychotherapy with schizophrenics.

Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.


gateways to communication (Reprinted from Harvard Business Review, July -


Rubin, Z., Hill, C. T., Peplau, L. A., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1980). Self-disclosure in

dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 305-317.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health.

Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1-28.




Tyler, J. A. (2011). Reclaiming rare listening as a means of organizational re-

enchantment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(1), 143-157.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement

invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of


57

CHAPTER 2

Weeks, T. L., & Pasupathi, M. (2011). Stability and change self-integration for

negative events: The role of listener responsiveness and elaboration. Journal of

Personality, 79(3), 469-498.

Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in

close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor

structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187-204.

Wilt, M. E. (1950). A study of teacher awareness of listening as a factor in elementary

education. Journal of Educational Research, 4(8), 626-636.

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1979). Listening instruction. Urbana, Illinois: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

58

CHAPTER 2

APPENDIX

A) Measure of Perceived Listening Quality

The response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

When my working partner listened to me, I felt that he/she…

1. was interested in what I had to say.

2. made me comfortable so I could share my inner truths.

3. made it easy for me to open my heart.

4. understood my feelings.

5. was interested in me personally.

6. cared about me.

B) Measure of Clarity


When my working partner listened to me, I felt that he/she…

1. I got a clearer picture of who I am.

2. I became aware of my needs.

3. I learned more about myself.

4. my thoughts became clearer.

5. clearer about myself.

6. I detected new aspects of myself I wasn’t aware of before.

59

CHAPTER 3 � � ��

�

�

�

�

�

CHAPTER 3

FROM LISTENING TO LEADING:

TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUPERVISOR

LISTENING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF LEADER-

MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY910

��9 I am particularly thankful to Diana Boer and Sven C. Voelpel for co-authoring this manuscript. ��

��

61


�

�

ABSTRACT

This study explores the value of supervisor listening as a seeming key competence

in effectively leading employees. We conceptualize listening within the theoretical

framework of leader-member exchange (LMX). Specifically, we argue that supervisor

listening contributes to satisfaction with the supervisor, interactional justice and job

satisfaction, and that listening unfurls its effect through fostering strong leader-member

exchange. Data from 250 German employees from various professional backgrounds

was used to assess validity criteria as prerequisites for the examination of listening vis-

à-vis LMX for the three outcome variables. Good performance in all validity criteria

and path modelling results indicated that perceived supervisor listening provides value

for future research on supervisor-employee interactions in the work setting.

KEYWORDS:

Leader listening

Empathy

Leader-member exchange theory

Construct validation

62


�

�

�

INTRODUCTION

Since Rogers and Roethlisberger’s (1991/1952) thought-provoking essay in the

Harvard Business Review, Barriers and Gateways to Communication, scholars and

practitioners have embraced the concept of empathic listening in management literature

or handbooks on effective leadership (e.g., Drucker, 2004; Frey, 1993; Reave, 2005;

Steil & Bommelje, 2004). Although this concept is elusive, there appears to be a

practical and intuitive appeal of the positive effects of listening, which has led to

increased attention of this concept in psychological literature (e.g., Bavelas, Coates, &

Johnson, 2000; Beukeboom, 2009; Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2009). However, in the fields of

organizational psychology and management research, the term listening still appears

both vague and conjectural due to a lack in theory and specification (e.g., Bodie, Cyr,

Pence, Rold, & Honeycutt, 2012; Brownell, 1994). Bodie (2012) summarizes

approaches to listening research in a variety of academic fields and argues that research

is in need of incorporating “listening” into theoretical frameworks that are “capable of

explaining how listening works and functions to the betterment of people’s lives” (p.

121). The current paper aims at contributing to this call by investigating perceived

supervisor listening and its links to related constructs and work outcomes within the

theoretical framework of leader-member exchange theory.

Leader member exchange theory (LMX) in its core suggests that “effective

leadership processes occur when leaders and followers are able to develop mature

leadership relationships (partnerships) and thus gain access to the many benefits these

relationships bring” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995, p. 225). Such quality leader-member

interaction has been linked to more positive organizational outcomes such as increased

performance, job satisfaction, or commitment (Gerstner & Day, 1997). However, LMX

63


�

�

is a rather broad term (see below) and does not detail, what specific leader behavior

may establish strong leader-member relationships. Listening to employees has the

positive potential to create and maintain strong leader-follower partnerships (Bodie,

2012; Steil et al., 2004) and may thus be one specific component that foster LMX.

Originally based on Carl Rogers’ (1951) observations in client-centered therapy,

empathic listening or “active listening” has been described as an accepting and

nonjudgmental approach of attending to an individual (Rogers, 1959). Emphatic

listening creates a mutual bond between interaction partners, which over time evolves

into a relationship of trust and reciprocal understanding (Rogers, 1957, 1975). When

applied to organizational settings, listening may have similar effects in the supervisor-

employee interaction (e.g., Brownell, 1990; Reave, 2005). Rogers’ work on empathic

listening can help to provide specificity to the meaning of listening in the business

context. Empirical research in the organizational context suggests that listening may be

a crucial factor in the supervisor-employee relationship that may affect other work-

related attitudinal (e.g., Ellinger, Ellinger, & Keller, 2003) and behavioral outcomes

(Lloyd, Boer, Keller, & Voelpel, 2014; Stine, Thompson, & Cusella, 1995). For

instance, Lobdell, Sonoda, and Arnold (1993) showed that perceived supervisor

listening competence is positively associated with employee perceptions of leader

responsiveness and support. Similarly, empirical evidence suggested a link between

supervisor listening and perceived relationship quality with employees (Stine et al.,

1995), which might, in the long term, also affect more distal variables such as employee

perception of the climate of organizational openness and supportiveness (Husband,

Cooper, & Monsour, 1988), overall job satisfaction (Brownell, 1990; Ellinger et al.,

2003), and organizational citizenship performance (Lloyd et al., 2014).

64


�

�

�

While this work indicates the importance of listening in the organizational context,

there is no clear conception of “listening” in the work place. Although indicated within

leadership literature (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Bass & Riggio, 2006;

Blader & Tyler, 2003), empirical studies on listening as a leadership skill are still scarce

(for some exceptions, see Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003; Ames, Maissen, & Brockner,

2012; Johnson & Bechler, 1998; Kluger & Zaidel, 2013). This is astounding since

listening research suggests a link with positive work outcomes such as perceived

leadership effectiveness (Johnson et al., 1998), employee commitment (Lobdell et al.,

1993), organizational trust and performance (Stine et al., 1995). Two studies by Lloyd

and colleagues (2014) recently demonstrated the link between perceived supervisor

listening and three important work outcomes – one proximal (emotional exhaustion) and

two more distal (organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions). Together,

these findings indicate that assessing listening in the workplace may promise similar

value as in clinical or psychological research and hence needs specification in terms of

its relationship to related constructs and outcomes.

Empirical examination of listening in the work setting is undermined by the lack

of theoretical underpinnings and conceptual differentiation (Brownell, 1994). Especially

in terms of supervisor-employee interactions it is essential to include listening into

related frameworks of leader-follower interactions. One important conceptually related

construct is leader-member exchange (see Graen et al., 1995 for a detailed review),

which describes similar work outcomes that have been discussed in listening research.

This paper’s overall purpose is to foster the scholarly dialogue, and advance the

understanding of listening in organizational research by providing a more precise

clarification of listening in the workplace. Specifically, we seek first to evaluate validity

criteria of perceived listening quality in the context of supervisor-employee

65


�

�

relationships and its links to work-related variables. Empirical examination of internal

reliability as well as convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity intends to foster

the refinement of listening within the supervisor-employee relationship. More

importantly, we seek to integrate listening and LMX in a holistic model based on

theoretical considerations that listening fosters strong relationships between leaders and

followers.

THE CONCEPT OF LISTENING

Listening is a multi-faceted process (Bodie et al., 2012) and as such,

conceptualizations have ranged from studying listening attitudes and skills (e.g.,

Mishima, Kubota, & Nagata, 2000) to behaviors (e.g., Bodie et al., 2012; Ramsey &

Sohi, 1997), and differ in terms of underlying theory and measurement. To provide a

conceptual framework for listening in the supervisor-employee relationship it is helpful

to review Rogers’ initial work on empathic listening. In this paper, we build on Rogers’

(1951, 1975) definition of empathic listening as an appreciating and nonjudgmental way

of perceiving and responding to an individual. When the individual feels accepted and

cared for, Rogers argued, mutual understanding and trusting bonds are possible. Hence,

in this paper we focus on how the person being listened to perceives the listener (see

also Barnlund, 1962; Stone, Patton, & Heen, 1999; Tyler, 2011) and conceptualize

listening as a subjective perception of listening quality. Listening quality captures the

individual’s perception of being attended to, accepted, and appreciated (Rogers, 1975).

This is in line with the leadership literature that describes supervisor listening as

demonstration of active acceptance of employee opinions and ideas (Spears, 1995) or

the willingness to do so (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

66


�

�

�

Leadership handbooks (e.g., Covey, 1989; Gordon, 1977; Steil & Bommelje,

2004), business journals, and management scholars have long argued in favor of

listening as a “key management skill” (e.g., Drucker, 2004; Ewing & Banks, 1980;

Frey, 1993) that enables both, understanding of feelings and the demonstration of

concern (Gabarro, 1991). Some empirical evidence has been put forward in support of

this, demonstrating for example a link between supervisor listening and perceived

relationship quality with employees (Stine et al., 1995). Overall however, it is

noteworthy that leader listening and leadership styles have only rarely been considered

simultaneously (for exceptions see Bechler et al., 1995; Johnson et al, 1998; Kluger &

Zaidel, 2013). Yet, listening most commonly takes place in dyadic interactions,

develops in a unique way during the process of interacting (Pasupathi & Hoyt, 2009),

and may consecutively develop each interaction in a unique way. Hence, to enhance our

understanding of listening in the supervisor-employee relationship it is necessary to

embed it in leadership theories. The leadership approach arguably most closely related

to our conceptualization of listening is leader-member exchange theory.

THE LISTENING LEADER AND LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE

Leader-member exchange theory (LMX), which originated from vertical dyad

linkage theories (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), is unique among leadership

theories in that it focuses on the dyadic and specific leader-follower relationship (Graen

et al., 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). According to LMX theory, this

relationship may have a unique quality for each dyad, which in turn predicts

organizational outcomes at the individual level of analysis (Gerstner & Day, 1997).

Meta-analytical results also suggest that strong leader-member relationships

significantly influence outcomes such as job performance, satisfaction with supervision,

67


�

�

overall satisfaction, commitment, role conflict, role clarity, member competence, and

turnover intentions (Gerstner et al., 1997).

LMX contains certain aspects that relate to listening. Strong leader-member

exchange requires that employees feel appreciated, cared for, and supported by a

supervisor (e.g., Graen et al., 1995; Liden & Graen, 1980). These are essential features

of the listening construct (Rogers, 1951, 1975). The strongest similarity is that both

concepts predict tight bonds and strong relationships between the interaction partners.

The range of components inherent in the LMX construct appears fairly broad and

touches various components such as support, responsiveness, and consideration, leaving

room for the actual behavior and interpersonal perceptions that elicits the creation of

strong relationships. The theory does not specify which specific behavior fosters such

strong leader-follower bonds. Listening – as a mean to actively demonstrate acceptance

of follower opinions and suggestions (Bass et al., 1994; Spears, 1995) – may be a viable

component in developing sustainable leader-follower relationships. Since listening

facilitates the development of mutual understanding and trust (Lloyd, Boer, Kluger, &

Voelpel, in press; Stine et al., 1995) it might lay the basis for fruitful partnerships and

strong relationships. In the long run, this fosters further positive interactions, mutual

cooperation, and support. Inevitably this will also enhance further communication. In

other words, listening and leader-member interaction are mutually interwoven; yet,

especially in an early stage of a relationship listening may have the beneficial effect of

creating strong leader-member interaction which both, in turn, will be positively related

to organizational outcomes. In this paper we examine the possibility that listening

quality may precede the development of LMX – that is, suggesting a sequence of

listening quality impacting positively on LMX which then contributes positively to

outcomes.

68


�

�

�

From numerous potential outcome variables of organizational behavior, we will

focus on a choice of three that reflect different interaction levels: (1) employee

satisfaction with the supervisor, (2) interactional justice, and (3) overall job satisfaction.

Listening quality should have the strongest effect on the more proximal outcomes that

are affected by direct interaction with the supervisor.

Perceived supervisor listening affects employee perceptions of interaction

processes. As outlined earlier, listening quality can influence speaker attitudes and

feelings towards the listener (Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2000; Beukeboom, 2009).

Hence, not being listened to and not feeling understood by a supervisor may elicit

negative affective reactions such as the feeling of disrespect and injustice (Bass et al.,

2006; Blader et al., 2003). Thus, we chose satisfaction with the supervisor and

interactional justice (Kim & Leung, 2007) as proximal outcome of supervisor listening.

Interactional justice captures the degree to which individuals feel treated with respect

and dignity by authorities or third parties (e.g., the leader) involved in executing or

implementing procedures (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1987). Although we expect that

listening quality will affect outcomes closely related to the interaction, listening quality

might also have effects on more distal variables related to the job and affect overall job

satisfaction. Hence, to get a more inclusive view on listening quality’s predictive

validity, we will examine its relationship to three outcomes related to the supervisor, the

supervisor-employee interaction, and the job��

OVERVIEW OF THIS STUDY

To extend our understanding of listening within the supervisor-employee

relationship we investigate listening quality based on Rogers’ conceptualization of

empathic listening within the framework of leader-member exchange theory. We obtain

69


�

�

validity evidence for the listening quality scale by assessing its relation with measures

closely related to listening such as feeling understood (Lun et al., 2008) and active-

empathic listening (Bodie, 2011; Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006), as well as

LMX (Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004) which all already have a validity portfolio. We

expect that employee perceptions of supervisor listening quality will be positively

related to both, employee ratings of their supervisor’s active empathic listening and

ratings of feeling understood by the supervisor. We then examine in detail how listening

quality is related to LMX and the unique predictive contribution of the two constructs to

three outcome measures. We then simultaneously examine listening vis-à-vis LMX in

predicting satisfaction with the supervisor, interactional justice, and job-satisfaction. We

then integrate listening quality and LMX in a path model that tests a sequence between

listening quality, LMX, and work outcomes. Building on theoretical considerations we

examine the possibility that listening precedes LMX which in turn is related to the three

outcomes.

METHODS

PARTICIPANTS

251 German employees from different companies participated in this survey study

voluntarily and without monetary reward (57% women; mean age = 34.1, SD = 8.7; =

60% with university degree or equivalent). Participants were recruited by convenience

sampling methods as described below. A wide range of job functions were represented

in the sample – including administration, engineering, finance, marketing, and teaching.

The average tenure at the company was 4.8 years (SD = 5.4), and the average time

participants had been working for their current supervisor was 3.2 years (SD = 2.6).

70


�

�

�

PROCEDURE

Convenience sampling measures were taken to recruit a heterogeneous sample of

employees to increase generalizability. We administrated an online survey through

various online discussion forums to reach a maximum variety in age, job level, and

industry. Examples included general work related forums in which employees discuss

or exchange work related information as well as job specific forums for occupational

groups (e.g., police officers, mechanics, engineers, etc.). Permission to post an

invitation to participate in our study was obtained from the web administrators. Only

questionnaires that were fully completed were included in the analysis.

MEASURES

All measures were adapted to German by translation and back-translation

techniques (Brislin, 1970) by a team of bilingual psychologists and professional

translators. Unless otherwise noted, we measured items using 7-point Likert scales, with

response categories ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). All

measures were presented in random order to control for order effects (Bishop, 2008).

Since all measures referred to internal psychological states and perceptions (e.g., job

satisfaction), employees were best positioned to provide ratings on these.

Perceived listening quality. To assess the extent to which employees felt listened

to by their supervisor, we adapted a 7-item listening quality scale (Lloyd et al., in press)

to the context of supervisor-employee interactions (Appendix). Participants were asked

to refer to a typical interaction with their supervisor when answering the questionnaire.

The items were prefaced with the statement “Generally, when my supervisor listens to

me, I feel my supervisor…;” sample items included “is interested in what I have to say,”

“makes me comfortable so I can speak openly” and “understands my feelings.”

71


�

�

A pretest (N = 51; 53% women; mean age = 32.26, SD = 9.97) was conducted to

test the items concerning internal consistency and applicability to the supervisor-

employee interaction. The items revealed acceptable internal reliability (� = .92).

Principal component analysis yielded one principal component that explained 71% of

the variance.

In the current study, listening quality was well represented by the one-factor

model (Chi-square (df = 13) = 74.78, p < .01, SRMR = .03, CFI = .96, TLI = .94)11. The

residuals of two items (“cares about me” and “is interested in me personally”) reveal

covariance, most likely owing to high semantic similarity. The internal reliability of the

seven items was acceptable (� = .95).

Active empathic listening. Employee perceptions of their supervisor’s active

empathic listening was measured by 11 items of the Active Empathetic Listening Scale

(AEL, Drollinger et al., 2006) which contains three subscales (sensing, processing,

responding) . All items were adapted to refer to the supervisor. Participants were

instructed to think of a typical interaction with their immediate supervisor when

answering the questions. The items were prefaced with “Generally, when my supervisor

listens to me”; sample items included were “my supervisor is sensitive to what I am not

saying”, “my supervisor listens for more than just the spoken words”, and “my

supervisor shows me he or she is listening by his or her body language (e.g., head

nods)”. The scale revealed acceptable internal reliability (� = .95).

Feeling understood by supervisor. The degree to which employees felt overall

understood by their supervisor was measured using two items from Lun and colleagues

��11 We refrained from considering the commonly reported RMSEA owing to the low complexity of the

model and low degrees of freedom (df). For small df and low N models, especially for the former, there is

greater sampling error, which can result in artificially large values of the RMSEA (Kenny & McCoach,

2003). For this reason, Kenny, Kaniskan, and McCoach (2011) recommend that one not even compute the

RMSEA for low df models.

72


�

�

�

(2008): “During your interaction with your supervisor, to what extent do you feel

understood by your supervisor?” and “To what extent do you feel misunderstood by

your supervisor?” (reverse-coded). Response categories ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7

(totally). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was. 91.

Leader-member exchange (LMX). LMX was assessed using seven items from

Janssen and Van Yperen (2004). Sample items were “My supervisor would be

personally inclined to help me solve problems in my work,” “My supervisor

understands my problems and needs,” and “My working relationship with my

supervisor is effective.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .95.

Interactional justice. Respondents were asked to assess how they felt treated in

interactions with their supervisor at work. Sample items of the 3-item scale (Kim et al.,

2007) were “In interpersonal encounters, my supervisor gives me fair treatment” and

“The way my supervisor treats me is fair.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .95.

Satisfaction with supervisor. We adapted three items from the Job

Dissatisfaction Scale (Zhou & George, 2001) to capture the extent to which employees

were satisfied with their supervisor. Sample items were “In general, I like working for

my supervisor” and “In general, I don’t like my supervisor” (reverse-coded).

Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .94.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the 3-item Job

Dissatisfaction Scale (Zhou et al., 2001). Sample items were “All in all, I am satisfied

with my job” and “In general, I don’t like my job” (reverse-coded). The 3-item scale

revealed acceptable reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.�

Control variables. We controlled for individual’s tenure of working for the

specific supervisor, since the time period might relate to both work outcomes such as

job satisfaction and quality of leader-member exchange. We also controlled for the

73


�

�

influence of major demographic variables including sex, age and educational level in

the analysis.

ANALYTICAL STRATEGY

First, a set confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) examined the adequacy of the

measurement components and to evaluate the discriminant validity of the measured

constructs: differentiating between all 7 measured concepts (LQ, ALS, LMX, feeling

understood, supervisor satisfaction, interactional justice, job satisfaction) distinguishing

the two listening scales (ALS, LQ) from each other, and discriminating between LMX

and LQ. Using zero-order correlations, we assessed convergent validity of the listening

quality scale with the AEL and the indicator of feeling understood by the supervisor.

Predictive validity. Multivariate hierarchical regression analysis was used to test

the predictive validity of listening quality and LMX on each of the three dependent

variables: satisfaction with supervisor, job satisfaction, and interactional justice. To

assess each independent variable (IV) or block of IVs in terms of their contribution to

the equation at their own point of entry, we entered control variables in the first block,

then individually tested listening quality and LMX. At last, we tested LMX and

perceived listening quality simultaneously by entering LMX first and then adding

listening quality to evaluate the contribution over and beyond LMX.

Additional analysis. We assess the possibility that LQ may precede LMX which

then relates to outcome variables. In order to test this path sequence model, we

employed latent variable modeling (SEM in Mplus6). This analysis additionally

accounts for two potential limitations inherent in the present data: (a) to account for the

relatedness of the three outcome variables, and (b) to control for common method

variance that might arise from the cross-sectional study design and mono-method

74


�

�

�

approach (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Following previous

studies, we control for the effects of a single unmeasured latent method factor by

including it in the SEM analysis (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Elangovan & Xie,

1999; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1995). All

item loadings were constrained to be equal in their loadings on the method factor

(Conger et al., 2000; Elangovan et al., 1999; MacKenzie et al., 1999).

75


�

�

RESULTS

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of all

study variables.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations of All Study Variablesa

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Listening quality 4.56 1.69 (.95)

2. AEL 4.32 1.54 .89*** (.95)

3. Feeling understood 4.24 1.67 .78*** .79*** (.91)

4. LMX 4.75 1.94 .87*** .86*** .82*** (.95)

5. Satisfaction with

supervisor

5.12 1.39 .82*** .79*** .79*** .89*** (.94)

6. Interactional justice 5.25 1.71 .76*** .71*** .75*** .80*** .83*** (.82)

7. Job satisfaction 5.51 1.51 .54*** .56*** .55*** .65*** .64*** .57*** (.85)

Note:a N = 251; the diagonal displays Cronbach’s alphas of the study variable. ***p <

.001.

We used confirmatory factor analysis to determine the distinctiveness of all

measures. First, we computed an overall model including all study variables. The seven-

factor model12 revealed a moderate overall fit, Chi-square (df = 557) = 1265.04, p <

.001; RMSEA = .072; SRMR = .043; TLI = .92; CFI = .93. In comparison, the baseline

model in which all items loaded on one factor, did not reveal satisfactory fit, Chi-square

(df = 594) = 2684.88, p < .001; RMSEA = .119; SRMR = .055; TLI = .78; CFI = .79,

and differed significantly from the seven-factor model (�Chi-square = 1419.84, �df =

37, p < .001).

�� !��"��"��"��#��"��$%��

&��

76


�

�

�

Next, we analyzed the distinctiveness of perceived listening quality vis-à-vis

AEL (again differentiating its three subscales). The model separating LQ and AEL

revealed a moderate overall fit (Chi-square (df = 128) = 428.10, p < .001; RMSEA =

.097; SRMR = .043; TLI = .92; CFI = .94). The baseline model in comparison, did not

reveal satisfactory fit, Chi-square (df = 135) = 859.01, p < .001; RMSEA = .15; SRMR

= .06; TLI = .83; CFI = .85, and differed significantly from the four-factor model

(�Chi-square = 430.91, �df = 7, p < .001). Taken together, the results indicate

discriminant validity of the study variables. Furthermore, the model separating LQ and

LMX revealed a good overall fit of the measurement model, Chi-square (df = 75) =

242.85, p < .01; SRMR =.028; RMSEA = .095; TLI = .95; CFI = .96. The covariations

of the residuals of two items of the listening quality (“cares about me” and “is interested

in me personally”) were again considered in the analysis (see method section). In

comparison, the one-factor model did not reveal satisfactory fit (Chi-square (df = 77) =

503.08, p < .001; SRMR = .04; TLI = .87; CFI = .89) and differed significantly from the

two-factor model (�Chi-square = 260.23, �df = 2, p < .001). These results in sum

support adequate discriminant validity of the listening construct vis-à-vis LMX, AEL

and the other measures. Listening quality was correlated to both comparative measures

of active empathic listening (AEL, r = .89, p < .01; see Table 1), and feeling understood

by the supervisor (r = .78, p < .01), and LMX (r = .87, p < .01). The correlations

support adequate convergent validity of listening quality.

The predictive validity of perceived listening quality on three outcome variables

(i.e. satisfaction with supervisor, interactional justice, and job satisfaction) was

determined by three regression analyses for each outcome entering 1) LQ as sole

predictor, 2) LMX as sole predictor, and 3) LQ and LMX both as predictors. The last

regression model determined if perceived listening quality still accounted for the

77


�

�

prediction of organizational outcomes beyond what is afforded by differences in LMX.

Table 2 displays the standardized regression coefficients (�), changes in R2 (�R) as well

as changes in F (�F) values for each model.

78


�

�

�

�

79


�

�

As shown in Table 2, for satisfaction with the supervisor, entering the main effect

of listening quality (Model 1) results in a significant increment in R2 (ß = .77; �R2 = .59,

�F (1, 152) = 225.46, p < .001). Regression results were similar for LMX (Model 2) as

sole predictor (ß = .82; �R2 = .66, �F (1, 152) = 315.46, p < .001). Adding listening

quality to the equation after LMX (Model 3) the effect of listening quality on supervisor

satisfaction was reduced to a ß of .20 (p = .059; �R2 = .01, �F (1, 152) = 3.72, ns). The

results suggest that over two-thirds of variability in satisfaction with the supervisor is

predicted by perceived listening quality. However, listening quality did not significantly

contribute to this prediction when the effect of LMX is accounted for.

A similar pattern was found for the prediction of interactional justice. Listening

quality, as sole predictor (Model 1), explained 53% of the variance in interactional

justice (ß = .74; �R2 = .53, �F (1, 152) = 182.59, p < .001). LMX as sole predictor

(Model 2) revealed similar results (ß = .78; �R2 = .60, �F (1, 152) = 244.00, p < .001).

Entering listening quality to the equation with LMX (Model 3) reduced the effect of

listening quality to ß of .20 (p = .09; �R2 = .01, �F (1, 152) = 2.90, ns).

Last, the results for the prediction of job satisfaction showed that listening

quality’s main effect (Model 1) explained 28% of variability in overall job satisfaction

(ß = .54, �R2 = .28, �F (1, 152) = 59.61, p < .001) and LMX (Model 2) accounted for

31% of variability (ß = .57, �R2 = .31, �F (1; 152) = 69.87, p < .001). After adding

listening quality to the equation, however, listening quality’s main effect, was again

reduced to insignificance (ß = 15; �R2 = .00, �F (1, 152) = .99, ns). The results’ pattern

indicate that the effect of listening quality is absorbed by the broader construct of LMX.

80


�

�

�

Next, we employed latent variable modeling (SEM in Mplus6) to test for the

possibility that listening may precede LMX which then in turn relates to the outcome

variables. The results of the SEM analysis are presented in Figure 1.

�

Figure 1. Latent Path Model of Listening Effects and LMX. N = 250; SEM analysis

accounted for covariation among outcome variables; standardized coefficients reported,

controlling for a common method factor.***p < .001.

As indicated by the standardized coefficients, perceived supervisor listening was

positively associated with LMX which in turn was positively associated with the three

outcome variables (supervisor satisfaction = .95, p < .001; interactional justice = .86, p

< .001; job satisfaction = .73, p < .001). Overall, the SEM model displayed in Figure 1

fitted the data well (Chi-Square (df = 220) = 545.17, RMSEA = .077, CFI = .949, TLI =

.941, SRMR = .035). To control for common method variance, we estimated the model

with and without common method factor. Table 3 displays the standardized parameter

estimates before and after controlling for this common method factor.

81


�

�

Table 3. Standardized Parameter Estimates With and Without Controlling for Common

Method Variance

Not controlling for CMF Controlling for CMF

Description

Listening � LMX .92*** .93***

LMX � Satisfaction with

supervisor .94*** .95***

LMX � Interactional justice .84*** .86***

LMX � Job satisfaction .69*** .73***

Note: N = 250; standardized coefficients reported; CMF – common method factor;

***p < .001.

All relationships were significant and of similar if not the same magnitude,

which indicated that the data was not influenced by common method variance. Taken

together, the analysis supports the robustness of the findings in account of the

weaknesses of the study design.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of perceived listening quality

in the supervisor-employee relationship within the theoretical framework of leader-

member exchange theory. Therefore, we examined their relationships to three work

outcomes and tested a path model that aimed at integrating listening and LMX. Initial

validity assessments were conducted as prerequisites to the usability of listening quality

as measurement tool within the work context. Convergent, divergent, and predictive

validity were assessed vis-à-vis validated measures. Positive correlations between

perceived supervisor listening quality and two related constructs –supervisor’s active

empathic listening and employee’s feelings of being understood – demonstrated

82


�

�

�

acceptable convergence. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that although listening

quality and LMX may share considerable variance, these two concepts are

distinguishable and demonstrate acceptable discriminant validity. Listening quality’s

demonstrated acceptable predictive validity concerning three organizational outcomes –

employees’ job satisfaction, satisfaction with their supervisor, and interactional justice.

However, when LMX was statistically accounted for, listening quality did not

significantly explain variance over and beyond LMX, as indicated by the results of the

hierarchical regression analysis. We followed the commonly used procedure to examine

the additional contribution of two constructs. LMX is a relatively broader construct that

encompasses various components of interaction towards employees. Listening might be

one more specific components of those and thus in its’ effect on work outcomes

statistically swallowed by LMX. As indicated by the path modelling results, supervisors

who listen well might establish strong relationships to their employees more easily and

foster good quality leader-member exchange. This in turn may benefit work outcomes

such as satisfaction with the supervisor, their interaction, and the job.

CONTRIBUTION

This study contributes to the listening literature, but also to the leadership

literature, in several ways. First, our results underline previous research that suggested

the positive impact of supervisor listening on followers’ job satisfaction ratings

(Brownell, 1990; Ellinger et al., 2003; Kluger, 2013) and extend these results to two

other work outcomes: interactional justice and satisfaction with the supervisor. Taken

together, these results highlight that listening is a leadership skill that deserves more

attention, both in research and in everyday work life.

83


�

�

Most important, we incorporated listening and leader-member exchange theory

which provides a theoretical framework and more clarity for studying listening in the

organizational context as was suggested by Bodie (2012). Within this theoretical

framework, the term “listening” becomes clarity as a specific part of leader-follower

interaction that fosters strong relationships. Our results reflected the close relationship

between listening and LMX, while showing their unique contribution.

With this we also add to the scarce body of research that empirically examines

listening in relation to leadership theories. Since listening has been proclaimed a ‘key

management skill,’ it is critical to include and investigate listening in a broader

framework of leadership theory. The results indicated that listening – as a specific

component of leadership behavior – can help us better understand how leaders influence

their followers’ attitudes and behaviors – through growing strong relationships with

employees.

In this study, we attempted to incorporate both listening and LMX and their

links to organizational outcomes more holistically. Although conceptually distinctive,

the results reflected a close link between the two. The path-modelling analysis indicated

that the effect of listening on work outcomes might be unfolded by LMX. However,

these results have to be interpreted with caution. They are based on cross-sectional data

and do not allow for causality statements. Clearly, in any established leader-follower

relationship, listening quality and quality of leader-member exchange are inseparably

interwoven. Leader-member exchange is a broad construct that combines for instance

perceptions of leader support and relationshop effectiveness. Hence, this construct

always refers to and is based on an established relationship. In contrast listening has to

be treated within this theoretical framework as a specific receptive behavior, which is

important at any stage of a relationship. It is similarly valuable in first encounters

84


�

�

�

between strangers (Lloyd et al., in press) and contributes to establishing of strong

relationships.

Clearly, in the current sample, the relationship between listening and leader-

member exchange presents a chicken-and-egg problem, which cannot be solved without

further studies. On the whole, the results advance our understanding how supervisor

listening, as a specific part of leader-follower interaction, interacts with leader-member

exchange and hence may offer particularly important implications for organizational

practice.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our research suggests that feeling listened to by leaders may foster satisfaction

with the supervisor, the perceptions of fair treatment, and overall perceptions of job

satisfaction. It also suggests that listening may be a valuable lever for building and

sustaining strong leader-subordinate relationships. When leaders exert high motivation

to listen, an organizational culture of mutual understanding is possible – as has been

suggested before (Rogers et al., 1991/1952). Early resolutions of interpersonal and task-

related issues may be an example of such a work culture, which may translate into

additional positive work indicators.

Organizations that want to implement such a work culture should select

managers who are truly interested in listening and understand their followers. Listening

may afford far more patience than speaking or advising, and followers may quickly

notice when leaders listening is an attempt at mutual understanding or employed as a

‘technique to manipulate’ (Tyler, 2011). In the case of the latter, all attempts and future

ones, however honest, may be detrimental to the supervisor-employee relationship.

85


�

�

For unfolding and developing the full value of leader listening, additional

management training will be a necessary supplement to selection criteria. Research has

demonstrated that people can successfully be trained to listen (e.g., Ikegami, Tahara,

Yamada, Mafune, Hiro & Nagata, 2010; McNaughton, Hamlin, McCarthy, Head-

Reeves, & Schreiner, 2008). Taken together, our results draw the attention to listening

as ‘powerful management skill’ (e.g., Drucker, 2004; Ewing et al., 1980) that may,

however, require correct usage and extensive training.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Our study is limited by its cross-sectional design and the data available reflects

only a specific point in time. Hence, this does not allow for making any causal

inferences of the effects. As discussed earlier, listening and leader-member exchange

are inseparably interwoven in any leader-follower relationship. At an early stage of the

relationship, effective listening could be a viable engine for creating strong

relationships. In the long run, a mutual interaction should be expected: listening affects

strong relationships, and strong bonds will affect the quality of future listening. In the

extreme, it seems unlikely that employees who perceive their supervisor as bad listener

would perceive their supervisor as understanding, and their relationship as effective.

One intriguing approach to the chicken-and-egg problem would be a longitudinal study

design that observes the effects of listening and leader-member exchange over time. It

would be particularly interesting to incorporate a sample of new employees who started

freshly at a company.

Similarly, another limitation of this study is that respondents answered all

questions, and all at the same time. For the purpose of our research question, however, it

was inevitable to have participants answer all variables: All items referred to followers’

86


�

�

�

perceptions and hence employees were best positioned to answer them. A “second

source” could not have answered this adequately. Thus, common method variance

might have inflated the results. To overcome this shortcoming, we applied SEM

methods and controlled for a common method factor as well as the relatedness of all

outcome variables. However, depending on the nature of the study variables, future

research should nonetheless include complementary ratings by the supervisor to get a

more holistic picture, especially for observable measures such as performance.

Third, our sample consisted of German employees, limiting generalizability to

other cultures. In this study, we chose to examine a wide range of different industries

and job functions to get a broader picture of listening effects. Additional studies are

needed to examine listening effects in different cultures and specific industries. For

instance, leadership styles and leader-follower interactions vary between Western and

East Asian cultures (e.g., Chen, 1995; Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004;

Dorfman et al., 1997; Kim et al., 2007). Evaluating how listening effects differ in a

cultural comparison would be a particularly fruitful avenue.

Finally, future research may incorporate additional outcome variables. For

instance, it would be important to investigate supervisor listening effects on work-

related outcomes such as for example turnover intentions. Prior research demonstrated

that job satisfaction and strong work relationships are the strongest attitudinal drivers

for turnover. Thus, if listening affects job satisfaction and high-quality interactions, a

link between listening and turnover may be likely.

CONCLUSION

The current research revealed evidence for listening as an important management

skill within the theoretical framework of leader-member exchange. Strong relationships

87


�

�

between leaders and followers are clearly an indispensable factor for fruitful and

productive interactions, and hence organizational success. Follower perceptions of

being listened to by their leader are linked to their perceptions of fair treatment and

satisfaction with the supervisor as well as their job in general. These results show

promise for using listening as a valuable variable in the investigation of leader-follower

interactions.

�

88


�

�

�

REFERENCES

Allen, L. (2010). Communication and the full range leadership model: A study of the

relationship between leadership style and communication apprehension,

communication competence and listening styles. (Master thesis). California State

University, Sacramento, CA.

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing

misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management

Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64.

Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Managers doing leadership: the extra-

ordinarization of the mundane. Human relations, 56(12), 1435-1459.

Ames, D., Maissen, L. B., & Brockner, J. (2012). The role of listening in interpersonal

influence. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(3), 345-349.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out on a limb:

The role of context and impression management in selling gender-equity issues.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 23-57.

Barnlund, D. C. (1962). Toward a meaning-centered philosophy of communication.

Journal of Communication, 12(4), 197-211.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

89


�

�

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497-529.



Bechler, C., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Leadership and listening. A study of member

perceptions. Small Group Research, 26(1), 77-85.

Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective expressions of listeners

change a speaker's language use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5),

747-756.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice:

Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 29(6), 747-758.

Bishop, G. F. (2008). Item Order Randomization. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia

of Survey Research Methods (p. 398). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.

90


�

�

�

Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization

and evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication

Quarterly, 59(3), 277-295.

Bodie, G. D. (2012). Listening as positive communication. In T. Socha & M. Pitts

(Eds.), The positive side of interpersonal communication (pp. 109-125). Peter Lang

Publishing Group.

Bodie, G. D., Cyr, K. S., Pence, M., Rold, M., & Honeycutt, J. (2012). Listening

competence in initial interactions I: Distinguishing between what listening is and

what listeners do. International Journal of Listening, 26(1), 1-28.

Brownell, J. (1990). Perceptions of effective listeners: A management study. Journal of

Business Communication, 27(4), 401-415.

Brownell, J. (1994). Creating strong listening environments: A key hospitality

management task. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,

6(3), 03-10.

Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles of

business. London: Routledge.

Cheng, B., Chou, L., Wu, T., Huang, M., & Farh, J. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and

subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct

validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–40.

91


�

�

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and

follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767.

Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character

ethic. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role

making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader‐member exchange and

organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 67(4), 315-326.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997).

Leadership in western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in

effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-

274.

Drollinger, T., Comer, L. B., & Warrington, P. T. (2006). Development and validation

of the active empathetic listening scale. Psychology and Marketing, 23(2), 161-18.

Drucker, P. F. (2004). What makes an effective executive? Harvard Business Review

(June), 58-63.

Elangovan, A., & Xie, J. L. (1999). Effects of perceived power of supervisor on

subordinate stress and motivation: The moderating role of subordinate

characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3), 359-373.

92


�

�

�

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior,

employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective

in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-

458.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role

of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee

outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659-676.

Ewing, D., & Banks, P. (1980). Listening and responding to employees’ concerns.

Harvard Business Review, 58 (1), 101-114.

Frey, R. (1993). Empowerment or else. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 80-94.

Gabarro, J. J. (1991). Retrospective commentary. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 108-

109.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange

theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-

843.

Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J., Donnelly, J., & Konopaske, R. (2003). Organizations

behavior structure process (11th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Companies.

Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (2000). The key role of listening in business: A study of the

Singapore insurance industry. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 41-51.

Gordon, T. (1977). Leader effectiveness training, L.E.T.: The no-lose way to release the

productive potential of people. New York: Wyden Books.

93


�

�

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.

Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader—member

exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment

model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 109-131.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of

Management Review, 12, 9–22.

Husband, R. L., Cooper, L. O., & Monsour, W. M. (1988). Factors underlying

supervisors' perceptions of their own listening behavior. Journal of the


Ikegami, K., Tahara, H., Yamada, T., Mafune, K., Hiro, H., & Nagata, S. (2010).

Effects of a mental health training program for manufacturing company managers.

Journal of UOEH, 32(2), 141-153.

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of

leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job

satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384.

Johnson, S. D., & Bechler, C. (1998). Examining the relationship between listening

effectiveness and leadership emergence perceptions, behaviors, and recall. Small

Group Research, 29(4), 452-471.

94


�

�

�

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2011). The performance of RMSEA in

models with small degrees of freedom. Unpublished paper, University of

Connecticut.

Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures

of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333-

351.

Kim, T., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural

comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 83-

95.

Kluger, A. N. (2013, June). Dyadic Listening Effects: Meta-analyses & Theory. Paper

presented at the International Listening Association Convention, Montreal.

Kluger, A. N., & Zaidel, K. (2013). Are listeners perceived as leaders? International

Journal of Listening, 27(2), 73-84.

Kramer, R. (1997). Leading by listening: An empirical test of Carl Rogers’s theory of

human relationship using interpersonal assessments of leaders by followers.

(Doctoral thesis). The George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of

leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory:

The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel

and human resources management, (Vol. 15, pp. 47-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

95


�

�

Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Keller, J. W., & Voelpel, S. C. (2014). Is my boss really listening

to me? The impact of perceived supervisor listening on emotional exhaustion,

turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business

Ethics, (June), 1-16.

Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Kluger, A. N., & Voelpel, S. C. (in press). Building trust and

feeling well – Examining intraindividual and interpersonal outcomes and

underlying mechanisms of listening. International Journal of Listening.

Lobdell, C. L., Sonoda, K. T., & Arnold, W. E. (1993). The influence of perceived

supervisor listening behavior on employee commitment. Journal of the




MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors

matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 27(4), 396-41.

Maslow, A.H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. (2nd Ed.) Princeton, NJ: Van

Nostrand.

McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., & Schreiner, M. (2008).

Learning to listen: Teaching an active listening strategy to preservice education

professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 223-231.

96


�

�

�

Mishima, N., Kubota, S., & Nagata, S. (2000). The development of a questionnaire to

assess the attitude of active listening. Journal of Occupational Health, 42(3), 111-

118.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived

organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and

organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351-

357.




Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008a). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior

Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008b). Contemporary approaches to assessing

mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder

(Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication

research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

97


�

�

Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customers: The impact of

perceived salesperson listening behavior on relationship outcomes. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 127-137.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655-687.

Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive review

of theory and research. New York: Industrial Communication Council.

Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as

an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek, &

A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.



Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality

change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.



Rogers. C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as

developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.) Psychology: A study

of a science. Formulations of the person and the social context (Vol.3, pp. 184-

256). New York: McGraw Hill.

98


�

�

�


gateways to communication (Reprinted from Harvard Business Review, July


Rogers, C. R., Gendlin, E. T., Kiesler, D. J., & Truax, C. B. (Eds.). (1967). The

therapeutic relationship and its impact. A study of psychotherapy with

schizophrenics. Madison, Wisconsin University of Wisconsin Press.

Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of

servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York: Wiley.

Steil, L. K., & Bommelje, R. K. (2004). Listening leaders: The ten golden rules to

listen, lead & succeed. Edina, M.N.: Beaver's Pond Press.




Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what

matters most. New York: Viking.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA.

Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). Constructive controversy for management education: Developing

committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 7(1), 73-85.

99


�

�



Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:

Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-

696.

100


�

�

�

APPENDIX

Measure of Perceived Supervisor Listening


Think of a typical interaction with your supervisor. Generally, when my

supervisor listens to me, I feel my supervisor…

1. is interested in what I have to say.

2. makes me comfortable so I can speak openly.

3. makes it easy for me to open up.

4. understands my feelings.

5. is interested in me personally.

6. accepts me for what I am.

7. cares about me.

�

101

�

�

�

102


�

�

�

CHAPTER 4

IS MY BOSS REALLY LISTENING TO ME? THE

IMPACT OF PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR LISTENING

ON EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION, TURNOVER

INTENTION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR1314

��I am particularly thankful to Diana Boer, Josh W. Keller, and Sven C. Voelpel for co-authoring

this manuscript.��

��

103

�

�

�104

Is My Boss Really Listening to Me? The Impact of Perceived

Supervisor Listening on Emotional Exhaustion, Turnover

Intention, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Karina J. Lloyd • Diana Boer • Joshua W. Keller •

Sven Voelpel

Received: 7 January 2014 / Accepted: 28 May 2014

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Little is known empirically about the role of

supervisor listening and the emotional conditions that lis-

tening facilitates. Having the opportunity to speak is only

one part of the communication process between employees

and supervisors. Employees also react to whether they

perceive the supervisor as actively listening. In two studies,

this paper examines three important outcomes of employee

perceptions of supervisor listening (emotional exhaustion,

turnover intentions and organizational citizenship behavior

directed toward the organization). Furthermore, positive

and negative affect are investigated as distinct mediating

mechanisms. Results from Study 1 revealed that employee

perceptions of supervisor listening reflected supervisors’

self-ratings of how they listen to their employees and these

perceptions were associated with the three work outcomes.

Study 2 replicated the findings in a larger sample and found

evidence for two explanatory mechanisms. Positive affect

mediated the effects of perceived supervisor listening on

organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention,

whereas negative affect mediated listening effects on

emotional exhaustion and turnover intention. Implications

for organizational research and managerial practice con-

cerning workforce sustainability are discussed.

Keywords Supervisor listening � Work affect �

Affect-driven work outcomes � Emotional exhaustion �

Organizational citizenship behavior � Turnover intentions

Introduction

We have long known that employee voice is important

(e.g., Hirschman 1970). However, in emphasizing the pri-

macy of voice, research on leader–subordinate relations

may have overemphasized traditional perspectives on

assertive communication (Billing and Alvesson 2000;

Grant 1988). In particular, less is known empirically about

the role of leaders’ listening and the emotional conditions

that listening facilitates in employees. The opportunity to

speak is only one part of the communication process

between employees and supervisors. Employees also react

to whether they perceive their supervisor as actively lis-

tening. Yet while there has been a lot of discussion and

research on the antecedents and outcomes of voice (e.g.,

Morrison 2011), we know little about the outcomes of

listening and their underlying mechanisms.

Previous literature suggested listening as an important

behavior that signals managerial openness (Ashford et al.

1998) and motivates employees to speak up (Milliken et al.

2003). It encourages productive two-way communication

(Bass and Riggio 2006; Dutton et al. 1997) and elicits

speaker self-disclosure (Miller et al. 1983). The listening

process may also have important relational implications.

Attentive listeners foster an atmosphere of safety to speak

openly, create intimacy, and elicit positive perceptions of

the listener (Beukeboom 2009; Edmondson and Moingeon

K. J. Lloyd (&) � S. Voelpel

Department of Business Administration, School of the

Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen,

Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany

e-mail: [email protected]

D. Boer

Department of Social Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt,

Frankfurt, Germany

J. W. Keller

Division of Strategy, Management and Organisation, College of

Business (Nanyang Business School), Nanyang Technological

University, Singapore, Singapore

123

J Bus Ethics

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2242-4

Author's personal copy

105

1999). For instance, this affects perceptions of consider-

ation and respect (Bass and Riggio 2006), justice (Blader

and Tyler 2003), as well as trust and liking of the listener

(Collins and Miller 1994; Lloyd et al., in press). Addi-

tionally, psychological benefits have been claimed for lis-

tening with empathy, acceptance, and non-judgemental

attitude (Rogers 1951, 1957, 1975) on (psychological)

well-being (Reis et al. 2000; Lloyd et al., in press; Lun

et al. 2008) and personal development (Pasupathi and Hoyt

2009). However, whether these positive effects of listening

are applicable to employee–supervisor relations and how

supervisor listening affects important organizational work

outcomes has rarely been empirically investigated (for

some exceptions see Ellinger et al. 2003; Kluger and Zaidel

2013; Mineyama et al. 2007; Stine et al. 1995).

The purpose of this paper is to address this theoretical

and empirical gap by showing that employee perceptions of

supervisor listening are important for three different

important outcomes: one proximal (emotional exhaustion)

and two more distal (organizational citizenship behavior

and turnover intention). More importantly, we additionally

address the question of how employee perceptions of

supervisor listening affects these outcomes and suggest

positive and negative affect as two distinctive mediating

mechanisms.

Clearly, employee citizenship behavior, turnover inten-

tions, and emotional exhaustion are important organizational

outcomes and determinants of overall organizational func-

tioning (Motowidlo and Van Scotter 1994) and organiza-

tional success (Cropanzano et al. 2003; Organ et al. 2006;

Schlesinger and Heskett 1991). Empirical work in the

organizational behavior field indicates that individuals may

be more favorably influenced by supervisors who listen well

(Ames et al. 2012), be it in terms of reactions toward their

superiors (Detert andBurris 2007), their work (Ellinger et. al.

2003), or the organization (Ashford et al. 2009). Moreover,

existing theory and research suggest that employee feelings

about work (affect) tend to drive somework behaviors (Brief

andWeiss 2002;Weiss and Cropanzano 1996). In this paper,

we suggest that employees recognize how supervisors listen,

and employee perceptions of being listened to are related to

positive and negative affective reactions to their supervisor’s

listening, which—in turn—translate into work outcomes

such as turnover intentions, citizenship performance, and

emotional exhaustion.

Contributing to mutual exchange of information, fruitful

interactions, and strong relationships, effective listening

may create a positive interpersonal work experience that

reflects positively on the organization and translates into

more positive work outcomes. However, establishing trust-

ing relationships with employees that influence employee

attitudes and work behavior are long-term processes. Given

the importance of work outcomes such as citizenship

behavior, voluntary turnover, and employee well-being for

overall organizational functioning, it is essential to under-

stand how supervisor listening unfurls its effects.

Based on theory and prior research, we investigate short-

term positive and negative affective reactions as underlying

mechanisms of perceived supervisor listening. For instance,

experimental research revealed that a short interaction with a

non-responsive superior elicits significant affective speaker

reactions (Bavelas et al. 2000; Beukeboom 2009). If experi-

enced repeatedly, these short-term affective reactions may

translate into long-term effects on employee attitudes and

behavior. This is in line with evidence from organizational

research that suggests some work behaviors (e.g., organiza-

tional citizenship behavior and counterproductive work

behavior) are direct reactions to employees’ affective expe-

riences at work (Brief and Weiss 2002; Dalal et al. 2009;

Spector and Fox 2002). Employees may react emotionally to

whether they believe the supervisor is effectively listening (or

not) which, in turn, may distinctively affect work outcomes.

This paper examines the mediating mechanisms—the psy-

chological underpinnings—that may explain listening

effects.

The main focus of this research is to examine whether

perceptions of supervisor listening are associated with

proximal and distal work outcomes and the distinctive

mediatingmechanisms that may explain listening effects. To

this purpose, we first present a multi-rater organizational

study that examines the relationship between supervisor

listening, employee perceptions of supervisor listening, and

the three work outcomes. Then, we examine the distinctive

mediating mechanisms of positive and negative affect in a

larger cross-sectional employee survey. For the two studies,

we predict that perceived supervisor listening is (a) related to

supervisors’ listening behaviors (Study 1), (b) associated

with employee work outcomes (Study 1 and Study 2) and

(b) that these latter relationships are mediated by distinctive

affective mechanisms (Study 2). Drawing from affective

events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano 1996), the basic tenet

of our theoretical argument is that employee observations of

supervisor listening and employees’ affective reactions to

these observations provide a basis for understanding how

supervisor listening may lead to various work-related out-

comes. Accordingly, we first discuss the relationship

between perceived listening and affect. Then, we will

introduce our two studies.

Affect and Perceived Listening

In this paper, affect is conceptualized as a generic term that

encompasses both emotion and mood (Brief and Weiss

2002) and refers to a short-term state with negative and

positive affect representing distinct and independent

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


106

domains of emotions (Watson and Clark 1997; Watson

et al. 1988; for more general frameworks of two-dimen-

sional affect theory, e.g., valence and activation, see Rus-

sell and Barrett 1999). Negative affect describes a state of

subjective distress which subsumes a variety of aversive

mood states such as feeling upset, guilty, and jittery

(Watson and Clark 1984; Watson et al. 1988). Positive

affect, in contrast, includes positive emotional states such

as interested, proud, and determined (for an extensive list

see Watson et al. 1988).

According to affective events theory (Weiss and Cro-

panzano 1996), employees’ affective experiences at work

can lead to consecutive work behavior such as helping

coworkers or withdrawing effort. Organizational research

has already demonstrated such links between affect and a

variety of work outcomes, including employees’ decisions

to quit (George 1996; George and Bettenhausen 1990;

Shaw 1999), employee health (Janssen et al. 2010), orga-

nizational citizenship behavior (George 1991), and coun-

terproductive work behavior (Lee and Allen 2002).

Although positive affect is likely to elicit positive behav-

iors such as helping others (e.g., Isen and Baron 1991),

voluntary work (Spector and Fox 2002), and extra-role

contributions (George and Brief 1992; Parker and Collins

2010; Warr et al. 2014), negative affect is likely to elicit

negative work behaviors such as social withdrawal and

effort withdrawal, theft, sabotage, and workplace violence

(Dalal et al. 2009; Fox et al. 2001; Warr et al. 2014). This

implies there is some valence specificity between affect

(i.e., positive or negative) and the valence of behavioral

reaction (positive behavior or negative behavior). In fact,

social psychological research has found that positive

affective states are related to more positive behaviors (e.g.,

helping others, see Isen and Baron 1991) and negative

affect to negative behavioral reactions (e.g., aggressive

behavior, Baron 1971).

As previously discussed, perceptions of listening can

elicit positive and negative affective reactions (e.g., Beu-

keboom 2009). Effective listeners may be more positively

experienced by their employees and drive short-term

positive affect. For instance, listening supervisors may be

perceived as more open, interested, and supportive (Ash-

ford et al. 2009), and make employees feel more com-

fortable to approach. Hence, effective listeners may elicit

more positive affective reactions in employees. This, for

instance, may positively motivate or energize employees to

show initiative and demonstrate more positive work

behaviors such as increased organizational citizenship

behavior (Spector and Fox 2002).

Not being listened to is an unpleasant experience which

can be frustrating and distressing, and lead to negative

perceptions of the source of listening. Social psychological

evidence suggests that states of negative affectivity (e.g.,

anger or frustration, Robinson and Bennett 1997), induced

by unpleasant stimuli (e.g., pain or insults) influence

aggression (Berkowitz 1998). In the workplace, negative

affect (e.g., elicited by insults) has been related to norm-

nonconformity and deviant behavior including aggressive

behavior toward clients, coworkers, and the organization

(e.g., Robinson and Bennett 1995, 1997). Employee per-

ceptions of not being listened to may constitute a similarly

unpleasant stimulus that induces (short-term) negative

affect. Occurring repeatedly, this may have long-term

negative effects on employees and work outcomes.

In sum, we suggest that employee perceptions of

supervisor listening have distinct effects on work outcomes

via the relationships to positive and negative affect. We

argue that effective listening is related to positive affect

which has a constructive, energizing effect on employees.

In contrast, low listening quality is a negative experience

related to negative affect which has deconstructive, dem-

otivating effects on employees and work outcomes.

We present two studies. In Study 1, we examine the

relationship between supervisor listening and employee

perceived supervisor listening and whether there is a main

effect of employee perceived supervisor listening on work

outcomes (H1–H3). In Study 2, we examine the mediating

effects of positive affect and negative affect (H4–H6).

Study 1

The relationship between supervisors and their employees

is a social-perceptual process (Lord and Maher 2002). The

effects of supervisors’ listening behavior on their

employees’ subsequent behavior depend on how their

employees perceive the listening. When a supervisor

attentively listens to an employees’ concerns and demon-

strates interest and care while listening, the employee is

more likely to make an overall assessment that the super-

visor is a good listener. When a supervisor pays little

attention or demonstrates little interest or care while lis-

tening, the employee is likely to make an overall assess-

ment that the supervisor is a bad listener. Perceptions of

supervisors create affective responses (Fitness 2000;

Newcombe and Ashkanasy 2002), which in turn lead to

behavioral outcomes. Therefore, the extent to which an

employee perceives the supervisor as a good or bad listener

will influence the employees’ affective response to their

supervisor’s listening efforts, which in turn will lead to

various behavioral outcomes.

Emotional Exhaustion and Listening

The frustrating or distressing nature of not being listened

suggests that emotional exhaustion is a proximal outcome

Is My Boss Really Listening to Me?

123


107

of the perception that the supervisor is a poor listener.

Emotional exhaustion refers to the extent that individuals

feel emotionally overextended and ‘‘drained’’ by their

work, often caused by long-term involvement in situations

that are emotionally demanding (Maslach 1982; Maslach

and Jackson 1986; Wright and Cropanzano 1998; Zohar

1997). Cordes and Dougherty (1993) describe this experi-

ence as ‘‘a lack of energy and a feeling that one’s emo-

tional resources are used up’’ (p. 623). The consequences

of emotionally overworked employees can be costly for the

individual and the organization, including, for instance,

lower job performance and lower organizational commit-

ment (Cropanzano et al. 2003; Grandey et al. 2004; Wright

and Cropanzano 1998).

Several factors within the individual or the work envi-

ronment determine the extent to which employees feel

emotionally exhausted, such as personal resources, coping

strategies, emotional culture, and supervisory regulation of

‘‘display rules’’ (Grandey et al. 2004, 2005; Wilk and

Moynihan 2005). Supervisors, in particular, are likely to be

a strong source of influence on the work environment since

they set goals and expectations about demands, provide

social, emotional or material support, and resources.

Additionally, the supervisor sets ‘‘display rules’’ (e.g.,

appraisal or suppression of emotions) that guide employ-

ees’ regulation of emotional expression and influence the

organizational emotional culture (Diefendorff and Richard

2003).

Supervisors who are perceived as poor listeners may

increase the risk of emotional exhaustion. For instance,

employees may perceive such supervisors as less socially

and emotionally supportive and approachable (Ashford

et al. 2009). Employees may also feel less comfortable and

safe to open up to ineffective listeners and thus refrain from

sharing burdensome thoughts early in time, and feel dis-

couraged to safely express emotions in the workplace

(Cooper et al. 2003; Wilk and Moynihan 2005). Taken

together, this can hamper early resolution of problems and

necessary changes that otherwise may prevent further

emotional draining. Therefore, we posit:

Hypothesis 1 Perceived supervisor listening is associated

with low emotional exhaustion.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Listening

Listening effects, although primarily at the interpersonal

level between employees and supervisors, might also

extend beyond that and affect employee behavior toward

coworkers and the organization (i.e., employee citizenship

behaviors, OCB). OCB refers to ‘‘individual behavior that

is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the

formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes

the effective functioning of the organization’’ (Organ 1988,

p. 4). The distinctive aspects to this construct are that these

behaviors are not critical to the task or job but exceed core

obligations and are performed as a result of personal choice

and proactive initiative (Katz 1964; Smith et al. 1983).

They can be directed toward the individual (OCB-I) or the

organization (OCB-O) and include, for instance, helping

coworkers or offering ideas to improve the functioning of

the organization (Smith et al. 1983; Williams and Anderson

1991). Clearly, these are behaviors that are beneficial for

organizations. Researchers have demonstrated that OCB is

positively related to organizational success, including sales

performance (Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994), product

quality (Podsakoff et al. 1997), operating efficiency and

performance quality (Yen and Niehoff 2004), and overall

profits (Koys 2001).

Previous research has found that supervisor behavior

does not only influence employees’ organizational citi-

zenship behaviors toward the supervisor (e.g., Sparrowe

et al. 2006) but to the organization as a whole (Organ and

Ryan 1995; Podsakoff et al. 2000). This is because

employee attitudes to the organization are shaped by their

supervisors’ actions (e.g., Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002).

Since perceived supervisor listening can influence

employee work experiences, it is likely to also influence

employees’ attitude toward the organization and thus

employees’ OCB-O. Therefore:

Hypothesis 2 Perceived supervisor listening is positively

related to employee organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB-O).

Listening and Turnover Intentions

Perceived supervisor listening is also likely to influence

turnover intentions. Happy employees are likely to be

committed to their job regardless of other opportunities

(Meyer et al. 2002), whereas unhappy employees may be

motivated to quit their job and leave the company (e.g.,

Allen et al. 2010). This is a particularly salient issue

because voluntary turnover can be costly to organizations

due to required training, lost productivity, loss of critical

knowledge, and damage to the company’s image (Mitchell

et al. 2001; Shaw et al. 2005).

Previous research has found that supervisor behaviors can

influence turnover intention (e.g., Allen et al. 2010; Aquino

et al. 1997; Griffeth et al. 2000). Perceived supervisor lis-

tening is likely to play a particularly important role con-

cerning voluntary turnover decisions because strong

relationships between supervisors and employees are key

drivers of voluntary turnover (Allen et al. 2010). For

instance, by fostering open communication, listening

enables early detection of dissatisfaction and facilitates early

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


108

resolution of problems. Effective listeners may also be per-

ceived as more caring and supportive and may establish

stronger relationships with employees. Interactions of this

kind create a positive experience, which—in turn—may

influence employee attitudes toward their supervisor and the

work place. In fact, Kluger (2013) presented meta-analytical

findings which suggest that supervisor listening is positively

related to employee satisfaction. In contrast, employees who

continuously experience bad listeners may develop a nega-

tive attitude toward their supervisor and the organization. As

a result, this negative experiencemaymotivate employees to

seek a different work environment. Similarly, a lack of

positive experience may also reduce the incentive of staying

at their jobwhen employees have the opportunity to leave the

organization in pursuit of a potentially more fulfilling posi-

tion. Therefore:

Hypothesis 3 Perceived supervisor listening is negatively

associated with employee turnover intention.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Study 1 contained data from 18 directors and department

managers as well as their subordinates (n = 43) collected

at a midsized North German sports company. Average

team size was 2.4 employees. Of the employees, 41.7 %

were female and 58.2 % male. The average age of the

employees was 34.4 years (SD = 8.6), average organiza-

tional tenure was 7 years (SD = 6.1), and the average

tenure within the team was 4.6 years (SD = 3.63). In terms

of education, 8.3 % of the employees reported to have a

certificate of basic secondary education, 25 % had done an

apprenticeship or vocational education, while 66.7 % had a

university degree. With respect to the supervisors, 70 %

were male and the average age was 42 years (SD = 8.3).

Their average organizational tenure was 12 years

(SD = 7.9), 23.3 % had completed vocational training, and

76.5 % held a university degree.

Data were collected within the framework of leadership

trainings targeted at directors and department managers.

Questionnaires were filled out directly or taken back to the

office. Team members received sealed questionnaires at the

company which they returned anonymously to the

researchers. Participation was voluntary and anonymous;

supervisors and teams were matched via a matching code.

Only matching data from supervisors and their subordi-

nates were considered for the analysis, resulting in 18

complete teams, including their supervisors.

Our main independent variable was employees’ assess-

ment of their supervisor’s listening. However, employee

perceptions may not necessarily be consistent with the

actual supervisor behavior. Hence, supervisor self-ratings

provided an additional and complementary measure.

Measures

Questionnaires were designed in German. All measures

had been adapted to German using the method of transla-

tion and back translation (Brislin 1970) by a team of

bilingual psychologists and professional translators. We

measured items using 5-point scales, with response cate-

gories ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). Employees provided self-ratings on all measures

that referred to internal psychological states (e.g., turnover

intentions).

Employee Perceived Supervisor Listening Employees

rated the extent to which they perceived being listened to

by their supervisor using 8 items that had been developed

in previous studies (Lloyd et al., in press) and adapted to

the supervisor–employee interactions (Lloyd et al. 2013).

Items referred to ‘‘Generally, when my supervisor listens to

me,’’ and sample items included ‘‘is interested in what I

have to say’’ and ‘‘makes me comfortable so I can speak

openly’’ (Appendix). The 8 items’ internal reliability was

good (a = .96).

Supervisor Listening Supervisors rated their own listen-

ing behavior toward their subordinates on the same 8-item

listening scale (Lloyd et al., in press, 2013; Appendix)

which was adapted to refer to the employees. Accordingly,

items were prefaced with ‘‘Generally, when I listen to my

employees,’’ and a sample item was ‘‘I am interested in

what they have to say.’’ The scale revealed acceptable

internal reliability (a = .93).

Emotional Exhaustion We measured emotional exhaus-

tion using the 5-item subscale from Maslach’s burnout

inventory (Maslach 1982; Maslach and Jackson 1986).

Sample items included ‘‘I feel emotionally drained from

my work’’ and ‘‘I feel tired when I get up in the morning

and have to face another day on the job.’’ Cronbach’s alpha

for this scale was .85.

Turnover Intentions Employee intentions to leave the

company were measured using the three items from Ko-

novsky and Cropanzano (1991). Sample items were ‘‘I

often think about quitting my job at this company’’ and ‘‘I

would like to get a new job.’’ This 3-item scale had a

Cronbach’s alpha of .91.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior We assessed orga-

nizational citizenship behavior directed toward the


123


109

organization (OCB-O) using six items from Lee et al.

(2002). Sample items were ‘‘Defend the organization when

other employees criticize it’’ and ‘‘Offer ideas to improve

the functioning of the organization.’’ Cronbach’s alpha for

this measure was marginally acceptable, .63 (Lance et al.

2006).

Analytical Strategy Since all employees were nested

within teams and the supervisors, we employed two-level

analysis techniques. Intraclass correlation coefficients

(Bliese 2000) were calculated examining the ratio of

between-group to total variance (ICC), corrected for

average team size (Biemann et al. 2012). The ICC indicates

the amount of variance in a variable attributable to group

membership. We examined the hypothesized links of our

model using two-level path modeling procedures in

Mplus6. Thus, we simultaneously accounted for the nested

data structure and the relatedness of all outcome variables.

Observed variables were analyzed due to sample size

considerations.

Results and Discussion

Results presented in Table 1 include descriptive statistics,

scale reliabilities, and zero-order correlations between

employee ratings of listening quality and work-related

outcomes.

The zero-order correlations reveal significant associa-

tions of perceived listening quality and work outcomes.

However, these results do not account for the nestedness of

employees in teams and supervisors. The ICC results

confirmed that 49 % of the variance in employee perceived

supervisor listening is explained by workgroup/supervisor

membership (ICC = .49). The ICCs for the three outcome

variables were .27 for OCB-O, for turnover intentions .18,

and for emotional exhaustion .10. Consequently, to test our

hypothesis (Fig. 1), we conducted two-level path analysis,

analyzing both employee perceptions of supervisor listen-

ing and the outcome variables on the individual level,

while accounting for workgroup membership.

Results show first that supervisor listening (i.e., the

supervisor’s self-ratings on listening) and employee per-

ceived supervisor listening were highly correlated (r = .93).

This result demonstrated that the employees’ perceptions

were not simply self-constructed, but reflected reliable

observations of supervisors’ behaviors. Furthermore,

employee perceived supervisor listeningwas associatedwith

citizenship behaviors (OCB-O), turnover intention, and the

extent to which they felt emotionally exhausted. The model-

data fit was good (RMSEA = .000; SRMR = .001 (within)/

.004 (between); TLI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00) and all of our

hypotheses (H1–H3) were confirmed.

Alternative models, which either included additional

direct paths from supervisor self-ratings to work outcomes

or that tested solely a direct link between supervisor self-

ratings (without employee ratings in the model) and out-

come variables, yielded nonsignificant results. For

instance, when the direct link between supervisor self-rat-

ings and work outcomes was included, supervisor self-

ratings did not significantly predict any of the organiza-

tional outcomes—emotional exhaustion (b = -.59;

p = .90), OCB-O (b = .45; p = .30), or turnover inten-

tions (b = -.55; p = .76). Nor did the model which con-

sidered only the direct link between supervisor self-ratings

and the three work outcomes—emotional exhaustion

(b = -.31; p = .88), OCB-O (b = .39; p = .56), or

turnover intentions (b = -.38; p = .77). The effects all

are in the predicted direction though, and they may have

failed to reach significance because of a) the small sample

size and b) the analysis took into account all three direct

effects and intercorrelations between the outcomes, which

reduces the degrees of freedom as compared to simple

correlations. Hence, while employee perceptions of

supervisor listening were in line with supervisors’ self-

perceptions of their listening behavior, the results suggest

Table 1 Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics of the study variablesa

M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Listening (supervisor self-rating)b 4.15 .35 (.94)

2. Listening (employee rating)a 3.87 .58 – (.96)

3. Emotional exhaustion 2.38 .81 – -.35* (.85)

4. Turnover intentions 1.51 .77 – -.66** .38* (.91)

5. OCB-O 4.14 .40 – .34* -.32* -.56** (.63)

Values in brackets represent Cronbach’s a

* p\ .05, two-tailed, ** p\ .01, two-taileda n = 43 (employees); b n = 18 (supervisors)

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


110

that foremost employees’ perceived supervisor listening

has an influence on all three work outcomes.

Taken together, the results indicated how important it is

for employees to feel listened to by their supervisors.

Supervisors who actively engage in listening behaviors that

demonstrate attention, interest, and care will be noticed by

their employees. And employees who believe they are

listened to appear to be more motivated to support the

organization, less prone to leave the organization, and

experience less emotional exhaustion. These main effects

provide a basis to examine how perceived supervisor lis-

tening influences these work outcomes and specifically the

mediating mechanisms of positive and negative affect.

Study 2

For Study 2, we increased the sample size and sought to

generalize the findings to a wider range of professions than

covered in Study 1. We expect the main effect of perceived

supervisor listening to parallel the effects found in Study 1

in predicting employee citizenship behavior, turnover

intention, and emotional exhaustion (H1 to H3). More

importantly, we examine the specific mediating mecha-

nisms associated with positive and negative affect. As

discussed earlier, PA and NA are independent constructs,

and thus, they may play different mediating roles. As found

in Study 1, employees’ perceptions that supervisors are

poor listeners were associated with employees’ emotional

exhaustion. One primary reason might be that the percep-

tion that one is not being listened to is emotionally dis-

tressing and hence elicits negative affect. Constantly

occurring, these emotionally distressing situations might

transfer into long-term negative effects on emotional well-

being. Similarly, research on supervisor support showed

strong links of supervisor behavior on emotional exhaus-

tion and physiological stress reactions (Mineyama et al.

2007). We propose that perceived supervisor listening

elicits a strong negative affective reaction—which if

experienced repeatedly—can translate into emotional

exhaustion. Specifically, we predict that the perception of

poor supervisor listening elicits negative affect and this in

turn facilitated emotional exhaustion. We do not, however,

predict a similar mediating effect of positive affect, as

employees can have a lack of positive affect without

feeling emotionally exhausted. Therefore:

Hypothesis 4 The relationship between employee per-

ceived supervisor listening and emotional exhaustion is

mediated by negative affect.

In Study 1, we also found that employee perceived

supervisor listening was associated with citizenship

behaviors aimed at the organization (OCB-O). A potential

factor is that supervisor listening exerts its effects on

constructive work behavior via its effects on positive

affect. As discussed earlier, listening perceptions can sig-

nificantly influence speakers’ affective reactions and atti-

tudes toward the listener (Beukeboom 2009). Immediate

positive affective experiences in turn have been suggested

as important drivers for positive (constructive) employee

work behaviors (Brief and Weiss 2002; Dalal et al. 2009;

George 1991; Warr et al. 2014). Helping behavior is one of

the most widely studied types of social behaviors, and the

strong role of positive affect in stimulating this behavior

has been well established (e.g., George and Brief 1992;

Isen and Levin 1972). Individuals in a positive mood tend

to be more likely to help others (Brief and Weiss 2002; see

Isen and Baron 1991), exhibit affiliated altruistic behaviors

(Isen and Levin 1972), and increased levels of prosocial

behavior at work (George 1991). Hence, positive affect

could also increase levels of other extra-role behaviors

directed toward the overall organizational functioning such

as protecting the organization or making suggestions for

improvement (George and Brief 1992). Positive affect has

been suggested as an energizing motivation (Watson et al.

1999) that gives the necessary impetus to perform beyond

Fig. 1 Two-level path model of

listening effects.

n (employees) = 43;

n (supervisors) = 18; m (team

size) = 2.39 employees;

covariances between the

outcome variables were

included in the two-level path

modeling analysis; standardized

coefficients reported;

***p\ .001, **p\ .01;

*p\ .05, two-tailed


123


111

routine in-role performance (Dalal et al. 2009; Spector and

Fox 2002). This link between positive affect and positive

work behavior has received support from organizational

research findings between positive affect and employee

initiative (Den Hartog and Belschak 2007; Fritz and Son-

nentag 2009), proactive behavior (Tsai et al. 2007), and

citizenship behaviors (Dalal et al. 2009). We therefore

predict that the link between perceived supervisor listening

and OCB-O is mediated by positive affect. In addition,

since research indicates that organizational citizenship

behavior is distinctively driven by positive affect, we do

not expect negative affect (related to the absence of

effective listening) to be related to positive behavior since

they lack the necessary impetus for positive action (for a

more extensive review see Warr et al. 2014). In sum,

effective listeners, perceived as caring and respectful, may

constitute a positive affective experience for the employee

which, in turn, plays out on employee citizenship behavior

and motivates employees to ‘walk the extra mile’ for the

organization. Therefore:

Hypothesis 5 The relationship between employee per-

ceived supervisor listening and organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB-O) is mediated by positive affect.

Finally, Study 1 results also revealed that employee

perceived supervisor listening was associated with turn-

over intention. Unlike the effect on emotional exhaustion,

which we predict will be mediated by negative affect, and

the effect on OCB-O, which we predict will be mediated

by positive affect, positive and negative affect are both

possible mediators that link perceived supervisor listening

to turnover intention. Experiencing non-perceptive

supervisors can be frustrating and dissatisfying and drive

employees to seek a different workplace. That is, non-

responsive supervisors may stimulate negative affect

which in turn is related to employee turnover intentions.

Similarly, it is possible that a lack of or absence of

positive affect (low PA) has similar effects on turnover

intentions, particularly because many employees seek a

workplace that entails professionally and affectively sat-

isfying working conditions. Hence, the lack of positive

affective experiences due to poor supervisor listening can

encourage employees to seek new job opportunities.

Therefore:

Hypothesis 6a The relationship between employee per-

ceived supervisor listening and turnover intention is med-

iated by negative affect.

Hypothesis 6b The relationship between employee per-

ceived supervisor listening and turnover intention is med-

iated by positive affect.

Method

Participants and Procedure

328 German employees from different companies volun-

tarily participated in this survey study without monetary

reward. The sample consisted of 58.8 % women (mean

age = 34.4, SD = 8.9). Approximately 60 % had a uni-

versity degree or equivalent, their average tenure at the

company was 4.76 years (SD = 5.4) and the average time

they had been working for their current supervisor was

3.2 years (SD = 2.6). Participants were recruited by con-

venience sampling methods in order to get a more heter-

ogeneous sample. Online surveys were administered

through various online platforms and discussion forums to

reach a maximum variety in participant age, educational

background, job position, and industry. For instance, we

addressed general work forums in which employees discuss

and exchange work-related information as well as specific

forums for occupational groups (e.g., police officers,

mechanics, and engineers.). We obtained permission to

post an invitation to participate in our study from the web

administrators. The order of scales as well the item order

within the scale was randomized to account for order

effects (Bishop 2008). Only questionnaires that were fully

completed were included in the analysis. The final sample

included employees from a wide range of job functions and

jobs including administration, engineering, finance, mar-

keting, and teaching.

Measures

To increase comparability between the studies, we applied

the same measures and scales for perceived listening

supervisor listening (Appendix), emotional exhaustion,

turnover intention, and OCB-O as in Study 1. Positive and

negative affect were measured using the 20-item Positive

and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al.

1988). The positive affect (PA) measure includes items

such as ‘‘attentive’’ and ‘‘strong,’’ while the negative affect

(NA) measure includes items such as ‘‘irritated’’ and

‘‘upset.’’ Respondents were asked to think of their inter-

actions with their supervisor in general (i.e., most of the

times) and asked to indicate how they generally felt in

those interactions. PANAS was paraphrased with ‘‘Gener-

ally, in the interaction with my supervisor I feel.’’ The

measure captures short-term state affect (versus trait or

dispositional affectivity) related to the general supervisor–

employee interaction. Cronbach’s alphas for both positive

and negative affect were .93.

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


112

Analytical Strategy

Structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus6 was con-

ducted to test the effects of perceived supervisor listening on

PA and NA as well as on the three work outcomes simulta-

neously in one model (see Fig. 2). To evaluate model fit, we

followed recommendations byVandenberg andLance (2000).

Prior to that, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to

examine the adequacy of themeasurement components and to

evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs used.

Next, since all measures were obtained from the same

source, we employed techniques to account for potential

effects of common method variance (Podsakoff et al.

2003). Following prior research, we controlled for the

effects of a single unmeasured latent method factor by

including it directly in the SEM model (MacKenzie et al.

1999; Moorman et al. 1998). All item loadings were con-

strained to be equal in their loadings on the method factor

(Conger et al. 2000; Elangovan and Xie 1999; MacKenzie

et al. 1999). Finally, to explicitly examine the mediating

effects of PA and NA, we conducted indirect effects ana-

lysis (Preacher and Hayes 2008; Preacher et al. 2007).

Results and Discussion

Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and zero-

order correlations of all study variables. All scale reli-

abilities were above .80.

Perceived supervisor listening was linearly correlated to

all variables. We used confirmatory factor analysis to

determine the distinctiveness of all outcome measures. The

five-factor model revealed a moderate overall fit (chi

square (df = 485) = 1335.41, p\ .01), the standardized

root mean square of the residuals (SRMR) was .065, the

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) .07, the

non-normed fit index—Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)1—was

.88, and the comparative fit index (CFI) was .89. In com-

parison, the baseline model in which all items loaded on

one factor did not reveal satisfactory fit, chi square

(df = 495) = 4,331.09, p\ .001; RMSEA = .154;

SRMR = .125; TLI = .47; CFI = .51, and differed sig-

nificantly from the five-factor model (Dchi

square = 2,995.68, Ddf = 9, p\ .001). Taken together,

the results indicate discriminant validity of the study

variables.

Consecutively, we examined the hypothesized media-

tion mechanisms. Figure 2 displays the results of the SEM

analysis.

Overall, the SEM model displayed in Fig. 2 revealed an

acceptable model fit (chi square (df = 763) = 1,763.28,

p\ .001; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .06; TLI = .91;

Fig. 2 Latent path model of

listening effects. N = 328; SEM

analysis accounted for

covariation among outcome

variables; standardized

coefficients reported,

controlling for a common

method factor. ***p\ .001

Table 2 Zero-order

correlations of the study

variables

N = 328; values in brackets

represent Cronbach’s a

** p\ .01, two-tailed

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Perceived supervisor listening 4.48 1.72 (.95)

2. Emotional exhaustion 3.79 1.74 -.38** (.92)

3. Turnover intentions 3.31 2.21 -.53** .46** (.82)

4. OCB-O 5.04 1.28 .31** -.20** -.30** (.82)

5. PA 4.27 1.20 .70** -.32** -.53** .37** (.93)

6. NA 2.79 1.39 -.62** .54** .54** -.21** -.51** (.93)

1 The values of the CFI and TLI are below the conventionally

accepted value of .90 (Vandenberg and Lance 2000). However, this is

acceptable since all constructs and no distinctive paths (e.g.,

differentiated indirect effects) had been included in the model.


123


113

CFI = .90). As indicated by the standardized coefficients

(Fig. 2), perceived supervisor listening was positively

associated with PA (b = .79, p\ .001) and negatively

with NA (b = -.66, p\ .001).

In accordance with our predictions, we found distinct

associations for PA and NA on the outcome measures. PA

was positively related to employee OCB-O (b = .44,

p\ .001) and related negatively to turnover intentions

(b = .40, p\ .001). However, PA was not significantly

associated with emotional exhaustion. NA, in turn, had a

positive association with emotional exhaustion (b = .50,

p\ .001) and turnover intentions (b = .35, p\ .001), but

no effect on OCB-O. Overall, these results already indi-

cated mediation effects of PA and NA.

Next, we examined the potential for mediation in detail

running a bootstrap indirect effects analysis (Preacher and

Hayes 2008; Preacher et al. 2007) with PA and NA.

Mediation is based on a point estimate and bootstrapped

99 % confidence interval (CI based on 1,500 bootstrap

iterations). A mediator effect is significant if zero is not

included in the CI. PA mediated the link between perceived

supervisor listening and OCB-O (point estimate = .19,

CI = .08/.29) and turnover intentions (point estimate =

-.30, CI = -.44/-.16). As already indicated by the SEM

results, PA did not mediate the link to emotional exhaus-

tion (point estimate = -.04, CI = -.14/.06). Concerning

NA, the analysis revealed that NA mediated the link

between perceived supervisor listening and emotional

exhaustion (point estimate = -.32, CI = -.42/-.21) as

well as turnover intentions (point estimate = -.30,

CI = -.42/-.17). As predicted, NA did not mediate the

link to OCB-O (point estimate = .01, CI = -.07/.09). In

sum, Hypotheses 4–6 were all supported.

Furthermore, we tested an alternative model that addi-

tionally included the direct links between perceived

supervisor listening and work outcomes; this revealed

almost identical model fit (chi square

(df = 762) = 1,761.82, p\ .001; RMSEA = .06;

SRMR = .06; TLI = .91; CFI = .90) and did not differ

significantly from our hypothesized albeit simpler model

(Dchi square = 1.46, Ddf = 1). Based on the parsimony

principle, the model without direct links between perceived

supervisor listening and outcomes is superior.

Finally, we included a first-order common method factor

(CMF) while estimating the model again to control for

common method variance. Table 3 displays the standard-

ized parameter estimates before and after controlling for

this common method factor.

All relationships were significant and of similar if not

the same magnitude, which indicated that the data were not

influenced by common method variance. Average loading

of all standardized estimates with CMF was -.76. Taken

together, the results provide further evidence for our

hypothesized model of listening effects. Replicating Study

1 findings, employees who perceived their supervisors as

effective listeners also demonstrated higher levels of citi-

zenship behavior, lower turnover intentions, and less

emotional exhaustion. Additionally, we revealed first evi-

dence for affect as a mediating mechanism. Perceived

supervisor listening was associated with employee positive

and negative affectivity. PA and NA appeared to operate in

distinctive ways that go beyond a simple mirroring of the

two dimensions. High PA had an energizing effect on

employees that was related to increased levels of citizen-

ship behavior. High NA was related to increased emotional

exhaustion and explained the relationship between per-

ceived supervisor listening and emotional exhaustion.

Voluntary turnover was related to both low PA and high

NA. This was in line with theoretical considerations that

employees may be motivated to quit their job in order to

leave behind the negative work environment or because

they want to find an optimally positive one.

General Discussion

In two studies, we demonstrated how perceived supervisor

listening is important for employee work-related outcomes.

We found that supervisors’ listening efforts were reflected

in the perceptions that employees have of their supervisor’s

listening. We found that these perceptions were associated

with emotional exhaustion, citizenship behaviors, and

turnover intention. Moreover, the relationship between

perceived supervisor listening and work outcomes was

mediated by affect. Negative affect mediated the effect on

emotional exhaustion, positive affect mediated the effect

on citizenship behavior, and both negative and positive

affect mediated the effect on turnover intention. Therefore,

Table 3 Standardized parameter estimates with and without con-

trolling for common method variance

Not controlling

for CMF

Controlling

for CMF

Description

Listening ? PA .78*** .79***

Listening ? NA -.68*** -.66***

PA ? Emotional exhaustion -.08 -.01

PA ? OCBO .42*** .44***

PA ? Turnover -.40*** -.40***

NA ? Emotional exhaustion .51*** .50***

NA ? OCBO .01 .01

NA ? Turnover .35*** .34***

N = 328; standardized coefficients reported

CMF common method factor

*** p\ .001

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


114

while we found that perceived supervisor listening trig-

gered both positive and negative emotions, each of the

emotions was associated with different outcomes.

Theoretical Implications

One purpose of this research was to investigate the effects

of perceived supervisor listening on three important orga-

nizational work outcomes. Each of these work outcomes

(emotional exhaustion, citizenship behavior and turnover)

substantially influences organizational performance, which

highlights the importance of these results for organizational

research. Since listening is ultimately linked to the dyadic

interaction between individuals (e.g., employee–supervi-

sor), most research has focused on leader-referenced vari-

ables, such as supervisor support or responsiveness. Since

the value of listening was first suggested in clinical psy-

chology, positive effects on employee well-being appeared

obvious. Our finding that perceived supervisor listening

was associated with emotional exhaustion is in line with

previous research that indicated effects of supportive

supervisor behavior on emotional exhaustion (Rafferty

et al. 2001) and physiological stress reactions (Mineyama

et al. 2007). We broadened and extended these findings by

showing that effects of supervisor listening go beyond such

proximal outcomes and also affect more distal work out-

comes such as turnover intentions and organizational citi-

zenship behavior. Citizenship behavior (OCB-O) and

turnover intentions have not been empirically addressed in

the listening literature before. Clearly, these outcomes

contribute to overall organizational functioning. By

investigating these three work outcomes simultaneously,

we contribute to a more holistic understanding of the det-

rimental and beneficial effects of perceived supervisor

listening.

Foremost, we revealed two mechanisms that explain

how supervisor listening affects proximal and distal out-

comes in distinctive ways. Our results suggest that

employees’ emotional reactions serve a complex and

nuanced role. Negative affect mediated the listening effects

on emotional exhaustion, while positive affect mediated

the effects on organizational citizenship behavior, and both

positive and negative affect explained the relationship to

turnover intentions. Therefore, positive and negative affect

provide distinct mechanisms in explaining why perceived

supervisor listening is important within organizations.

These findings on the distinctive role of positive and neg-

ative affect in driving specific work outcomes are in line

with previous research that indicated work behavior as

reactions to affective experiences at work (e.g., Dalal et al.

2009; Tsai et al. 2007; Warr et al. 2014). This is the first

study that introduced an affect paradigm (Weiss and Cro-

panzano 1996; Spector and Fox 2002) to explain listening

effects at work. It advances not only the current research on

listening but also the field of organizational behavior in its

search for understanding employee behavior.

Last, our findings may also be significant for related

topics in which supervisor listening effects have been

implied but yet not tested. Concerning the organizational

voice literature, for instance, supervisor listening might

present a positive lever to employee voice behavior.

Supervisor behavior has been extensively discussed as an

important antecedent to subordinate voice behavior,

including employees’ decisions to speak up or their beliefs

about when and why speaking up at work is safe or

appropriate (Detert and Burris 2007; Detert and Edmond-

son 2011; Detert Detert and Trevino 2010; Walumbwa and

Schaubroeck 2009). Perceived supervisor listening may be

one decisive factor that facilitates positive voice behavior.

Limitations and Future Research

As in most research, several limitations should to be taken

into consideration when interpreting the results. First, the

listening measure we used reflected perceptions of natu-

rally occurring variance in listening. We encourage future

research to include experimental manipulations of listening

behavior (e.g., a listening confederate in the organization)

and to add additional objective measures of listening

behavior such as behavioral observations rated by external

coders. For instance, team meetings or dyadic interactions

(e.g., appraisal interviews) could be soundlessly filmed and

compared to perceptual ratings of listening and associated

reactions.

These suggestions might also counteract our studies’

second limitation of the cross-sectional design of both

studies, which does not allow for causal inferences of the

effects. Our model suggests that employees react more

favorably to those who listen well. Although our analyses

support this, it may also be possible that supervisors listen

more to employees who are highly motivated and com-

mitted or express positive emotions. Yet, the available data

reflect only a specific point in time. In the long run, a

mutual interaction should be expected: Effective listeners

might elicit positive affectivity and create positive work

relationships which both, in turn, affect the quality of

future listening.

An important avenue for future research is the investi-

gation of determinants or moderating factors of effective

listening. For instance, the research by Ames et al. (2012)

suggested a link between (leader) personality and listening

behavior. Their research indicated that highly ‘‘agreeable’’

individuals who tend to be more cooperative, empathic,

and concerned (Graziano et al. 2007) may also be better

listeners. Employees may feel more comfortable

approaching those supervisors and speak openly (Detert


123


115

and Burris 2007). In sum, effects may evolve in the com-

plex interplay of individual characteristics (e.g., personality

dimensions) and much work remains to understand what

distinguishes good listener.

Similarly, moderators associated with the listening

recipient (e.g., employee) need further investigation to

define boundary conditions of listening effects. For

instance, employees’ dispositional affectivity—their

‘‘emotional baseline’’ or trait affect (e.g., George 1991,

1996)—may determine the extent of listening effects on

short-term affective experiences. High-trait positive affec-

tivity has been proposed to be a personal resource that can

buffer ongoing challenges and crises and decrease the risk

of emotional exhaustion (Fredrickson et al. 2003; Janssen

et al. 2010). Similarly, employees who are generally more

motivated may be more prone to engage in extra-role

activities that contribute to organizational functioning.

Concerning ‘‘state affect,’’ research by Dalal et al. (2009)

indicates the importance of within person variability for

determining effects on productive and counterproductive

work behavior. In this context, it is also noteworthy that

recent research has called for deeper differentiation of

affect in terms of valence and activation to better under-

stand the link between affect and work outcomes (Warr

et al. 2014). Future research is needed to provide a fine-

grained understanding of the emotion-related factors within

the individual and the environmental context.

Managerial Implications

Besides the theoretical contributions, our findings con-

cerning effects of perceived supervisor listening on

employee work outcomes also have important managerial

implications. Each of the three work outcomes, we exam-

ined significantly contribute to overall organizational

functioning which highlights the importance of this topic

for managers and organizations more broadly. Moreover,

because our results point to a strong association between

supervisors’ listening efforts and employees’ perceptions

of listening, our results suggest that work outcomes can be

improved through changes in supervisors’ behavior. This

suggests that listening should become an integral part of

leadership education, training, and development. Tech-

niques of active listening or non-defensive communication

can be trained successfully (e.g., Ikegami et al. 2010;

McNaughton et al. 2008). Our results suggest that such

training may have an impact on important organizational

outcomes.

Second, when it comes to improving listening behavior,

it is important to pay attention to the emotional well-being

of the employee. If leaders can engage in listening

behaviors that can make employees more happy and

excited about their job, while also reducing sorrow and

anxiety, both the employees’ overall well-being and the

employees’ contribution to the organization may improve.

Conclusion

To conclude, when it comes to listening, our results dem-

onstrate that supervisor listening is important and it is the

employees’ perceptions of supervisory listening that mat-

ters. And it matters because of how employees feel emo-

tionally about being listened to (or not being listened to).

Creating the conditions that facilitate employees’ recog-

nition that the supervisor is listening can have major con-

sequences for employees’ well-being and the organization

as a whole, including whether employees are proactive and

whether they choose to stay.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Anika Deinert from

Jacobs University Bremen for her support in the data collection

process of study 1.

Appendix

Measure of Supervisor Listening (Supervisor Self-

rating)

The response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree).

Think of a typical interaction with your employees.

Generally, when I listen to my employee, …

1. I am interested in what he/she has to say.

2. I make him/her comfortable so he/she can speak

openly.

3. I make it easy for him/her to open up.

4. I understand his/her feelings.

5. I am interested in him/her personally.

6. I accept him/her for what he/she is.

7. I care about him/her.

8. I don’t judge him/her.

Measure of Perceived Supervisor Listening (Employee

Rating)2

The response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree).

Think of a typical interaction with your supervisor.

Generally, when my supervisor listens to me, I feel my

supervisor…

2 In Study 2, the response format ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 7 (strongly agree).

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


116

1. is interested in what I have to say.

2. makes me comfortable so I can speak openly.

3. makes it easy for me to open up.

4. understands my feelings.

5. is interested in me personally.

6. accepts me for what I am.

7. cares about me.

8. doesn’t judge me.

References

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining

talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies.

The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64.

Ames, D., Maissen, L. B., & Brockner, J. (2012). The role of listening

in interpersonal influence. Journal of Research in Personality,

46(3), 345–349.

Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Hom, P. W. (1997).

Integrating justice constructs into the turnover process: A test of

a referent cognitions model. Academy of Management Journal,

40(5), 1208–1227.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998).

Out on a limb: The role of context and impression management

in selling gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 43(1), 23–57.

Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009).

Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice

in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice

and silence in organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley, England:

Emerald.

Baron, R. A. (1971). Magnitude of victim’s pain cues and level of

prior anger arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(3), 236–243.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership

(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-

narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6),

941–952.

Berkowitz, L. (1998). Affective aggression: The role of stress, pain,

and negative affect. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.),

Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for

social policy (pp. 49–72). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective

expressions of listeners change a speaker’s language use.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 747–756.

Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group

agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rwg and rwg (j) in

leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The

Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 66–80.

Billing, D. Y., & Alvesson, M. (2000). Questioning the notion of

feminine leadership: A critical perspective on the gender

labelling of leadership. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(3),

144–157.

Bishop, G. F. (2008). Item order randomization. In P. J. Lavrakas

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (p. 398).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of

procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘‘fair’’ process.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and

reliability. In K. J. Kline & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel

theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect

in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279–307.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A

meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic

leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 21(7), 747–767.

Cooper, D., Doucet, L., & Pratt, M. (2003, August). I’m not smiling

because I like you: Cultural differences in emotional displays at

work. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Seattle,

WA.

Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an

integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management

Review, 18(4), 621–656.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship

of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 88(1), 160–169.

Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E., & Hulin, C. L. (2009).

A dynamic approach to organizational citizenship behavior and

counterproductive work behavior: Behavioral co-occurrence and

switching, and dynamic relationships with mood and overall job

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1051–1066.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative,

commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 601–622.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and

employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 50(4), 869–884.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories:

Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of

Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488.

Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups:

How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee

voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249–270.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and

consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88(2), 284–294.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E.

E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the

context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management

Journal, 18(5), 407–423.

Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1999). Learning, trust and

organizational change. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. L. Araujo, &

J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the learning

organization (pp. 157–175). London: Sage.

Elangovan, A., & Xie, J. L. (1999). Effects of perceived power of

supervisor on subordinate stress and motivation: The moderating

role of subordinate characteristics. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 20(3), 359–373.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory

coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse

employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution

industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4),

435–458.

Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script

approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors,

co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behav-

ior, 21(2), 147–162.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work

behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational


123


117

justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and

emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291–309.

Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R.

(2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective

study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks

on the united states on September 11th, 2001. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365–376.

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive

behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the

workday. Journal of Management, 35(1), 94–111.

George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on

prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,

299–307.

George, J. M. (1996). Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.),

Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp.

145–171). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial

behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level

analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology,

75(6), 698–709.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good–doing good: A

conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organizational spon-

taneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310–329.

Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. (2004). The customer is not

always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of

service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3),

397–418.

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must ‘‘service

with a smile’’ be stressful? The moderating role of personal

control for American and French employees. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(5), 893–904.

Grant, J. (1988). Women as managers: What they can offer to

organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 16(1), 56–63.

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M.

(2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person 9 sit-

uation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 93(4), 583–599.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis

of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update,

moderator tests, and research implications for the next millen-

nium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to

decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Ikegami, K., Tahara, H., Yamada, T., Mafune, K., Hiro, H., & Nagata,

S. (2010). Effects of a mental health training program for

manufacturing company managers. Journal of UOEH, 32(2),

141.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in

organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (13th ed., pp. 1–53).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping:

Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 21(3), 384–388.

Janssen, O., Lam, C. K., & Huang, X. (2010). Emotional exhaustion

and job performance: The moderating roles of distributive justice

and positive affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6),

787–809.

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior.

Behavioral science, 9(2), 131–146.

Kluger, A. N. (2013, June). Dyadic listening effects: Meta-analyses

and theory. Paper presented at the International Listening

Association Convention, Montreal.

Kluger, A. N., & Zaidel, K. (2013). Are listeners perceived as

leaders? International Journal of Listening, 27(2), 73–84.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of

employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and

job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5),

698–707.

Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organiza-

tional citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational

effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psy-

chology, 54(1), 101–114.

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of

four commonly reported cutoff criteria what did they really say?

Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior

and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.

Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., Kluger, A. N., & Voelpel, S. C. (in press).

Building trust and feeling well—Examining intraindividual and

interpersonal outcomes and underlying mechanisms of listening.

International Journal of Listening.

Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., & Voelpel, C. (2013). From listening to

leading: Initial evidence of construct validity. Manuscript

submitted for publication (copy on file with author).

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information

processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London:

Routledge.

Lun, J., Kesebir, S., & Oishi, S. (2008). On feeling understood and

feeling well: The role of interdependence. Journal of Research in

Personality, 42(6), 1623–1628.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do

citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for

salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

27(4), 396–410.

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Engelwood Cliffs:

Prentice Hall.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory

(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., &

Schreiner, M. (2008). Learning to listen: Teaching an active

listening strategy to preservice education professionals. Topics in

Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 223–231.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L.

(2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the

organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers:

Individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1234–1244.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An

exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees

don’t communicate upward and why*. Journal of Management

Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.

Mineyama, S., Tsutsumi, A., Takao, S., Nishiuchi, K., & Kawakami,

N. (2007). Supervisors’ attitudes and skills for active listening

with regard to working conditions and psychological stress

reactions among subordinate workers. Journal of Occupational

Health, 49(2), 81–87.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez,

M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict

voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6),

1102–1121.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does

perceived organizational support mediate the relationship

between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behav-

ior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351–357.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and

directions for future research. The Academy of Management

Annals, 5(1), 373–412.

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


118

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task

performance should be distinguished from contextual perfor-

mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480.

Newcombe, M. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). The role of affect and

affective congruence in perceptions of leaders: An experimental

study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 601–614.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good

soldier syndrome. New York: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006).

Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and

consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of

attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizen-

ship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48(4), 775–802.

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and

differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Man-

agement, 36(3), 633–662.

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.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997).

Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality

of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

82(2), 262–270.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination of the

psychometric properties and nomological validity of some

revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 702–713.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review

of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for

future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling

strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in

multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),

879–891.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing

moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and pre-

scriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.

Rafferty, Y., Friend, R., & Landsbergis, P. A. (2001). The association

between job skill discretion, decision authority and burnout.

Work & Stress, 15(1), 73–85.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M.

(2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence,

and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

26(4), 419–435.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational

support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 87(4), 698.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant

workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its

definition, its manifestations, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, R.

J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in

organizations (6th ed., pp. 3–27). US: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centred therapy: Its current practice,

implications and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of

therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychol-

ogy, 21(2), 95–103.

Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The

Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 2–10.

Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical

emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting

the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

76(5), 805–819.

Schlesinger, L. A., & Heskett, J. L. (1991). The service-driven service

company. Harvard Business Review, 69(5), 71–81.

Shaw, J. D. (1999). Job satisfaction and turnover intentions: The

moderating role of positive affect. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 139(2), 242–244.

Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative

conceptualizations of the relationship between voluntary turn-

over and organizational performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 48(1), 50–68.

Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational

citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of


Sparrowe, R. T., Soetjipto, B. W., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Do

leaders’ influence tactics relate to members’ helping behavior? It

depends on the quality of the relationship. Academy of

Management Journal, 49(6), 1194–1208.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of

voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between

counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship

behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2),

269–292.

Stine, M., Thompson, T., & Cusella, L. (1995). The impact of

organizational structure and supervisory listening indicators on

subordinate support, trust, intrinsic motivation, and performance.

International Journal of Listening, 9(1), 84–105.

Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Liu, H. L. (2007). Test of a model linking

employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of


Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of

the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices,

and recommendations for organizational research. Organiza-

tional Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits

and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical

leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of


Warr, P., Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-

quadrant investigation of job-related affects and behaviours.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

23(3), 342–363.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The

disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psycholog-

ical Bulletin, 96(3), 465–490.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasure-

ment of mood: Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 68(2), 267–296.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and

validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The

PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54(6), 1063–1070.

Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two

general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolu-

tionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820–838.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A

theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences

of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L.

L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior: an

annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. Green-

wich, CT: JAI.


123


119

Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display rule ‘‘regulators’’:

The relationship between supervisors and worker emotional

exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 917–927.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and

organizational commitment as predictors of organizational

citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,

17(3), 601–617.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a

predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of


Yen, H. R., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). Organizational citizenship

behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Examining relation-

ships in Taiwanese banks. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

34(8), 1617–1637.

Zohar, D. (1997). Predicting burnout with a hassle-based measure of

role demands. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2),

101–115.

K. J. Lloyd et al.

123


120


�

�

�

�

�

�

�

CHAPTER 5

GENERAL DISCUSSION

121


�

�

�

SUMMARY OF THE MAIN FINDINGS

This thesis followed the call for research of business scholars who lamented

that listening as an organizational variable is almost non-existent in scientific business

research (e.g., Brownell, 1994) and that this, conversely, impedes any progress in

empirical research which is needed to fully understand the nature of listening in the

workplace and to make it a credible and legitimate construct in business research.

Although listening has gained popularity in the business context as a key management

skill, most of the literature is prescriptive or descriptive, and largely based on

anecdotal or intuitive data (Flynn, Valiskoski, & Grau, 2008). Hence, despite the

managerial popularity and acknowledged importance of listening in the workplace,

there is a lack of empirical evidence in support of these claims and a knowledge gap

concerning a firm understanding why listening is effective, and what kind of

consequences it entails for leaders, employees, and the organization. The current

thesis set out to fill this theoretical and empirical gap by investigating different

outcomes of listening and their distinct underlying psychological mechanisms in the

organizational context.

We addressed this goal stepwise – from the individual, to the relationship, and

into the organizational setting. The first article of this thesis (Chapter 2) took a micro-

perspective on listening effects by seeking to isolate listening in a zero-acquaintance

paradigm and investigated how perceptions of listening quality impact on emotional

well-being and building interpersonal trust. The results suggested that effective

listening benefits the individual (listening recipient) as well as the relationship

between listeners and speakers. Effective listening was linked to individual well-being

and interpersonal trust. Furthermore, first evidence for underlying mechanisms was

put forward that contributed to our understanding of how listening unfurls its effects

122


�

�

�

on the individual and the relationship in distinct ways. The results indicated that the

listening effects were driven by two distinct mechanisms: the link between listening

and trust was mediated by social attraction, whereas the listening effect on well-being

was mediated by clarity. With this study we established first evidence that listening is

important for the speaker and the dyadic interaction, which laid the cornerstone for

further studies in the business context. Additionally, the study had meaningful

theoretical and practical implications concerning mentoring, coaching, and building

positive relationships with clients and business partners.

The second article of the thesis (Chapter 3) made the transfer to the

organizational setting and explored the value of supervisor listening in the

hierarchical supervisor-employee relationship. Based on the implications from

Chapter 2, effective listening was predicted to also play out positively in the

supervisor-employee relationship. Chapter 3 investigated perceived supervisor

listening within the framework of leader-member exchange theory and assessed the

validity criteria as necessary prerequisites for the examination of listening in

organizational research. Percievd listening quality was demonstrated to be a valid

measure to capture employee perceptions of supervisor listening, which predicted

how satisfied employees were with their job, their supervisor, and how fair they felt

treated in interactions with the supervisor. We also tested a path model that

sequentially integrated supervisor listening as a distinct part of the leader-member

interaction. Findings suggested that perceived supervisor listening may foster strong

leader-member exchange which in turn benefits work outcomes. Taken together, this

study provided initial evidence that measuring perceived supervisor listening provides

value for organizational research.

The third article (Chapter 4) examined important outcomes of employee

perceptions of supervisor listening: one proximal (emotional exhaustion) and two

123


�

�

�

more distal (organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions).

Furthermore, positive and negative affect were investigated as distinct mediating

mechanisms. The results of two consecutive studies empirically supported the central

assertion of ‘listening’ as a key management skill. Particularly, the findings of Study

1 revealed that supervisor self-ratings of listening reflected employee peceptions of

how their supervisor listens to them and those perceptions were associated with the

threework outcomes. Study 2 replicated these findings and suggested that supervisor

listening unfolds its effects on work outcomes through two distinct mechanisms,

positive and negative affect. Positive affect mediated the effects of perceived

supervisor listening on organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention,

whereas negative affect mediated listening effects on emotional exhaustion and

turnover intention. These results advocated that supervisor listening contributes to

shaping employees’ affective perceptions which, in turn, relate to important work

outcomes, including organizational citizenship behavior and the decision to stay or to

leave the company. �

INTEGRATION OF RESULTS AND THEORETICAL

CONTRIBUTION

On the whole, this thesis makes several important contributions to

organizational theory and practice. Listening has a meaningful impact on the

individual and interindividual interaction, and entails consequences that may also

reach beyond the dyadic interaction (e.g., affect the organization). Clearly, voluntary

turnover intentions, organizational citizenship behavior, and employee well-being are

important determinants of overall organizational functioning (Motowidlo & Van

Scotter, 1994) and organizational success (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003). Thus,

the thesis’ findings broaden our understanding of the nature of listening in the

workplace and its implications for the whole organization.

124


�

�

�

Second, by providing empirical evidence, we followed the call for research of

scholars who lamented that listening is the most neglected aspect of communication

and, as an organizational variable, almost non-existent in scientific business research.

The findings present the necessary empirical evidence that listening is a crucial factor,

particularly in the workplace, and a legitimate and credible variable in scholarly

business research. Hence, this dissertation not only contributes to the current state of

listening research, but also encourages future research on listening, and its integration

as organizational variable into management research.

Most important, the thesis contributes to a better understanding of how

listening unfolds its effects, that is, the psychological mechanisms of listening. Little

research has been put forward to explain the potential inherent in effective listening.

This thesis integrated knowledge from various academic fields and theoretically

derived predictions for mediating mechanisms, and tested them empirically. We

embedded listening within trust theories (Hardin, 2002; Luhmann, 1979; Mayer &

Schoorman, 1995) and put forward evidence that suggested that one way listening

may foster the development of trust is by means of social attraction (Chapter 2).

Although these findings are at a preliminary stage and need further investigation and

replication in more natural settings, they presented first insights into how listening

contributes to building sustainable relationships.

We also put forward first evidence towards a cognitive mechanism (clarity)

that provided an explanation of listening effects on emotional well-being. This finding

integrates and extends the different literatures that put forward some mechanism of

‘clarity’, be it for instance that listening facilitaes the internal dialogue between

aspects of the self (Rogers, 1957, 1975) or the contemporary theory that the speaker is

enabled to structure and reintegrate experiences (Lepore, Ragan, & Jones, 2000;

Pennebaker, 1995) and thus gain clarity. The thesis also puts forward a micro-

125


�

�

�

perspective of the established effects of role clarity (or its absence: confusion and

ambiguity) on health and well-being (House & Rizzo, 1972; Lyon, 1971) and

individuals’ need for clarity (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1974).

In the organizational research (Chapter 4), we integrated affect theory (Watson

& Clark, 1997; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) that fosters our understanding of how

perceived supervisor listening affects proximal and distal work outcomes. The effects

of perceived supervisor listening on emotions serve a complex, nuanced role in

predicting employee well-being and work outcomes such as organizational citizenship

behavior. For instance, whereas positive affect was revealed as a driver for

organizational citizenship behavior, negative affect mediated the effects of listening

on emotional exhaustion. The integration of affect theory provides a more nuanced

understanding of the diverse effects of perceived supervisor listening in the business

context.

In sum, the results suggested that listening unfurls its effects through distinct

affective, socio-emotive, and cognitive mechanisms. Hence, this thesis advances

academic knowledge on the psychological underpinnings of listening effects and

provides an answer to the question how listening affects proximal and distal

outcomes. This contributes considerably to the progress of listening research, but also

to the broader field of organizational behavior and business science.

Furthermore, the thesis findings emphasize the importance of employees’

subjective experience of supervisor listening. Particularly in the last study (Chapter

4), the results suggested that although self and other ratings of supervisor listening are

highly related, it is the employee’s perceptions of listening that matter in terms of

supervisor influence on work outcomes. This has important implications for future

research that investigates listening in organizational research, but also for the

assessment of previous empirical research that considered listener self-assessments

126


�

�

�

(e.g., Mineyama, Tsutsumi, Takao, Nishiuchi, & Kawakami, 2007). In case of the

latter, the true effect sizes of listening on work outcomes might be underestimated.

This also has important implications for organizational practice in which leader self-

assessments are used, for example, in listening trainings.

MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTION

Finally, this thesis offers important action implications. The findings suggested that

feeling listened to is important for individuals and their relationships, and can have

far-reaching consequences. Particularly, the findings’ indications that leader listening

may impact employee satisfaction with both their supervisor and their work, as well

as their organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions, highlights the

importance of this topic for managers and organizations more broadly. While listening

is rarely seen as a hard skill, these work outcomes clearly contribute to overall

organizational functioning (Motowidlo et al., 1994) and performance (Cropanzano et

al., 2003).

Organizations that want to benefit from these results should carefully integrate

listening into management selection, training, and development processes. Effective

listening may require far greater effort and patience, and employees may quickly

notice whether leader listening is an attempt to mutually understand them or used as a

“technique to manipulate” (Tyler, 2011). In case of the latter, all attempts may not

only fail to flourish, but may have detrimental effects on the supervisor-employee

relationship. Since the results emphasize the importance of employees’ subjective

experiences, management training on active listening may particularly focus on

behavioral reflection techniques and integrate employee feedback. In terms of content,

127


�

�

�

management trainings should place specific emphasis on understanding employees

and attending to their emotional well-being.

Including feedback on listening into management appraisal interviews or

personnel development instruments allows for continuous measurement and

monitoring of listening skills. This may further stimulate the development of listening

and also increase the awareness for listening as a significant workplace skill. When

managers and employees are motivated to listen, this can lead to an organizational

culture of listening in which mutual understanding allows for early resolution of

interpersonal and task-related issues, which may then translate into additional positive

work outcomes.

Finally, the findings’ implication that listening is a valuable trigger and engine

for building and sustaining strong relationships also offers promising avenues for

other business areas, such as mentoring and coaching, in which strong relationships

are crucial for the client’s progress. Similarly important are the implications for

effective teamwork or project cooperations which often require one to build strong

relationships very quickly.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite our multi-method approach in research designs and analyses to

address the thesis’ overarching question, the results should be interpreted in light of

their limitations and much work remains to fully understand the nature of listening

and its mechanisms, antecedents, and consequences.

First, the results largely rely on self-reports and reflected perceptions of

naturally occurring variance in listening. Similarly, the cross-sectional designs of

most studies (Chapter 3 and 4) and the correlational nature of all data limits us in

128


�

�

�

making any causal inferences of listening effects. Various steps were taken to

alleviate common method concerns (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; MacKenzie,

Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1995; Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), as discussed in each empirical chapter

individually. However, future research is needed to better understand the complex

nature of listening effects. In terms of methods, experimental manipulations of

listening are necessary to make clearer inferences concerning listening effects. For

instance, by integrating listening confederates who listen particularly well or poorly.

Longitudinal and time-lagged studies would be valuable to understand how listening

effects develop over time and affect leader-follower interactions and work outcomes.

Quasi-experimental designs in organizations and field studies with third-party

behavioral observations are also encouraged to extend our knowledge on the specifics

of listening behavior and its perception by others.

Next, the convenient samples used in two organizational studies (Chapter 3 and

4) consisted of employees from diverse industries, occupations, and educational

backgrounds. Organizational practices of interacting and communicating may differ

depending on the industry, job level, and the structure of the work. For instance,

Stine, Thompson, and Cusella (1995) found differential, both beneficial and

detrimental effects of listening on absenteeism and group performance for organic

work structures compared to mechanic work structures. Organizations have

increasingly turned to organic environments with flat hierarchies, horizontal

communication, and participative team approaches (Voelpel, Leibold, & Fürchtenicht,

2007). Similarly, the nature of work has been changing due to globalization and

technological progress towards, for instance, globally separated virtual teams and

virtual communication. Much work remains for future research to investigate the

129


�

�

�

context factors and specific conditions that hinder and foster listening effects and

require particularly high or low supervisor listening.

Another important question that remains concerns the costs of effective listening

and potential gains of “poor” listening. For instance, research by Hurwitz and Kluger

(2013) suggested that a listener’s loss of perceived dominance and status can be a

barrier that prevents people from listening well. The results indicated that poor

listening can enhance feelings of superiority and may satisfy power and status seeking

needs. An intriguing research endeavor would be the investigation of further

determinants and barriers that hinder effective listening.

Promising avenues for future research offers the integration of listening as

organizational variable into other areas of business research. One example would be

the organizational voice literature (e.g., Hirschman, 1970) that investigates the

conditions under which employees speak up (e.g., Morrison, 2011) and the

consequences of not speaking up (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008; Hirschman,

1970; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Spencer, 1986). Perceived

supervisor listening could be crucial in making employees feel more comfortable

about approaching their supervisor and in providing a secure environment for the

employees to speak up (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, 2009; Detert &

Edmondson, 2011; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003). Another example concerns

the management of culturally diverse workforces. Leadership styles, leader-follower

interactions, and worker expectations vary between Western and East Asian cultures

(e.g., Chen, 1995; Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004; Dorfman, Howell, &

Hibino, 1997; Kim & Leung, 2007). Evaluating how workers’ perceptions of

supervisor listening and the effects on work outcomes differ between cultures would

be a fruitful avenue for future research.

130


�

�

�

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In pursuit of a better understanding of listening as a key management skill this

thesis set out to empirically investigate the core questions of how supervisor listening

affects employees, why it matters for them, and what the consequences are for the

organization. To this end, the thesis addressed and tested diverse proximal and distal

work outcomes of listening and their underlying psychological mechanisms. The

findings suggested that listening unfolds its effects in the complex dynamics of

cognitive, socio-emotive, and affective mediators. In the organization, this can make

employees more satisfied with their supervisor and their job, and has important

implications for employee well-being, workforce sustainability, and overall

organizational functioning. This thesis contributes to a better understanding of the

complex nature of listening in the workplace and to making it a credible and

legitimate construct in business research. We trust that we have inspired

organizational practice and future research in this field. � �

131


�

�

�

REFERENCES

Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and

speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg,

& M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175-202). Bingley,

England: Emerald.

Brownell, J. (1994). Teaching listening: Some thoughts on behavioral approaches.


Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The

mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912-922.

Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and Korean styles

of business. London: Routledge.�

Cheng, B., Chou, L., Wu, T., Huang, M., & Farh, J. (2004). Paternalistic leadership

and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese

organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and

follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional

exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169.

132


�

�

�

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted

rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-

488.

Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997).

Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in

effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3),

233-274.

Flynn, J., Valikoski, T., & Grau, J. (2008). Listening in the business context:

Reviewing the state of research. The International Journal of Listening, 22(2),

141-151.

Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,

organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

House, R. J. & Rizzo, J. R., (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables

in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 7, 467-505.

Hurwitz, A. & Kluger, N. A. (2013). The great equator: unpacking listening’s

consequences for social hierarchy (unpublished manuscript).

Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1974). A study of role clarity and need for

clarity for three occupational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 17(1),

28-36. �

133


�

�

�

Kim, T., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-

cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

104(1), 83-95.

Lepore, S. J., Ragan, J. D., & Jones, S. (2000). Talking facilitates cognitive–

emotional processes of adaptation to an acute stressor. Journal of Personality and


Luhmann, N. (1989). Trust and power. New York: Wiley.

Lyon, T.F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 6, 99-110.�

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors

matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 27(4), 396-410.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of

organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of

employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why.

Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.

Mineyama, S., Tsutsumi, A., Takao, S., Nishiuchi, K., & Kawakami, N. (2007).

Supervisors' attitudes and skills for active listening with regard to working

conditions and psychological stress reactions among subordinate workers.

Journal of Occupational Health, 49(2), 81-87.

134


�

�

�

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived

organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and

organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3),

351-357.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for

future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should

be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

79(4), 475-480.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1995). Emotion, disclosure, & health. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic

personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.



Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange

variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses

to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599-627.

135


�

�

�

Spencer, D. G. (1986). Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of

Management Journal, 29(3), 488-502.






Voelpel, S., Leibold, M., & Fürchtenicht, J. D. (2007). Herausforderung 50 plus:

Konzepte zum Management der Aging Workforce: Die Antwort auf das

demographische Dilemma. Erlangen: Publicis.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement of mood:

Recurrent and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(2), 267-

296.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical

discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at

work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (18th ed., pp.

1-74). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

�

136

listening as key management skill – an empirical analysis

Documents